Search

BackgroundWhile the likelihood of identifying constitutional breast cancer-associated BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 pathogenic variants (PVs) increases with earlier diagnosis age, little is known about the correlation with age at diagnosis in other predisposition genes. Here, we assessed the contribution of known breast cancer-associated genes to very early onset disease.MethodsSequencing of BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 and CHEK2 c.1100delC was undertaken in women with breast cancer diagnosed ≤30 years. Those testing negative were screened for PVs in a minimum of eight additional breast cancer-associated genes. Rates of PVs were compared with cases ≤30 years from the Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic vs Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) study.ResultsTesting 379 women with breast cancer aged ≤30 years identified 75 PVs (19.7%) in BRCA1, 35 (9.2%) in BRCA2, 22 (5.8%) in TP53 and 2 (0.5%) CHEK2 c.1100delC. Extended screening of 184 PV negative women only identified eight additional actionable PVs. BRCA1/2 PVs were more common in women aged 26–30 years than in younger women (p=0.0083) although the younger age group had rates more similar to those in the POSH cohort. Out of 26 women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone, most were high-grade and 11/26 (42.3%) had a PV (TP53=6, BRCA2=2, BRCA1=2, PALB2=1). This PV yield is similar to the 61 (48.8%) BRCA1/2 PVs identified in 125 women with triple-negative breast cancer. The POSH cohort specifically excluded pure DCIS which may explain lower TP53 PV rates in this group (1.7%).ConclusionThe rates of BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 PVs are high in very early onset breast cancer, with limited benefit from testing of additional breast cancer-associated genes.

Advances in technology have led to a massive expansion in the capacity for genomic analysis, with a commensurate fall in costs. The clinical indications for genomic testing have evolved markedly; the volume of clinical sequencing has increased dramatically; and the range of clinical professionals involved in the process has broadened. There is general acceptance that our early dichotomous paradigms of variants being pathogenic–high risk and benign–no risk are overly simplistic. There is increasing recognition that the clinical interpretation of genomic data requires significant expertise in disease–gene-variant associations specific to each disease area. Inaccurate interpretation can lead to clinical mismanagement, inconsistent information within families and misdirection of resources. It is for this reason that ‘national subspecialist multidisciplinary meetings’ (MDMs) for genomic interpretation have been articulated as key for the new NHS Genomic Medicine Service, of which Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK) is an early exemplar. CanVIG-UK was established in 2017 and now has >100 UK members, including at least one clinical diagnostic scientist and one clinical cancer geneticist from each of the 25 regional molecular genetics laboratories of the UK and Ireland. Through CanVIG-UK, we have established national consensus around variant interpretation for cancer susceptibility genes via monthly national teleconferenced MDMs and collaborative data sharing using a secure online portal. We describe here the activities of CanVIG-UK, including exemplar outputs and feedback from the membership.

Accurate classification of variants in cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) is key for correct estimation of cancer risk and management of patients. Consistency in the weighting assigned to individual elements of evidence has been much improved by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) 2015 framework for variant classification, UK Association for Clinical Genomic Science (UK-ACGS) Best Practice Guidelines and subsequent Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK (CanVIG-UK) consensus specification for CSGs. However, considerable inconsistency persists regarding practice in the combination of evidence elements. CanVIG-UK is a national subspecialist multidisciplinary network for cancer susceptibility genomic variant interpretation, comprising clinical scientist and clinical geneticist representation from each of the 25 diagnostic laboratories/clinical genetic units across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Here, we summarise the aggregated evidence elements and combinations possible within different variant classification schemata currently employed for CSGs (ACMG, UK-ACGS, CanVIG-UK and ClinGen gene-specific guidance for PTEN, TP53 and CDH1). We present consensus recommendations from CanVIG-UK regarding (1) consistent scoring for combinations of evidence elements using a validated numerical ‘exponent score’ (2) new combinations of evidence elements constituting likely pathogenic’ and ‘pathogenic’ classification categories, (3) which evidence elements can and cannot be used in combination for specific variant types and (4) classification of variants for which there are evidence elements for both pathogenicity and benignity.

Introduction The Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is caused by a germline TP53 mutation and is associated with a high risk of breast cancer at young ages. Basal (triple negative) breast cancers are now well recognised to be a typical sub-type of breast cancer developing in a large proportion of BRCA1 gene carriers. We considered whether a similar narrow sub-type of breast cancer was found in TP53 gene mutation carriers. Objective A hypothesis generating study to investigate whether there are specific breast tumour characteristics associated with germline TP53 mutations. Methods Pathological characteristics in 12 breast cancers arising in nine patients carrying pathogenic TP53 mutations were compared to a reference panel of 231 young onset breast tumours included in the POSH study. Results Patients carrying a TP53 mutation showed a significantly higher likelihood of developing a breast cancer with Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor (HER2) amplification (83%) when compared to the cohort of young onset breast cancer cases (16%); ER and PR status were equivalent between groups. Conclusion These findings suggest that breast cancer developing on a background of an inherited TP53 mutation is highly likely to present with amplification of HER2.

Background: Increasingly women at high risk of breast cancer are opting for risk reducing surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this approach in women at high risk in both carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1/2 . Methods: Data from 10 European centres that offer a genetic counselling and screening service to women at risk were obtained prospectively from 1995. Breast cancer risks were estimated from life tables and a control group of women at risk who did not undergo surgery. Results: The combined centres have data on 550 women who have undergone risk reducing mastectomy with greater than 3334 women years of follow-up. Operations were carried out on women with lifetime risks of 25–80%, with an average expected incidence rate of 1% per year. No breast cancers have occurred in this cohort in the “at risk” unaffected breast, whereas >34 would have been expected. A high rate (2–3.6%) of occult disease was identified in the at risk breast at the time of surgery. Interpretation: We conclude that risk reducing surgery is highly effective.

Genetic testing for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has important implications for the clinical management of people found to carry a mutation. However, genetic testing is expensive and may be associated with adverse psychosocial effects. To provide a cost-efficient and clinically appropriate genetic counselling service, genetic testing should be targeted at those individuals most likely to carry pathogenic mutations. Several algorithms that predict the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation are currently used in clinical practice to identify such individuals.We evaluated the performance of the carrier prediction algorithms BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, the Manchester scoring system and Myriad tables, using 1934 families seen in cancer genetics clinics in the UK in whom an index patient had been screened for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations. The models were evaluated for calibration, discrimination and accuracy of the predictions.Of the five algorithms, only BOADICEA predicted the overall observed number of mutations detected accurately (ie, was well calibrated). BOADICEA also provided the best discrimination, being significantly better (p0.05) than all models except BRCAPRO (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve statistics: BOADICEA = 0.77, BRCAPRO = 0.76, IBIS = 0.74, Manchester = 0.75, Myriad = 0.72). All models underpredicted the number of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the low estimated risk category.Carrier prediction algorithms provide a rational basis for counselling individuals likely to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Their widespread use would improve equity of access and the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing.

To develop a simple scoring system for the likelihood of identifying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.DNA samples from affected subjects from 422 non-Jewish families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer were screened for BRCA1 mutations and a subset of 318 was screened for BRCA2 by whole gene screening techniques. Using a combination of results from screening and the family history of mutation negative and positive kindreds, a simple scoring system (Manchester scoring system) was devised to predict pathogenic mutations and particularly to discriminate at the 10% likelihood level. A second separate dataset of 192 samples was subsequently used to test the model's predictive value. This was further validated on a third set of 258 samples and compared against existing models.The scoring system includes a cut-off at 10 points for each gene. This equates to10% probability of a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 individually. The Manchester scoring system had the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity at 10% prediction for the presence of mutations as shown by its highest C-statistic and was far superior to BRCAPRO.The scoring system is useful in identifying mutations particularly in BRCA2. The algorithm may need modifying to include pathological data when calculating whether to screen for BRCA1 mutations. It is considerably less time-consuming for clinicians than using computer models and if implemented routinely in clinical practice will aid in selecting families most suitable for DNA sampling for diagnostic testing.

A family history of breast cancer has long been recognised as a significant risk factor for breast cancer. Quantifying that risk has been approached in publications and practically in a number of different ways. Increasingly regional genetics departments are called upon to help clarify guidelines for referral of women with a family history of breast cancer for genetic testing and to clarify breast cancer risk for women seeking early mammographic screening. This paper represents the current consensus guidelines from the UK Cancer Family Study Group and discusses some of the difficulties surrounding genetic risk estimation.

Nine new causative mutations and seven previously characterised mutations of the APC gene of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) were analysed for any genotype-phenotype correlations. The only clear genotype-phenotype correlation found was between the position of the mutation site and the presence or absence of congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium (CHRPE). A more distal mutation site was associated with an earlier age of onset of symptoms and a larger number of colonic polyps, but a notable amount of intrafamilial variation was observed.

Risks for breast cancer when there is a family history of the disease are usually calculated using data from segregation analyses which favour a single dominant gene with high penetrance. There are, however, at least three loci known to be associated with familial breast cancer (p53, BRCA1, and an as yet unpublished locus) and the frequencies and penetrances of these genes are not likely to be the same. We have attempted to address the problem of which genetic parameters should be used to calculate risks for different patterns of familial breast cancer. Data from 384 nuclear families ascertained through a proband selected for early onset breast cancer were subjected to complex segregation analysis, correcting for ascertainment bias resulting from selection for severe phenotype. Age of onset of breast cancer, incorporated as severity, provides additional information to the segregation model over and above that given by assigning liability classes on the basis of age at observation. The use of this additional parameter in the analysis is described. There is fair agreement between estimates from this sample and previous predictions from consecutive probands and consultands. The differences suggest more than one rare dominant gene for susceptibility to breast cancer, with different penetrances. Although refinements of segregation analysis will help to delineate these different genes, perfect resolution will require identification of the mutant alleles. Methods to estimate genetic parameters under genotype specific mortality need to be developed. Meanwhile, we suggest that high and low estimates of penetrance be used in risk estimation for genetic counselling, and as a guide to candidates for entry into clinical trials of screening and chemoprevention in breast cancer.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a term that reflects lack of immunostaining for oestrogen, progesterone, and HER2 receptors. It is a relatively uncommon subgroup of breast cancers, accounting for approximately 15% of all types, and overlaps substantially with basal tumours (defined by gene expression pattern) that are the predominant tumour that develops in BRCA1 mutation carriers.1 TNBCs usually have a worse prognosis and no clear options for receptor targeted treatment.2 The recent development of drugs that target the homologous recombination repair deficiency typical of BRCA-null cancer cells has led to an increased referral of women who have developed TNBC to genetic services for (rapid) genetic testing.3 We have tested 63 isolated cases of TNBC

Background Women with a germline mutation in one of the MMR genes MLH1 , MSH2 or MSH6 reportedly have 4–12% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer, but there is limited knowledge on survival. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) has been suggested for preventing this condition. Aim The purpose of this retrospective multicentre study was to describe survival in carriers of pathogenic mutations in one of the MMR genes, and who had contracted ovarian cancer. Methods Women who had ovarian cancer, and who tested positive for or were obligate carriers of an MMR mutation, were included from 11 European centres for hereditary cancer. Most women had not attended for gynaecological screening. Crude and disease specific survival was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier algorithm. Results Among the 144 women included, 81.5% had FIGO stage 1 or 2 at diagnosis. 10 year ovarian cancer specific survival independent of staging was 80.6%, compared to less than 40% that is reported both in population based series and in BRCA mutation carriers. Disease specific 30 year survival for ovarian cancer was 71.5%, and for all hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC)/Lynch syndrome related cancers including ovarian cancer it was 47.3%. Conclusions In the series examined, infiltrating ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome had a better prognosis than infiltrating ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or in the general population. Lifetime risk of ovarian cancer of about 10% and a risk of dying of ovarian cancer of 20% gave a lifetime risk of dying of ovarian cancer of about 2% in female MMR mutation carriers.

A recent report estimated the breast cancer risks in carriers of the three Ashkenazi founder mutations to be higher than previously published estimates derived from population based studies. In an attempt to confirm this, the breast and ovarian cancer risks associated with the three Ashkenazi founder mutations were estimated using families included in a previous meta-analysis of populatrion based studies. The estimated breast cancer risks for each of the founder BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were similar to the corresponding estimates based on all BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in the meta-analysis. These estimates appear to be consistent with the observed prevalence of the mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.