The BRCAPRO 5.0 model is a useful tool in genetic counseling and clinical management of male breast cancer cases

Gender-Specific Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer: BRCA Genes and Beyond

Among neoplastic diseases, breast cancer (BC) is one of the most influenced by gender. Despite common misconceptions associating BC as a women-only disease, BC can also occur in men. Additionally, transgender individuals may also experience BC. Genetic risk factors play a relevant role in BC predisposition, with important implications in precision prevention and treatment. The genetic architecture of BC susceptibility is similar in women and men, with high-, moderate-, and low-penetrance risk variants; however, some sex-specific features have emerged. Inherited high-penetrance pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the strongest BC genetic risk factor. BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are more commonly associated with increased risk of female and male BC, respectively. Notably, BRCA-associated BCs are characterized by sex-specific pathologic features. Recently, next-generation sequencing technologies have helped to provide more insights on the role of moderate-penetrance BC risk variants, particularly in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM genes, while international collaborative genome-wide association studies have contributed evidence on common low-penetrance BC risk variants, on their combined effect in polygenic models, and on their role as risk modulators in BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Overall, all these studies suggested that the genetic basis of male BC, although similar, may differ from female BC. Evaluating the genetic component of male BC as a distinct entity from female BC is the first step to improve both personalized risk assessment and therapeutic choices of patients of both sexes in order to reach gender equality in BC care. In this review, we summarize the latest research in the field of BC genetic predisposition with a particular focus on similarities and differences in male and female BC, and we also discuss the implications, challenges, and open issues that surround the establishment of a gender-oriented clinical management for BC.

Male Breast Cancer: From Molecular Genetics to Clinical Management

MBC is a rare disease accounting for almost 1% of all cancers in men and less than 1% of breast cancer. Emerging data on the genetic drivers of predisposition for MBC are available and different risk factors have been associated with its pathogenesis. Genetic alterations, such as pathogenetic variants in BRCA1/2 and other moderate-/low-penetrance genes, along with non-genetic risk factors, have been recognized as pathogenic factors for MBC. Preventive and therapeutic implications could be related to the detection of alterations in predisposing genes, especially BRCA1/2, and to the identification of oncogenic drivers different from FBC. However, approved treatments for MBC remain the same as FBC. Cancer genetic counseling has to be considered in the diagnostic work-up of MBC with or without positive oncological family history. Here, we review the literature, reporting recent data about this malignancy with a specific focus on epidemiology, and genetic and non-genetic risk factors. We introduce the perspective of cancer genetic counseling for MBC patients and their healthy at-risk family members, with a focus on different hereditary cancer syndromes.

Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in male breast cancer patients

To establish whether existing mutation prediction models can identify which male breast cancer (MBC) patients should be offered BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic DNA screening, we compared the performance of BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm), BRCAPRO (BRCA probability) and the Myriad prevalence table ("Myriad"). These models were evaluated using the family data of 307 Dutch MBC probands tested for BRCA1/2, 58 (19%) of whom were carriers. We compared the numbers of observed vs predicted carriers and assessed the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve (AUC) for each model. BOADICEA predicted the total number of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers quite accurately (observed/predicted ratio: 0.94). When a cut-off of 10% and 20% prior probability was used, BRCAPRO showed a non-significant better performance (observed/predicted ratio BOADICEA: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.60-1.09] and 0.79, 95% CI: [0.57-1.09], vs.

BRCAPRO

1.02, 95% CI: [0.75-1.38] and 0.94, 95% CI: [0.68-1.31], respectively). Myriad underestimated the number of carriers in up to 69% of the cases. BRCAPRO showed a non-significant, higher AUC than BOADICEA (0.798 vs 0.776). Myriad showed a significantly lower AUC (0.671). BRCAPRO and BOADICEA can efficiently identify MBC patients as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Besides their general applicability, these tools will be of particular value in countries with limited healthcare resources.

Next-generation sequencing of BRCA1/2 in breast cancer patients: potential effects on clinical decision-making using rapid, high-accuracy genetic results

Purpose

We evaluated the clinical role of rapid next-generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying BRCA1/2 mutations compared to traditional Sanger sequencing.

Methods

Twenty-four paired samples from 12 patients were analyzed in this prospective study to compare the performance of NGS to the Sanger method. Both NGS and Sanger sequencing were performed in 2 different laboratories using blood samples from patients with breast cancer. We then analyzed the accuracy of NGS in terms of variant calling and determining concordance rates of BRCA1/2 mutation detection.

Results

The overall concordance rate of BRCA1/2 mutation identification was 100%. Variants of unknown significance (VUS) were reported in two cases of BRCA1 and 3 cases of BRCA2 after Sanger sequencing, whereas NGS reported only 1 case of BRCA1 VUS, likely due to differences in reference databases used for mutation identification. The median turnaround time of Sanger sequencing was 22 days (range, 14–26 days), while the median time of NGS was only 6 days (range, 3–21 days).

Conclusion

NGS yielded comparably accurate results to Sanger sequencing and in a much shorter time with respect to BRCA1/2 mutation identification. The shorter turnaround time and higher accuracy of NGS may help clinicians make more timely and informed decisions regarding surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

BRCAPRO 6.0 Model Validation in Male Patients Presenting for BRCA Testing

BACKGROUND

BRCAPRO is a risk assessment model to estimate the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. BRCA mutation carriers are at higher risk of developing breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. BRCAPRO was developed for women and found to be superior to other risk assessment models. The present study evaluated the validity of BRCAPRO at predicting the risk of male patients carrying a BRCA mutation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 146 men who presented for genetic counseling and testing from February1997 to September 2011, and their test results were included in the present study. BRCAPRO risk assessment for all patients was calculated using the BRCAPRO clinical CancerGene assessment software.

RESULTS

The mean age at presentation was 57 years. Of the 146 patients, 48 had breast cancer, 18 had pancreatic cancer, 39 had prostate cancer, 27 had other primary cancers, and 37 had no cancer. Fifty patients (34%) tested positive for a BRCA mutation (22 BRCA1, 27 BRCA2, and 1 BRCA1 and BRCA2). The mean BRCAPRO score for all patients was 24.96%. The BRCAPRO score was significantly higher for patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation (46.19% vs. 13.9%, p < .01). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.83 for all patients for the BRCAPRO score to predict the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. At a cutoff point of 30.02%, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.74, 0.81, 0.67, and 0.86, respectively.

CONCLUSION

BRCAPRO appears to be a valid risk assessment tool for determining the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation in men.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Men carrying genetic mutations in the BRCA gene have a greater risk than the general population of developing certain types of cancer, including breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. BRCAPRO is a risk assessment model that predicts the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. The present study aimed at validating BRCAPRO for use with men seen for genetic counseling, whether affected by cancer or not. The data available for 146 patients revealed that BRCAPRO was effective at identifying patients at risk of BRCA mutation. These findings could help in identifying a subset of high-risk patients who should proceed to genetic testing.

Male breast cancer: risk factors, biology, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship

BACKGROUND

The causes, optimal treatments, and medical/psychosocial sequelae of breast cancer in men are poorly understood.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the English language literature was conducted to identify studies relevant to male breast cancer between 1987 and 2012 and including at least 20 patients. Searches were carried out on PubMed using the title terms 'male breast cancer' or 'male breast carcinoma'.

RESULTS

Relevant published data regarding risk factors, biological characteristics, presentation and prognosis, appropriate evaluation and treatment, and survivorship issues in male breast cancer patients are presented. BRCA2 mutations, age, conditions that alter the estrogen/androgen ratio, and radiation are proven risk factors. Disease biology is distinct in men, but diagnostic approaches and treatments for men are generally extrapolated from those in women due to inadequate research in men. Survivorship issues in men may include sexual and hormonal side-effects of endocrine therapies as well as unique psychosocial impacts of the disease.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to address gaps in knowledge pertaining to care of male breast cancer patients and survivors.

Validation of three BRCA1/2 mutation-carrier probability models Myriad, BRCAPRO and BOADICEA in a population-based series of 183 German families

Many studies have evaluated the performance of risk assessment models for BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities in different populations, but to our knowledge very few studies have been conducted in the German population so far. In the recent study, we validated the performance of three risk calculation models by names BRCAPRO, Myriad and BOADICEA in 183 German families who had undergone molecular testing of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 with an indication based on clinical criteria regarding their family history of cancer. The sensitivity and specificity at the conventional threshold of 10% as well as for a threshold of 20% were evaluated. The ability to discriminate between carriers and non-carriers was judged by the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. We further focused on the performance characteristic of these models in patients carrying large genomic rearrangements as a subtype of mutations which is currently gaining increasing importance. BRCAPRO and BOADICEA performed almost equally well in our patient population, but we found a lack of agreement to Myriad. The results obtained from this study were consistent with previously published results from other population and racial/ethnic groups. We suggest using model specific decision thresholds instead of the recommended universal value of 10%. We further suggest integrating the CaGene5 software package, which includes BRCAPRO and Myriad, in the genetic counselling of German families with suspected inherited breast and ovarian cancer because of the good performance of BRCAPRO and the substantial ease of use of this software.

Accuracy of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models for different ethnicities and genders: experience in a southern Chinese cohort

Background

BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models (BRCAPRO, Myriad II, Couch, Shattuck-Eidens, BOADICEA) are well established in western cohorts to estimate the probability of BRCA1/2 mutations. Results are conflicting in Asian populations. Most studies did not account for gender-specific prediction. We evaluated the performance of these models in a Chinese cohort, including males, before BRCA1/2 mutation testing.

Methods

The five risk models were used to calculate the probability of BRCA mutations in probands with breast and ovarian cancers; 267 were non-BRCA mutation carriers (247 females and 20 males) and 43 were BRCA mutation carriers (38 females and 5 males).

Results

Mean BRCA prediction scores for all models were statistically better for carriers than noncarriers for females but not for males. BRCAPRO overestimated the numbers of female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers at thresholds ≥20% but underestimated if <20%. BRCAPRO and BOADICEA underestimated the number of male BRCA1/2 mutation carriers whilst Myriad II underestimated the number of both male and female carriers. In females, BRCAPRO showed similar discrimination, as measured by the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) for BRCA1/2 combined mutation prediction to BOADICEA, but performed better than BOADICEA in BRCA1 mutation prediction (AUC 93% vs. 87%). BOADICEA had the best discrimination for BRCA1/2 combined mutation prediction (AUC 87%) in males.

Conclusions

The variation in model performance underscores the need for research on larger Asian cohorts as prediction models, and the possible need for customizing these models for different ethnic groups and genders.

Strictly defined familial male breast cancer

The term "familial male breast cancer" is often misleading, because in the breast cancer families reported in the literature, the vast majority of the patients were women and only a few were men. In this report, we present the rare case of a strictly defined familial male breast cancer (MBC) in which exclusively men were diagnosed with breast cancer. Three of four brothers developed the disease between the age of 46 and 64 years within a period of 21 years whereas all female relatives remained unaffected. The three affected men did not show the typical known clinical and genetic risk factors for MBC. An X-linked recessive inheritance may be possible in these cases. One way to potentially improve the identification of the causes of MBC could be a through a strictly studying families in which the male members were exclusively diagnosed with this malignancy. This approach emphasizes familial MBC as a distinct entity and not only as a variant of female breast cancer.