The FANCM:p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM -/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors

Evaluation of associations between genetically predicted circulating protein biomarkers and breast cancer risk.

A small number of circulating proteins have been reported to be associated with breast cancer risk, with inconsistent results. Herein, we attempted to identify novel protein biomarkers for breast cancer via the integration of genomics and proteomics data. In the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), with 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European descendants, we evaluated the associations of the genetically predicted concentrations of >1,400 circulating proteins with breast cancer risk. We used data from a large-scale protein quantitative trait loci (pQTL) analysis as our study instrument. Summary statistics for these pQTL variants related to breast cancer risk were obtained from the BCAC and used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for each protein using the inverse-variance weighted method. We identified 56 proteins significantly associated with breast cancer risk by instrumental analysis (false discovery rate <0.05). Of these, the concentrations of 32 were influenced by variants close to a breast cancer susceptibility locus (ABO, 9q34.2). Many of these proteins, such as insulin receptor, insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 and other membrane receptors (OR: 0.82-1.18, p values: 6.96 × 10-4 -3.28 × 10-8 ), are linked to insulin resistance and estrogen receptor signaling pathways. Proteins identified at other loci include those involved in biological processes such as alcohol and lipid metabolism, proteolysis, apoptosis, immune regulation and cell motility and proliferation. Consistent associations were observed for 22 proteins in the UK Biobank data (p < 0.05). The study identifies potential novel biomarkers for breast cancer, but further investigation is needed to replicate our findings.Includes CRUK and FP7

Breast cancer risks associated with missense variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes

BACKGROUND: Protein truncating variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with increased breast cancer risk, but risks associated with missense variants in these genes are uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data on 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls from studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium BRIDGES project. We sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1425), CHEK2 (325), and PALB2 (472). We evaluated breast cancer risks according to five in silico prediction-of-deleteriousness algorithms, functional protein domain, and frequency, using logistic regression models and also mixture models in which a subset of variants was assumed to be risk-associated. RESULTS: The most predictive in silico algorithms were Helix (BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2) and CADD (ATM). Increased risks appeared restricted to functional protein domains for ATM (FAT and PIK domains) and BRCA1 (RING and BRCT domains). For ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2, data were compatible with small subsets (approximately 7%, 2%, and 0.6%, respectively) of rare missense variants giving similar risk to those of protein truncating variants in the same gene. For CHEK2, data were more consistent with a large fraction (approximately 60%) of rare missense variants giving a lower risk (OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.47-2.08)) than CHEK2 protein truncating variants. There was little evidence for an association with risk for missense variants in PALB2. The best fitting models were well calibrated in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS: These results will inform risk prediction models and the selection of candidate variants for functional assays and could contribute to the clinical reporting of gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility

The impact of coding germline variants on contralateral breast cancer risk and survival

Evidence linking coding germline variants in breast cancer (BC)-susceptibility genes other than BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2 with contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the association of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) and rare missense variants (MSVs) in nine known (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) and 25 suspected BC-susceptibility genes with CBC risk and BCSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with Cox regression models. Analyses included 34,401 women of European ancestry diagnosed with BC, including 676 CBCs and 3,449 BC deaths; the median follow-up was 10.9 years. Subtype analyses were based on estrogen receptor (ER) status of the first BC. Combined PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 and PALB2 were associated with increased CBC risk [HRs (95% CIs): 2.88 (1.70–4.87), 2.31 (1.39–3.85), 8.29 (2.53–27.21), 2.25 (1.55–3.27), and 2.67 (1.33–5.35), respectively]. The strongest evidence of association with BCSS was for PTVs and pathogenic/likely pathogenic MSVs in BRCA2 (ER-positive BC) and TP53 and PTVs in CHEK2 [HRs (95% CIs): 1.53 (1.13–2.07), 2.08 (0.95–4.57), and 1.39 (1.13–1.72), respectively, after adjusting for tumor characteristics and treatment]. HRs were essentially unchanged when censoring for CBC, suggesting that these associations are not completely explained by increased CBC risk, tumor characteristics, or treatment. There was limited evidence of associations of PTVs and/or rare MSVs with CBC risk or BCSS for the 25 suspected BC genes. The CBC findings are relevant to treatment decisions, follow-up, and screening after BC diagnosis.</p

Evaluation of European-based polygenic risk score for breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish women in Israel

To date, most BC GWASs have been performed Background Polygenic risk score (PRS), calculated in individuals of European (EUR) ancestry, and based on genome-wide association studies (GWASs), the generalisation of EUR-based PRS to other can improve breast cancer (BC) risk assessment. populations is a major challenge. In this study, we examined the performance of EUR-based BC PRS models in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women. Methods We generated PRSs based on data on EUR women from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). We tested the performance of the PRSs in a cohort of 2161 AJ women from Israel (1437 cases and 724 controls) from BCAC (BCAC cohort from Israel (BCAC-IL)). In addition, we tested the performance of these EUR-based BC PRSs, as well as the established 313-SNP EUR BC PRS, in an independent cohort of 181 AJ women from Hadassah Medical Center (HMC) in Israel. Results In the BCAC-IL cohort, the highest OR per 1 SD was 1.56 (±0.09). The OR for AJ women at the top 10% of the PRS distribution compared with the middle quintile was 2.10 (±0.24). In the HMC cohort, the OR per 1 SD of the EUR-based PRS that performed best in the BCAC-IL cohort was 1.58±0.27. The OR per 1 SD of the commonly used 313-SNP BC PRS was 1.64 (±0.28). Conclusions Extant EUR GWAS data can be used for generating PRSs that identify AJ women with markedly elevated risk of BC and therefore hold promise for improving BC risk assessment in AJ women.</p

A case-only study to identify genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Family History and Breast Cancer Hormone Receptor Status in a Spanish Cohort

Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease that impacts racial/ethnic groups differently. Differences in genetic composition, lifestyles, reproductive factors, or environmental exposures may contribute to the differential presentation of breast cancer among Hispanic women.A population-based study was conducted in the city of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. A total of 645 women diagnosed with operable invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2005 participated in the study. Data on demographics, breast cancer risk factors, and clinico-pathological characteristics of the tumors were collected. Hormone receptor negative tumors were compared with hormone receptor postive tumors on their clinico-pathological characteristics as well as risk factor profiles.Among the 645 breast cancer patients, 78% were estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) or progesterone receptor-positive (PR+), and 22% were ER−&PR−. Women with a family history of breast cancer were more likely to have ER−&PR− tumors than women without a family history (Odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.91–2.26). This association was limited to cancers diagnosed before age 50 (Odds ratio, 2.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.34–5.81).An increased proportion of ER−&PR− breast cancer was observed among younger Spanish women with a family history of the disease

Incorporating progesterone receptor expression into the PREDICT breast prognostic model

Background: Predict Breast (www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostication and treatment benefit tool for early invasive breast cancer. The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of progesterone receptor (PR) status into a new version of PREDICT and to compare its performance to the current version (2.2).Method: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance.Results: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0. 902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 x 10(-6)) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted.Conclusion: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predic-tions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe