Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Fulltext Clinical, splicing, and functional analysis to classify BRCA2 exon 3 variants: Application of a points-based ACMG/AMP approach
    Thomassen M, Mesman RLS, Hansen TVO, Menendez M, Rossing M, Esteban-Sánchez A, et al.
    Hum Mutat, 2022 Dec;43(12):1921-1944.
    PMID: 35979650 DOI: 10.1002/humu.24449
    Skipping of BRCA2 exon 3 (∆E3) is a naturally occurring splicing event, complicating clinical classification of variants that may alter ∆E3 expression. This study used multiple evidence types to assess pathogenicity of 85 variants in/near BRCA2 exon 3. Bioinformatically predicted spliceogenic variants underwent mRNA splicing analysis using minigenes and/or patient samples. ∆E3 was measured using quantitative analysis. A mouse embryonic stem cell (mESC) based assay was used to determine the impact of 18 variants on mRNA splicing and protein function. For each variant, population frequency, bioinformatic predictions, clinical data, and existing mRNA splicing and functional results were collated. Variant class was assigned using a gene-specific adaptation of ACMG/AMP guidelines, following a recently proposed points-based system. mRNA and mESC analysis combined identified six variants with transcript and/or functional profiles interpreted as loss of function. Cryptic splice site use for acceptor site variants generated a transcript encoding a shorter protein that retains activity. Overall, 69/85 (81%) variants were classified using the points-based approach. Our analysis shows the value of applying gene-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines using a points-based approach and highlights the consideration of cryptic splice site usage to appropriately assign PVS1 code strength.
  2. Fulltext Breast Cancer Risk Genes - Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women
    Breast Cancer Association Consortium, Dorling L, Carvalho S, Allen J, González-Neira A, Luccarini C, et al.
    N Engl J Med, 2021 02 04;384(5):428-439.
    PMID: 33471991 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1913948
    BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes, evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimates are imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking.

    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.).

  3. Fulltext Large scale multifactorial likelihood quantitative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: An ENIGMA resource to support clinical variant classification
    Parsons MT, Tudini E, Li H, Hahnen E, Wappenschmidt B, Feliubadaló L, et al.
    Hum Mutat, 2019 Sep;40(9):1557-1578.
    PMID: 31131967 DOI: 10.1002/humu.23818
    The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co-segregation, family cancer history profile, co-occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case-control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene-specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links