Evaluating the performance of the breast cancer genetic risk models BOADICEA, IBIS, BRCAPRO and Claus for predictingBRCA1/2mutation carrier probabilities: a study based on 7352 families from the German Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Consortium

BRCA awareness and testing experience in the UK Jewish population: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

1 in 40 UK Jewish individuals carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2. Traditional testing criteria miss half of carriers, and so population genetic testing is being piloted for Jewish people in England. There has been no qualitative research into the factors influencing BRCA awareness and testing experience in this group. This study aimed to explore these and inform improvements for the implementation of population genetic testing.

METHODS

Qualitative study of UK Jewish adults who have undergone BRCA testing. We conducted one-to-one semistructured interviews via telephone or video call using a predefined topic guide, until sufficient information power was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using applied thematic analysis.

RESULTS

32 individuals were interviewed (28 carriers, 4 non-carriers). We interpreted five themes intersecting across six time points of the testing pathway: (1) individual differences regarding personal/family history of cancer, demographics and personal attitudes/approach; (2) healthcare professionals' support; (3) pathway access and integration; (4) nature of family/partner relationships; and (5) Jewish community factors. Testing was largely triggered by connecting information to a personal/family history of cancer. No participants reported decision regret, although there was huge variation in satisfaction. Suggestions were given around increasing UK Jewish community awareness, making information and support services personally relevant and proactive case management of carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to improve UK Jewish community BRCA awareness and to highlight personal relevance of testing for individuals without a personal/family history of cancer. Traditional testing criteria caused multiple issues regarding test access and experience. Carriers want information and support services tailored to their individual circumstances.

Gender-Specific Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer: BRCA Genes and Beyond

Among neoplastic diseases, breast cancer (BC) is one of the most influenced by gender. Despite common misconceptions associating BC as a women-only disease, BC can also occur in men. Additionally, transgender individuals may also experience BC. Genetic risk factors play a relevant role in BC predisposition, with important implications in precision prevention and treatment. The genetic architecture of BC susceptibility is similar in women and men, with high-, moderate-, and low-penetrance risk variants; however, some sex-specific features have emerged. Inherited high-penetrance pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the strongest BC genetic risk factor. BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are more commonly associated with increased risk of female and male BC, respectively. Notably, BRCA-associated BCs are characterized by sex-specific pathologic features. Recently, next-generation sequencing technologies have helped to provide more insights on the role of moderate-penetrance BC risk variants, particularly in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM genes, while international collaborative genome-wide association studies have contributed evidence on common low-penetrance BC risk variants, on their combined effect in polygenic models, and on their role as risk modulators in BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Overall, all these studies suggested that the genetic basis of male BC, although similar, may differ from female BC. Evaluating the genetic component of male BC as a distinct entity from female BC is the first step to improve both personalized risk assessment and therapeutic choices of patients of both sexes in order to reach gender equality in BC care. In this review, we summarize the latest research in the field of BC genetic predisposition with a particular focus on similarities and differences in male and female BC, and we also discuss the implications, challenges, and open issues that surround the establishment of a gender-oriented clinical management for BC.

Validation of the BOADICEA model for predicting the likelihood of carrying pathogenic variants in eight breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes

BOADICEA is a comprehensive risk prediction model for breast and/or ovarian cancer (BC/OC) and for carrying pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer susceptibility genes. In addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2, BOADICEA version 6 includes PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D. To validate its predictions for these genes, we conducted a retrospective study including 2033 individuals counselled at clinical genetics departments in Denmark. All counselees underwent comprehensive genetic testing by next generation sequencing on suspicion of hereditary susceptibility to BC/OC. Likelihoods of PVs were predicted from information about diagnosis, family history and tumour pathology. Calibration was examined using the observed-to-expected ratio (O/E) and discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The O/E was 1.11 (95% CI 0.97-1.26) for all genes combined. At sub-categories of predicted likelihood, the model performed well with limited misestimation at the extremes of predicted likelihood. Discrimination was acceptable with an AUC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66-0.74), although discrimination was better for BRCA1 and BRCA2 than for the other genes in the model. This suggests that BOADICEA remains a valid decision-making aid for determining which individuals to offer comprehensive genetic testing for hereditary susceptibility to BC/OC despite suboptimal calibration for individual genes in this population.

Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on RAD51C, RAD51D, BARD1 updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence

BACKGROUND

BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors.

METHODS

BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous.

RESULTS

BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010.

CONCLUSIONS

These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options.

BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE)-A study protocol on personalised risk-based breast cancer screening programme

Routine mammography screening is currently the standard tool for finding cancers at an early stage, when treatment is most successful. Current breast screening programmes are one-size-fits-all which all women above a certain age threshold are encouraged to participate. However, breast cancer risk varies by individual. The BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) study aims to assess acceptability of a comprehensive risk-based personalised breast screening in Singapore. Advancing beyond the current age-based screening paradigm, BREATHE integrates both genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction tools to personalise screening recommendations. BREATHE is a cohort study targeting to recruit ~3,500 women. The first recruitment visit will include questionnaires and a buccal cheek swab. After receiving a tailored breast cancer risk report, participants will attend an in-person risk review, followed by a final session assessing the acceptability of our risk stratification programme. Risk prediction is based on: a) Gail model (non-genetic), b) mammographic density and recall, c) BOADICEA predictions (breast cancer predisposition genes), and d) breast cancer polygenic risk score. For national implementation of personalised risk-based breast screening, exploration of the acceptability within the target populace is critical, in addition to validated predication tools. To our knowledge, this is the first study to implement a comprehensive risk-based mammography screening programme in Asia. The BREATHE study will provide essential data for policy implementation which will transform the health system to deliver a better health and healthcare outcomes.

Association between CASC16 rs4784227 polymorphism and breast cancer susceptibility: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether rs4784227 polymorphism of CASC16 is correlated with risk of breast cancer.

METHODS

Relevant studies up to December 24, 2020 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WANFANG databases. Data were analyzed by using Stata 12.0. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and country-based subgroup analyses were conducted. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the stability of the results. Publication bias was assessed by using the Egger regression asymmetry test and visualization of funnel plots.

RESULTS

Seven case-control studies enrolling 4055 breast cancer cases and 4229 controls were included. rs4784227 was found significantly associated with increased risk of breast cancer in a dominant (OR = 1.301, 95% CI = 1.190-1.423, P < .001), a recessive (OR = 1.431, 95% CI = 1.216-1.685, P < .001), and an allele model (OR = 1.257, 95% CI = 1.172-1.348, P < .001), while an over-dominant model showed that rs4784227 was correlated with decreased breast cancer risk (OR = 0.852, 95% CI = 0.778-0.933, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The rs4784227 polymorphism of CASC16 gene is correlated with breast cancer susceptibility.

Prevalence and Spectrum of Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variants of Uncertain Significance in Breast/Ovarian Cancer: Mysterious Signals From the Genome

About 10–20% of breast/ovarian (BC/OC) cancer patients undergoing germline BRCA1/2 genetic testing have been shown to harbor Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUSs). Since little is known about the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 VUS in Southern Italy, our study aimed at describing the spectrum of these variants detected in BC/OC patients in order to improve the identification of potentially high-risk BRCA variants helpful in patient clinical management. Eight hundred and seventy-four BC or OC patients, enrolled from October 2016 to December 2020 at the “Sicilian Regional Center for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Rare and Heredo-Familial Tumors” of University Hospital Policlinico “P. Giaccone” of Palermo, were genetically tested for germline BRCA1/2 variants through Next-Generation Sequencing analysis. The mutational screening showed that 639 (73.1%) out of 874 patients were BRCA-w.t., whereas 67 (7.7%) were carriers of germline BRCA1/2 VUSs, and 168 (19.2%) harbored germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants. Our analysis revealed the presence of 59 different VUSs detected in 67 patients, 46 of which were affected by BC and 21 by OC. Twenty-one (35.6%) out of 59 variants were located on BRCA1 gene, whereas 38 (64.4%) on BRCA2. We detected six alterations in BRCA1 and two in BRCA2 with unclear interpretation of clinical significance. Familial anamnesis of a patient harboring the BRCA1-c.3367G>T suggests for this variant a potential of pathogenicity, therefore it should be carefully investigated. Understanding clinical significance of germline BRCA1/2 VUS could improve, in future, the identification of potentially high-risk variants useful for clinical management of BC or OC patients and family members.

Assessing Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Prediction Models

Accurate and individualized breast cancer risk assessment can be used to guide personalized screening and prevention recommendations. Existing risk prediction models use genetic and nongenetic risk factors to provide an estimate of a woman's breast cancer risk and/or the likelihood that she has a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Each model is best suited for specific clinical scenarios and may have limited applicability in certain types of patients. For example, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, which identifies women who would benefit from chemoprevention, is readily accessible and user-friendly but cannot be used in women under 35 years of age or those with prior breast cancer or lobular carcinoma in situ. Emerging research on deep learning-based artificial intelligence (AI) models suggests that mammographic images contain risk indicators that could be used to strengthen existing risk prediction models. This article reviews breast cancer risk factors, describes the appropriate use, strengths, and limitations of each risk prediction model, and discusses the emerging role of AI for risk assessment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Genetic Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Targeted genetic testing is a tool to identify women at increased risk of gynaecological cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates the results and quality of cost-effectiveness modeling studies that assessed targeted genetic-based screen-and-treat strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE and databases of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, we searched for health economic modeling evaluations of targeted genetic-based screen-and-treat strategies to prevent inheritable breast and ovarian cancer (until August 2020). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared. Methodological variations were addressed by evaluating the model conceptualizations, the modeling techniques, parameter estimation and uncertainty, and transparency and validation of the models. Additionally, the reporting quality of each study was assessed.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. From a payer perspective, the ICERs of (1) BRCA screening for high-risk women without cancer ranged from dominating the no test strategy to an ICER of $21 700/quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In studies that evaluated (2) BRCA cascade screening (ie, screening of women with cancer plus their unaffected relatives) compared with no test, the ICERs were between $6500/QALY and $50 200/QALY. Compared with BRCA alone, (3) multigene testing in women without cancer had an ICER of $51 800/QALY (one study), while for (4) multigene-cascade screening the ICERs were $15 600/QALY, $56.500/QALY, and $69 600/QALY for women in the United Kingdom, Norway, and the United States, respectively (2 studies). More recently published studies showed a higher methodological and reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted BRCA or multiple gene screening is likely to be cost-effective. Methodological variations could be decreased by the development of a reference model, which may serve as a tool for validation of present and future cost-effectiveness models.

The role of genomics in global cancer prevention

Despite improvements in the understanding of cancer causation, much remains unknown regarding the mechanisms by which genomic and non-genomic factors initiate carcinogenesis, drive cell invasion and metastasis, and enable cancer to develop. Technological advances have enabled the analysis of whole genomes, comprising thousands of tumours across populations worldwide, with the aim of identifying mutation signatures associated with particular tumour types. Large collaborative efforts have resulted in the identification and improved understanding of causal factors, and have shed light on new opportunities to prevent cancer. In this new era in cancer genomics, discoveries from studies conducted on an international scale can inform evidence-based strategies in cancer control along the cancer care continuum, from prevention to treatment. In this Review, we present the relevant history and emerging frontiers of cancer genetics and genomics from the perspective of global cancer prevention. We highlight the importance of local context in the adoption of new technologies and emergent evidence, with illustrative examples from worldwide. We emphasize the challenges in implementing important genomic findings in clinical settings with disparate resource availability and present a conceptual framework for the translation of such findings into clinical practice, and evidence-based policies in order to maximize the utility for a population.

Polygenic risk scores for genetic counseling in psychiatry: Lessons learned from other fields of medicine

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may aid in the identification of individuals at-risk for psychiatric disorders, treatment optimization, and increase in prognostic accuracy. PRS may also add significant value to genetic counseling. Thus far, integration of PRSs in genetic counseling sessions remains problematic because of uncertainties in risk prediction and other concerns. Here, we review the current utility of PRSs in the context of clinical psychiatry. By comprehensively appraising the literature in other fields of medicine including breast cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, and cardiovascular disease, we outline several lessons learned that could be applied to future studies and may thus benefit the incorporation of PRS in psychiatric genetic counseling. These include integrating PRS with environmental factors (e.g. lifestyle), setting up large-scale studies, and applying reproducible methods allowing for cross-validation between cohorts. We conclude that psychiatry may benefit from experiences in these fields. PRS may in future have a role in genetic counseling in clinical psychiatric practice, by advancing prevention strategies and treatment decision-making, thus promoting quality of life for (potentially) affected individuals.

Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Patients with Primary Ovarian Cancer - Does the German Checklist for Detecting the Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Adequately Depict the Need for Consultation?

BackgroundBRCA1/2 mutations are the leading cause of hereditary epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer has defined inclusion criteria, which are retrievable as a checklist and facilitate genetic counselling/testing for affected persons with a mutation probability of ≥ 10%. Our objective was to evaluate the prevalence of the BRCA1/2 mutation(s) based on the checklist score (CLS).

Methods A retrospective data analysis was performed on EOC patients with a primary diagnosis treated between 1/2011 – 5/2019 at the Central Essen Clinics, where a BRCA1/2 genetic analysis result and a CLS was available. Out of 545 cases with a BRCA1/2 result (cohort A), 453 cases additionally had an extended gene panel result (cohort B).

Results A BRCA1/2 mutation was identified in 23.3% (127/545) in cohort A, pathogenic mutations in non- BRCA1/2 genes were revealed in a further 6.2% in cohort B. In cohort A, 23.3% (127/545) of patients had a BRCA1 (n = 92) or BRCA2 (n = 35) mutation. Singular EOC (CLS 2) was present in 40.9%. The prevalence for a BRCA1/2 mutation in cohort A was 10.8%, 17.2%, 25.0%, 35.1%, 51.4% and 66.7% for patients with CLS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and ≥ 7 respectively. The mutation prevalence in cohort B was 15.9%, 16.4%, 28.2%, 40.4%, 44.8% and 62.5% for patients with CLS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and ≥ 7 respectively.

Conclusions The BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence in EOC patients positively correlates with a rising checklist score. Already with singular EOC, the prevalence of a BRCA1/2 mutation exceeds the required 10% threshold. Our data support the recommendation of the S3 guidelines Ovarian Cancer of offering genetic testing to all patients with EOC. Optimisation of the checklist with clear identification of the testing indication in this population should therefore be aimed for.

Genetic Testing and Surveillance of Young Breast Cancer Survivors and Blood Relatives: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Simple Summary

Identifying breast cancer patients with pathogenic mutations that run in their families may improve the follow-up care they receive and breast cancer screening of their close relatives. In this study we identified breast cancer patients with high chances of having a pathogenic mutation and their close female relatives. We developed and tested two different kinds of letters and booklets that presented either personalized or generic information about screening and breast cancer that runs in families, and we encouraged participants to seek genetic evaluation. We found that both types of letters worked equally well for breast cancer patients and for relatives, regardless of their racial background. The personalized letters had slightly better outcomes. Some breast cancer patients and their relatives used genetic services and improved their screening practices. Black patients and their relatives were more satisfied with the booklets than other participants.

Abstract

We compared a tailored and a targeted intervention designed to increase genetic testing, clinical breast exam (CBE), and mammography in young breast cancer survivors (YBCS) (diagnosed <45 years old) and their blood relatives. A two-arm cluster randomized trial recruited a random sample of YBCS from the Michigan cancer registry and up to two of their blood relatives. Participants were stratified according to race and randomly assigned as family units to the tailored (n = 637) or the targeted (n = 595) intervention. Approximately 40% of participants were Black. Based on intention-to-treat analyses, YBCS in the tailored arm reported higher self-efficacy for genetic services (p = 0.0205) at 8-months follow-up. Genetic testing increased approximately 5% for YBCS in the tailored and the targeted arm (p ≤ 0.001; p < 0.001) and for Black and White/Other YBCS (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). CBEs and mammograms increased significantly in both arms, 5% for YBCS and 10% for relatives and were similar for Blacks and White/Others. YBCS and relatives needing less support from providers reported significantly higher self-efficacy and intention for genetic testing and surveillance. Black participants reported significantly higher satisfaction and acceptability. Effects of these two low-resource interventions were comparable to previous studies. Materials are suitable for Black women at risk for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC).

HEREDITARY BREAST CANCER CURRENT STATE OF PROBLEM

The literature review devoted to the evaluation of various methods of prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of the hereditary breast cancer has been presented. Methods of surgical prevention, effectiveness of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy are considered.

Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study

BACKGROUND

There is a growing focus on the development of multi-factorial cancer risk prediction algorithms alongside tools that operationalise them for clinical use. BOADICEA is a breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and other risk factors. A new user-friendly Web-based tool (CanRisk.org) has been developed to apply BOADICEA. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool among two healthcare professional groups to inform further development, evaluation and implementation.

METHOD

A multi-methods approach was used. Clinicians from primary care and specialist genetics clinics in England, France and Germany were invited to use the CanRisk prototype with two test cases (either face-to-face with a simulated patient or via a written vignette). Their views about the tool were examined via a semi-structured interview or equivalent open-ended questionnaire. Qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis and organised around Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

RESULTS

Seventy-five clinicians participated, 21 from primary care and 54 from specialist genetics clinics. Participants were from England (n = 37), France (n = 23) and Germany (n = 15). The prototype CanRisk tool was generally acceptable to most participants due to its intuitive design. Primary care clinicians were concerned about the amount of time needed to complete, interpret and communicate risk information. Clinicians from both settings were apprehensive about the impact of the CanRisk tool on their consultations and lack of opportunities to interpret risk scores before sharing them with their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight the challenges associated with developing a complex tool for use in different clinical settings; they also helped refine the tool. This prototype may not have been versatile enough for clinical use in both primary care and specialist genetics clinics where the needs of clinicians are different, emphasising the importance of understanding the clinical context when developing cancer risk assessment tools.

miRNA expression profiling of hereditary breast tumors from BRCA1- and BRCA2-germline mutation carriers in Brazil

Background

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs involved in post-transcriptional gene expression regulation and have been described as key regulators of carcinogenesis. Aberrant miRNA expression has been frequently reported in sporadic breast cancers, but few studies have focused on profiling hereditary breast cancers. In this study, we aimed to identify specific miRNA signatures in hereditary breast tumors and to compare with sporadic breast cancer and normal breast tissues.

Methods

Global miRNA expression profiling using NanoString technology was performed on 43 hereditary breast tumors (15 BRCA1, 14 BRCA2, and 14 BRCAX), 23 sporadic breast tumors and 8 normal breast tissues. These normal breast tissues derived from BRCA1- and BRCA2- mutation carriers (n = 5) and non-mutation carriers (n = 3). Subsequently, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to evaluate the diagnostic performance of differentially expressed miRNAs. Putative target genes of each miRNAs considered as potential biomarkers were identified using miRDIP platform and used for pathway enrichment analysis.

Results

miRNA expression analyses identified several profiles that were specific to hereditary breast cancers. A total of 25 miRNAs were found to be differentially expressed (fold change: > 2.0 and p < 0.05) and considered as potential biomarkers (area under the curve > 0.75) in hereditary breast tumors compared to normal breast tissues, with an expressive upregulation among BRCAX cases. Furthermore, bioinformatic analysis revealed that these miRNAs shared target genes involved in ErbB, FoxO, and PI3K-Akt signaling pathways.

Conclusions

Our results showed that miRNA expression profiling can differentiate hereditary from sporadic breast tumors and normal breast tissues. These miRNAs were remarkably deregulated in BRCAX hereditary breast cancers. Therefore, miRNA signatures can be used as potential novel diagnostic biomarkers for the prediction of BRCA1/2- germline mutations and may be useful for future clinical management.

Population frequencies of pathogenic alleles of BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 173 Danish breast cancer pedigrees using the BOADICEA model

The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) calculates the probability that a woman carries a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 based on her pedigree and the population frequencies of pathogenic alleles of BRCA1 (0.0006394) and BRCA2 (0.00102) in the United Kingdom (UK). BOADICEA allows the clinician to define the population frequencies of pathogenic alleles of BRCA1 and BRCA2 for other populations but only includes preset values for the Ashkenazy Jewish and Icelandic populations. Among 173 early-onset breast cancer pedigrees in Denmark, BOADICEA discriminated well between carriers and non-carriers of pathogenic variants (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.81; 95% CI 0.74-0.86) but underestimated the frequency of carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 as measured by the observed-to-expected ratio (O/E 1.83; 95% CI 1.18-2.84). This reflects findings from older studies of BOADICEA in UK, German, Italian, and Chinese populations, all accounting for the different calibration for different carrier probabilities. To improve the performance of BOADICEA for non-UK populations, we developed a method to derive population frequencies of pathogenic alleles of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Compared to the UK population frequencies, we estimated the Danish population frequencies of pathogenic alleles to be higher for BRCA1 (0.0015; 95% CI 0.00064-0.0034) and lower for BRCA2 (0.00052; 95% CI 0.00018-0.0017) after adjusting for the different calibration of BOADICEA for different carrier probabilities. Incorporating additional population frequencies into BOADICEA could improve its performance for non-UK populations.

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery.

FINDINGS

For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Pathogenic mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase risks for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer in women; interventions reduce risk in mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force review on benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA1/2-related cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane libraries; MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE (January 1, 2013, to March 6, 2019, for updates; January 1, 1994, to March 6, 2019, for new key questions and populations); reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies of women without recently diagnosed BRCA1/2-related cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data on study methods, setting, population characteristics, eligibility criteria, interventions, numbers enrolled and lost to follow-up, outcome ascertainment, and results were abstracted. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cancer incidence and mortality; discriminatory accuracy of risk assessment tools for BRCA1/2 mutations; benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk-reducing interventions.

RESULTS

For this review, 103 studies (110 articles; N = 92 712) were included. No studies evaluated the effectiveness of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in reducing incidence and mortality of BRCA1/2-related cancer. Fourteen studies (n = 43 813) of 8 risk assessment tools to guide referrals to genetic counseling demonstrated moderate to high accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68-0.96). Twenty-eight studies (n = 8060) indicated that genetic counseling was associated with reduced breast cancer worry, anxiety, and depression; increased understanding of risk; and decreased intention for testing. Twenty studies (n = 4322) showed that breast cancer worry and anxiety were higher after testing for women with positive results and lower for others; understanding of risk was higher after testing. In 8 RCTs (n = 54 651), tamoxifen (relative risk [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials), and aromatase inhibitors (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials) were associated with lower risks of invasive breast cancer compared with placebo; results were not specific to mutation carriers. Mastectomy was associated with 90% to 100% reduction in breast cancer incidence (6 studies; n = 2546) and 81% to 100% reduction in breast cancer mortality (1 study; n = 639); oophorectomy was associated with 69% to 100% reduction in ovarian cancer (2 studies; n = 2108); complications were common with mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women without recently diagnosed BRCA1/2-related cancer, the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing to reduce cancer incidence and mortality have not been directly evaluated by current research.

Estimating CDKN2A mutation carrier probability among global familial melanoma cases using GenoMELPREDICT

BACKGROUND

Although rare in the general population, highly penetrant germline mutations in CDKN2A are responsible for 5%-40% of melanoma cases reported in melanoma-prone families. We sought to determine whether MELPREDICT was generalizable to a global series of families with melanoma and whether performance improvements can be achieved.

METHODS

In total, 2116 familial melanoma cases were ascertained by the international GenoMEL Consortium. We recapitulated the MELPREDICT model within our data (GenoMELPREDICT) to assess performance improvements by adding phenotypic risk factors and history of pancreatic cancer. We report areas under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) along with net reclassification indices (NRIs) as performance metrics.

RESULTS

MELPREDICT performed well (AUC 0.752, 95% CI 0.730-0.775), and GenoMELPREDICT performance was similar (AUC 0.748, 95% CI 0.726-0.771). Adding a reported history of pancreatic cancer yielded discriminatory improvement (P < .0001) in GenoMELPREDICT (AUC 0.772, 95% CI 0.750-0.793, NRI 0.40). Including phenotypic risk factors did not improve performance.

CONCLUSION

The MELPREDICT model functioned well in a global data set of familial melanoma cases. Adding pancreatic cancer history improved model prediction. GenoMELPREDICT is a simple tool for predicting CDKN2A mutational status among melanoma patients from melanoma-prone families and can aid in directing these patients to receive genetic testing or cancer risk counseling.

Mutations in context: implications of BRCA testing in diverse populations

Cancer is a common non-communicable disease worldwide, although it exhibits differential population trends in incidence and mortality rates. The differences relate to population structure, environmental risk factors as well as health system organization. This article discusses the potential impact of genetic testing on population health, focusing in particular on the mutational spectrum of breast cancer susceptibility genes in diverse populations. We identify the need for improved access to, and increased investment in, comprehensive cancer risk assessment and genetic testing as well as cancer control measures that take into account lifestyle, environmental, and social factors in understudied minority groups.

Risk, Prediction and Prevention of Hereditary Breast Cancer - Large-Scale Genomic Studies in Times of Big and Smart Data

Over the last two decades genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 has become standard of care for women and men who are at familial risk for breast or ovarian cancer. Currently, genetic testing more often also includes so-called panel genes, which are assumed to be moderate-risk genes for breast cancer. Recently, new large-scale studies provided more information about the risk estimation of those genes. The utilization of information on panel genes with regard to their association with the individual breast cancer risk might become part of future clinical practice. Furthermore, large efforts have been made to understand the influence of common genetic variants with a low impact on breast cancer risk. For this purpose, almost 450 000 individuals have been genotyped for almost 500 000 genetic variants in the OncoArray project. Based on first results it can be assumed that – together with previously identified common variants – more than 170 breast cancer risk single nucleotide polymorphisms can explain up to 18% of familial breast cancer risk. The knowledge about genetic and non-genetic risk factors and its implementation in clinical practice could especially be of use for individualized prevention. This includes an individualized risk prediction as well as the individualized selection of screening methods regarding imaging and possible lifestyle interventions. The aim of this review is to summarize the most recent developments in this area and to provide an overview on breast cancer risk genes, risk prediction models and their utilization for the individual patient.

Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Genotype Prediction Models in a Pediatric Population

The Toronto Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) Genotype Score and Mayo HCM Genotype Predictor are risk assessment models developed to estimate a patient's likelihood of testing positive for a pathogenic variant causative of HCM. These models were developed from adult populations with HCM based on factors that have been associated with a positive genotype and have not been validated in external populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the overall predictive abilities of these models in a clinical pediatric HCM setting. A retrospective medical record review of 77 pediatric patients with gene panel testing for HCM between September 2005 and June 2015 was performed. Clinical and echocardiographic variables used in the developed models were collected and used to calculate scores for each patient. To evaluate model performance, the ability to discriminate between a carrier and non-carrier was assessed by area under the ROC curve (AUC) and overall calibration was evaluated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic. Discrimination assessed by AUC was 0.72 (P < 0.001) for the Toronto model and 0.67 (P = 0.004) for the Mayo model. The Toronto model and the Mayo model showed P values of 0.36 and 0.82, respectively, for model calibration. Our findings suggest that these models are useful in predicting a positive genetic test result in a pediatric HCM setting. They may be used to aid healthcare providers in communicating risk and enhance patient decision-making regarding pursuit of genetic testing.

Comparison of Practice Guidelines, BRCAPRO, and Genetic Counselor Estimates to Identify Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Pancreatic Cancer

Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation carriers with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may benefit from precision therapies and their relatives should undergo tailored cancer prevention. In this study, we compared strategies to identify BRCA carriers with PDAC. Incident cases of PDAC were prospectively recruited for BRCA sequencing. Probands were evaluated using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) guidelines. The probability of each proband carrying a mutation was estimated by surveying genetic counselors and using BRCAPRO. BRCA mutations were detected in 22/484 (4.5%) probands. 152/484 (31.2%) and 16/484 (3.3%) probands met the NCCN and MOHLTC guidelines, respectively. The NCCN guidelines had higher sensitivity than the MOHLTC guidelines (0.864 versus 0.227, P < 0.001) but lower specificity (0.712 versus 0.976, P < 0.001). One hundred and nineteen genetic counselors completed the survey. Discrimination was similar between genetic counselors and BRCAPRO (area-under-the-curve: 0.755 and 0.775, respectively, P = 0.702). Genetic counselors generally overestimated (P = 0.008), whereas BRCAPRO severely underestimated (P < 0.001), the probability that each proband carried a mutation. Our results indicate that the NCCN guidelines and genetic counselors accurately identify BRCA mutations in PDAC, while the MOHLTC guidelines and BRCAPRO should be updated to account for the association between BRCA and PDAC.

Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice: appraisals by clinicians from various countries

The 'BOADICEA' Web Application (BWA) used to assess breast cancer risk, is currently being further developed, to integrate additional genetic and non-genetic factors. We surveyed clinicians' perceived acceptability of the existing BWA v3. An online survey was conducted through the BOADICEA website, and the British, Dutch, French and Swedish genetics societies. Cross-sectional data from 443 participants who provided at least 50% responses were analysed. Respondents varied in age and, clinical seniority, but mainly comprised women (77%) and genetics professionals (82%). Some expressed negative opinions about the scientific validity of BOADICEA (9%) and BWA v3 risk presentations (7-9%). Data entry time (62%), clinical utility (22%) and ease of communicating BWA v3 risks (13-17%) received additional negative appraisals. In multivariate analyses, controlling for gender and country, data entry time was perceived as longer by genetic counsellors than clinical geneticists (p < 0.05). Respondents who (1) considered hormonal BC risk factors as more important (p < 0.01), and (2) communicated numerical risk estimates more frequently (p < 0.001), judged BWA v3 of lower clinical utility. Respondents who carried out less frequent clinical activity (p < 0.01) and respondents with '11 to 15 years' seniority (p < 0.01) had less favourable opinions of BWA v3 risk presentations. Seniority of '6 to 10 years' (p < 0.05) and more frequent numerical risk communication (p < 0.05) were associated with higher fear of communicating the BWA v3 risks to patients. The level of genetics training did not affect opinions. Further development of BWA should consider technological, genetics service delivery and training initiatives.

Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in male breast cancer patients

To establish whether existing mutation prediction models can identify which male breast cancer (MBC) patients should be offered BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic DNA screening, we compared the performance of BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm), BRCAPRO (BRCA probability) and the Myriad prevalence table ("Myriad"). These models were evaluated using the family data of 307 Dutch MBC probands tested for BRCA1/2, 58 (19%) of whom were carriers. We compared the numbers of observed vs predicted carriers and assessed the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC) for each model. BOADICEA predicted the total number of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers quite accurately (observed/predicted ratio: 0.94). When a cut-off of 10% and 20% prior probability was used, BRCAPRO showed a non-significant better performance (observed/predicted ratio BOADICEA: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.60-1.09] and 0.79, 95% CI: [0.57-1.09], vs.

BRCAPRO

1.02, 95% CI: [0.75-1.38] and 0.94, 95% CI: [0.68-1.31], respectively). Myriad underestimated the number of carriers in up to 69% of the cases. BRCAPRO showed a non-significant, higher AUC than BOADICEA (0.798 vs 0.776). Myriad showed a significantly lower AUC (0.671). BRCAPRO and BOADICEA can efficiently identify MBC patients as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Besides their general applicability, these tools will be of particular value in countries with limited healthcare resources.

Pathology update to the Manchester Scoring System based on testing in over 4000 families

BACKGROUND

While the requirement for thresholds for testing for mutations in BRCA1/2 is being questioned, they are likely to remain for individuals unaffected by a relevant cancer. It is still useful to provide pretesting likelihoods, but models need to take into account tumour pathology.

METHODS

The Manchester Scoring System (MSS) is a well-used, simple, paper-based model for assessing carrier probability that already incorporates pathology data. We have used mutation testing data from 4115 unrelated samples from affected non-Jewish individuals alongside tumour pathology to further refine the scoring system.

RESULTS

Adding additional points for high-grade serous ovarian cancer <60 (HGSOC=+2) and adding grade score to those with triple-negative breast cancer, while reducing the score for those with HER2+ breast cancer (-6), resulted in significantly improved sensitivity and minor improvements in specificity to the MSS. Sporadic HGSOC <60 years thus reached a score of 15-19 points within the 10% grouping consistent with the 15/113-13.2% that were identified with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. Validation in a population series of ovarian cancer from Cambridge showed high sensitivity at the 10% threshold 15/17 (88.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The new pathology-adjusted Manchester score MSS3 appears to provide an effective and simple-to-use estimate of the 10% and 20% thresholds for BRCA1/2 likelihood. For unaffected individuals, the 20-point (20%) threshold in their affected first-degree relative can be used to determine eligibility at the 10% threshold.

Vitamin D receptor, Retinoid X receptor and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ are overexpressed in BRCA1 mutated breast cancer and predict prognosis

Background

BRCA1 mutated breast cancers are commonly diagnosed as negative for classical hormone receptors i.e. estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and/or Her2. Due to these common targets being absent the application of anti-endocrine therapies is rather limited and a certain focus has been set on discovering alternative target molecules. We recently highlighted thyroid hormone receptors (TRs) to predict prognosis in breast cancer patients that had been diagnosed a BRCA1 germline mutation. Vitamin D Receptor (VDR), Retinoid X Receptor (RXR) and Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor γ (PPARγ) are known to interact with TRs by forming functional heterodimers. Whether VDR, RXR or PPARγ are expressed in BRCA1 mutated breast cancer or may even be present in case of triple negativity is not known. Hence the current study aimed to investigate VDR, RXR and PPARγ in BRCA1^mut breast cancer and to test whether any of the three may be associated with clinico-pathological criteria including overall survival.

Methods

This study analyzed VDR, RXR and PPARγ by immunohistochemistry in BRCA1 associated (n = 38) and sporadic breast cancer (n = 79). Receptors were quantified by applying an established scoring system (IR-score) and were tested for association with clinico-pathological variables.

Results

VDR, RXR and PPARγ were detected in over 90% of triple negative BRCA1^mut breast cancer and were significantly (VDR: p < 0.001, RXR: p = 0.010, PPARγ: p < 0.001) overexpressed in BRCA1 mutated as compared to sporadic cancer cases. VDR and RXR positivity predicted prolonged overall survival only in BRCA1 mutated cases while such association was not observed in sporadic breast cancer.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this is the first study to describe VDR, RXR and PPARγ in BRCA1 mutated breast cancer. Based on the data presented here these receptors may be hypothesized to potentially evolve as interesting markers or even targets in hereditary breast cancer. However, independent studies are indispensable thus to confirm this hypothesis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13046-017-0517-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluating the performance of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment referral criteria for breast cancer women in an Asian surgical breast clinic

BACKGROUND

Globally, resources for genomic services vary. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment criteria for further genetic risk evaluation are useful, but lack specificity for reliably excluding patients with low a priori risk. This may result in patient overload in lesser-equipped genetics clinics. Since we use Manchester and the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk assessment models in our genetics clinic to determine whether genetic testing is warranted, we chose Manchester and BOADICEA as the reference standard to compare how the NCCN breast and ovarian genetic/familial high risk assessment criteria for further genetic risk evaluation performs against these two risk assessment models in referring breast cancer patients for genetic evaluation.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2009-2011 were assessed using the NCCN criteria, Manchester and BOADICEA. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to compare the NCCN criteria versus the Manchester and BOADICEA scoring systems in identifying high-risk patients.

RESULTS

A total of 666 patients were included in the study. Percentages of high-risk patients resulting from Manchester and BOADICEA were 1.80% and 2.55%, respectively. Among the NCCN criteria, breast cancer and ≥1 close relatives with breast cancer at ≤50 years of age correlated best with Manchester and/or BOADICEA (c-statistic =0.831) with a false negative rate of 1.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer at any age and ≥1 close relative with breast cancer at ≤50 years of age exhibited the highest correlation with Manchester and/or BOADICEA, promising greater specificity compared to the other NCCN criteria for segregating high risk, Asian breast cancer patients for referral to a genetics clinic, nevertheless recognizing the inherent limitations of the scoring systems.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation predictions using the BRCAPRO and Myriad models in Korean ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the predictive efficacies including sensitivity and positive predictive value of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO and the Myriad BRCA risk calculator in Korean ovarian cancer patients.

METHODS

Individuals undergoing genetic testing for BRCA mutations from November 2010-August 2016 were recruited from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at a single institute in Korea. The observed BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation statuses were compared with the predicted carrier probabilities using BRCAPRO and the Myriad BRCA risk calculator.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two patients were recruited, of whom 99.1% (230/232) were of Korean ethnicity. Of the 232 individuals, 206 and 26 had ovarian and double primary breast/ovarian cancer, respectively. Thirty-six individuals had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer in first-degree relatives. Fifty-seven patients (24.6%) tested positive for BRCA mutation (41 BRCA1, 16 BRCA2). The mean BRCAPRO and Myriad scores for all patients were 6.4% and 7.7%, respectively. The scores were significantly higher for patients with positive BRCA mutation status (29.0% vs. 6.1%, P<0.001, 12.1% vs. 7.7%, P<0.001, respectively). For all patients, the respective areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves were 0.720 and 0.747 for the BRCAPRO and Myriad models to predict the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. Both models overestimated the mutation probability in patients with a family history of breast/ovarian cancer (1.55-fold and 1.50-fold, respectively) and underestimated the probability in patients without a family history (both, 0.54-fold).

CONCLUSION

BRCAPRO and Myriad seem to be acceptable risk assessment tools for determining the risk of carrying BRCA mutations in Korean ovarian cancer patients.

Delivering widespread BRCA testing and PARP inhibition to patients with ovarian cancer

The treatment of patients with ovarian cancer is rapidly changing following the success of poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in clinical trials. Olaparib is the first PARP inhibitor to be approved by the EMA and FDA for BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer. Germ line BRCA mutation status is now established as a predictive biomarker of potential benefit from treatment with a PARP inhibitor; therefore, knowledge of the BRCA status of an individual patient with ovarian cancer is essential, in order to guide treatment decisions. BRCA testing was previously offered only to women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer; however, almost 20% of women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer are now recognized to harbour a germ line BRCA mutation, and of these, >40% might not have a family history of cancer and would not have received BRCA testing. A strategy to enable more widespread implementation of BRCA testing in routine care is, therefore, necessary. In this Review, we summarize data from key clinical trials of PARP inhibitors and discuss how to integrate these agents into the current treatment landscape of ovarian cancer. The validity of germ line BRCA testing and other promising biomarkers of homologous-recombination deficiency will also be discussed.

Incorporating truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk model

PURPOSE

The proliferation of gene panel testing precipitates the need for a breast cancer (BC) risk model that incorporates the effects of mutations in several genes and family history (FH). We extended the BOADICEA model to incorporate the effects of truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM.

METHODS

The BC incidence was modeled via the explicit effects of truncating variants in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM and other unobserved genetic effects using segregation analysis methods.

RESULTS

The predicted average BC risk by age 80 for an ATM mutation carrier is 28%, 30% for CHEK2, 50% for PALB2, and 74% for BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, the BC risks are predicted to increase with FH burden. In families with mutations, predicted risks for mutation-negative members depend on both FH and the specific mutation. The reduction in BC risk after negative predictive testing is greatest when a BRCA1 mutation is identified in the family, but for women whose relatives carry a CHEK2 or ATM mutation, the risks decrease slightly.

CONCLUSIONS

The model may be a valuable tool for counseling women who have undergone gene panel testing for providing consistent risks and harmonizing their clinical management. A Web application can be used to obtain BC risks in clinical practice (http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/boadicea/).Genet Med 18 12, 1190-1198.

Risk algorithms that include pathology adjustment for HER2 amplification need to make further downward adjustments in likelihood scores

To assess the need for adjustment in the likelihood of germline BRCA1/2 mutations in women with HER2+ breast cancers. We analysed primary mutation screens on women with breast cancer with unequivocal HER2 overexpression and assessed the likelihood of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations by age, oestrogen receptor status and Manchester score. Of 1111 primary BRCA screens with confirmed HER2 status only 4/161 (2.5%) of women with HER2 amplification had a BRCA1 mutation identified and 5/161 (3.1%) a BRCA2 mutation. The pathology adjusted Manchester score between 10 and 19% and 20%+ thresholds resulted in a detection rate of only 6.5 and 15% respectively. BOADICEA examples appeared to make even less downward adjustment. There is a very low detection rate of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women with HER2 amplified breast cancers. The Manchester score and BOADICEA do not make sufficient downward adjustment for HER2 amplification. For unaffected women, assessment of breast cancer risk and BRCA1/2 probability should take into account the pathology of the most relevant close relative. Unaffected women undergoing mutation testing for BRCA1/2 should be advised that there is limited reassurance from a negative test result if their close relative had a HER2+ breast cancer.

Assessing biases of information contained in pedigrees for the classification of BRCA-genetic variants: a study arising from the ENIGMA analytical working group

Purpose

One way of evaluating family history (FH) for classifying BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) is to assess the “BRCA-ness” of a pedigree by comparing it to reference populations. The aim of this study was to assess if prediction of BRCA pathogenic variant (mutation) status based on pedigree information differed due to changes in FH since intake, both in families with a pathogenic variant (BRCAm) and in families with wild-type (BRCAwt).

Patients and methods

We compared the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant detection probabilities between intake and most recent pedigree for BRCAm families (n = 64) and BRCAwt (n = 118) using the BRCAPRO software program.

Results

Follow-up time between intake and most recent pedigree was significantly longer (p < 0.001) in the BRCAm compared to the BRCAwt families.

Among BRCAwt families, the probability to detect a pathogenic variant did not change over time. Conversely, among the BRCAm, this probability was significantly higher for most recent vs. intake pedigree (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Clinical scores change significantly over time for BRCAm families. This may be due to differences in follow-up, but also to differences in cancer risks from carrying a pathogenic variant in a highly penetrant gene. To reduce bias, models for VUS classification should incorporate FH collected at intake.

UK BRCA mutation testing in patients with ovarian cancer

Despite the increasing clinical importance of germline BRCA mutation status in managing women with ovarian cancer, few patients are currently being tested. The traditional means of selecting patients for BRCA mutation testing using restrictive criteria will miss many women with a mutation. To expand access to testing and streamline the testing process, several centres in the UK have been developing new models for BRCA testing. Trials with these integrated models involving closer collaborations between genetics and oncology services are now under way. In addition to testing for BRCA mutations, there is also increasing interest in testing for other genes associated with a predisposition to ovarian cancer. Advances in next-generation sequencing technology have resulted in the development of comprehensive genetic testing panels for use in the research and diagnostic settings. Interest is also increasing in expanding testing for somatic mutations in ovarian cancer, particularly for genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, whereby mutations may allow more patients to benefit from targeted agents, including poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. In this review, the issues of who should be offered testing, how testing could be delivered, when testing should occur and the technology and costs associated with genetic testing are addressed.

Prevalence of BRCA1/2 germline mutations in 21 401 families with breast and ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

To characterise the prevalence of pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in families with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) history.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 21 401 families were gathered between 1996 and 2014 in a clinical setting in the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, comprising full pedigrees with cancer status of all individual members at the time of first counselling, and BRCA1/2 mutation status of the index patient.

RESULTS

The overall BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence was 24.0% (95% CI 23.4% to 24.6%). Highest mutation frequencies were observed in families with at least two OCs (41.9%, 95% CI 36.1% to 48.0%) and families with at least one breast and one OC (41.6%, 95% CI 40.3% to 43.0%), followed by male BC with at least one female BC or OC (35.8%; 95% CI 32.2% to 39.6%). In families with a single case of early BC (<36 years), mutations were found in 13.7% (95% CI 11.9% to 15.7%). Postmenopausal unilateral or bilateral BC did not increase the probability of mutation detection. Occurrence of premenopausal BC and OC in the same woman led to higher mutation frequencies compared with the occurrence of these two cancers in different individuals (49.0%; 95% CI 41.0% to 57.0% vs 31.5%; 95% CI 28.0% to 35.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers to identify individuals who should undergo genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Moreover, it supports informed decision-making of counselees on the uptake of genetic testing.

A risk prediction algorithm for ovarian cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2, common alleles and other familial effects

BACKGROUND

Although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for only ∼27% of the familial aggregation of ovarian cancer (OvC), no OvC risk prediction model currently exists that considers the effects of BRCA1, BRCA2 and other familial factors. Therefore, a currently unresolved problem in clinical genetics is how to counsel women with family history of OvC but no identifiable BRCA1/2 mutations.

METHODS

We used data from 1548 patients with OvC and their relatives from a population-based study, with known BRCA1/2 mutation status, to investigate OvC genetic susceptibility models, using segregation analysis methods.

RESULTS

The most parsimonious model included the effects of BRCA1/2 mutations, and the residual familial aggregation was accounted for by a polygenic component (SD 1.43, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.86), reflecting the multiplicative effects of a large number of genes with small contributions to the familial risk. We estimated that 1 in 630 individuals carries a BRCA1 mutation and 1 in 195 carries a BRCA2 mutation. We extended this model to incorporate the explicit effects of 17 common alleles that are associated with OvC risk. Based on our models, assuming all of the susceptibility genes could be identified we estimate that the half of the female population at highest genetic risk will account for 92% of all OvCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The resulting model can be used to obtain the risk of developing OvC on the basis of BRCA1/2, explicit family history and common alleles. This is the first model that accounts for all OvC familial aggregation and would be useful in the OvC genetic counselling process.

BRCA Mutations Increase Fertility in Families at Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer Risk

BACKGROUND

Deleterious mutations in the BRCA genes are responsible for a small, but significant, proportion of breast and ovarian cancers (5 - 10 %). Proof of de novo mutations in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) families is rare, in contrast to founder mutations, thousands of years old, that may be carried by as much as 1 % of a population. Thus, if mutations favoring cancer survive selection pressure through time, they must provide advantages that compensate for the loss of life expectancy.

METHOD

This hypothesis was tested within 2,150 HBOC families encompassing 96,325 individuals. Parameters included counts of breast/ovarian cancer, age at diagnosis, male breast cancer and other cancer locations. As expected, well-known clinical parameters discriminated between BRCA-mutated families and others: young age at breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer and male breast cancer. The major fertility differences concerned men in BRCA-mutated families: they had lower first and mean age at paternity, and fewer remained childless. For women in BRCA families, the miscarriage rate was lower. In a logistic regression including clinical factors, the different miscarriage rate and men's mean age at paternity remained significant.

RESULTS

Fertility advantages were confirmed in a subgroup of 746 BRCA mutation carriers and 483 non-carriers from BRCA mutated families. In particular, female carriers were less often nulliparous (9.1 % of carriers versus 16.0 %, p = 0.003) and had more children (1.8 ± 1.4 SD versus 1.5 ± 1.3, p = 0.002) as well as male carriers (1.7 ± 1.3 versus 1.4 ± 1.3, p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

Although BRCA mutations shorten the reproductive period due to cancer mortality, they compensate by improving fertility both in male and female carriers.

Tumour characteristics and survival in familial breast cancer prospectively diagnosed by annual mammography

Women from breast cancer families without a demonstrable BRCA1/2 mutation were subjected to annual mammography from age 30 years onwards. One-hundred and ninety-eight patients were diagnosed prospectively with invasive breast cancer and followed for a total of 1513 years. Overall 10-year survival was 88 %. Together with our previous report that women in such kindreds had about twice the population risk of breast cancer, the combined conclusion was that the overall chances of developing breast cancer causing death within 10 years before 50 years of age was 1 % or less when subjected to annual mammography and current treatment. These are empirical prospective observations which may be used for genetic counselling. The majority (160/194 = 84 %) of patients had ER+ and/or low grade tumours with 92 % 10-year survival. One minor group of the patients had ER- tumours, another small group had high grade tumours with nodal spread, both groups were associated with worse prognosis, but the two groups were not mutually associated.

Thyroid Hormone Receptors Predict Prognosis in BRCA1 Associated Breast Cancer in Opposing Ways

Since BRCA1 associated breast cancers are frequently classified as hormone receptor negative or even triple negative, the application of endocrine therapies is rather limited in these patients. Like hormone receptors that bind to estrogen or progesterone, thyroid hormone receptors (TRs) are members of the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily. TRs might be interesting biomarkers - especially in the absence of classical hormone receptors. The current study aimed to investigate whether TRs may be specifically expressed in BRCA1 associated cancer cases and whether they are of prognostic significance in these patients as compared to sporadic breast cancer cases. This study analyzed TRα and TRβ immunopositivity in BRCA1 associated (n = 38) and sporadic breast cancer (n = 86). Further, TRs were studied in MCF7 (BRCA1 wildtype) and HCC3153 (BRCA1 mutated) cells. TRβ positivity rate was significantly higher in BRCA1 associated as compared to sporadic breast cancers (p = 0.001). The latter observation remained to be significant when cases that had been matched for clinicopathological criteria were compared (p = 0.037). Regarding BRCA1 associated breast cancer cases TRβ positivity turned out to be a positive prognostic factor for five-year (p = 0.007) and overall survival (p = 0.026) while TRα positivity predicted reduced five-year survival (p = 0.030). Activation of TRβ resulted in down-modulation of CTNNB1 while TRα inhibition reduced cell viability in HCC3153. However, only BRCA1 wildtype MCF7 cells were capable of rapidly degrading TRα1 in response to T3 stimulation. Significantly, this study identified TRβ to be up-regulated in BRCA1 associated breast cancer and revealed TRs to be associated with patients’ prognosis. TRs were also found to be expressed in triple negative BRCA1 associated breast cancer. Further studies need to be done in order to evaluate whether TRs may become interesting targets of endocrine therapeutic approaches, especially when tumors are triple-negative.

Intensified surveillance for early detection of breast cancer in high-risk patients

Efforts for early detection of breast cancer play an important role in the care of high-risk women. This will include both women with a pathological mutation in one of the known breast cancer susceptibility genes as well as women with a high breast cancer risk based on family history only. Due to the much higher incidence of breast cancer in premenopausal women with a genetic predisposition or a familial background, to be most effective, imaging-based breast surveillance should start at an age as early as 25-30 years. There is now ample evidence that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is by far the most sensitive imaging modality in young high-risk women. With high-risk multimodality screening at least 30% of breast cancers will be detected primarily by MRI and would have been missed at regular screening without MRI. Therefore, most high-risk breast surveillance programs now offer annual MRI to eligible high-risk women from age 25 to 30, usually supplemented by regular mammography starting at least from age 40. The inclusion of clinical breast exam (CBE) and/or ultrasound in the high-risk surveillance has little impact on the detection of additional cancers, but may improve compliance and reduce unnecessary callbacks for nonspecific findings on MRI. To reduce advanced stage interval cancers, especially in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, some programs offer additional semiannual CBE and/or ultrasound or alternate MRI and mammography every 6 months. How long regular MRI should be continued in high-risk women is a matter of considerable debate. It appears feasible that MRI can safely be discontinued even in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers between the age of 60 and 70, especially if mammographic breast density is low. Even though several cohort studies have now demonstrated a very favorable stage distribution of breast cancers found in women undergoing high-risk surveillance with MRI, data on long-term survival and mortality in these patients is still rare.

Genetic risk assessment for breast and gynecological malignancies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Breast cancer and gynecological cancers impact a significant portion of women each year. Identifying women at high risk is essential for implementation of screening and risk reduction recommendations. Risk assessment for these cancers involves an evaluation of many factors. This review discusses an overview of hereditary breast and gynecological cancers and the process of a cancer genetic risk assessment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk assessment models for breast cancer should be used with caution, especially in populations in which they are not validated. Additionally, the BRCAPRO model may underestimate the likelihood of BRCA mutations in certain populations.The utilization of next-generation sequencing panels is increasing. Benefits and limitations of panel testing are described in the literature. There are currently no guidelines for the use of panel testing; however, some reports of institutional experiences and recommendations are available.

SUMMARY

Cancer genetic risk assessment is complex, and models developed to estimate risk may not apply to all populations. Identifying genetic factors related to cancer risk is also becoming increasingly complex with the clinical implementation of panel testing. This testing approach should be critically evaluated by healthcare providers. Further research is needed to create evidence-based guidelines for panel testing and management recommendations for moderately penetrant genes.

Risk determination and prevention of breast cancer

Breast cancer is an increasing public health problem. Substantial advances have been made in the treatment of breast cancer, but the introduction of methods to predict women at elevated risk and prevent the disease has been less successful. Here, we summarize recent data on newer approaches to risk prediction, available approaches to prevention, how new approaches may be made, and the difficult problem of using what we already know to prevent breast cancer in populations. During 2012, the Breast Cancer Campaign facilitated a series of workshops, each covering a specialty area of breast cancer to identify gaps in our knowledge. The risk-and-prevention panel involved in this exercise was asked to expand and update its report and review recent relevant peer-reviewed literature. The enlarged position paper presented here highlights the key gaps in risk-and-prevention research that were identified, together with recommendations for action. The panel estimated from the relevant literature that potentially 50% of breast cancer could be prevented in the subgroup of women at high and moderate risk of breast cancer by using current chemoprevention (tamoxifen, raloxifene, exemestane, and anastrozole) and that, in all women, lifestyle measures, including weight control, exercise, and moderating alcohol intake, could reduce breast cancer risk by about 30%. Risk may be estimated by standard models potentially with the addition of, for example, mammographic density and appropriate single-nucleotide polymorphisms. This review expands on four areas: (a) the prediction of breast cancer risk, (b) the evidence for the effectiveness of preventive therapy and lifestyle approaches to prevention, (c) how understanding the biology of the breast may lead to new targets for prevention, and (d) a summary of published guidelines for preventive approaches and measures required for their implementation. We hope that efforts to fill these and other gaps will lead to considerable advances in our efforts to predict risk and prevent breast cancer over the next 10 years.