A narrative review on endopancreatic interventions: an innovative access to the pancreas

The natural connection between the duodenum and the pancreatic duct enables a minimally invasive access to the pancreas. Endoscopically this access is already regularly used, mainly for diagnostic and even for certain therapeutic purposes. With per-oral pancreatoscopy the endopancreatic approach allows the direct visualization of the pancreatic duct system potentially improving the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic cystic neoplasms, intrapancreatic strictures and removal of pancreatic duct stones. However, the endopancreatic access can equally be applied for surgical interventions. The objective of this review is to summarize endoscopic and surgical interventions using the endopancreatic access. Endopancreatic surgery stands for a further development of the endoscopic technique: a rigid endoscope is transabdominally introduced over the duodenum and the papilla to enable resections of strictures and inflamed tissue from inside the pancreas under visual control. While the orientation and localization of target structures using this minimally invasive approach is difficult, the development of an accurate image guidance system will play a key role for the clinical implementation and widespread use of endoscopic and surgical endopancreatic interventions

Management of anastomotic ulcers after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: results of an international survey

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic ulcers (AUs) after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) occur in up to 16% of patients. In an international survey among members of the International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO), current preventative and therapeutic strategies in AU were analyzed. METHODS: An Internet-based survey was performed. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine surgeons completed the survey. Preoperative screening for Helicobacter pylori is performed by 65%. Eighty-eight percent of them prophylactically prescribe antacids for 3 months after surgery (interquartile range (IQR) 1-6). In case of AU, 99% of participants opt for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) either alone (60%) or in combination with sucralfate (39%). After ulcer resolution, 52% continue PPI for 6 (3-6) months. In case of AU recurrence, 56% continue with conservative treatment. In contrast, 41% of them favor a renewal of the gastrojejunal anastomosis either combined with truncal vagotomy (18%) or with gastric remnant resection (13%), and only 2% choose to resect both gastric pouch and gastric remnant with subsequent reconstruction by esophagojejunostomy. In case of recurrence after surgical revision, 46% of participants opt again for a conservative approach, while 36% chose to redo the gastrojejunostomy once again. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of bariatric surgeons recommend preoperative screening and eradication of H. pylori as well as prophylactic use of PPI. If an AU is diagnosed, the role of PPI as a first-line treatment seems to be undisputed. However, dosage and duration of therapy remain unclear. In refractory AU, there is no consensus among bariatric surgeons whether conservative treatment or surgical revision should be performed

Cosmesis and body image after single-port laparoscopic or conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter double blinded randomised controlled trial (SPOCC-trial)

BACKGROUND: Emerging attempts have been made to reduce operative trauma and improve cosmetic results of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There is a trend towards minimizing the number of incisions such as natural transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC). Many retrospective case series propose excellent cosmesis and reduced pain in SPLC. As the latter has been confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, patient's satisfaction on cosmesis is still controversially debated. METHODS/DESIGN: The SPOCC trial is a prospective, multi-center, double blinded, randomized controlled study comparing SPLC with 4-port conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4PLC) in elective surgery. The hypothesis and primary objective is that patients undergoing SPLC will have a better outcome in cosmesis and body image 12 weeks after surgery. This primary endpoint is assessed using a validated 8-item multiple choice type questionnaire on cosmesis and body image. The secondary endpoint has three entities: the quality of life 12 weeks after surgery assessed by the validated Short-Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire, postoperative pain assessed by a visual analogue scale and the use of analgesics. Operative time, surgeon's experience with SPLC and 4PLC, use of additional ports, conversion to 4PLC or open cholecystectomy, length of stay, costs, time of work as well as intra- and postoperative complications are further aspects of the secondary endpoint. Patients are randomly assigned either to SPLC or to 4PLC. Patients as well as treating physicians, nurses and assessors are blinded until the 7th postoperative day. Sample size calculation performed by estimating a difference of cosmesis of 20% (alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.90, drop out rate of 10%) resulted in a number of 55 randomized patients per arm. DISCUSSION: The SPOCC-trial is a prospective, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled study to assess cosmesis and body image after SPLC

Genomic and expression analysis of multiple Sry loci from a single Rattus norvegicus Y chromosome

BACKGROUND: Sry is a gene known to be essential for testis determination but is also transcribed in adult male tissues. The laboratory rat, Rattus norvegicus, has multiple Y chromosome copies of Sry while most mammals have only a single copy. DNA sequence comparisons with other rodents with multiple Sry copies are inconsistent in divergence patterns and functionality of the multiple copies. To address hypotheses of divergence, gene conversion and functional constraints, we sequenced Sry loci from a single R. norvegicus Y chromosome from the Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat strain (SHR) and analyzed DNA sequences for homology among copies. Next, to determine whether all copies of Sry are expressed, we developed a modification of the fluorescent marked capillary electrophoresis method to generate three different sized amplification products to identify Sry copies. We applied this fragment analysis method to both genomic DNA and cDNA prepared from mRNA from testis and adrenal gland of adult male rats. RESULTS: Y chromosome fragments were amplified and sequenced using primers that included the entire Sry coding region and flanking sequences. The analysis of these sequences identified six Sry loci on the Y chromosome. These are paralogous copies consistent with a single phylogeny and the divergence between any two copies is less than 2%. All copies have a conserved reading frame and amino acid sequence consistent with function. Fragment analysis of genomic DNA showed close approximations of experimental with predicted values, validating the use of this method to identify proportions of each copy. Using the fragment analysis procedure with cDNA samples showed the Sry copies expressed were significantly different from the genomic distribution (testis p < 0.001, adrenal gland p < 0.001), and the testis and adrenal copy distribution in the transcripts were also significantly different from each other (p < 0.001). Total Sry transcript expression, analyzed by real-time PCR, showed significantly higher levels of Sry in testis than adrenal gland (p, 0.001). CONCLUSION: The SHR Y chromosome contains at least 6 full length copies of the Sry gene. These copies have a conserved coding region and conserved amino acid sequence. The pattern of divergence is not consistent with gene conversion as the mechanism for this conservation. Expression studies show multiple copies expressed in the adult male testis and adrenal glands, with tissue specific differences in expression patterns. Both the DNA sequence analysis and RNA transcript expression analysis are consistent with more than one copy having function and selection preventing divergence although we have no functional evidence

Segmental Duplication Implicated in the Genesis of Inversion 2Rj of Anopheles gambiae

The malaria vector Anopheles gambiae maintains high levels of inversion polymorphism that facilitate its exploitation of diverse ecological settings across tropical Africa. Molecular characterization of inversion breakpoints is a first step toward understanding the processes that generate and maintain inversions. Here we focused on inversion 2Rj because of its association with the assortatively mating Bamako chromosomal form of An. gambiae, whose distinctive breeding sites are rock pools beside the Niger River in Mali and Guinea. Sequence and computational analysis of 2Rj revealed the same 14.6 kb insertion between both breakpoints, which occurred near but not within predicted genes. Each insertion consists of 5.3 kb terminal inverted repeat arms separated by a 4 kb spacer. The insertions lack coding capacity, and are comprised of degraded remnants of repetitive sequences including class I and II transposable elements. Because of their large size and patchwork composition, and as no other instances of these insertions were identified in the An. gambiae genome, they do not appear to be transposable elements. The 14.6 kb modules inserted at both 2Rj breakpoint junctions represent low copy repeats (LCRs, also called segmental duplications) that are strongly implicated in the recent (∼0.4Ne generations) origin of 2Rj. The LCRs contribute to further genome instability, as demonstrated by an imprecise excision event at the proximal breakpoint of 2Rj in field isolates

Assessing associations between the AURKAHMMR-TPX2-TUBG1 functional module and breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

While interplay between BRCA1 and AURKA-RHAMM-TPX2-TUBG1 regulates mammary epithelial polarization, common genetic variation in HMMR (gene product RHAMM) may be associated with risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Following on these observations, we further assessed the link between the AURKA-HMMR-TPX2-TUBG1 functional module and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Forty-one single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers and subsequently analyzed using a retrospective likelihood appr

Associations of common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with risk of breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Introduction: More than 70 common alleles are known to be involved in breast cancer (BC) susceptibility, and several exhibit significant heterogeneity in their associations with different BC subtypes. Although there are differences in the association patterns between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and the general population for several loci, no study has comprehensively evaluated the associations of all known BC susceptibility alleles with risk of BC subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Methods: We used data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 carriers to analyze the associations between approximately 200,000 genetic variants on the iCOGS array and risk of BC subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and triple-negative- (TN) status; morphologic subtypes; histological grade; and nodal involvement. Results: The estimated BC hazard ratios (HRs) for the 74 known BC alleles in BRCA1 carriers exhibited moderate correlations with the corresponding odds ratios from the general population. However, their associations with ER-positive BC in BRCA1 carriers were more consistent with the ER-positive as

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Funder: CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research – UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research -UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT and ABS are NHMRC Research Fellows. iCOGS: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. BCFR: UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). CNIO: Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. CONSIT: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 no.15547) to P. Radice. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; grant no.16933) to L. Ottini. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 no.16732) to P. Peterlongo. Jacopo Azzollini is supported by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’). DEMOKRITOS: European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. DFKZ: German Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by R0 1CA140323, R01 CA214545, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. FPGMX: FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). GC-HBOC: German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). GEMO: Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). GEORGETOWN: the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. HEBON: the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HRBCP: Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and OTKA K-112228. ICO: The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). IHCC: PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. MAYO: NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201),and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). MODSQUAD: MH CZ - DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS - NPS I - LO1413 to LF and by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101) to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC: the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. NICCC: Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. SEABASS: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association. SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032, P20CA233307, American Cancer Society (MRSG-13-063-01-TBG, CRP-10-119-01-CCE), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation (SAC110026), and Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance. Mr. Qian was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Cuckein Student Research Fellowship. UCLA: Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Research UK. UPENN: Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Center for BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124.Abstract: Background: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. Methods: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. Results: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85–1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06–1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08–2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). Conclusion: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population

Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers : pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2

Background: BRCA1 and, more commonly, BRCA2 mutations are associated with increased risk of male breast cancer (MBC). However, only a paucity of data exists on the pathology of breast cancers (BCs) in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Using the largest available dataset, we determined whether MBCs arising in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers display specific pathologic features and whether these features differ from those of BRCA1/2 female BCs (FBCs). Methods: We characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Results: Among BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 x 10(-5)) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor-positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.15-21.80] and progesterone receptor-positive (OR 5.04; 95 % CI 3.17-8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 x 10(-12)). Conclusions: On the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management.Peer reviewe

Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

The risk of germline copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers in breast cancer is assessed, with CNVs overlapping SULT1A1 decreasing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.Peer reviewe