Evaluation of copy-number variants as modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers

Genome-wide studies of patients carrying pathogenic variants (mutations) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have reported strong associations between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and cancer risk. To conduct the first genome-wide association analysis of copy- number variants (CNVs) with breast or ovarian cancer risk in a cohort of 2500 BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers, CNV discovery was performed using multiple calling algorithms and Illumina 610k SNP array data from a previously published genome-wide association study. Our analysis, which focused on functionally disruptive genomic deletions overlapping gene regions, identified a number of loci associated with risk of breast or ovarian cancer for BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Despite only including putative deletions called by at least two or more algorithms, detection of selected CNVs by ancillary molecular technologies only confirmed 40% of predicted common (41% allele frequency) variants. These include four loci that were associated (unadjusted Po0.05) with breast cancer (GTF2H2, ZNF385B, NAALADL2 and PSG5), and two loci associated with ovarian cancer (CYP2A7 and OR2A1). An interesting finding from this study was an association of a validated CNV deletion at the CYP2A7 locus (19q13.2) with decreased ovarian cancer risk (relative risk = 0.50, P = 0.007). Genomic analysis found this deletion coincides with a region displaying strong regulatory potential in ovarian tissue, but not in breast epithelial cells. This study highlighted the need to verify CNVs in vitro, but also provides evidence that experimentally validated CNVs (with plausible biological consequences) can modify risk of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers

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

Breast cancer (BC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC for BRCA1 and 3 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, P < 10-8, at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 where MADD, SP11 and EIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

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

Association of germline variation with the survival of women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and breast cancer

Germline genetic variation has been suggested to influence the survival of breast cancer patients independently of tumor pathology. We have studied survival associations of genetic variants in two etiologically unique groups of breast cancer patients, the carriers of germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. We found that rs57025206 was significantly associated with the overall survival, predicting higher mortality of BRCA1 carrier patients with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer, with a hazard ratio 4.37 (95% confidence interval 3.03-6.30, P=3.1x10(-9)). Multivariable analysis adjusted for tumor characteristics suggested that rs57025206 was an independent survival marker. In addition, our exploratory analyses suggest that the associations between genetic variants and breast cancer patient survival may depend on tumor biological subgroup and clinical patient characteristics.Peer reviewe

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

Publisher Copyright: © 2022. The Author(s). © 2022. The Author(s).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

Polygenic risk modeling for prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer risk

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, "select and shrink for summary statistics" (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestries; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestries; 1,072 women of African ancestries, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestries. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28-1.48, AUC: 0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestries; 1.14 (95% CI: 1.08-1.19, AUC: 0.538) in women of East Asian ancestries; 1.38 (95% CI: 1.21-1.58, AUC: 0.593) in women of African ancestries; hazard ratios of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29-1.43, AUC: 0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.35-1.64, AUC: 0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs.Peer reviewe

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 associations in the general population (intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45 to 0.74), and the same was true when considering ER-negative associations in both groups (ICC = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.72). Similarly, there was strong correlation between the ER-positive associations for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (ICC = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.78), whereas ER-positive associations in any one of the groups were generally inconsistent with ER-negative associations in any of the others. After stratifying by ER status in mutation carriers, additional significant associations were observed. Several previously unreported variants exhibited associations at P < 10-6 in the analyses by PR status, HER2 status, TN phenotype, morphologic subtypes, histological grade and nodal involvement. Conclusions: Differences in associations of common BC susceptibility alleles between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and the general population are explained to a large extent by differences in the prevalence of ER-positive and ER-negative tumors. Estimates of the risks associated with these variants based on population-based studies are likely to be applicable to mutation carriers after taking ER status into account, which has implications for risk prediction

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

Ovarian cancer pathology characteristics as predictors of variant pathogenicity in BRCA1 and BRCA2

Funding Information: The authors gratefully thank all patients and their families for submitting their data and all the collaborators, researchers, clinicians, technicians and coordinating teams who have enabled this work to be carried out. We acknowledge the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics (CING), the CING institution and the Telethon organisation Cyprus for supporting this work. We acknowledge the contribution of the CIMBA (https://cimba.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/) and ENIGMA (https://enigmaconsortium.org/) consortium, members and collaborators. We also acknowledge the contributions of the OTTA consortium (https://ottaconsortium.org/) and the AOCS Group (http://www.aocstudy.org). AOCS gratefully acknowledges additional support from Ovarian Cancer Australia and the Peter MacCallum Cancer Foundation. CIMBA acknowledges: All the families and clinicians who contributed to the studies; Catherine M. Phelan for her contribution to CIMBA until she passed away on 22 September 2017; Sue Healey, in particular taking on the task of mutation classification with the late Olga Sinilnikova; clinicians, patients, researchers, technicians and nurses of A.C. Camargo Cancer Center for their contribution to this study; Oncogenetic Department, Clinical and Functional Genomics Group, Center of Genomic Diagnostics, Biobank and other International Research Center-CIPE’ facilities at AC. Camargo Cancer Center, especially Karina Miranda Santiago, Giovana Tardin Torrezan, José Claudio Casali, Nirvana Formiga and Fabiana Baroni Makdissi; Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Gillian Dite, Helen Tsimiklis; members and participants in the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry; members and participants in the Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry; Vilius Rudaitis and Laimonas Griškevičius; Drs Janis Eglitis, Anna Krilova and Aivars Stengrevics; Yuan Chun Ding and Linda Steele for their work in participant enrollment and biospecimen and data management; Bent Ejlertsen for the recruitment and genetic counselling of participants; Alicia Barroso, Rosario Alonso and Guillermo Pita; all the individuals and the researchers who took part in CONSIT TEAM (Consorzio Italiano Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella), in particular: Dario Zimbalatti, Daniela Zaffaroni, Laura Ottini, Giuseppe Giannini, Laura Papi, Gabriele Lorenzo Capone, Maria Grazia Tibiletti, Daniela Furlan, Antonella Savarese, Aline Martayan, Stefania Tommasi, Brunella Pilato and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory, Milan, Italy. The FCCC cohort (Godwin) acknowledges Ms. JoEllen Weaver and Dr. Betsy Bove, and the KUMC cohort (Sharma and Godwin) acknowledge the support of Michele Park, Lauren DiMartino, Alex Webster and the current and past members of the Biospecimen Repository Core Facility (BRCF) at KUMC; all participants, clinicians, family doctors, researchers, and technicians for their contributions and commitment to the DKFZ study and the collaborating groups in Lahore, Pakistan (Muhammad U. Rashid, Noor Muhammad, Sidra Gull, Seerat Bajwa, Faiz Ali Khan, Humaira Naeemi, Saima Faisal, Asif Loya, Mohammed Aasim Yusuf) and Bogota, Colombia (Diana Torres, Ignacio Briceno, Fabian Gil). FPGMX: members of the Cancer Genetics group (IDIS): Marta Santamariña, Miguel E. Aguado-Barrera, Olivia Fuentes Ríos and Ana Crujeiras-González; the GIIS025 research nurses and staff for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to GIIS025; IFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilisation Diseases (Markus Loeffler, Joachim Thiery, Matthias Nüchter, Ronny Baber); Genetic Modifiers of Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers (GEMO) study is a study from the National Cancer Genetics Network UNICANCER Genetic Group, France. We wish to pay tribute to Olga M. Sinilnikova, who with Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet initiated and coordinated GEMO until she sadly passed away on the June 30, 2014. The team in Lyon (Olga Sinilnikova, Mélanie Léoné, Laure Barjhoux, Carole Verny-Pierre, Sylvie Mazoyer, Francesca Damiola, Valérie Sornin) managed the GEMO samples until the biological resource centre was transferred to Paris in December 2015 (Noura Mebirouk, Fabienne Lesueur, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet). We want to thank all the GEMO collaborating groups for their contribution to this study: Coordinating Centre, Service de Génétique, Institut Curie, Paris, France: Muriel Belotti, Ophélie Bertrand, Anne-Marie Birot, Bruno Buecher, Sandrine Caputo, Chrystelle Colas, Emmanuelle Fourme, Marion Gauthier-Villars, Lisa Golmard, Marine Le Mentec, Virginie Moncoutier, Antoine de Pauw, Claire Saule, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, and Inserm U900, Institut Curie, Paris, France: Fabienne Lesueur, Noura Mebirouk, Yue Jiao. Contributing Centres: Unité Mixte de Génétique Constitutionnelle des Cancers Fréquents, Hospices Civils de Lyon - Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France: Nadia Boutry-Kryza, Alain Calender, Sophie Giraud, Mélanie Léone. Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France: Brigitte Bressac-de-Paillerets, Odile Cabaret, Olivier Caron, Marine Guillaud-Bataille, Etienne Rouleau. Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont–Ferrand, France: Yves-Jean Bignon, Nancy Uhrhammer. Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France: Valérie Bonadona, Sophie Dussart, Christine Lasset, Pauline Rochefort. Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France: Pascaline Berthet, Laurent Castera, Dominique Vaur. Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France: Violaine Bourdon, Catherine Noguès, Tetsuro Noguchi, Cornel Popovici Audrey Remenieras, Hagay Sobol. CHU Arnaud-de-Villeneuve, Montpellier, France: Isabelle Coupier, Pascal Pujol. Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France: Claude Adenis, Aurélie Dumont, Françoise Révillion. Centre Paul Strauss, Strasbourg, France: Danièle Muller. Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France: Emmanuelle Barouk-Simonet, Françoise Bonnet, Virginie Bubien, Anaïs Dupré, Anne Floquet, Michel Longy, Marie Louty, Cécile Maninna, Nicolas Sevenet, Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse, France: Laurence Gladieff, Rosine Guimbaud, Viviane Feillel, Christine Toulas. CHU Grenoble, France: Hélène Dreyfus, Dominique Leroux, Clémentine Legrand, Christine Rebischung. CHU Dijon, France: Amandine Baurand, Geoffrey Bertolone, Fanny Coron, Laurence Faivre, Caroline Jacquot, Sarab Lizard, Sophie Nambot. CHU St-Etienne, France: Caroline Kientz, Marine Lebrun, Fabienne Prieur. Hôtel Dieu Centre Hospitalier, Chambéry, France: Sandra Fert Ferrer. Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France: Véronique Mari. CHU Limoges, France: Laurence Vénat-Bouvet. CHU Nantes, France: Stéphane Bézieau, Capucine Delnatte. CHU Bretonneau, Tours and Centre Hospitalier de Bourges France: Isabelle Mortemousque. Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris, France: Florence Coulet, Mathilde Warcoin. CHU Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France: Myriam Bronner, Johanna Sokolowska. CHU Besançon, France: Marie-Agnès Collonge-Rame. CHU Poitiers, Centre Hospitalier d’Angoulême and Centre Hospitalier de Niort, France: Stéphanie Chieze-Valero, Paul Gesta, Brigitte Gilbert-Dussardier. Centre Hospitalier de La Rochelle: Hakima Lallaoui. CHU Nîmes Carémeau, France: Jean Chiesa. CHI Poissy, France: Denise Molina-Gomes. CHU Angers, France: Olivier Ingster; CHU de Martinique, France: Odile Bera; Mickaelle Rose; Drs. Taru A. Muranen and Carl Blomqvist, RN Outi Malkavaara; The Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON) consists of the following Collaborating Centres: Netherlands Cancer Institute (coordinating center), Amsterdam, NL: M.K. Schmidt, F.B.L. Hogervorst, F.E. van Leeuwen, M.A. Adank, D.J. Stommel-Jenner, R. de Groot; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, NL: J.M. Collée, M.J. Hooning, I.A. Boere; I.R. Geurts-Giele; Leiden University Medical Center, NL: C.J. van Asperen, P. Devilee, R.B. van der Luijt, T.C.T.E.F. van Cronenburg; Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, NL: M.R. Wevers, A.R. Mensenkamp; University Medical Center Utrecht, NL: M.G.E.M. Ausems, M.J. Koudijs; Amsterdam UMC, NL: K. van Engelen, J.J.P. Gille; Maastricht University Medical Center, NL: E.B. Gómez García, M.J. Blok, M. de Boer; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, NL: L.P.V. Berger, A.H. van der Hout, M.J.E. Mourits, G.H. de Bock; The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL): S. Siesling, J. Verloop; The nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in The Netherlands (PALGA): Q.J.M Voorham; the study participants and the registration teams of IKNL and PALGA for part of the HEBON data collection; Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital; the Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study Group members (Attila Patócs, János Papp, Anikó Bozsik, Timea Pócza, Henriett Butz, Zoltán Mátrai, Lajos Géczi, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary) and the clinicians and patients for their contributions to this study; Fatemeh Yadegari, Shiva Zarinfam and Rezvan Esmaeili for their role in participant enrollment and biospecimen and data management; the study participants and registration teams of the Hereditary Cancer Genetics Group of the Valld’Hebron Institute of Oncolgy (VHIO) and the Clinical and Molecular Genetics Department of the University Hospital Vall d’Hebron (HVH), the Cellex Foundation for providing research facilities, and CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support; members and participants of the Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE); the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Dr. Gabriel Capella; the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Dr. Gabriel Capella; Dr Martine Dumont for sample management and skilful assistance; Catarina Santos and Pedro Pinto; members of the Center of Molecular Diagnosis, Oncogenetics Department and Molecular Oncology Research Center of Barretos Cancer Hospital; Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, all the kConFab research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study (which has received funding from the NHMRC, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Australia, and the National Institute of Health (USA)) for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab; the KOBRA Study Group; all participants and the collaborators from RCGEB “Georgi D. Efremov”, MASA (Ivana Maleva Kostovska, Simona Jakovcevska, Sanja Kiprijanovska), University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology (Snezhana Smichkoska, Emilija Lazarova, Marina Iljovska), Adzibadem-Sistina Hospital (Katerina Kubelka-Sabit, Dzengis Jasar, Mitko Karadjozov), and Re-Medika Hospital (Andrej Arsovski and Liljana Stojanovska) for their contributions and commitment to the MACBRCA study; Csilla Szabo (National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA); Lenka Foretova and Eva Machackova (Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute and MF MU, Brno, Czech Republic); Petra Kleiblova, Marketa Janatova, Jana Soukupova (Institute of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague (VFN), Czechia), Petra Zemankova, Petr Nehasil (Institute of Pathological Physiology, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Czechia), Michal Vocka (Department of Oncology, General University Hospital in Prague (VFN), Czechia), Anne Lincoln, Lauren Jacobs; the participants in Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer Study and Breast Imaging Study for their selfless contributions to our research; the NICCC National Familial Cancer Consultation Service team led by Sara Dishon, the lab team led by Dr. Flavio Lejbkowicz, and the research field operations team led by Dr. Mila Pinchev; the staff of Genetic Health Service NZ and the families who have contributed; members and participants in the Ontario Cancer Genetics Network; Hayley Cassingham. Leigha Senter, Kevin Sweet, Julia Cooper, and Amber Aielts; research nurses and staff of Breast Unit, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hopsital, RSUIO and the many families who contribute to the CIMBA registry of RSUIO; Yip Cheng Har, Nur Aishah Mohd Taib, Phuah Sze Yee, Norhashimah Hassan and all the research nurses, research assistants and doctors involved in the MyBrCa Study for assistance in patient recruitment, data collection and sample preparation, Philip Iau, Sng Jen-Hwei and Sharifah Nor Akmal for contributing samples from the Singapore Breast Cancer Study and the HUKM-HKL Study respectively; the National Cancer Centre Singapore Cancer Genetics Service (NCCS) for patient recruitement; the Meirav Comprehensive breast cancer center team at the Sheba Medical Center; Christina Selkirk; Håkan Olsson, Helena Jernström, Karin Henriksson, Katja Harbst, Maria Soller, Ulf Kristoffersson; from Gothenburg Sahlgrenska University Hospital: Anna Öfverholm, Margareta Nordling, Per Karlsson, Zakaria Einbeigi; from Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital: Anna von Wachenfeldt, Annelie Liljegren, Annika Lindblom, Brita Arver, Gisela Barbany Bustinza, Johanna Rantala; from Umeå University Hospital: Beatrice Melin, Christina Edwinsdotter Ardnor, Monica Emanuelsson; from Uppsala University: Hans Ehrencrona, Maritta Hellström Pigg, Richard Rosenquist; from Linköping University Hospital: Marie Stenmark-Askmalm, Sigrun Liedgren; Cecilia Zvocec, Qun Niu; Joyce Seldon and Lorna Kwan; Dr. Robert Nussbaum, Beth Crawford, Kate Loranger, Julie Mak, Nicola Stewart, Robin Lee, Amie Blanco and Peggy Conrad and Salina Chan; Simon Gayther and Patricia Harrington; Geoffrey Lindeman, Marion Harris, Joanne McKinley, Simone McInerny, and Ella Thompson for performing all DNA amplification. HEBCS thanks Drs. Kristiina Aittomäki, Carl Blomqvist and Taru A. Muranen and research nurses Irja Erkkilä and Outi Malkavaara. HJO acknowledges the oncologists Tjoung-Won Park-Simon and Peter Hillemanns at Hannover Medical School, Clemens Liebrich at the Gynecology Clinics Wolfsburg, Ingo Runnebaum at the Gynaecology Clinics at the University of Jena, and Peter Dall at the Gynecology Clinics at the University of Lüneburg for providing clinical data and medical records to this analysis, Peter Schürmann for technical assistance, and Dhanya Ramachandran for contributing to BRCA1 and BRCA2 VUS analyses. The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the views of NHMRC. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).Background: The distribution of ovarian tumour characteristics differs between germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers and non-carriers. In this study, we assessed the utility of ovarian tumour characteristics as predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity, for application using the American College of Medical Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant classification system. Methods: Data for 10,373 ovarian cancer cases, including carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, were collected from unpublished international cohorts and consortia and published studies. Likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for the association of ovarian cancer histology and other characteristics, with BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity. Estimates were aligned to ACMG/AMP code strengths (supporting, moderate, strong). Results: No histological subtype provided informative ACMG/AMP evidence in favour of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity. Evidence against variant pathogenicity was estimated for the mucinous and clear cell histologies (supporting) and borderline cases (moderate). Refined associations are provided according to tumour grade, invasion and age at diagnosis. Conclusions: We provide detailed estimates for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity based on ovarian tumour characteristics. This evidence can be combined with other variant information under the ACMG/AMP classification system, to improve classification and carrier clinical management.Peer reviewe

Alcohol Consumption, Cigarette Smoking, and Risk of Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Results from The BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption have been intensively studied in the general population to assess their effects on the risk of breast cancer, but very few studies have examined these effects in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Given the high breast cancer risk for mutation carriers and the importance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in DNA repair, better evidence on the associations of these lifestyle factors with breast cancer risk is essential. METHODS: Using a large international pooled cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we conducted retrospective (5,707 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 3,525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and prospective (2,276 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 1,610 BRCA2 mutation carriers) analyses of alcohol and tobacco consumption using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: For both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, none of the smoking-related variables was associated with breast cancer risk, except smoking for more than 5 years before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) when compared with parous women who never smoked. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, the HR from retrospective analysis (HRR) was 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.39] and the HR from prospective analysis (HRP) was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.99-1.87). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, smoking for more than 5 years before an FFTP showed an association of a similar magnitude, but the confidence limits were wider (HRR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55 and HRP = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83-2.01). For both carrier groups, alcohol consumption was not associated with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that smoking during the prereproductive years increases breast cancer risk for mutation carriers warrants further investigation. IMPACT: This is the largest prospective study of BRCA mutation carriers to assess these important risk factors