Search

Background: In healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) strongly reduces the risk of developing breast cancer (BC); however, no clear survival benefit of BRRM over BC surveillance has been reported yet., Methods: In this Dutch multicenter cohort study, we used multivariable Cox models with BRRM as a time-dependent covariable to estimate the associations between BRRM and the overall and BC-specific mortality rates, separately for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers., Results: During a mean follow-up of 10.3 years, 722 out of 1712 BRCA1 (42%) and 406 out of 1145 BRCA2 (35%) mutation carriers underwent BRRM. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, we observed 52 deaths (20 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 10 deaths (one from BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratios were 0.40 (95% CI 0.20-0.90) for overall mortality and 0.06 (95% CI 0.01-0.46) for BC-specific mortality. BC-specific survival at age 65 was 93% for surveillance and 99.7% for BRRM. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, we observed 29 deaths (7 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 4 deaths (no BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratio for overall mortality was 0.45 (95% CI 0.15-1.36). BC-specific survival at age 65 was 98% for surveillance and 100% for BRRM., Conclusion: BRRM was associated with lower mortality than surveillance for BRCA1 mutation carriers, but for BRCA2 mutation carriers, BRRM may lead to similar BC-specific survival as surveillance. Our findings support a more individualized counseling based on BRCA mutation type.

The MUTYH gene is involved in base excision repair. MUTYH mutations predispose to recessively inherited colorectal polyposis and cancer. Here, we evaluate an association with breast cancer (BC), following up our previous finding of an elevated BC frequency among Dutch bi-allelic MUTYH mutation carriers. A case–control study was performed comparing 1,469 incident BC patients (ORIGO cohort), 471 individuals displaying features suggesting a genetic predisposition for BC, but without a detectable BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAx cohort), and 1,666 controls. First, for 303 consecutive patients diagnosed before age 55 years and/or with multiple primary breast tumors, the MUTYH coding region and flanking introns were sequenced. The remaining subjects were genotyped for five coding variants, p.Tyr179Cys, p.Arg309Cys, p.Gly396Asp, p.Pro405Leu, and p.Ser515Phe, and four tagging SNPs, c.37-2487G>T, p.Val22Met, c.504+35G>A, and p.Gln338His. No bi-allelic pathogenic MUTYH mutations were identified. The pathogenic variant p.Gly396Asp and the variant of uncertain significance p.Arg309Cys occurred twice as frequently in BRCAx subjects as compared to incident BC patients and controls (p=0.13 and p=0.15, respectively). The likely benign variant p.Val22Met occurred less frequently in patients from the incident BC (p=0.03) and BRCAx groups (p=0.11), respectively, as compared to the controls. Minor allele genotypes of several MUTYH variants showed trends towards association with lobular BC histology. This extensive case–control study could not confirm previously reported associations of MUTYH variants with BC, although it was too small to exclude subtle effects on BC susceptibility.

Despite extensive analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, germline mutations are detected in <20% of families with a presumed genetic predisposition for breast and ovarian cancer. Recent literature reported RAD51C as a new breast cancer susceptibility gene. In this study, we report the analysis of 410 patients from 351 unrelated pedigrees. All were referred for genetic testing and we selected families with at least one reported case of ovarian cancer in which BRCA1&2 mutations were previously ruled out. We analyzed the coding exons, intron-exons boundaries, and UTRs of RAD51C. Our mutation analysis did not reveal any unequivocal deleterious mutation. In total 12 unique sequence variations were identified of which two were novel. Our study and others suggest a low prevalence of RAD51C mutations with an exception for some founder populations. This observation is in favor of the rare allele hypothesis in the debate over the nature of the genetic contribution to individual susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer and further genome-wide studies in high risk families are warranted.

Obesity is an established risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer in the general population. However, it is still unclear whether this association also exists in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We investigated the association between self-reported anthropometric measures and breast cancer risk in a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 719 BRCA1/2 carriers, of whom 218 had been diagnosed with breast cancer within 10 years prior to questionnaire completion. All time-varying Cox proportional hazards analyses were stratified by menopausal status. For premenopausal breast cancer, no statistically significant associations were observed for any of the anthropometric measures. The association between body mass index (BMI) at age 18 and premenopausal breast cancer risk suggested a trend of decreasing risk with increasing BMI (HR(22.50-24.99 vs. 18.50-22.49) = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.47-1.44 and HR(≥ 25.00 vs. 18.50-22.49) = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.13-1.27). For postmenopausal breast cancer, being 1.67 m and taller increased the risk 1.7-fold (HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.01-2.74) when compared to a height <1.67 m. Compared with a current body weight < 72 kg, a current body weight of ≥ 72 kg increased the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer 2.1-fold (95% CI = 1.23-3.59). A current BMI of ≥ 25.0 kg/m², an adult weight gain of 5 kg or more, and a relative adult weight gain of 20% or more were all non-significantly associated with a 50-60% increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer [HR = 1.46 (0.86-2.51), HR = 1.56 (95% CI = 0.85-2.87), and HR = 1.60 (95% CI = 0.97-2.63), respectively], when compared with having a healthy or stable weight. No associations for body weight or BMI at age 18 were observed. In conclusion, menopausal status seemed to modify the association between body weight and breast cancer risk among BRCA1/2 carriers. We observed no clear association between body weight and premenopausal breast cancer, while overweight and weight gain increased postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Carriers may reduce their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by maintaining a healthy body weight throughout life.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Differences in penetrance indicate that this risk may be influenced by lifestyle factors. Because physical activity is one of the few modifiable risk factors, it may provide a target to add to breast cancer prevention in this high-risk population. We examined the association between self-reported lifetime sports activity and breast cancer risk in a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 725 carriers, of whom 218 had been diagnosed with breast cancer within 10 years prior to questionnaire completion. We found a nonsignificantly decreased risk for ever engaging in sports activity (HR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.57-1.24). Among women who had participated in sports, a medium versus low level of intensity and duration (i.e., between 11.0 and 22.7 mean MET hours/week averaged over a lifetime) reduced the risk of breast cancer (HR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.36-0.95); no dose-response trend was observed. For mean hours/week of sports activity, a nonsignificant trend was observed (HR(low versus never) = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.60-1.43; HR(medium versus never) = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.51-1.29; HR(high versus never) = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.48-1.29; p (trend overall) = 0.272; p (trend active women) = 0.487). For number of years of sports activity no significant associations were found. Among women active in sports before age 30, mean MET hours/week showed the strongest inverse association of all activity measures (HR(medium versus low) = 0.60, 95%CI = 0.38-0.96; HR(high versus low) = 0.58, 95%CI = 0.35-0.94; p (trend) = 0.053). Engaging in sports activity after age 30 was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.44-0.91). Our results indicate that sports activity may reduce the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Familial breast cancer represents up to 5% of all breast cancer cases. Recently, our group has performed a new SNP-based linkage study in 19 non-BRCA1/2 families. We found that a single family was linked to regions in two different chromosomes (11q13 and 14q21), and observed a non-parametric LOD score of 11.5 in both regions. In the present study, we ruled out any possible translocation between the chromosomes. We also used both a panel of STRs and an indirect approach based on HapMap data to narrow down these regions from 28 to 7 Mb in chromosome 11 and from 14.5 to 8.5 Mb in chromosome 14. We performed a mutational screening on candidate genes in 11q13 (NUMA1, FGF3, CCND1, RAD9A, RNF121, FADD and hsa-mir-192), and on FOXA1 in 14q21. Although we have not found any deleterious mutations in the coding region of these genes, data from STR markers confirm 11q13 as a candidate region to contain a breast cancer susceptibility gene.

To show differences and similarities between risk estimation models for breast cancer in healthy women from BRCA1/2-negative or untested families. After a systematic literature search seven models were selected: Gail-2, Claus Model, Claus Tables, BOADICEA, Jonker Model, Claus-Extended Formula, and Tyrer-Cuzick. Life-time risks (LTRs) for developing breast cancer were estimated for two healthy counsellees, aged 40, with a variety in family histories and personal risk factors. Comparisons were made with guideline thresholds for individual screening. Without a clinically significant family history LTRs varied from 6.7% (Gail-2 Model) to 12.8% (Tyrer-Cuzick Model). Adding more information on personal risk factors increased the LTRs and yearly mammography will be advised in most situations. Older models (i.e. Gail-2 and Claus) are likely to underestimate the LTR for developing breast cancer as their baseline risk for women is too low. When models include personal risk factors, surveillance thresholds have to be reformulated. For current clinical practice, the Tyrer-Cuzick Model and the BOADICEA Model seem good choices.