The cloning of the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 nearly two decades ago helped set in motion an avalanche of research exploring how genomic information can be optimally applied ...to identify and clinically care for individuals with a high risk of developing cancer. Genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other breast cancer susceptibility genes has since proved to be a valuable tool for determining eligibility for enhanced screening and prevention strategies, as well as for identifying patients most likely to benefit from a targeted therapy. Here, we discuss the landscape of inherited mutations and sequence variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, the complexities of determining disease risk when the pathogenicity of sequence variants is uncertain, and current strategies for clinical management of women who carry BRCA1/2 mutations.
Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC), defined by the absence of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 expression, account for 12% to 24% of all breast cancers. TNBC is associated with ...early recurrence of disease and poor outcome. Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility genes have been associated with up to 15% of TNBC, and TNBC accounts for 70% of breast tumors arising in BRCA1 mutation carriers and 16% to 23% of breast tumors in BRCA2 carriers. Whether germline mutations in other breast cancer susceptibility genes also predispose to TNBC remains to be determined. Common variation in a subset of the 72 known breast cancer susceptibility loci identified through genome-wide association studies and other large-scale genotyping efforts have also been associated with risk of TNBC (TOX3, ESR1, RAD51L1, TERT, 19p13.1, 20q11, MDM4, 2p24.1, and FTO). Furthermore, variation in the 19p13.1 locus and the MDM4 locus has been associated with TNBC, but not other forms of breast cancer, suggesting that these are TNBC-specific loci. Thus, TNBC can be distinguished from other breast cancer subtypes by a unique pattern of common and rare germline predisposition alleles. Additional efforts to combine genetic and epidemiologic data are needed to better understand the etiology of this aggressive form of breast cancer, to identify prevention and therapeutic targets, and to impact clinical practice through the development of risk prediction models.
IMPORTANCE: Individuals genetically predisposed to pancreatic cancer may benefit from early detection. Genes that predispose to pancreatic cancer and the risks of pancreatic cancer associated with ...mutations in these genes are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether inherited germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes are associated with increased risks of pancreatic cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Case-control analysis to identify pancreatic cancer predisposition genes; longitudinal analysis of patients with pancreatic cancer for prognosis. The study included 3030 adults diagnosed as having pancreatic cancer and enrolled in a Mayo Clinic registry between October 12, 2000, and March 31, 2016, with last follow-up on June 22, 2017. Reference controls were 123 136 individuals with exome sequence data in the public Genome Aggregation Database and 53 105 in the Exome Aggregation Consortium database. EXPOSURES: Individuals were classified based on carrying a deleterious mutation in cancer predisposition genes and having a personal or family history of cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Germline mutations in coding regions of 21 cancer predisposition genes were identified by sequencing of products from a custom multiplex polymerase chain reaction–based panel; associations of genes with pancreatic cancer were assessed by comparing frequency of mutations in genes of pancreatic cancer patients with those of reference controls. RESULTS: Comparing 3030 case patients with pancreatic cancer (43.2% female; 95.6% non-Hispanic white; mean age at diagnosis, 65.3 SD, 10.7 years) with reference controls, significant associations were observed between pancreatic cancer and mutations in CDKN2A (0.3% of cases and 0.02% of controls; odds ratio OR, 12.33; 95% CI, 5.43-25.61); TP53 (0.2% of cases and 0.02% of controls; OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 2.52-14.95); MLH1 (0.13% of cases and 0.02% of controls; OR, 6.66; 95% CI, 1.94-17.53); BRCA2 (1.9% of cases and 0.3% of controls; OR, 6.20; 95% CI, 4.62-8.17); ATM (2.3% of cases and 0.37% of controls; OR, 5.71; 95% CI, 4.38-7.33); and BRCA1 (0.6% of cases and 0.2% of controls; OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.54-4.05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this case-control study, mutations in 6 genes associated with pancreatic cancer were found in 5.5% of all pancreatic cancer patients, including 7.9% of patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer and 5.2% of patients without a family history of pancreatic cancer. Further research is needed for replication in other populations.
Summary Patients with cholangiocarcinoma often present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. There is a need for effective therapeutic strategies for advanced stage cholangiocarcinoma. ...Recently, FGFR2 translocations have been identified as a potential target for tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapies. This study evaluated 152 cholangiocarcinomas and 4 intraductal papillary biliary neoplasms of the bile duct for presence of FGFR2 translocations by fluorescence in situ hybridization and characterized the clinicopathologic features of cases with FGFR2 translocations. Thirteen (10 women, 3 men; 8%) of 156 biliary tumors harbored FGFR2 translocations, including 12 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (12/96; 13%) and 1 intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct. Histologically, cholangiocarcinomas with FGFR2 translocations displayed prominent intraductal growth (62%) or anastomosing tubular glands with desmoplasia (38%). Immunohistochemically, the tumors with FGFR2 translocations frequently showed weak and patchy expression of CK19 (77%). Markers of the stem cell phenotype in cholangiocarcinoma, HepPar1 and CK20, were negative in all cases. The median cancer-specific survival for patients whose tumors harbored FGFR2 translocations was 123 months compared to 37 months for cases without FGFR2 translocations ( P = .039). This study also assessed 100 cholangiocarcinomas for ERBB2 amplification and ROS1 translocations. Of the cases tested, 3% and 1% were positive for ERBB2 amplification and ROS1 translocation, respectively. These results confirm that FGFR2 , ERRB2 , and ROS1 alterations are potential therapeutic targets for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Recent advances in DNA sequencing have led to the development of breast cancer susceptibility gene panels for germline genetic testing of patients. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 17 ...predisposition genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer to determine the utility of germline genetic testing for those with TNBC.
Patients with TNBC (N = 1,824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through 12 studies, and germline DNA was sequenced to identify mutations.
Deleterious mutations were identified in 14.6% of all patients. Of these, 11.2% had mutations in the BRCA1 (8.5%) and BRCA2 (2.7%) genes. Deleterious mutations in 15 other predisposition genes were detected in 3.7% of patients, with the majority observed in genes involved in homologous recombination, including PALB2 (1.2%) and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C, and BRIP1 (0.3% to 0.5%). Patients with TNBC with mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age (P < .001) and had higher-grade tumors (P = .01) than those without mutations.
Deleterious mutations in predisposition genes are present at high frequency in patients with TNBC unselected for family history of cancer. Mutation prevalence estimates suggest that patients with TNBC, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer, should be considered for germline genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although mutations in other predisposition genes are observed among patients with TNBC, better cancer risk estimates are needed before these mutations are used for clinical risk assessment in relatives.
Abstract
Background
The germline cancer predisposition genes associated with increased risk of each clinical subtype of breast cancer, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), ...and HER2, are not well defined.
Methods
A total of 54 555 invasive breast cancer patients with 56 480 breast tumors were subjected to clinical hereditary cancer multigene panel testing. Heterogeneity for predisposition genes across clinical breast cancer subtypes was assessed by comparing mutation frequencies by gene among tumor subtypes and by association studies between each tumor subtype and reference controls.
Results
Mutations in 15 cancer predisposition genes were detected in 8.6% of patients with ER+/HER2-; 8.9% with ER+/HER2+; 7.7% with ER-/HER2+; and 14.4% of ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. BRCA1, BRCA2, BARD1, and PALB2 mutations were enriched in ER- and HER2- tumors; RAD51C and RAD51D mutations were enriched in ER- tumors only; TP53 mutations were enriched in HER2+ tumors, and ATM and CHEK2 mutations were enriched in both ER+ and/or HER2+ tumors. All genes were associated with moderate (odds ratio > 2.00) or strong (odds ratio > 5.00) risks of at least one subtype of breast cancer in case-control analyses. Mutations in ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53 had predicted lifetime absolute risks of at least 20.0% for breast cancer.
Conclusions
Germline mutations in hereditary cancer panel genes confer subtype-specific risks of breast cancer. Combined tumor subtype, age at breast cancer diagnosis, and family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer information provides refined categorical estimates of mutation prevalence for women considering genetic testing.
Sequencing tests assaying panels of genes or whole exomes are widely available for cancer risk evaluation. However, methods for classification of variants resulting from this testing are not well ...studied. We evaluated the ability of a variant-classification methodology based on American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines to define the rate of mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in 180 medically relevant genes, including all ACMG-designated reportable cancer and non-cancer-associated genes, in individuals who met guidelines for hereditary cancer risk evaluation. We performed whole-exome sequencing in 404 individuals in 253 families and classified 1,640 variants. Potentially clinically actionable (likely pathogenic LP or pathogenic P) versus nonactionable (VUS, likely benign, or benign) calls were 95% concordant with locus-specific databases and Clinvar. LP or P mutations were identified in 12 of 25 breast cancer susceptibility genes in 26 families without identified BRCA1/2 mutations (11%). Evaluation of 84 additional genes associated with autosomal-dominant cancer susceptibility identified LP or P mutations in only two additional families (0.8%). However, individuals from 10 of 253 families (3.9%) had incidental LP or P mutations in 32 non-cancer-associated genes, and 9% of individuals were monoallelic carriers of a rare LP or P mutation in 39 genes associated with autosomal-recessive cancer susceptibility. Furthermore, 95% of individuals had at least one VUS. In summary, these data support the clinical utility of ACMG variant-classification guidelines. Additionally, evaluation of extended panels of cancer-associated genes in breast/ovarian cancer families leads to only an incremental clinical benefit but substantially increases the complexity of the results.
Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, the relevance of germline variants in other genes from multigene hereditary cancer ...testing panels is not well defined.
To determine the risks of breast cancer associated with germline variants in cancer predisposition genes.
A study population of 65 057 patients with breast cancer receiving germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes with hereditary cancer multigene panels. Associations between pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes and breast cancer risk were estimated in a case-control analysis of patients with breast cancer and Exome Aggregation Consortium reference controls. The women underwent testing between March 15, 2012, and June 30, 2016.
Breast cancer risk conferred by pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes.
The mean (SD) age at diagnosis for the 65 057 women included in the analysis was 48.5 (11.1) years. The frequency of pathogenic variants in 21 panel genes identified in 41 611 consecutively tested white women with breast cancer was estimated at 10.2%. After exclusion of BRCA1, BRCA2, and syndromic breast cancer genes (CDH1, PTEN, and TP53), observed pathogenic variants in 5 of 16 genes were associated with high or moderately increased risks of breast cancer: ATM (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.22-3.62), BARD1 (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.31-3.63), CHEK2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.67), PALB2 (OR, 7.46; 95% CI, 5.12-11.19), and RAD51D (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.21-7.88). Conversely, variants in the BRIP1 and RAD51C ovarian cancer risk genes; the MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN MRN complex genes; the MLH1 and PMS2 mismatch repair genes; and NF1 were not associated with increased risks of breast cancer.
This study establishes several panel genes as high- and moderate-risk breast cancer genes and provides estimates of breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants in these genes among individuals qualifying for clinical genetic testing.
Given the lack of adequate screening modalities, knowledge of ovarian cancer risks for carriers of pathogenic alterations in predisposition genes is important for decisions about risk-reduction by ...salpingo-oophorectomy. We sought to determine which genes assayed on multi-gene panels are associated with ovarian cancer, the magnitude of the associations, and for which clinically meaningful associations could be ruled out.
7768 adult ovarian cancer cases of European ancestry referred to a single clinical testing laboratory underwent multi-gene panel testing for detection of pathogenic alterations in known or suspected ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. A targeted capture approach was employed to assay each of 19 genes for the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic alterations. Mutation frequencies in ovarian cancer cases were compared to mutation frequencies in individuals from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). Analyses stratified by family and personal history of other cancers and age at diagnosis were also performed.
Significant associations (p<0.001) were identified between alterations in 11 genes and ovarian cancer, with eight of these displaying ≥5-fold increased risk (BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, MSH2, MSH6, RAD51C, RAD51D). Relative risks of ovarian cancer greater than two-fold were also observed for ATM, but could reliably be ruled out for RAD50 and CHEK2.
These results will inform clinical management of women found to carry pathogenic alterations in genes tested on multi-gene panels. The knowledge that some genes are not associated with OC can reduce concerns of women found to carry pathogenic alterations in those genes.
•Ovarian cancer risks for mutations in hereditary cancer panel genes were assessed.•Mutations by gene from 7768 ovarian cancer cases and reference controls were compared.•BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, MSH2, MSH6, RAD51C, and RAD51D were confirmed as high-risk genes.•ATM was identified as a moderate risk ovarian cancer gene.•The results will inform clinical management of women with mutations these genes.
The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria for different types of evidence. ...This includes the strong evidence codes PS3 and BS3 for "well-established" functional assays demonstrating a variant has abnormal or normal gene/protein function, respectively. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes are a contributor to variant interpretation discordance between laboratories. This recommendation seeks to provide a more structured approach to the assessment of functional assays for variant interpretation and guidance on the use of various levels of strength based on assay validation.
The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group used curated functional evidence from ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel-developed rule specifications and expert opinions to refine the PS3/BS3 criteria over multiple in-person and virtual meetings. We estimated the odds of pathogenicity for assays using various numbers of variant controls to determine the minimum controls required to reach moderate level evidence. Feedback from the ClinGen Steering Committee and outside experts were incorporated into the recommendations at multiple stages of development.
The SVI Working Group developed recommendations for evaluators regarding the assessment of the clinical validity of functional data and a four-step provisional framework to determine the appropriate strength of evidence that can be applied in clinical variant interpretation. These steps are as follows: (1) define the disease mechanism, (2) evaluate the applicability of general classes of assays used in the field, (3) evaluate the validity of specific instances of assays, and (4) apply evidence to individual variant interpretation. We found that a minimum of 11 total pathogenic and benign variant controls are required to reach moderate-level evidence in the absence of rigorous statistical analysis.
The recommendations and approach to functional evidence evaluation described here should help clarify the clinical variant interpretation process for functional assays. Further, we hope that these recommendations will help develop productive partnerships with basic scientists who have developed functional assays that are useful for interrogating the function of a variety of genes.
PDF
