Excess breast cancer risk in first degree relatives of CHEK2∗1100delC positive familial breast cancer cases

Cancer risks for other sites in addition to breast in CHEK2 c.1100delC families

PURPOSE

Female CHEK2 c.1100delC heterozygotes are eligible for additional breast surveillance because of an increased breast cancer risk. Increased risks for other cancers have been reported. We studied whether CHEK2 c.1100delC is associated with an increased risk for other cancers within these families.

METHODS

Including 10,780 individuals from 609 families, we calculated standardized incidence rates (SIRs) and absolute excess risk (AER, per 10,000 person-years) by comparing first-reported cancer derived from the pedigrees with general Dutch population rates from 1970 onward. Attained-age analyses were performed for sites in which significant increased risks were found. Considering the study design, we primarily focused on cancer risk in women.

RESULTS

We found significant increased risks of colorectal cancer (CRC; SIR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.14-1.76; AER = 1.43) and hematological cancers (SIR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.02-1.67; AER = 0.87). CRC was significantly more frequent from age 45 onward.

CONCLUSION

A significantly increased risk of CRC, and hematological cancers in women was found, starting at a younger age than expected. Currently, colorectal surveillance starts at age 45 in high-risk individuals. Our results suggest that some CHEK2 c.1100delC families might benefit from this surveillance as well; however, further research is needed to determine who may profit from this additional colorectal surveillance.

Systematic review of the molecular basis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in Brazil: the current scenario

BACKGROUND

A detailed understanding of the genetic basis of cancer is of great interest to public health monitoring programs. Although many studies have been conducted in Brazil, a global view on the molecular profile related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in this large and heterogeneous population is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted in three electronic databases (PubMed, BIREME and SciELO). Brazilian studies covering molecular analysis of genes related to HBOC, published until December 2023, were considered.

RESULTS

We identified 35 original studies that met all the inclusion criteria. A total of 137 distinct mutations were found in the BRCA1 gene, but four of them corresponded to 44.5% of all mutations found in this gene. The c.5266dupC BRCA1 mutation was responsible for 26.8% of all pathogenic mutations found in the BRCA1 gene in patients with clinical criteria for HBOC from the Brazilian population. Considering all studies that track this mutation in the BRCA1 gene, we found a frequency of 2% (120/6008) for this mutation in Brazilian patients. In the BRCA2 gene, the four most frequent mutations corresponded to 29.2% of pathogenic mutations. Even though it was tracked by few studies, the c.156_157insAlu mutation was responsible for 9.6% of all pathogenic mutations reported in the BRCA2 gene. Seventeen studies found pathogenic mutations in other non-BRCA genes, the c.1010G > A mutation in the TP53 gene being the most frequent one. Considering all studies that screened for this specific mutation in patients with the clinical criteria for HBOC, the frequency of c.1010G > A was estimated at 1.83% (61/3336).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant molecular heterogeneity among mutations in HBOC patients from Brazil, three mutations deserve to be highlighted, c.5266dupC, c.156_157insAlu and c.1010G > A in the BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 genes, respectively. With more than 200 records, these three mutations play a vital role in the pathology of breast and ovarian cancer in Brazil. The data collected shed light on the subject, but there is still not enough data from certain subpopulations.

The benefit of adding polygenic risk scores, lifestyle factors, and breast density to family history and genetic status for breast cancer risk and surveillance classification of unaffected women from germline CHEK2 c.1100delC families

To determine the changes in surveillance category by adding a polygenic risk score based on 311 breast cancer (BC)-associated variants (PRS311), questionnaire-based risk factors and breast density on personalized BC risk in unaffected women from Dutch CHEK2 c.1100delC families. In total, 117 unaffected women (58 heterozygotes and 59 non-carriers) from CHEK2 families were included. Blood-derived DNA samples were genotyped with the GSAMDv3-array to determine PRS311. Lifetime BC risk was calculated in CanRisk, which uses data from the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA). Women, were categorized into three surveillance groups. The surveillance advice was reclassified in 37.9 % of heterozygotes and 32.2 % of non-carriers after adding PRS311. Including questionnaire-based risk factors resulted in an additional change in 20.0 % of heterozygotes and 13.2 % of non-carriers; and a subanalysis showed that adding breast density on top shifted another 17.9 % of heterozygotes and 33.3 % of non-carriers. Overall, the majority of heterozygotes were reclassified to a less intensive surveillance, while non-carriers would require intensified surveillance. The addition of PRS311, questionnaire-based risk factors and breast density to family history resulted in a more personalized BC surveillance advice in CHEK2-families, which may lead to more efficient use of surveillance.

A search for modifying genetic factors in CHEK2:c.1100delC breast cancer patients

The risk of breast cancer associated with CHEK2:c.1100delC is 2-threefold but higher in carriers with a family history of breast cancer than without, suggesting that other genetic loci in combination with CHEK2:c.1100delC confer an increased risk in a polygenic model. Part of the excess familial risk has been associated with common low-penetrance variants. This study aimed to identify genetic loci that modify CHEK2:c.1100delC-associated breast cancer risk by searching for candidate risk alleles that are overrepresented in CHEK2:c.1100delC carriers with breast cancer compared with controls. We performed whole-exome sequencing in 28 breast cancer cases with germline CHEK2:c.1100delC, 28 familial breast cancer cases and 70 controls. Candidate alleles were selected for validation in larger cohorts. One recessive synonymous variant, rs16897117, was suggested, but no overrepresentation of homozygous CHEK2:c.1100delC carriers was found in the following validation. Furthermore, 11 non-synonymous candidate alleles were suggested for further testing, but no significant difference in allele frequency could be detected in the validation in CHEK2:c.1100delC cases compared with familial breast cancer, sporadic breast cancer and controls. With this method, we found no support for a CHEK2:c.1100delC-specific genetic modifier. Further studies of CHEK2:c.1100delC genetic modifiers are warranted to improve risk assessment in clinical practice.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer

Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging is the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection but is currently limited to screening women at high risk due to limited specificity and test accessibility. However, specificity of MR imaging improves with successive rounds of screening, and abbreviated approaches have the potential to increase access and decrease cost. There is growing evidence to support supplemental MR imaging in moderate-risk women, and current guidelines continue to evolve. Functional imaging has the potential to maximize survival benefit of screening. Leveraging MR imaging as a possible primary screening tool is therefore also being investigated in average-risk women.

Highlights of the 16th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference, Vienna, Austria, 20-23 March 2019: personalised treatments for patients with early breast cancer

The 16th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference took place in Vienna for the third time, from 20–23 March 2019. More than 3000 people from all over the world were invited to take part in this important bi-annual critical review of the ‘state of the art’ in the primary care of breast cancer (BC), independent of political and industrial pressure, with the aim to integrate the most recent research data and most important developments in BC therapies since St Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference 2017, with the ultimate goal of drawing up a consensus for the current optimal treatment and prevention of BC.

This year, the St Gallen Breast Cancer Award was won by Monica Morrow (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA) for her extraordinary contribution in research and practise development in the treatment of BC. She opened the session with the lecture ‘Will surgery be a part of BC treatment in the future?’ Improved systemic therapy has decreased BC mortality and increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Improved imaging and increased screening uptake have led to detect smaller cancers. These factors have highlighted two possible scenarios to omit surgery: for patients with small low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and for those who have received NACT and had a clinical and radiological complete response. However, considering that 7%–20% of `low-risk’ DCIS patients have co-existing invasive cancer at diagnosis, that surgery has become progressively less morbid and less toxic than some systemic therapies with a lower cost-effectiveness ratio, and that identification of pathologic complete response (pCR) without surgery requires more intensive imaging follow-up (more biopsies, higher cost and more anxiety for the patient), surgery still appears to be an essential treatment for BC.

The Umberto Veronesi Memorial Award went to Lesley Fallowfield (Brighton and Sussex Medical School, UK) for her important research and activity in the field of the development of patient outcome, of better communication skills and quality of life for women. In her lecture, she remarked on the importance of improving BC personalised treatments, especially through co-operation between scientists, always considering the whole woman and not just her breast disease. This award was given by Paolo Veronesi, after a moving introduction which culminated with the following words of Professor Umberto Veronesi:

‘It is not possible to take care of the people’s bodies without taking care of their mind. My duty, the duty of all doctors, is to listen and be part of the emotions of those we treat every day’.

Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening

Multiple studies in the first decade of the 21^st century have established contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening modality for women with a hereditary or familial increased risk for the development of breast cancer. In recent studies, in women with various risk profiles, the sensitivity ranges between 81% and 100%, which is approximately twice as high as the sensitivity of mammography. The specificity increases in follow-up rounds to around 97%, with positive predictive values for biopsy in the same range as for mammography. MRI preferentially detects the more aggressive/invasive types of breast cancer, but has a higher sensitivity than mammography for any type of cancer. This performance implies that in women screened with breast MRI, all other examinations must be regarded as supplemental. Mammography may yield ~5% additional cancers, mostly ductal carcinoma in situ, while slightly decreasing specificity and increasing the costs. Ultrasound has no supplemental value when MRI is used. Evidence is mounting that in other groups of women the performance of MRI is likewise superior to more conventional screening techniques. Particularly in women with a personal history of breast cancer, the gain seems to be high, but also in women with a biopsy history of lobular carcinoma in situ and even women at average risk, similar results are reported. Initial outcome studies show that breast MRI detects cancer earlier, which induces a stage-shift increasing the survival benefit of screening. Cost-effectiveness is still an issue, particularly for women at lower risk. Since costs of the MRI scan itself are a driving factor, efforts to reduce these costs are essential. The use of abbreviated MRI protocols may enable more widespread use of breast MRI for screening. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:377-390.

Multi-gene Panel Testing in Breast Cancer Management

Hereditary predisposition accounts for approximately 10% of all breast cancers and is mostly associated with germline mutations in high-penetrance genes encoding for proteins participating in DNA repair through homologous recombination (BRCA1 and BRCA2). With the advent of massive parallel next-generation DNA sequencing, simultaneous analysis of multiple genes with a short turnaround time and at a low cost has become possible. The clinical validity and utility of multi-gene panel testing is getting better characterized as more data on the significance of moderate-penetrance genes are collected from large, cancer genetic testing studies. In this chapter, we attempt to provide a general guide for interpretation of panel gene testing in breast cancer and use of the information obtained for clinical decision-making.

The BRCA1 c. 5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) intermediate risk variant: breast and ovarian cancer risk estimation and recommendations for clinical management from the ENIGMA consortium

BACKGROUND

We previously showed that the BRCA1 variant c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) was associated with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). This study aimed to assess these cancer risks for R1699Q carriers in a larger cohort, including follow-up of previously studied families, to further define cancer risks and to propose adjusted clinical management of female BRCA1*R1699Q carriers.

METHODS

Data were collected from 129 BRCA1*R1699Q families ascertained internationally by ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium members. A modified segregation analysis was used to calculate BC and OC risks. Relative risks were calculated under both monogenic model and major gene plus polygenic model assumptions.

RESULTS

In this cohort the cumulative risk of BC and OC by age 70 years was 20% and 6%, respectively. The relative risk for developing cancer was higher when using a model that included the effects of both the R1699Q variant and a residual polygenic component compared with monogenic model (for BC 3.67 vs 2.83, and for OC 6.41 vs 5.83).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that BRCA1*R1699Q confers an intermediate risk for BC and OC. Breast surveillance for female carriers based on mammogram annually from age 40 is advised. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be considered based on family history.

Genetic modifiers of CHEK2*1100delC-associated breast cancer risk

PURPOSE

CHEK2*1100delC is a founder variant in European populations that confers a two- to threefold increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Epidemiologic and family studies have suggested that the risk associated with CHEK2*1100delC is modified by other genetic factors in a multiplicative fashion. We have investigated this empirically using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC).

METHODS

Using genotype data from 39,139 (624 1100delC carriers) BC patients and 40,063 (224) healthy controls from 32 BCAC studies, we analyzed the combined risk effects of CHEK2*1100delC and 77 common variants in terms of a polygenic risk score (PRS) and pairwise interaction.

RESULTS

The PRS conferred odds ratios (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.21-2.09) per standard deviation for BC for CHEK2*1100delC carriers and 1.58 (1.55-1.62) for noncarriers. No evidence of deviation from the multiplicative model was found. The OR for the highest quintile of the PRS was 2.03 (0.86-4.78) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers, placing them in the high risk category according to UK NICE guidelines. The OR for the lowest quintile was 0.52 (0.16-1.74), indicating a lifetime risk close to the population average.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the multiplicative nature of risk effects conferred by CHEK2*1100delC and the common susceptibility variants. Furthermore, the PRS could identify carriers at a high lifetime risk for clinical actions.Genet Med advance online publication 06 October 2016.

Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations

The use of multigene panels for the assessment of cancer susceptibility is expanding rapidly in clinical practice, particularly in the USA, despite concerns regarding the uncertain clinical validity for some gene variants and the uncertain clinical utility of most multigene panels. So-called 'moderate-penetrance' gene mutations associated with cancer susceptibility are identified in approximately 2-5% of individuals referred for clinical testing; some of these mutations are potentially actionable. Nevertheless, the appropriate management of individuals harbouring such moderate-penetrance genetic variants is unclear. The cancer risks associated with mutations in moderate-penetrance genes are lower and different than those reported for high-penetrance gene mutations (such as mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, and those associated with Lynch syndrome). The extrapolation of guidelines for the management of individuals with high-penetrance variants of cancer-susceptibility genes to the clinical care of patients with moderate-penetrance gene mutations could result in substantial harm. Thus, we provide a framework for clinical decision-making pending the development of a sufficient evidence base to document the clinical utility of the interventions for individuals with inherited moderate-penetrance gene mutations associated with an increased risk of cancer.

Age- and Tumor Subtype-Specific Breast Cancer Risk Estimates for CHEK2*1100delC Carriers

PURPOSE

CHEK2*1100delC is a well-established breast cancer risk variant that is most prevalent in European populations; however, there are limited data on risk of breast cancer by age and tumor subtype, which limits its usefulness in breast cancer risk prediction. We aimed to generate tumor subtype- and age-specific risk estimates by using data from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium, including 44,777 patients with breast cancer and 42,997 controls from 33 studies genotyped for CHEK2*1100delC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CHEK2*1100delC genotyping was mostly done by a custom Taqman assay. Breast cancer odds ratios (ORs) for CHEK2*1100delC carriers versus noncarriers were estimated by using logistic regression and adjusted for study (categorical) and age. Main analyses included patients with invasive breast cancer from population- and hospital-based studies.

RESULTS

Proportions of heterozygous CHEK2*1100delC carriers in controls, in patients with breast cancer from population- and hospital-based studies, and in patients with breast cancer from familial- and clinical genetics center-based studies were 0.5%, 1.3%, and 3.0%, respectively. The estimated OR for invasive breast cancer was 2.26 (95%CI, 1.90 to 2.69; P = 2.3 × 10(-20)). The OR was higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease (2.55 [95%CI, 2.10 to 3.10; P = 4.9 × 10(-21)]) than it was for ER-negative disease (1.32 [95%CI, 0.93 to 1.88; P = .12]; P interaction = 9.9 × 10(-4)). The OR significantly declined with attained age for breast cancer overall (P = .001) and for ER-positive tumors (P = .001). Estimated cumulative risks for development of ER-positive and ER-negative tumors by age 80 in CHEK2*1100delC carriers were 20% and 3%, respectively, compared with 9% and 2%, respectively, in the general population of the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSION

These CHEK2*1100delC breast cancer risk estimates provide a basis for incorporating CHEK2*1100delC into breast cancer risk prediction models and into guidelines for intensified screening and follow-up.

A Comparison between CHEK2*1100delC/I157T Mutation Carrier and Noncarrier Breast Cancer Patients: A Clinicopathological Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The suppressor gene CHEK2 encodes a cell cycle checkpoint kinase, involved in cell cycle regulation, apoptosis and response to DNA damage. The aim of this study was to analyze the differences between CHEK2 mutation carriers (CHEK2*1100delC/I157T) and noncarriers with respect to clinicopathological factors.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 100 early breast cancer patients (46 mutation carriers and 54 noncarriers) who were treated with chemotherapy, hormonotherapy or trastuzumab.

RESULTS

CHEK2 mutation carriers were older (>65 years) than noncarriers (17 vs. 7%; p = 0.215). Twenty-five (54%) of them had a history of cancer in the family. Gastric cancer in the family history was detected in 11% of mutation carriers and in 2% of noncarriers (p = 0.092). There was a trend for more frequent lymph node metastases in patients without the mutation in comparison to mutation carriers (46 vs. 28%; p = 0.098). Luminal B type breast cancer was detected more often in carriers (39 vs. 20%; p = 0.048). Breast-conserving treatment was also conducted more often in mutation carriers (57 vs. 31%; p = 0.015). Histologic grades G1/G2 were detected more frequently in mutation carriers (82 vs. 70%; p = 0.212).

CONCLUSION

Mutation carriers were characterized by older age, a history of gastric cancer in the family, locally advanced disease, lower histologic grade and luminal B type breast cancer.

Increased Risk for Other Cancers in Addition to Breast Cancer for CHEK2*1100delC Heterozygotes Estimated From the Copenhagen General Population Study

PURPOSE

CHEK2 is a cell cycle checkpoint regulator, and the CHEK2*1100delC germline mutation leads to loss of function and increased breast cancer risk. It seems plausible that this mutation could also predispose to other cancers. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity is associated with increased risk for other cancers in addition to breast cancer in the general population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined 86,975 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study, recruited from 2003 through 2010. The participants completed a questionnaire on health and lifestyle, were examined physically, had blood drawn for DNA extraction, were tested for presence of CHEK2*1100delC using Taqman assays and sequencing, and were linked over 1943 through 2011 to the Danish Cancer Registry. Incidences and risks of individual cancer types, including breast cancer, were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, Fine and Gray competing-risks regressions, and stratified analyses with interaction tests.

RESULTS

Among 86,975 individuals, 670 (0.8%) were CHEK2*1100delC heterozygous, 2,442 developed breast cancer, and 6,635 developed other cancers. The age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio for CHEK2*1100delC heterozygotes compared with noncarriers was 2.08 (95% CI, 1.51 to 2.85) for breast cancer and 1.45 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.82) for other cancers. When stratifying for sex, the age-adjusted hazard ratios for other cancers were 1.54 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.18) for women and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.85) for men (sex difference: P = .63). For CHEK2*1100delC heterozygotes compared with noncarriers, the age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratios were 5.76 (95% CI, 2.12 to 15.6) for stomach cancer, 3.61 (95% CI, 1.33 to 9.79) for kidney cancer, 3.45 (95% CI, 1.09 to 10.9) for sarcoma, and 1.60 (95% CI, 1.00 to 2.56) for prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity is associated with 15% to 82% increased risk for at least some cancers in addition to breast cancer. This information may be useful in clinical counseling of patients with this loss-of-function mutation.

Next-generation sequencing for inherited breast cancer risk: counseling through the complexity

Next-generation sequencing technology affords an unprecedented opportunity to analyze multiple breast cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously. With the incarnation of gene panels that combine testing for moderate- and high-penetrance genes, this technology has given birth to a paradigm shift in clinical genetic test offerings. A transformation in genetic counseling for cancer susceptibility will necessarily follow, with a shift from the traditional approach of single-gene testing to considerations of testing by multi-gene panels. At the same time, however, the opportunity to identify rare lesions underlying hereditary susceptibility has introduced new challenges. Available cancer risk estimates for genes included in panel tests may not be supported by evidence, and there is increased risk of identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Management of individuals with rare pathogenic mutations may be unclear. We provide a summary of available evidence for breast cancer risks conferred by pathogenic mutations in genes commonly included in breast cancer susceptibility panels, as well as a review of limitations and counseling points.

Points to consider for prioritizing clinical genetic testing services: a European consensus process oriented at accountability for reasonableness

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management.