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: Germ line DNA from a hospital-based study of 2575 unselected patients with breast cancer and 2809 healthy controls were subjected to amplicon-based targeted sequencing of exonic and proximal splice site junction regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the Fluidigm Access Array system, with sequencing conducted on a Illumina HiSeq2500 platform. Variant calling was performed with GATK UnifiedGenotyper and were validated by Sanger sequencing.
RESULTS: Fifty-five (2.1%) BRCA1 and 66 (2.6%) BRCA2 deleterious mutations were identified among patients with breast cancer and five (0.18%) BRCA1 and six (0.21%) BRCA2 mutations among controls. One thousand one hundred and eighty-six (46%) patients and 97 (80%) carriers fulfilled the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing.
CONCLUSION: Five per cent of unselected Asian patients with breast cancer carry deleterious variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. While current referral guidelines identified the majority of carriers, one in two patients would be referred for genetic services. Given that such services are largely unavailable in majority of low-resource settings in Asia, our study highlights the need for more efficient guidelines to identify at-risk individuals in Asia.
METHODS: The MassARRAY genotyping was conducted in 1,394 Chinese, 406 Malay and 310 Indian breast cancer cases and 1,071 Chinese, 167 Malay and 255 Indian healthy controls. The association of individual variant with breast cancer risk was analyzed using logistic regression model adjusted for ethnicity, age and family history.
RESULTS: Our study confirmed BRCA2 p.Ile3412Val is presented in >2% of unaffected women and is likely benign, and BRCA2 p.Ala1996Thr which is predicted to be likely pathogenic by in-silico models is presented in 2% of healthy Indian women suggesting that it may not be associated with breast cancer risk. Single-variant analysis suggests that BRCA1 p.Arg762Ser may be associated with breast cancer risk (OR = 7.4; 95% CI, 0.9-62.3; p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that BRCA2 p.Ile3412Val and p.Ala1996Thr are likely benign and highlights the need for population-specific studies to determine the likely functional significance of population-specific variants. Our study also suggests that BRCA1 p.Arg762Ser may be associated with increased risk of breast cancer but other methods or larger studies are required to determine a more precise estimate of breast cancer risk.
METHODS: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management.
METHODS: From October 2008 to February 2015, we established a hospital-based cohort of ovarian cancer patients and the germline status of all 218 women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer was tested using targeted amplification and sequencing of the intron-exon junctions and exonic sequences of BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 and TP53.
RESULTS: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were found in 8% (17 cases) and 3% (7 cases) of the ovarian cancer patients, respectively. Mutation carriers were diagnosed at a similar age to non-carriers, but were more likely to be Indian, have serous ovarian cancer, and have more relatives with breast or ovarian cancer. Nonetheless, 42% (10/24) of mutation carriers did not have any family history of breast or ovarian cancer and offering genetic counselling and genetic testing only to women with family history would mean that 35% (6/17) of BRCA1 mutation carriers and 57% (4/7) of BRCA2 mutation carriers would not be offered genetic testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that, similar to Caucasians, a significant proportion of Asian ovarian cancer was attributed to germline mutations in BRCA1 and to a lesser extent in BRCA2.
METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV.
RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.