OBJECTIVE: To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview.
RESULTS: Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P
OBJECTIVE: To characterize tumors associated with BC susceptibility genes in large-scale population- or hospital-based studies.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicenter, international case-control analysis of the BRIDGES study included 42 680 patients and 46 387 control participants, comprising women aged 18 to 79 years who were sampled independently of family history from 38 studies. Studies were conducted between 1991 and 2016. Sequencing and analysis took place between 2016 and 2021.
EXPOSURES: Protein-truncating variants and likely pathogenic missense variants in ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The intrinsic-like BC subtypes as defined by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and ERBB2 (formerly known as HER2) status, and tumor grade; morphology; size; stage; lymph node involvement; subtype-specific odds ratios (ORs) for carrying protein-truncating variants and pathogenic missense variants in the 9 BC susceptibility genes.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) ages at interview (control participants) and diagnosis (cases) were 55.1 (11.9) and 55.8 (10.6) years, respectively; all participants were of European or East Asian ethnicity. There was substantial heterogeneity in the distribution of intrinsic subtypes by gene. RAD51C, RAD51D, and BARD1 variants were associated mainly with triple-negative disease (OR, 6.19 [95% CI, 3.17-12.12]; OR, 6.19 [95% CI, 2.99-12.79]; and OR, 10.05 [95% CI, 5.27-19.19], respectively). CHEK2 variants were associated with all subtypes (with ORs ranging from 2.21-3.17) except for triple-negative disease. For ATM variants, the association was strongest for the hormone receptor (HR)+ERBB2- high-grade subtype (OR, 4.99; 95% CI, 3.68-6.76). BRCA1 was associated with increased risk of all subtypes, but the ORs varied widely, being highest for triple-negative disease (OR, 55.32; 95% CI, 40.51-75.55). BRCA2 and PALB2 variants were also associated with triple-negative disease. TP53 variants were most strongly associated with HR+ERBB2+ and HR-ERBB2+ subtypes. Tumors occurring in pathogenic variant carriers were of higher grade. For most genes and subtypes, a decline in ORs was observed with increasing age. Together, the 9 genes were associated with 27.3% of all triple-negative tumors in women 40 years or younger.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this case-control study suggest that variants in the 9 BC risk genes differ substantially in their associated pathology but are generally associated with triple-negative and/or high-grade disease. Knowing the age and tumor subtype distributions associated with individual BC genes can potentially aid guidelines for gene panel testing, risk prediction, and variant classification and guide targeted screening strategies.
METHOD: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance.
RESULTS: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0.902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 × 10-6) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted.
CONCLUSION: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predictions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration.
METHODS: We characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.
RESULTS: Among BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 × 10(-5)) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor-positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.15-21.80] and progesterone receptor-positive (OR 5.04; 95 % CI 3.17-8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 × 10(-12)).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management.
METHODS: Using data from a genome-wide map of SNPs associated with allelic expression, we assessed the association of ~320 SNPs located in the vicinity of these genes with breast and ovarian cancer risks in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 mutation carriers ascertained from 54 studies participating in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.
RESULTS: We identified a region on 11q22.3 that is significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (most significant SNP rs228595 p = 7 × 10-6). This association was absent in BRCA2 carriers (p = 0.57). The 11q22.3 region notably encompasses genes such as ACAT1, NPAT, and ATM. Expression quantitative trait loci associations were observed in both normal breast and tumors across this region, namely for ACAT1, ATM, and other genes. In silico analysis revealed some overlap between top risk-associated SNPs and relevant biological features in mammary cell data, which suggests potential functional significance.
CONCLUSION: We identified 11q22.3 as a new modifier locus in BRCA1 carriers. Replication in larger studies using estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or triple-negative (i.e., ER-, progesterone receptor-, and HER2-negative) cases could therefore be helpful to confirm the association of this locus with breast cancer risk.
METHODS: Using LDScore regression, we explored the genetic correlation between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. To identify loci associated with the risk of both cancers, we implemented a pipeline of statistical genetic analyses (i.e., inverse-variance meta-analysis, colocalization, and M-values) and performed analyses stratified by subtype. Candidate target genes were then prioritized using functional genomic data.
RESULTS: Genetic correlation analysis revealed significant genetic correlation between the two cancers (rG = 0.43, P = 2.66 × 10-5). We found seven loci associated with risk for both cancers (P Bonferroni < 2.4 × 10-9). In addition, four novel subgenome-wide regions at 7p22.2, 7q22.1, 9p12, and 11q13.3 were identified (P < 5 × 10-7). Promoter-associated HiChIP chromatin loops from immortalized endometrium and ovarian cell lines and expression quantitative trait loci data highlighted candidate target genes for further investigation.
CONCLUSIONS: Using cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis, we have identified several joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci and candidate target genes for future functional analysis.
IMPACT: Our research highlights the shared genetic relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Further studies in larger sample sets are required to confirm our findings.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort.
RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar.
CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
METHODS: We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity.
RESULTS: Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.).
METHOD: We performed a fine-scale mapping study of a 700 kb region including 441 genotyped and more than 1300 imputed genetic variants in 48,155 cases and 43,612 controls of European descent, 6269 cases and 6624 controls of East Asian descent and 1116 cases and 932 controls of African descent in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC; http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/ ), and in 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify independent association signals. Data from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project (ENCODE) and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were used for functional annotation.
RESULTS: Analysis of data from European descendants found evidence for four independent association signals at 12p11, represented by rs7297051 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.12; P = 3 × 10(-9)), rs805510 (OR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 1.04-1.12, P = 2 × 10(-5)), and rs1871152 (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 1.02-1.06; P = 2 × 10(-4)) identified in the general populations, and rs113824616 (P = 7 × 10(-5)) identified in the meta-analysis of BCAC ER-negative cases and BRCA1 mutation carriers. SNPs rs7297051, rs805510 and rs113824616 were also associated with breast cancer risk at P
OBJECTIVE: To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk.
EXPOSURES: Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast and ovarian cancer risks.
RESULTS: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.