Abstract P5-08-09: Use of oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: An international prospective cohort study; for the studies of EMBRACE, GENEPSO, HEBON, kConFab and BCFR

This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.

Estimating single nucleotide polymorphism associations using pedigree data: applications to breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Pedigrees with multiple genotyped family members have been underutilised in breast cancer (BC) genetic-association studies. We developed a pedigree-based analytical framework to characterise single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associations with BC risk using data from 736 BC families ascertained through multiple affected individuals. On average, eight family members had been genotyped for 24 SNPs previously associated with BC.

METHODS

Breast cancer incidence was modelled on the basis of SNP effects and residual polygenic effects. Relative risk (RR) estimates were obtained by maximising the retrospective likelihood (RL) of observing the family genotypes conditional on all disease phenotypes. Models were extended to assess parent-of-origin effects (POEs).

RESULTS

Thirteen SNPs were significantly associated with BC under the pedigree RL approach. This approach yielded estimates consistent with those from large population-based studies. Logistic regression models ignoring pedigree structure generally gave larger RRs and association P-values. SNP rs3817198 in LSP1, previously shown to exhibit POE, yielded maternal and paternal RR estimates that were similar to those previously reported (paternal RR=1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.27), P=0.081, one-sided P=0.04; maternal RR=0.94 (95% CI: 0.84-1.06), P=0.33). No other SNP exhibited POE.

CONCLUSION

Our pedigree-based methods provide a valuable and efficient tool for characterising genetic associations with BC risk or other diseases and can complement population-based studies.

Germline BRCA1 mutations increase prostate cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is one of the most common cancers affecting men but its aetiology is poorly understood. Family history of PrCa, particularly at a young age, is a strong risk factor. There have been previous reports of increased PrCa risk in male BRCA1 mutation carriers in female breast cancer families, but there is a controversy as to whether this risk is substantiated. We sought to evaluate the role of germline BRCA1 mutations in PrCa predisposition by performing a candidate gene study in a large UK population sample set.

METHODS

We screened 913 cases aged 36–86 years for germline BRCA1 mutation, with the study enriched for cases with an early age of onset. We analysed the entire coding region of the BRCA1 gene using Sanger sequencing. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification was also used to assess the frequency of large rearrangements in 460 cases.

RESULTS

We identified 4 deleterious mutations and 45 unclassified variants (UV). The frequency of deleterious BRCA1 mutation in this study is 0.45%; three of the mutation carriers were affected at age 65 years and one developed PrCa at 69 years. Using previously estimated population carrier frequencies, deleterious BRCA1 mutations confer a relative risk of PrCa of ~3.75-fold, (95% confidence interval 1.02–9.6) translating to a 8.6% cumulative risk by age 65.

CONCLUSION

This study shows evidence for an increased risk of PrCa in men who harbour germline mutations in BRCA1. This could have a significant impact on possible screening strategies and targeted treatments.

Prospective study of breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive families

Published studies have reached contradictory conclusions regarding breast cancer risk for women from families segregating a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who do not carry the family-specific mutation. Accurate estimation of breast cancer risk is crucial for appropriate counselling regarding risk management. The aim of this study is to prospectively assess whether breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is greater than for women in the general population. Eligible women were 722 first-, second- and third-degree relatives of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier from 224 mutation positive (128 BRCA1, 96 BRCA2) families, had no personal cancer history at baseline, and had been tested and found not to carry the family-specific mutation. Self-reported family history of cancer, preventive interventions and verified cancer diagnoses were collected at baseline, and every 3 years thereafter. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (range 0.1-12.4 years). Time at risk of breast cancer was censored at cancer diagnosis or risk-reducing surgery. Standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated by comparing observed to population incidences of invasive breast cancer using Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality Books. Six cases of invasive breast cancer were observed. The estimated SIRs were 1.14 (95% CI: 0.51-2.53) overall (n = 722), 1.29 (95% CI: 0.58-2.88) when restricted to first- and second-degree relatives of an affected mutation carrier (n = 442) and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.12-1.93) when restricted to those with no family history of breast cancer in the non-mutation carrying parental lineage (n = 424). There was no evidence that mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are at increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this being the largest prospective cohort to assess this issue, moderately increased breast cancer risk (2-fold) cannot be ruled out.

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background:

In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Methods:

We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach.

Results:

We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers.

Conclusion:

This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out.

Classification of BRCA1 missense variants of unknown clinical significance

BACKGROUND

BRCA1 is a tumour suppressor with pleiotropic actions. Germline mutations in BRCA1 are responsible for a large proportion of breast-ovarian cancer families. Several missense variants have been identified throughout the gene but because of lack of information about their impact on the function of BRCA1, predictive testing is not always informative. Classification of missense variants into deleterious/high risk or neutral/low clinical significance is essential to identify individuals at risk.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate a panel of missense variants.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The panel was investigated in a comprehensive framework that included (1) a functional assay based on transcription activation; (2) segregation analysis and a method of using incomplete pedigree data to calculate the odds of causality; (3) a method based on interspecific sequence variation. It was shown that the transcriptional activation assay could be used as a test to characterise mutations in the carboxy-terminus region of BRCA1 encompassing residues 1396-1863. Thirteen missense variants (H1402Y, L1407P, H1421Y, S1512I, M1628T, M1628V, T1685I, G1706A, T1720A, A1752P, G1788V, V1809F, and W1837R) were specifically investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

While individual classification schemes for BRCA1 alleles still present limitations, a combination of several methods provides a more powerful way of identifying variants that are causally linked to a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The framework presented here brings these variants nearer to clinical applicability.

Ratio of male to female births in the offspring of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers

A recent report based on 68 families, including 17 with mutations in BRCA1, suggested that there was an excess of female offspring born to BRCA1 mutation carriers. We have examined the gender ratio among offspring of 511 mutation carriers from 116 BRCA1 families, 77 and 39 from Australia and the United States, respectively. We found no evidence for a significant deviation from the expected proportion of female offspring in the Australian pedigrees, but there was an excess of female offspring in pedigrees from the USA. Ascertainment bias probably explains this bias, rather than a link with X-chromosome inactivation as previously suggested, because the families from the USA were ascertained for the purposes of linkage studies whereas those from Australia were ascertained through Familial Cancer Clinics to which they had been referred for clinical genetic counseling and mutation testing.

Genetic, functional, and histopathological evaluation of two C-terminal BRCA1 missense variants

BACKGROUND

The vast majority of BRCA1 missense sequence variants remain uncharacterized for their possible effect on protein expression and function, and therefore are unclassified in terms of their pathogenicity. BRCA1 plays diverse cellular roles and it is unlikely that any single functional assay will accurately reflect the total cellular implications of missense mutations in this gene.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the effect of two BRCA1 variants, 5236G>C (G1706A) and 5242C>A (A1708E) on BRCA1 function, and to survey the relative usefulness of several assays to direct the characterisation of other unclassified variants in BRCA genes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from a range of bioinformatic, genetic, and histopathological analyses, and in vitro functional assays indicated that the 1708E variant was associated with the disruption of different cellular functions of BRCA1. In transient transfection experiments in T47D and 293T cells, the 1708E product was mislocalised to the cytoplasm and induced centrosome amplification in 293T cells. The 1708E variant also failed to transactivate transcription of reporter constructs in mammalian transcriptional transactivation assays. In contrast, the 1706A variant displayed a phenotype comparable to wildtype BRCA1 in these assays. Consistent with functional data, tumours from 1708E carriers showed typical BRCA1 pathology, while tumour material from 1706A carriers displayed few histopathological features associated with BRCA1 related tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive range of genetic, bioinformatic, and functional analyses have been combined for the characterisation of BRCA1 unclassified sequence variants. Consistent with the functional analyses, the combined odds of causality calculated for the 1706A variant after multifactorial likelihood analysis (1:142) indicates a definitive classification of this variant as "benign". In contrast, functional assays of the 1708E variant indicate that it is pathogenic, possibly through subcellular mislocalisation. However, the combined odds of 262:1 in favour of causality of this variant does not meet the minimal ratio of 1000:1 for classification as pathogenic, and A1708E remains formally designated as unclassified. Our findings highlight the importance of comprehensive genetic information, together with detailed functional analysis for the definitive categorisation of unclassified sequence variants. This combination of analyses may have direct application to the characterisation of other unclassified variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Association between polymorphisms of the GPX1 gene and second primary tumours after index squamous cell cancer of the head and neck

We investigated the association between genetic polymorphisms in GPX1 gene amongst patients who had index squamous cell carcinoma (SCCHN) and a second primary tumour (SPT) after a primary SCCHN in a case-control study. GPX1 genotypes were determined for 61 patients with SPT and for 259 control subjects by a PCR technique using a fluorescent-labelled primer. Analysis was by an ABI automated fluorescent sequencer. The associations between specific genotypes and the development of SPT were examined by logistic regression. A significant difference was found between the control group and the SPT cases in allele frequencies of GPX1 ALA( *)6 and ALA( *)7 (p(trend)=0.04). These results suggest that polymorphisms in the GPX1 gene may be a marker for SPT development and further studies are indicated.

Family history and colorectal cancer: predictors of risk

INTRODUCTION

While the association between family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives and risk of developing colon cancer has been well defined, the association with rectal cancer is much less clear. The purpose of this study is to define rectal cancer risk associated with family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives. We also evaluate diet and lifestyle factors associated with developing colorectal cancer among participants with a positive family history.

METHODS

Data were available from two population-based case--control studies of colon and rectal cancer. Participants were members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program (KPMCP) or residents of the state of Utah. Cases were first primary colon cancer diagnosed between 1991 and 1994 (n = 1308 cases and 1544 controls) or rectal cancer diagnosed between 1997 and 2001 (n = 952 cases and 1205 controls).

RESULTS

A family history of colorectal cancer in any first-degree relatives slightly increased risk of rectal cancer (OR: 1.37 95% CI: 1.02-1.85). Family history of colorectal cancer was associated with the greatest risk among those diagnosed at age 50 or younger (OR: 2.09 95% CI: 0.94-4.65 for rectal tumors; OR: 3.00 95% CI: 0.98-9.20 for distal colon tumors; and OR: 7.88 95% CI: 2.62-23.7 for proximal colon tumors). Factors significantly associated with cancer risk among those with a family history of colorectal cancer, included not having a sigmoidoscopy (OR: 2.81 95% CI: 1.86-4.24): a diet not Prudent, i.e. high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish and poultry, (OR: 2.79 95% CI: 1.40-5.56); smoking cigarettes (OR: 1.68 95% CI: 1.12-2.53), and eating a Western diet, i.e. a diet high in meat, refined grains, high-fat foods, and fast foods, (OR: 2.15 95% CI: 1.06-4.35). Physical inactivity was not associated with increased cancer risk among those with a positive family history of colorectal cancer.

SUMMARY

These results confirm observations reported by others that a family history of colorectal cancer increases risk of cancer among those diagnosed at a younger age. Associations with family history are weakest for rectal cancer and strongest for proximal colonic tumors. Since several diet and lifestyle factors influence development of cancer among those with a family history of the disease, there appears to be practical approaches for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer to reduce their cancer risk.

Family history and colorectal cancer: predictors of risk

INTRODUCTION

While the association between family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives and risk of developing colon cancer has been well defined, the association with rectal cancer is much less clear. The purpose of this study is to define rectal cancer risk associated with family history of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives. We also evaluate diet and lifestyle factors associated with developing colorectal cancer among participants with a positive family history.

METHODS

Data were available from two population-based case--control studies of colon and rectal cancer. Participants were members of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program (KPMCP) or residents of the state of Utah. Cases were first primary colon cancer diagnosed between 1991 and 1994 (n = 1308 cases and 1544 controls) or rectal cancer diagnosed between 1997 and 2001 (n = 952 cases and 1205 controls).

RESULTS

A family history of colorectal cancer in any first-degree relatives slightly increased risk of rectal cancer (OR: 1.37 95% CI: 1.02-1.85). Family history of colorectal cancer was associated with the greatest risk among those diagnosed at age 50 or younger (OR: 2.09 95% CI: 0.94-4.65 for rectal tumors; OR: 3.00 95% CI: 0.98-9.20 for distal colon tumors; and OR: 7.88 95% CI: 2.62-23.7 for proximal colon tumors). Factors significantly associated with cancer risk among those with a family history of colorectal cancer, included not having a sigmoidoscopy (OR: 2.81 95% CI: 1.86-4.24): a diet not Prudent, i.e. high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish and poultry, (OR: 2.79 95% CI: 1.40-5.56); smoking cigarettes (OR: 1.68 95% CI: 1.12-2.53), and eating a Western diet, i.e. a diet high in meat, refined grains, high-fat foods, and fast foods, (OR: 2.15 95% CI: 1.06-4.35). Physical inactivity was not associated with increased cancer risk among those with a positive family history of colorectal cancer.

SUMMARY

These results confirm observations reported by others that a family history of colorectal cancer increases risk of cancer among those diagnosed at a younger age. Associations with family history are weakest for rectal cancer and strongest for proximal colonic tumors. Since several diet and lifestyle factors influence development of cancer among those with a family history of the disease, there appears to be practical approaches for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer to reduce their cancer risk.

Germline truncating mutations in both MSH2 and BRCA2 in a single kindred

There has been interest in the literature in the possible existence of a gene that predisposes to both breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). We describe the detailed characterisation of one kindred, MON1080, with 10 cases of BC or CRC invasive cancer among 26 first-, second- or third-degree relatives. Linkage analysis suggested that a mutation was present in BRCA2. DNA sequencing from III: 22 (diagnosed with lobular BC) identified a BRCA2 exon 3 542G>T (L105X) mutation. Her sister (III: 25) had BC and endometrial cancer and carries the same mutation. Following immunohistochemical and microsatellite instability studies, mutation analysis by protein truncation test, cDNA sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR revealed a deletion of MSH2 exon 8 in III: 25, confirming her as a double heterozygote for truncating mutations in both BRCA2 and MSH2. The exon 8 deletion was identified as a 14.9 kb deletion occurring between two Alu sequences. The breakpoint lies within a sequence of 45 bp that is identical in both Alu sequences. In this large BC/CRC kindred, MON1080, disease-causing truncating mutations are present in both MSH2 and BRCA2. There appeared to be no increased susceptibility to the development of colorectal tumours in BRCA2 mutation carriers or to the development of breast tumours in MSH2 mutation carriers. Additionally, two double heterozygotes did not appear to have a different phenotype than would be expected from the presence of a mutation in each gene alone.

No germline mutations in CDKN2A (p16) in patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck and second primary tumours

There is increasing evidence that predisposition to some cancers has a genetic component. There is a high incidence of loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 9, in the region of tumour suppressor gene, CDKN2A (also known as p16), in sporadic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN). To investigate the possibility that CDKN2A may be involved in the inherited susceptibility to SCCHN, the 3 coding exons of CDKN2A were sequenced in 40 patients who had developed a second primary cancer after an index squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. No mutations were found and we conclude that CDKN2A mutations do not play a major role in cancer susceptibility in this group.

Absence of evidence for a familial breast cancer susceptibility gene at chromosome 8p12-p22

Several recent studies indicate that the majority of families with five or fewer cases of breast cancer and no cases of ovarian cancer are not due to BRCA1 or BRCA2. It has been proposed that a further breast cancer susceptibility gene that may account for some of these families is located on chromosome 8p12-p22. We have identified 31 site-specific breast cancer families that have a greater than 80% posterior probability of being due to genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2. These families have been examined for linkage to 8p12-p22 using markers flanking the putative location of the gene. The overall multi-point LOD score is strongly negative across the whole 44 cM. The individual multi-point LOD score is negative in 23 families and only exceeds 0.5 in a single family (with a multi-point LOD score of 1.22). The maximum heterogeneity LOD score was 0.03 at marker D8S136 with estimated proportion linked (alpha) of 3% (95% CI 0 - 30%). These data do not lend support to the hypothesis that chromosome 8p12-p22 harbours a familial breast cancer susceptibility gene. Oncogene (2000) 19, 4170 - 4173

The pathology of familial breast cancer: histological features of cancers in families not attributable to mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2

Breast cancers arising in carriers of mutations in the breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, differ histologically from each other and from breast cancers unselected for a family history. However, a substantial proportion of families with multiple cases of breast cancer is not attributable to these two genes (non-BRCA1/2 families). We have now characterized the pathology of 82 breast cancers from non-BRCA1/2 families. Breast cancers in non-BRCA1/2 families were of lower grade (P = 0.0018), showed fewer mitoses (P < 0.0001), less nuclear pleomorphism (P = 0.0014), less lymphocytic infiltrate (P < 0.0001), a lesser extent of the tumor with a continuous pushing margin (P = 0.004), a lesser extent of the tumor composed of solid sheets of cells (P = 0.0047), less necrosis (P = 0.002), and wereparison with BRCA2 tumors, non-BRCA1/2 tumors were lower grade (P = 0.017) and exhibited less pleomorphism (P = 0.01) and more tubule formation (P = 0.05). In comparison with control breast cancers unselected for a family history of the disease, non-BRCA1/2 tumors were of significantly lower grade (P = 0.001), showed less pleomorphism (P = 0.0002), and had a lower mitotic count (P = 0.003). The results indicate that non-BRCA1/2 breast cancers differ histologically from both BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers and are overall of lower grade. They also suggest that non-BRCA1/2 breast cancers differ from nonfamilial breast cancers, but these differences may be attributable to various types of bias.