Search

Background: Despite advances in next generation DNA sequencing (NGS), NGS-based single gene tests for diagnostic purposes require improvements in terms of completeness, quality, speed, and cost. Single-molecule molecular inversion probes (smMIPs) are a technology with unrealized potential in the area of clinical genetic testing. In this proof-of-concept study, we selected 2 frequently requested gene tests, those for the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and developed an automated work flow based on smMIPs., Methods: The BRCA1 and BRCA2 smMIPs were validated using 166 human genomic DNA samples with known variant status. A generic automated work flow was built to perform smMIP-based enrichment and sequencing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and the checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) c.1100del variant., Results: Pathogenic and benign variants were analyzed in a subset of 152 previously BRCA-genotyped samples, yielding an analytical sensitivity and specificity of 100%. Following automation, blind analysis of 65 in-house samples and 267 Norwegian samples correctly identified all true-positive variants (>3000), with no false positives. Consequent to process optimization, turnaround times were reduced by 60% to currently 10-15 days. Copy number variants were detected with an analytical sensitivity of 100% and an analytical specificity of 88%., Conclusions: smMIP-based genetic testing enables automated and reliable analysis of the coding sequences of BRCA1 and BRCA2. The use of single-molecule tags, double-tiled targeted enrichment, and capturing and sequencing in duplo, in combination with automated library preparation and data analysis, results in a robust process and reduces routine turnaround times. Furthermore, smMIP-based copy number variation analysis could make independent copy number variation tools like multiplex ligation-dependent probes amplification dispensable., (© 2016 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.)

BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7 × 10(-8), HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4 × 10(-8), HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4 × 10(-8), HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific association. The 17q21.31 locus was also associated with ovarian cancer risk in 8,211 BRCA2 carriers (P = 2×10(-4)). These loci may lead to an improved understanding of the etiology of breast and ovarian tumors in BRCA1 carriers. Based on the joint distribution of the known BRCA1 breast cancer risk-modifying loci, we estimated that the breast cancer lifetime risks for the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk are 28%-50% compared to 81%-100% for the 5% at highest risk. Similarly, based on the known ovarian cancer risk-modifying loci, the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk have an estimated lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 28% or lower, whereas the 5% at highest risk will have a risk of 63% or higher. Such differences in risk may have important implications for risk prediction and clinical management for BRCA1 carriers., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Current practice for patients with breast cancer referred for genetic counseling, includes face-to-face consultations with a genetic counselor prior to and following DNA-testing. This is based on guidelines regarding Huntington's disease in anticipation of high psychosocial impact of DNA-testing for mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. The initial consultation covers generic information regarding hereditary breast cancer and the (im)possibilities of DNA-testing, prior to such testing. Patients with breast cancer may see this information as irrelevant or unnecessary because individual genetic advice depends on DNA-test results. Also, verbal information is not always remembered well by patients. A different format for this information prior to DNA-testing is possible: replacing initial face-to-face genetic counseling (DNA-intake procedure) by telephone, written and digital information sent to patients' homes (DNA-direct procedure)., Methods/design: In this intervention study, 150 patients with breast cancer referred to the department of Clinical Genetics of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre are given the choice between two procedures, DNA-direct (intervention group) or DNA-intake (usual care, control group). During a triage telephone call, patients are excluded if they have problems with Dutch text, family communication, or of psychological or psychiatric nature. Primary outcome measures are satisfaction and psychological distress. Secondary outcome measures are determinants for the participant's choice of procedure, waiting and processing times, and family characteristics. Data are collected by self-report questionnaires at baseline and following completion of genetic counseling. A minority of participants will receive an invitation for a 30 min semi-structured telephone interview, e.g. confirmed carriers of a BRCA1/2 mutation, and those who report problems with the procedure., Discussion: This study compares current practice of an intake consultation (DNA-intake) to a home informational package of telephone, written and digital information (DNA-direct) prior to DNA-testing in patients with breast cancer. The aim is to determine whether DNA-direct is an acceptable procedure for BRCA1/2 testing, in order to provide customized care to patients with breast cancer, cutting down on the period of uncertainty during this diagnostic process.

Introduction: Several common alleles have been shown to be associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Recent genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified eight additional breast cancer susceptibility loci: rs1011970 (9p21, CDKN2A/B), rs10995190 (ZNF365), rs704010 (ZMIZ1), rs2380205 (10p15), rs614367 (11q13), rs1292011 (12q24), rs10771399 (12p11 near PTHLH) and rs865686 (9q31.2)., Methods: To evaluate whether these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers and analysed the associations with breast cancer risk within a retrospective likelihood framework., Results: Only SNP rs10771399 near PTHLH was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.94, P-trend = 3 × 10-4). The association was restricted to mutations proven or predicted to lead to absence of protein expression (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 3.1 × 10-5, P-difference = 0.03). Four SNPs were associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers: rs10995190, P-trend = 0.015; rs1011970, P-trend = 0.048; rs865686, 2df-P = 0.007; rs1292011 2df-P = 0.03. rs10771399 (PTHLH) was predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 4 × 10-5) and there was marginal evidence of association with ER-negative breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.00, P-trend = 0.049)., Conclusions: The present findings, in combination with previously identified modifiers of risk, will ultimately lead to more accurate risk prediction and an improved understanding of the disease etiology in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Recently, a locus on chromosome 6q22.33 (rs2180341) was reported to be associated with increased breast cancer risk in the Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population, and this association was also observed in populations of non-AJ European ancestry. In the present study, we performed a large replication analysis of rs2180341 using data from 31,428 invasive breast cancer cases and 34,700 controls collected from 25 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). In addition, we evaluated whether rs2180341 modifies breast cancer risk in 3,361 BRCA1 and 2,020 BRCA2 carriers from 11 centers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Based on the BCAC data from women of European ancestry, we found evidence for a weak association with breast cancer risk for rs2180341 (per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, p = 0.023). There was evidence for heterogeneity in the ORs among studies (I(2) = 49.3%; p = <0.004). In CIMBA, we observed an inverse association with the minor allele of rs2180341 and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele OR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.80-1.00, p = 0.048), indicating a potential protective effect of this allele. These data suggest that that 6q22.33 confers a weak effect on breast cancer risk.

Differentiated mammary epithelium shows apicobasal polarity, and loss of tissue organization is an early hallmark of breast carcinogenesis. In BRCA1 mutation carriers, accumulation of stem and progenitor cells in normal breast tissue and increased risk of developing tumors of basal-like type suggest that BRCA1 regulates stem/progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation. However, the function of BRCA1 in this process and its link to carcinogenesis remain unknown. Here we depict a molecular mechanism involving BRCA1 and RHAMM that regulates apicobasal polarity and, when perturbed, may increase risk of breast cancer. Starting from complementary genetic analyses across families and populations, we identified common genetic variation at the low-penetrance susceptibility HMMR locus (encoding for RHAMM) that modifies breast cancer risk among BRCA1, but probably not BRCA2, mutation carriers: n = 7,584, weighted hazard ratio ((w)HR) = 1.09 (95% CI 1.02-1.16), p(trend) = 0.017; and n = 3,965, (w)HR = 1.04 (95% CI 0.94-1.16), p(trend) = 0.43; respectively. Subsequently, studies of MCF10A apicobasal polarization revealed a central role for BRCA1 and RHAMM, together with AURKA and TPX2, in essential reorganization of microtubules. Mechanistically, reorganization is facilitated by BRCA1 and impaired by AURKA, which is regulated by negative feedback involving RHAMM and TPX2. Taken together, our data provide fundamental insight into apicobasal polarization through BRCA1 function, which may explain the expanded cell subsets and characteristic tumor type accompanying BRCA1 mutation, while also linking this process to sporadic breast cancer through perturbation of HMMR/RHAMM., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Indirect alternatives to sequencing as a method for mutation scanning are of interest to diagnostic laboratories because they have the potential for considerable savings in both time and costs. Ideally, such methods should be simple, rapid, and highly sensitive, and they should be validated formally to a very high standard. Currently, most reported methods lack one or more of these characteristics. We describe the optimization and validation of conformation-sensitive capillary electrophoresis (CSCE) for diagnostic mutation scanning., Methods: We initially optimized the performance of CSCE with a systematic panel of plasmid-based controls. We then compared manual analysis by visual inspection with automated analysis by BioNumerics software (Applied Maths) in a blinded interlaboratory validation with 402 BRCA1 (breast cancer 1, early onset) and BRCA2 (breast cancer 1, early onset) variants previously characterized by Sanger sequencing., Results: With automated analysis, we demonstrated a sensitivity of >99% (95% CI), which is indistinguishable from the sensitivity for conventional sequencing by capillary electrophoresis. The 95% CI for specificity was 90%-93%; thus, CSCE greatly reduces the number of fragments that need to be sequenced to fully characterize variants. By manual analysis, the 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity were 98.3%-99.4% and 93.1%-95.5%, respectively., Conclusions: CSCE is amenable to a high degree of automation, and analyses can be multiplexed to increase both capacity and throughput. We conclude that once it is optimized, CSCE combined with analysis with BioNumerics software is a highly sensitive and cost-effective mutation-scanning technique suitable for routine genetic diagnostic analysis of heterozygous nucleotide substitutions, small insertions, and deletions.

Genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are associated with increased breast cancer risks in the general population. In a previous study, we demonstrated that the minor alleles at three of these SNPs, in FGFR2, TNRC9 and MAP3K1, also confer increased risks of breast cancer for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Three additional SNPs rs3817198 at LSP1, rs13387042 at 2q35 and rs13281615 at 8q24 have since been reported to be associated with breast cancer in the general population, and in this study we evaluated their association with breast cancer risk in 9442 BRCA1 and 5665 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 33 study centres. The minor allele of rs3817198 was associated with increased breast cancer risk only for BRCA2 mutation carriers [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.07-1.25, P-trend = 2.8 x 10(-4)]. The best fit for the association of SNP rs13387042 at 2q35 with breast cancer risk was a dominant model for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA1: HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04-1.25, P = 0.0047; BRCA2: HR = 1.18 95% CI: 1.04-1.33, P = 0.0079). SNP rs13281615 at 8q24 was not associated with breast cancer for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, but the estimated association for BRCA2 mutation carriers (per-allele HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.98-1.14) was consistent with odds ratio estimates derived from population-based case-control studies. The LSP1 and 2q35 SNPs appear to interact multiplicatively on breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was no evidence that the associations vary by mutation type depending on whether the mutated protein is predicted to be stable or not.

Background: While new defects in BRCA1 are still being found, it is unclear whether current breast cancer diagnostics misses many BRCA1-associated cases. A reliable test that is able to indicate the involvement of BRCA1 deficiency in cancer genesis could support decision making in genetic counselling and clinical management. To find BRCA1-specific markers and explore the effectiveness of the current diagnostic strategy, we designed a classification method, validated it and examined whether we could find BRCA1-like breast tumours in a group of patients initially diagnosed as non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers., Methods: A classifier was built based on array-CGH profiles of 18 BRCA1-related and 32 control breast tumours, and validated on independent sets of 16 BRCA1-related and 16 control breast carcinomas. Subsequently, we applied the classifier to 48 breast tumours of patients from Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) families in whom no germ line BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations were identified., Results: The classifier showed an accuracy of 91% when applied to the validation sets. In 48 non-BRCA1/2 patients, only two breast tumours presented a BRCA1-like CGH profile. Additional evidence for BRCA1 dysfunction was found in one of these tumours., Conclusion: We here describe the specific chromosomal aberrations in BRCA1-related breast carcinomas. We developed a predictive genetic test for BRCA1-association and show that BRCA1-related tumours can still be identified in HBOC families after routine DNA diagnostics.

To establish an efficient, reliable and easy to apply risk assessment tool to select families with breast and/or ovarian cancer patients for BRCA mutation testing, using available probability models. In a retrospective study of 263 families with breast and/or ovarian cancer patients, the utility of the Frank (Myriad), Gilpin (family history assessment tool) and Evans (Manchester) model was analysed, to select 49 BRCA mutation-positive families. For various cutoff levels and combinations, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared. The best combinations were subsequently validated in additional sets of families. Comparable sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the Gilpin and Evans models. They appeared to be complementary to the Frank model. To obtain an optimal sensitivity, five 'additional criteria' were introduced that are specific for the selection of small or uninformative families. The optimal selection is made by the combination 'Frank >or=16% or Evans2 >or=12 or one of five additional criteria'. The efficiency of the selection of families for mutation testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be optimised by using a combination of available easy to apply risk assessment models.

To date, more than 300 distinct small deletions, insertions and point mutations, mostly leading to premature termination of translation, have been reported in the breast/ovarian-cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. The elevated frequencies of some mutations in certain ethnic subpopulations are caused by founder effects, rather than by mutation hotspots. Here we report that the currently available mutation spectrum of BRCA1 has been biased by PCR-based mutation-screening methods, such as SSCP, the protein truncation test (PTT) and direct sequencing, using genomic DNA as template. Three large genomic deletions that are not detected by these approaches comprise 36% of all BRCA1 mutations found in Dutch breast-cancer families to date. A 510-bp Alu-mediated deletion comprising exon 22 was found in 8 of 170 breast-cancer families recruited for research purposes and in 6 of 49 probands referred to the Amsterdam Family Cancer Clinic for genetic counselling. In addition, a 3,835-bp Alu-mediated deletion encompassing exon 13 was detected in 4 of 170 research families, while an deletion of approximately 14 kb was detected in a single family [corrected]. Haplotype analyses indicated that each recurrent deletion had a single common ancestor.