Combined effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms TP53 R72P and MDM2 SNP309, and p53 expression on survival of breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Somatic inactivation of the TP53 gene in breast tumors is a marker for poor outcome, and breast cancer outcome might also be affected by germ-line variation in the TP53 gene or its regulators. We investigated the effects of the germ-line single nucleotide polymorphisms TP53 R72P (215G>C) and MDM2 SNP309 (-410T>G), and p53 protein expression in breast tumors on survival. METHODS: We pooled data from four breast cancer cohorts within the Breast Cancer Association Consortium for which both TP53 R72P and MDM2 SNP309 were genotyped and follow-up was available (n = 3,749). Overall and breast cancer-specific survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox's proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Survival of patients did not differ by carriership of either germ-line variant, R72P (215G>C) or SNP309 (-410G>T) alone. Immunohistochemical p53 staining of the tumor was available for two cohorts (n = 1,109 patients). Survival was worse in patients with p53-positive tumors (n = 301) compared to patients with p53-negative tumors (n = 808); breast cancer-specific survival: HR 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1), P = 0.001. Within the patient group with p53-negative tumors, TP53 rare homozygous (CC) carriers had a worse survival than G-allele (GG/GC) carriers; actuarial breast cancer-specific survival 71% versus 80%, P = 0.07; HR 1.8 (1.1 to 3.1), P = 0.03. We also found a differential effect of combinations of the two germ-line variants on overall survival; homozygous carriers of the G-allele in MDM2 had worse survival only within the group of TP53 C-allele carriers; actuarial overall survival (GG versus TT/TG) 64% versus 75%, P = 0.001; HR (GG versus TT) 1.5 (1.1 to 2.0), P = 0.01. We found no evidence for a differential effect of MDM2 SNP309 by p53 protein expression on survival. CONCLUSIONS: The TP53 R72P variant may be an independent predictor for survival of patients with p53-negative tumors. The combined effect of TP53 R72P and MDM2 SNP309 on survival is in line with our a priori biologically-supported hypothesis, that is, the role of enhanced DNA repair function of the TP53 Pro-variant, combined with increased expression of the Mdm2 protein, and thus overall attenuation of the p53 pathway in the tumor cells.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Mutation analysis of the MDM4 gene in German breast cancer patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MDM4 is a negative regulator of p53 and cooperates with MDM2 in the cellular response to DNA damage. It is unknown, however, whether <it>MDM4 </it>gene alterations play some role in the inherited component of breast cancer susceptibility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We sequenced the whole <it>MDM4 </it>coding region and flanking untranslated regions in genomic DNA samples obtained from 40 German patients with familial breast cancer. Selected variants were subsequently screened by RFLP-based assays in an extended set of breast cancer cases and controls.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our resequencing study uncovered two <it>MDM4 </it>coding variants in 4/40 patients. Three patients carried a silent substitution at codon 74 that was linked with another rare variant in the 5'UTR. No association of this allele with breast cancer was found in a subsequent screening of 133 patients with bilateral breast cancer and 136 controls. The fourth patient was heterozygous for the missense substitution D153G which is located in a less conserved region of the MDM4 protein but may affect a predicted phosphorylation site. The D153G substitution only partially segregated with breast cancer in the family and was not identified on additional 680 chromosomes screened.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study did not reveal clearly pathogenic mutations although it uncovered two new unclassified variants at a low frequency. We conclude that there is no evidence for a major role of <it>MDM4 </it>coding variants in the inherited susceptibility towards breast cancer in German patients.</p

Do MDM2 SNP309 and TP53 R72P interact in breast cancer susceptibility? A large pooled series from the breast cancer association consortium.

Association studies in large series of breast cancer patients can be used to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) contributing to breast cancer susceptibility. Previous studies have suggested associations between variants in TP53 (R72P) and MDM2 (SNP309) and cancer risk. Data from molecular studies suggest a functional interaction between these genes. We therefore investigated the effect of TP53 R72P and MDM2 SNP309 on breast cancer risk and age at onset of breast cancer in a pooled series of 5,191 cases and 3,834 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Breast cancer risk was not found to be associated with the combined variant alleles [odds ratio (OR), 1.00; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.81-1.23]. Estimated ORs were 1.01 (95% CI, 0.93-1.09) per MDM2 SNP309 allele and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91-1.04) for TP53 R72P. Although we did find evidence for a 4-year earlier age at onset for carriers of both variant alleles in one of the breast cancer patient series of the BCAC (the German series), we were not able to confirm this effect in the pooled analysis. Even so, carriers of both variant alleles did not have different risk estimates for bilateral or estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. In conclusion, in this large collaborative study, we did not find an association of MDM2 SNP309 and TP53 R72P, separately or in interaction, with breast cancer. This suggests that any effect of these two variants would be very small and possibly confined to subgroups that were not assessed in our present study