Search

The traditional model of providing cancer predictive testing services is changing. Many genetic centres are now offering a choice to patients in how they receive their results instead of the typical face-to-face disclosure. In view of this shift in practice and the increasing demand on the ROI cancer predictive testing service, a 2 year retrospective study on patient preference in how to receive a Breast Cancer (BRCA) predictive result was carried out. Results showed that 71.7 % of respondents would have liked to have the option of obtaining their results by telephone or by letter. However, when asked about their actual experience of BRCA predictive results disclosure 40.6 % did still value the face-to-face contact, while 44.9 % would still have preferred to receive results by either post or telephone. No significant difference was found between males and females (p > 0.05) and those who tested negative or positive for the BRCA mutation (p > 0.05) in wanting a choice in how their results were disclosed. While the majority expressed a wish to have a choice in how to receive their results, it is important not to underestimate the value of a face-to-face encounter in these circumstances.

The identification of the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 enhanced clinicians' ability to select high-risk individuals for aggressive surveillance and prevention, and led to the development of targeted therapies. However, BRCA1/2 mutations account for only 25% of familial breast cancer cases. To systematically identify rare, probably pathogenic variants in familial cases of breast cancer without BRCA1/2 mutations, we developed a list of 312 genes, and performed targeted DNA enrichment coupled to multiplex next-generation sequencing on 104 'BRCAx' patients and 101 geographically matched controls in Ireland. As expected, this strategy allowed us to identify mutations in several well-known high-susceptibility and moderate-susceptibility genes, including ATM (~ 5%), RAD50 (~ 3%), CHEK2 (~ 2%), TP53 (~ 1%), PALB2 (~ 1%), and MRE11A (~ 1%). However, we also identified novel pathogenic variants in 30 other genes, which, when taken together, potentially explain the etiology of the missing heritability in up to 35% of BRCAx patients. These included novel potential pathogenic mutations in MAP3K1, CASP8, RAD51B, ZNF217, CDKN2B-AS1, and ERBB2, including a splice site mutation, which we predict would generate a constitutively active HER2 protein. Taken together, this work extends our understanding of the genetics of familial breast cancer, and supports the need to implement hereditary multigene panel testing to more appropriately orientate clinical management.

Aims Women with inherited pathogenic mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have up to an 85% risk of developing breast cancer in their lifetime. However, only about 20% of familial breast cancer is attributed to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, while a further 5–10% are attributed to mutations in other rare susceptibility genes such as TP53, STK11, PTEN, ATM and CHEK2. Despite extensive efforts to explain the missing heritability of this disease, the majority of familial clustering in breast cancer remains largely unexplained. We aim to analyze the pathology of familial cases of which no pathogenic mutation is yet identified. Methods We compared the pathological phenotype of BRCA1/BRCA2 negative familial breast cancer (BRCAx) to BRCA1-positive, BRCA2-positive and sporadic cases without a family history. Age-adjusted analysis is summarized in odd's ratios and confidence intervals for tumor type, grade, lymph node, ER and HER2 status. Results We found non-familial cases to be more likely to be ER positive ( P = 0.041) as compared with BRCAx tumors. More cases of lobular carcinoma were found with BRCAx as compared to BRCA1 tumors ( P = 0.05). After multivariate logistic regression analysis, BRCAx tumors are more likely ER positive ( P = 0.001) and HER2 positive ( P = 0.047) in comparison to BRCA1. Conversely, BRCAx cases are less likely to be ER positive ( P = 0.02) but more likely to be HER2 positive ( P = 0.021) as compared with BRCA2 tumors. Conclusion Our findings suggest that BRCA1, BRCA2 and BRCAx tumors differ in phenotype from non-familial and familial BRCA1-positive and BRCA2-positive tumors. Further studies will need to be performed in this important population in order to develop strategies for early detection and prevention.

Genetic testing of an Irish kindred identified an exonic nucleotide substitution c.1664T>C (p.Leu555Pro) in the MLH1 mismatch repair (MMR) gene. This previously unreported variant is classified as a “variant of uncertain significance” (VUS). Immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis and microsatellite instability (MSI) studies, genetic testing, a literature and online MMR mutation database review, in silico phenotype prediction tools, and an in vitro MMR activity assay were used to study the clinical significance of this variant. The MLH1 c.1664T>C (p.Leu555Pro) VUS co-segregated with three cases of classic Lynch syndrome-associated malignancies over two generations, with consistent loss of MLH1 and PMS2 protein expression on IHC, and evidence of the MSI-High mutator phenotype. The leucine at position 555 is well conserved across a number of species, and this novel variant has not been reported as a normal polymorphism in the general population. In silico and in vitro analyses suggest that this variant may have a deleterious effect on the MLH1 protein and abrogate MMR activity. Evidence from clinical, histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic data suggests that MLH1 c.1664T>C (p.Leu555Pro) is likely to be the pathogenic cause of Lynch syndrome in this family.