Identification of germline pathogenic variants in DNA damage repair genes by a next-generation sequencing multigene panel in BRCAX patients

Opportunistic genetic screening increases the diagnostic yield and is medically valuable for care of patients and their relatives with hereditary cancer

BACKGROUND

Multigene panel testing by next-generation sequencing (MGP-NGS) enables the detection of germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in genes beyond those associated with a certain cancer phenotype. Opportunistic genetic screening based on MGP-NGS in patients with suspicion of hereditary cancer reveals these incidental findings (IFs).

METHODS

MGP-NGS was performed in patients who fulfilled the clinical criteria to undergo genetic testing according to the Catalan Health Service guidelines. Variants were classified following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines and the Cancer Variant Interpretation Group UK guidelines.

RESULTS

IFs were identified in 10 (1.22%) of the 817 patients who underwent MGP-NGS. The mean age at cancer diagnosis was 49.4±9.5 years. Three IFs (30.0%) were detected in PMS2, two (20.0%) in ATM and TP53 and one (10.0%) in MSH6, NTHL1 and VHL. Seven (70.0%) IFs were single-nucleotide substitutions, two (20.0%) were deletions and one (10.0%) was a duplication. Three (30.0) IFs were located in intronic regions, three (30.3%) were nonsense, two (20.0%) were frameshift and two (20.0%) were missense variations. Six (60.0%) IFs were classified as PVs and four (40.0%) as LPVs.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunistic genetic screening increased the diagnostic yield by 1.22% in our cohort. Most of the identified IFs were present in clinically actionable genes (n=7; 70.0%), providing these families with an opportunity to join cancer early detection programmes, as well as secondary cancer prevention. IFs might facilitate the diagnosis of asymptomatic individuals and the early management of cancer once it develops.

Identification of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer germline variants in Granada (Spain): NGS perspective

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of germline variants in cancer-predisposing genes by either targeted (BRCA1/2) or multigene NGS panel in a high-risk Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) cohort. Samples from 824 Caucasian probands were retrospectively collected and the impact of genetic diagnosis and genetic variants epidemiology in this cohort was evaluated. Performance of risk-reducing prophylactic measures, such as prophylactic mastectomy and/or prophylactic oophorectomy, was assessed through clinical follow-up of patients with a positive genetic result. Pathogenic variants predisposing to HBOC were identified in 11.9% (98/824) individuals at BRCA2 (47/98), BRCA1 (24/98), PALB2 (8/51), ATM (7/51), CHEK2 (6/51) MSH6, (2/51), RAD51C (2/51) and TP53 (2/386). Of them, 11 novel pathogenic variants and 12 VUS were identified, characterized, and submitted to ClinVar. Regarding clinical impact, the risk of developing basal or Her2 breast cancer was increased 15.7 times or 37.5 times for BRCA1 and MSH6 pathogenic variants respectively. On the contrary, the risk of developing basal or luminal A breast cancer was reduced to 81% or 77% for BRCA2 and BRCA1 pathogenic variants, respectively. Finally, 53.2% of individuals testing positive for class IV/V variants underwent prophylactic surgery (mastectomy, oophorectomy or both) being significantly younger at the cancer diagnosis than those undertaking prophylactic measures (p = 0.008). Of them, 8 carried a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in other genes different from BRCA1 and BRCA2, and the remaining (46.7%) decided to continue with clinical follow-up. No differences in pathogenicity or risk of developing cancer were found for BRCA1/2 between targeted and multigene sequencing strategies; however, NGS was able to resolve a greater proportion of high-risk patients.

Implementation of a molecular tumour board in LATAM: the impact on treatment decisions for patients evaluated at Instituto Alexander Fleming, Argentina

BACKGROUND

The role of the molecular tumour board (MTB) is to recommend personalised therapy for patients with cancer beyond standard-of-care treatment. A comprehensive molecular analysis of the tumour in a molecular pathology laboratory is important for all targeted therapies approaches. Here we report the 1-year experience of the Instituto Alexander Fleming Molecular Tumour Board.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The MTB of the Instituto Alexander Fleming was launched in December 2019 in a monthly meeting. In each interactive monthly session, five cases were presented and discussed by the members. These cases were referred by the treating oncologists. The MTB recommendations were sent to each physician individually, and to the rest of the meeting participants. This was discussed with the patients/families by the treating oncologist. The final decision to choose therapy was left to the treating physicians. Of the 32 patients presented at MTB, 28 (87.5%) had potentially actionable alterations and only 4 (12.5%) had no actionable mutation. Six (19%) patients received a local regulatory agency approved drug recommendation, nine (28%) patients received an off-label approval treatment recommendation and three (9%) patients did not receive the treatment due to access and reimbursement of the drug.

CONCLUSION

In most of the cases evaluated, the MTB was able to provide treatment recommendations based on targetable genetic alterations. Molecular-guided extended personalised patient care is effective for a small but clinically significant proportion of patients in challenging clinical situations. We believe that the implementation of a MTB is feasible in the Latin America (LATAM) region.

Genetic Variation and the Role of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer: A Single-Institution Experience

Background

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women. There are multiple pathogenic mutations in addition to BRCA1/2 that are implicated in causing hereditary breast cancer.

Methods and results

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 1568 patients with breast cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. The age range is 23-87. Among the study population, 26% had genetic testing and 8% of those were found to carry a pathogenic variant, as designated in NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) Guidelines. Of that 8%, 3.4% were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and the rest were other prevalent pathogenic variants.

Discussion

Expanded panel testing has the potential to increase the detection rate of pathogenic variants compared to testing for BRCA1/2 alone. Diagnostic accuracy of genetic causes of breast cancer has a significant clinical impact on patients and their families in terms of targeted treatment and prevention strategies. There is a strong need for further understanding of genetic patterns and variations in hereditary breast cancer. Awareness of the possibility of moderate to low penetrance genes and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) is important to assist with appropriate genetic counseling. We believe that physicians should consider re-testing with an expanded panel if patients previously had BRCA1 and BRCA2 testings only with a negative result as it may identify additional mutations.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway

Studies have shown that a significant number of eligible breast cancer patients are not offered genetic testing or referral to genetic counseling. To increase access to genetic testing in South Eastern Norway, testing has since 2014 been offered directly to breast cancer patients by surgeons and oncologists. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients in South Eastern Norway are offered testing. Three hundred and sixty one patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 at one regional and one university hospital in South Eastern Norway were included. Data on whether the patients fulfilled the criteria, whether they had been offered testing and if they were tested were collected. In total, 26.6% (96/361) fulfilled the criteria for testing. Seventy five percent (69/92) of these were offered testing, and 71.7% (66/92) were tested. At the university hospital, 90.2% (37/41) of eligible patients were offered testing, and at the regional hospital 62.7% (32/51). Fifty two percent (12/23) of eligible patient not offered testing were younger than 50 years at time of diagnosis. As many as 95.4% (125/131) of all patients who were offered testing, wanted to be tested. The majority of patients who fulfilled the criteria were offered testing, supporting the practice of mainstreamed genetic testing. There were nevertheless differences in rates of testing between the hospitals that affected all groups of patients, indicating that genetic testing may not be equally accessible to all patients. We suggest that efforts should be made to increase awareness and improve routines for genetic testing of breast cancer patients in Norway.

Literature Review of BARD1 as a Cancer Predisposing Gene with a Focus on Breast and Ovarian Cancers

Soon after the discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2 over 20 years ago, it became apparent that not all hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndrome families were explained by germline variants in these cancer predisposing genes, suggesting that other such genes have yet to be discovered. BRCA1-associated ring domain (BARD1), a direct interacting partner of BRCA1, was one of the earliest candidates investigated. Sequencing analyses revealed that potentially pathogenic BARD1 variants likely conferred a low-moderate risk to hereditary breast cancer, but this association is inconsistent. Here, we review studies of BARD1 as a cancer predisposing gene and illustrate the challenge of discovering additional cancer risk genes for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. We selected peer reviewed research articles that focused on three themes: (i) sequence analyses of BARD1 to identify potentially pathogenic germline variants in adult hereditary cancer syndromes; (ii) biological assays of BARD1 variants to assess their effect on protein function; and (iii) association studies of BARD1 variants in family-based and case-control study groups to assess cancer risk. In conclusion, BARD1 is likely to be a low-moderate penetrance breast cancer risk gene.

Summary of BARD1 Mutations and Precise Estimation of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risks Associated with the Mutations

Over the last two decades, numerous BARD1 mutations/pathogenic variants (PVs) have been found in patients with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). However, their role in BC and OC susceptibility remains controversial, and strong evidence-based guidelines for carriers are not yet available. Herein, we present a comprehensive catalog of BARD1 PVs identified in large cumulative cohorts of ~48,700 BC and ~20,800 OC cases (retrieved from 123 studies examining the whole coding sequence of BARD1). Using these resources, we compared the frequency of BARD1 PVs in the cases and ~134,100 controls from the gnomAD database and estimated the effect of the BARD1 PVs on BC and OC risks. The analysis revealed that BARD1 is a BC moderate-risk gene (odds ratio (OR) = 2.90, 95% CIs:2.25–3.75, p < 0.0001) but not an OC risk gene (OR = 1.36, 95% CIs:0.87–2.11, p = 0.1733). In addition, the BARD1 mutational spectrum outlined in this study allowed us to determine recurrent PVs and evaluate the variant-specific risk for the most frequent PVs. In conclusion, these precise estimates improve the understanding of the role of BARD1 PVs in BC and OC predisposition and support the need for BARD1 diagnostic testing in BC patients.

Application Areas of Traditional Molecular Genetic Methods and NGS in relation to Hereditary Urological Cancer Diagnosis

Next generation sequencing (NGS) is widely used for diagnosing hereditary cancer syndromes. Often, exome sequencing and extended gene panel approaches are the only means that can be used to detect a pathogenic germline mutation in the case of multiple primary tumors, early onset, a family history of cancer, or a lack of specific signs associated with a particular syndrome. Certain germline mutations of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes that determine specific clinical phenotypes may occur in mutation hot spots. Diagnosis of such cases, which involve hereditary cancer, does not require NGS, but may be made using PCR and Sanger sequencing. Diagnostic criteria and professional community guidelines developed for hereditary cancers of particular organs should be followed when ordering molecular diagnostic tests for a patient. This review focuses on urological oncology associated with germline mutations. Clinical signs and genetic diagnostic laboratory tests for hereditary forms of renal cell cancer, prostate cancer, and bladder cancer are summarized. While exome sequencing, or, conversely, traditional molecular genetic methods are the procedure of choice in some cases, in most situations, sequencing of multigene panels that are specifically aimed at detecting germline mutations in early onset renal cancer, prostate cancer, and bladder cancer seems to be the basic solution for molecular genetic diagnosis of hereditary cancers.

New germline mutations in non-BRCA genes among breast cancer women of Mongoloid origin

In accordance with the Asian BRCA Consortium data, there is a significant difference in incidence rate of breast cancer depending on age, as well as spectrum and prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations between Mongoloid (East Asian) and Caucasoid (European) people. However, European strategies to identify familial BC are still applied to the Asian population, including Russian Mongoloids (Khakas, Buryats, Tyvans and Yakuts and others). The main purpose of the study was to identify molecular changes associated with hereditary BC in Russian Mongoloid BC patients (Buryats). Thirty-nine patients were included in the study. Genomic DNA extracted from lymphocytes was used to prepare DNA-libraries. Target sequencing was designed to cover 27 genes, such as ATM, APC, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2 and others. Paired-end sequencing (2 × 150 bp) was conducted on a NextSeq 500 system (Illumina, USA). Three pathogenic mutations in non-BRCA genes were found (prevalence of 8%). The pathogenic mutations were found in the RAD51D and PTEN genes. The pathogenic variant in the RAD51D gene (rs137886232, NC_000017.10:g.33428366G>A, p.R141X) was observed in two unrelated individuals aged under 40. One of these patients had a family history of late-onset stomach cancer in second-degree relatives. The pathogenic mutation in the PTEN gene (rs786201044, NC_000010.10:g.89692922T>C, p.C136R) was observed in a 38 years old breast cancer patient with no family history. In our study, we first describe pathogenic mutations in RAD51D and PTEN genes found in young Buryat patients.