Genetic variation at 9p22.2 and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Whole-Genome Sequencing Identifies PPARGC1A as a Putative Modifier of Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers

While BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are known to confer the largest risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer, the incomplete penetrance of the mutations and the substantial variability in age at cancer onset among carriers suggest additional factors modifying the risk of cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. To identify genetic modifiers of BRCA1/2, we carried out a whole-genome sequencing study of 66 ovarian cancer patients that were enriched with BRCA carriers, followed by validation using data from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes Consortium. We found PPARGC1A, a master regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis and function, to be highly mutated in BRCA carriers, and patients with both PPARGC1A and BRCA1/2 mutations were diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer at significantly younger ages, while the mutation status of each gene alone did not significantly associate with age of onset. Our study suggests PPARGC1A as a possible BRCA modifier gene. Upon further validation, this finding can help improve cancer risk prediction and provide personalized preventive care for BRCA carriers.

The Molecular Landscape Influencing Prognoses of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is one of the major increasing lethal malignancies of the gynecological tract, mostly due to delayed diagnosis and chemoresistance, as well as its very heterogeneous genetic makeup. Application of high-throughput molecular technologies, gene expression microarrays, and powerful preclinical models has provided a deeper understanding of the molecular characteristics of EOC. Therefore, molecular markers have become a potent tool in EOC management, including prediction of aggressiveness, prognosis, and recurrence, and identification of novel therapeutic targets. In addition, biomarkers derived from genomic/epigenomic alterations (e.g., gene mutations, copy number aberrations, and DNA methylation) enable targeted treatment of affected signaling pathways in advanced EOC, thereby improving the effectiveness of traditional treatments. This review outlines the molecular landscape and discusses the impacts of biomarkers on the detection, diagnosis, surveillance, and therapeutic targets of EOC. These findings focus on the necessity to translate these potential biomarkers into clinical practice.

Population-based targeted sequencing of 54 candidate genes identifies PALB2 as a susceptibility gene for high-grade serous ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

The known epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) susceptibility genes account for less than 50% of the heritable risk of ovarian cancer suggesting that other susceptibility genes exist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution to ovarian cancer susceptibility of rare deleterious germline variants in a set of candidate genes.

METHODS

We sequenced the coding region of 54 candidate genes in 6385 invasive EOC cases and 6115 controls of broad European ancestry. Genes with an increased frequency of putative deleterious variants in cases versus controls were further examined in an independent set of 14 135 EOC cases and 28 655 controls from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank. For each gene, we estimated the EOC risks and evaluated associations between germline variant status and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The ORs associated for high-grade serous ovarian cancer were 3.01 for PALB2 (95% CI 1.59 to 5.68; p=0.00068), 1.99 for POLK (95% CI 1.15 to 3.43; p=0.014) and 4.07 for SLX4 (95% CI 1.34 to 12.4; p=0.013). Deleterious mutations in FBXO10 were associated with a reduced risk of disease (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.00, p=0.049). However, based on the Bayes false discovery probability, only the association for PALB2 in high-grade serous ovarian cancer is likely to represent a true positive.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found strong evidence that carriers of PALB2 deleterious mutations are at increased risk of high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Whether the magnitude of risk is sufficiently high to warrant the inclusion of PALB2 in cancer gene panels for ovarian cancer risk testing is unclear; much larger sample sizes will be needed to provide sufficiently precise estimates for clinical counselling.

The yeast FIT2 homologs are necessary to maintain cellular proteostasis and membrane lipid homeostasis

Lipid droplets (LDs) are implicated in conditions of lipid and protein dysregulation. The fat storage-inducing transmembrane (FIT; also known as FITM) family induces LD formation. Here, we establish a model system to study the role of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae FIT homologues (ScFIT), SCS3 and YFT2, in the proteostasis and stress response pathways. While LD biogenesis and basal endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress-induced unfolded protein response (UPR) remain unaltered in ScFIT mutants, SCS3 was found to be essential for proper stress-induced UPR activation and for viability in the absence of the sole yeast UPR transducer IRE1 Owing to not having a functional UPR, cells with mutated SCS3 exhibited an accumulation of triacylglycerol within the ER along with aberrant LD morphology, suggesting that there is a UPR-dependent compensatory mechanism that acts to mitigate lack of SCS3 Additionally, SCS3 was necessary to maintain phospholipid homeostasis. Strikingly, global protein ubiquitylation and the turnover of both ER and cytoplasmic misfolded proteins is impaired in ScFITΔ cells, while a screen for interacting partners of Scs3 identifies components of the proteostatic machinery as putative targets. Together, our data support a model where ScFITs play an important role in lipid metabolism and proteostasis beyond their defined roles in LD biogenesis.This article has an associated First Person interview with the first author of the paper.

Genetic Variants in the 3'UTR of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genes and their Putative Effects on the microRNA Mechanism in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is mainly caused by mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The 3’UTR region allows for the binding of microRNAs, which are involved in genetic tune regulation. We aimed to identify allelic variants on 3’UTR miRNA-binding sites in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in HBOC patients. Blood samples were obtained from 50 patients with HBOC and from 50 controls. The 3’UTR regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 were amplified by PCR and sequenced to identify genetic variants using bioinformatics tools. We detected nine polymorphisms in 3’UTR, namely: four in BRCA1 (rs3092995 (C/G), rs8176318 (C/T), rs111791349 (G/A), and rs12516 (C/T)) and five in BRCA2 (rs15869 (A/C), rs7334543 (A/G), rs1157836 (A/G), and rs75353978 (TT/del TT)). A new variant in position c.*457 (A/C) on 3’UTR of BRCA2 was also identified. The following three variants increased the risk of HBOC in the study population: rs111791349-A, rs15869-C, and c.*457-C (odds ratio (OR) range 3.7–15.4; p < 0.05). Genetic variants into the 3’UTR of BRCA1 and BRCA2 increased the risk of HBOC between 3.7–15.4 times in the study population. The presence/absence of these polymorphisms may influence the loss/creation of miRNA binding sites, such as hsa-miR-1248 in BRCA1 3′UTR or the hsa-miR-548 family binding site in BRCA2. Our results add new evidence of miRNA participation in the pathogenesis of HBOC.

Modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with high risks of breast and ovarian cancer. However, penetrance estimates for mutation carriers have been found to vary substantially between studies, and the observed differences in risk are consistent with the hypothesis that genetic and environmental factors modify cancer risks for women with these mutations. Direct evidence that this is the case has emerged in the past decade, through large-scale international collaborative efforts. Here, we describe the methodological challenges in the identification and characterisation of these risk-modifying factors, review the latest evidence on genetic and lifestyle/hormonal risk factors that modify breast and ovarian cancer risks for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and outline the implications of these findings for cancer risk prediction. We also review the unresolved issues in this area of research and identify strategies of clinical implementation so that women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are no longer counselled on the basis of 'average' risk estimates.

BNC2 is a putative tumor suppressor gene in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma and impacts cell survival after oxidative stress

Rs3814113 is the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) showing the strongest association with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) incidence and is located in an intergenic region about 44 kb downstream of basonuclin 2 (BNC2) gene. Lifetime number of ovulations is associated with increased risk to develop HGSOC, probably because of cell damage of extrauterine Müllerian epithelium by ovulation-induced oxidative stress. However, the impact of low-penetrance HGSOC risk alleles (e.g. rs3814113) on the damage induced by oxidative stress remains unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether rs3814113 genetic interval regulates BNC2 expression and whether BNC2 expression levels impact on cell survival after oxidative stress. To do this, we analyzed gene expression levels of BNC2 first in HGSOC data sets and then in an isogenic cell line that we engineered to carry a 5 kb deletion around rs3814113. Finally, we silenced BNC2 and measured surviving cells after hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) treatment to simulate oxidative stress after ovulation. In this paper, we describe that BNC2 expression levels are reduced in HGSOC samples compared with control samples, and that BNC2 expression levels decrease following oxidative stress and ovulation in vitro and in vivo, respectively. Moreover, deletion of 5 kb surrounding rs3814113 decreases BNC2 expression levels in an isogenic cell line, and silencing of BNC2 expression levels increases cell survival after H2O2 treatment. Altogether, our findings suggest that the intergenic region located around rs3814113 regulates BNC2 expression, which in turn affects cell survival after oxidative stress response. Indeed, HGSOC samples present lower BNC2 expression levels that probably, in the initial phases of oncogenic transformation, conferred resistance to oxidative stress and ultimately reduced the clearance of cells with oxidative-induced damages.

Fine-Scale Mapping at 9p22.2 Identifies Candidate Causal Variants That Modify Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Population-based genome wide association studies have identified a locus at 9p22.2 associated with ovarian cancer risk, which also modifies ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We conducted fine-scale mapping at 9p22.2 to identify potential causal variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Genotype data were available for 15,252 (2,462 ovarian cancer cases) BRCA1 and 8,211 (631 ovarian cancer cases) BRCA2 mutation carriers. Following genotype imputation, ovarian cancer associations were assessed for 4,873 and 5,020 SNPs in BRCA1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers respectively, within a retrospective cohort analytical framework. In BRCA1 mutation carriers one set of eight correlated candidate causal variants for ovarian cancer risk modification was identified (top SNP rs10124837, HR: 0.73, 95%CI: 0.68 to 0.79, p-value 2× 10-16). These variants were located up to 20 kb upstream of BNC2. In BRCA2 mutation carriers one region, up to 45 kb upstream of BNC2, and containing 100 correlated SNPs was identified as candidate causal (top SNP rs62543585, HR: 0.69, 95%CI: 0.59 to 0.80, p-value 1.0 × 10-6). The candidate causal in BRCA1 mutation carriers did not include the strongest associated variant at this locus in the general population. In sum, we identified a set of candidate causal variants in a region that encompasses the BNC2 transcription start site. The ovarian cancer association at 9p22.2 may be mediated by different variants in BRCA1 mutation carriers and in the general population. Thus, potentially different mechanisms may underlie ovarian cancer risk for mutation carriers and the general population.

Genomic/Epigenomic Alterations in Ovarian Carcinoma: Translational Insight into Clinical Practice

Ovarian carcinoma is the most lethal gynecological malignancy worldwide. Recent advance in genomic/epigenomic researches will impact on our prevention, detection and intervention on ovarian carcinoma. Detection of germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2, mismatch repair genes, and other genes in the homologous recombination/DNA repair pathway propelled the genetic surveillance of most hereditary ovarian carcinomas. Germline or somatic mutations in SMARCA4 in familial and sporadic small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemia type, lead to our recognition on this rare aggressive tumor as a new entity of the atypical teratoma/rhaboid tumor family. Genome-wide association studies have identified many genetic variants that will contribute to the evaluation of ovarian carcinoma risk and prognostic prediction. Whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing discovered rare mutations in other drive mutations except p53, but demonstrated the presence of high genomic heterogeneity and adaptability in the genetic evolution of high grade ovarian serous carcinomas that occurs in cancer progression and chemotherapy. Gene mutations, copy number aberrations and DNA methylations provided promising biomarkers for the detection, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy response and targets of ovarian cancer. These findings underscore the necessity to translate these potential biomarkers into clinical practice.

A risk prediction algorithm for ovarian cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2, common alleles and other familial effects

BACKGROUND

Although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for only ∼27% of the familial aggregation of ovarian cancer (OvC), no OvC risk prediction model currently exists that considers the effects of BRCA1, BRCA2 and other familial factors. Therefore, a currently unresolved problem in clinical genetics is how to counsel women with family history of OvC but no identifiable BRCA1/2 mutations.

METHODS

We used data from 1548 patients with OvC and their relatives from a population-based study, with known BRCA1/2 mutation status, to investigate OvC genetic susceptibility models, using segregation analysis methods.

RESULTS

The most parsimonious model included the effects of BRCA1/2 mutations, and the residual familial aggregation was accounted for by a polygenic component (SD 1.43, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.86), reflecting the multiplicative effects of a large number of genes with small contributions to the familial risk. We estimated that 1 in 630 individuals carries a BRCA1 mutation and 1 in 195 carries a BRCA2 mutation. We extended this model to incorporate the explicit effects of 17 common alleles that are associated with OvC risk. Based on our models, assuming all of the susceptibility genes could be identified we estimate that the half of the female population at highest genetic risk will account for 92% of all OvCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The resulting model can be used to obtain the risk of developing OvC on the basis of BRCA1/2, explicit family history and common alleles. This is the first model that accounts for all OvC familial aggregation and would be useful in the OvC genetic counselling process.

Replication study for the association of seven genome- GWAS-identified Loci with susceptibility to ovarian cancer in the Polish population

We investigated the previously-demonstrated association of seven genome-wide association studies (GWAS) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including rs2072590 (HOXD-AS1), rs2665390 (TIPARP), rs10088218 and rs10098821 (8q24), rs3814113 (9p22), rs9303542 (SKAP1) and rs2363956 (ANKLE1), as risk factors of epithelial ovarian tumors (EOTs). These SNPs were genotyped in two hundred seventy three patients with EOTs and four hundred sixty four unrelated healthy females from the Polish population. We observed the lowest p values of the trend test for the 9p22 rs3814113 and 8q24 rs10098821 SNPs in patients with all subtypes of ovarian cancer (p(trend) = 0.010 and p(trend) = 0.014, respectively). There were also significant p values for the trend of the 9p22 rs3814113 and the 8q24 rs10098821 SNPs for serous histological subtypes of ovarian cancer (p(trend) = 0.006, p(trend) = 0.033, respectively). Moreover, stratification of the patients based on their histological type of cancer demonstrated, in the dominant hereditary model, a significant association of the 9p22 rs3814113 SNP with serous ovarian carcinoma OR = 0.532 (95% CI = 0.342 - 0.827, p = 0.005, p(corr) = 0.035). Despite the relatively small sample size of cases and controls, our studies confirmed some of the previously-demonstrated GWAS SNPs as genetic risk factors for EOTs.

Identification of six new susceptibility loci for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 12 epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) susceptibility alleles. The pattern of association at these loci is consistent in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who are at high risk of EOC. After imputation to 1000 Genomes Project data, we assessed associations of 11 million genetic variants with EOC risk from 15,437 cases unselected for family history and 30,845 controls and from 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers (3,096 with ovarian cancer), and we combined the results in a meta-analysis. This new study design yielded increased statistical power, leading to the discovery of six new EOC susceptibility loci. Variants at 1p36 (nearest gene, WNT4), 4q26 (SYNPO2), 9q34.2 (ABO) and 17q11.2 (ATAD5) were associated with EOC risk, and at 1p34.3 (RSPO1) and 6p22.1 (GPX6) variants were specifically associated with the serous EOC subtype, all with P < 5 × 10(-8). Incorporating these variants into risk assessment tools will improve clinical risk predictions for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Genetic polymorphisms and gene-dosage effect in ovarian cancer risk and response to paclitaxel/cisplatin chemotherapy

Background

Ovarian malignancies are often diagnosed in advanced stage and at the same time resistance to treatment, both intrinsic and developed during treatment, is sometimes observed. These facts underscore the need for new markers of ovarian cancer risk, as well as markers of treatment effectiveness.

Methods

In this study we genotyped 225 ovarian cancer patients, 64 breast and ovarian cancer patients and 348 healthy controls. In total, 12 polymorphic variants and 2 deletions in PGR, ABCB1, ABCG2, GSTT1, GSTM1, GSTP1, ATM, TP53 and ATP7B genes were analyzed using ASA-PCR, RFLP-PCR, multiplex-PCR and sequencing.

Results

Ten genetic polymorphisms were significantly associated with the risk of developing ovarian carcinoma in at least one of the groups under study. Impact of PGR gene polymorphisms on ovarian cancer risk was specific only for the group of the BRCA1 mutation carriers (in presence of p.Val660Leu variant- OR 2,82; p = 0,010), which confirms the difference in modulation of ovarian cancer risk between sporadic and hereditary malignancies, including the breast-ovarian cancer group (as a cancer-prone group). The analyses showed also the importance of ATP7B gene in ovarian carcinogenesis, both studied variants of which significantly modulated the ovarian cancer risk in all groups excluding the group with BRCA1 mutation. Cumulative risk analysis revealed 3 unfavorable variants that increased significantly the risk of developing ovarian cancer (p.Ile1145 = ABCB1+ p.Asp1853Asn ATM+ p.Ser406Ala ATP7B- OR 7,47; p = 0,002) and significantly modified the progression free survival (PFS) of the patients, and also two favorable genotypes which protected against ovarian cancer (p.Arg952Lys ATP7B+ p.Arg72Pro TP53- OR 0,50; p = 0,008). PFS analysis for carriers of favorable versus unfavorable genotypes emphasized the impact of the regulation of cell cycle (p.Asp1853Asn ATM) and active transport of xenobiotics (p.Ser894Ala/Thr ABCB1) on the risk of disease progression (HR 3,81; p = 0,010) after paclitaxel/cisplatin chemotherapy.

Conclusions

The unfavorable genetic variants could facilitate carcinogenic process and once their carriers developed malignancy, their chances of survival were smaller. Our analyses also showed a strong gene-dosage effect with the decrease of progression-free survival for the carriers of two unfavorable genetic factors.

Genomic alterations as mediators of miRNA dysregulation in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Serous epithelial ovarian cancer (SEOC) is the most common and aggressive histological subtype. Widespread genomic alterations go hand-in-hand with aberrant DNA damage signaling and are a hallmark of high-grade SEOC. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a class of small noncoding RNA molecules that are nonrandomly distributed in the genome. They are frequently located in chromosomal regions susceptible to copy number variation (CNV) associated with malignancy that can influence their expression. Widespread changes in miRNA expression have been reported in multiple cancer types including ovarian cancer. This review examines CNV and single nucleotide polymorphisms, two common types of genomic alterations that occur in ovarian cancer, in the context of their influence on the expression of miRNA and the ability of miRNA to bind to and regulate their target genes. This includes genes encoding proteins involved in DNA repair and the maintenance of genomic stability. Improved understanding of mechanisms of miRNA dysregulation and the role of miRNA in ovarian cancer will provide further insight into the pathogenesis and treatment of this disease.

Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is substantial variability in cancer risk in women who have inherited a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation. Numerous factors have been hypothesized to modify these risks, but studies are of variable quality, and it remains unclear which of these may be of value in clinical risk assessment.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for articles published through September 2013. Fixed effects meta-analysis was done using the hazard ratios and/or odds ratios to estimate the pooled effect estimates (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to identify factors that are associated with cancer risk modification in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

RESULTS

We identified 44 nonoverlapping studies that met predefined quality criteria. Sufficient evidence is available to make clinically relevant inferences about a number of cancer risk modifiers. The only variable examined that produced a probable association was late age at first live birth, a meta-analysis showed a decrease in the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers with women aged 30 years or older vs. women younger than 30 years (ES = 0.65; 95% CI =0.42 to 0.99). The same was shown for women aged 25 to 29 years versus those aged less than 25 years (ES = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.99). Breastfeeding and tubal ligation were associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers; oral contraceptives were associated with reduced risk among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Smoking was associated with increased breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers only.

CONCLUSIONS

Data assessing many potential risk modifiers are inadequate, and many have not been externally validated. Although additional studies are required to confirm some associations, sufficient information is available for some risk factors to be used in risk counseling or lifestyle modification to minimize cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Molecular genetics of breast and ovarian cancer: recent advances and clinical implications

Over the last few years, evidence has been accumulated that several susceptibility genes exist that differentially impact on the lifetime risk for breast or ovarian cancer. High-to-moderate penetrance alleles have been identified in genes involved in DNA double-strand break signaling and repair, and many low-penetrance susceptibility loci have been identified through genome-wide association studies. In this review, we briefly summarize present knowledge about breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes and discuss their implications for risk prediction and therapy.

Hereditary breast cancer: ever more pieces to the polygenic puzzle

Several susceptibility genes differentially impact on the lifetime risk for breast cancer. Technological advances over the past years have enabled the detection of genetic risk factors through high-throughput screening of large breast cancer case-control series. High- to intermediate penetrance alleles have now been identified in more than 20 genes involved in DNA damage signalling and repair, and more than 70 low-penetrance loci have been discovered through recent genome-wide association studies. In addition to classical germ-line mutation and single-nucleotide polymorphism, copy number variation and somatic mosaicism have been proposed as potential predisposing mechanisms. Many of the identified loci also appear to influence breast tumour characteristics such as estrogen receptor status. In this review, we briefly summarize present knowledge about breast cancer susceptibility genes and discuss their implications for risk prediction and clinical practice.

Genome-wide association study in BRCA1 mutation carriers identifies novel loci associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk

BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7 × 10(-8), HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4 × 10(-8), HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4 × 10(-8), HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific association. The 17q21.31 locus was also associated with ovarian cancer risk in 8,211 BRCA2 carriers (P = 2×10(-4)). These loci may lead to an improved understanding of the etiology of breast and ovarian tumors in BRCA1 carriers. Based on the joint distribution of the known BRCA1 breast cancer risk-modifying loci, we estimated that the breast cancer lifetime risks for the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk are 28%-50% compared to 81%-100% for the 5% at highest risk. Similarly, based on the known ovarian cancer risk-modifying loci, the 5% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk have an estimated lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 28% or lower, whereas the 5% at highest risk will have a risk of 63% or higher. Such differences in risk may have important implications for risk prediction and clinical management for BRCA1 carriers.

Evaluation of association methods for analysing modifiers of disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations

There is considerable evidence indicating that disease risk in carriers of high-risk mutations (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2) varies by other genetic factors. Such mutations tend to be rare in the population and studies of genetic modifiers of risk have focused on sampling mutation carriers through clinical genetics centres. Genetic testing targets affected individuals from high-risk families, making ascertainment of mutation carriers non-random with respect to disease phenotype. Standard analytical methods can lead to biased estimates of associations. Methods proposed to address this problem include a weighted-cohort (WC) and retrospective likelihood (RL) approach. Their performance has not been evaluated systematically. We evaluate these methods by simulation and extend the RL to analysing associations of two diseases simultaneously (competing risks RL-CRRL). The standard cohort approach (Cox regression) yielded the most biased risk ratio (RR) estimates (relative bias-RB: -25% to -17%) and had the lowest power. The WC and RL approaches provided similar RR estimates, were least biased (RB: -2.6% to 2.5%), and had the lowest mean-squared errors. The RL method generally had more power than WC. When analysing associations with two diseases, ignoring a potential association with one disease leads to inflated type I errors for inferences with respect to the second disease and biased RR estimates. The CRRL generally gave unbiased RR estimates for both disease risks and had correct nominal type I errors. These methods are illustrated by analyses of genetic modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Effect of the MDM2 promoter polymorphisms SNP309T>G and SNP285G>C on the risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers

Background

While BRCA mutation carriers possess a 20-40% lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer, knowledge about genetic modifying factors influencing the phenotypic expression remains obscure. We explored the distribution of the MDM2 polymorphisms SNP309T>G and the recently discovered SNP285G>C in Norwegian patients with BRCA related ovarian cancer.

Methods

221 BRCA related ovarian cancer cases (BRCA1; n = 161 and BRCA2; n = 60) were tested for the MDM2 polymorphisms. Results were compared to healthy controls (n = 2,465).

Results

The SNP309G allele was associated with elevated OR for ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers (SNP309TG: OR 1.53; CI 1.07-2.19; p = 0.020; SNP309GG: OR 1.92; CI 1.19-3.10; p = 0.009; SNP309TG+GG combined: OR 1.61; CI 1.15-2.27; p = 0.005). In contrast, the SNP285C allele reduced risk of BRCA1 related ovarian cancer in carriers of the SNP309G allele (OR 0.50; CI 0.24-1.04; p = 0.057). Censoring individuals carrying the SNP285C/309G haplotype from the analysis elevated the OR related to the SNP309G allele (OR 1.73; CI 1.23-2.45; p = 0.002). The mean age at disease onset was 3.1 years earlier in carriers of SNP309TG+GG as compared to carriers of SNP309TT (p = 0.068). No such associations were found in BRCA2 related ovarian cancer.

Conclusions

Our results indicate the SNP309G allele to increase and the SNP285C allele to reduce the risk of BRCA1 related ovarian cancer. If confirmed in independent studies, this finding may have implications to counseling and decision-making regarding risk reducing measures in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Best practices in cancer nanotechnology: perspective from NCI nanotechnology alliance

Historically, treatment of patients with cancer using chemotherapeutic agents has been associated with debilitating and systemic toxicities, poor bioavailability, and unfavorable pharmacokinetics. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems, on the other hand, can specifically target cancer cells while avoiding their healthy neighbors, avoid rapid clearance from the body, and be administered without toxic solvents. They hold immense potential in addressing all of these issues, which has hampered further development of chemotherapeutics. Furthermore, such drug delivery systems will lead to cancer therapeutic modalities that are not only less toxic to the patient but also significantly more efficacious. In addition to established therapeutic modes of action, nanomaterials are opening up entirely new modalities of cancer therapy, such as photodynamic and hyperthermia treatments. Furthermore, nanoparticle carriers are also capable of addressing several drug delivery problems that could not be effectively solved in the past and include overcoming formulation issues, multidrug-resistance phenomenon, and penetrating cellular barriers that may limit device accessibility to intended targets, such as the blood-brain barrier. The challenges in optimizing design of nanoparticles tailored to specific tumor indications still remain; however, it is clear that nanoscale devices carry a significant promise toward new ways of diagnosing and treating cancer. This review focuses on future prospects of using nanotechnology in cancer applications and discusses practices and methodologies used in the development and translation of nanotechnology-based therapeutics.

Association of PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: results from a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The variable penetrance of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers suggests that other genetic or environmental factors modify breast cancer risk. Two genes of special interest are prohibitin (PHB) and methylene-tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), both of which are important either directly or indirectly in maintaining genomic integrity.

METHODS

To evaluate the potential role of genetic variants within PHB and MTHFR in breast and ovarian cancer risk, 4102 BRCA1 and 2093 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 6211 BRCA1 and 2902 BRCA2 carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA) were genotyped for the PHB 1630 C>T (rs6917) polymorphism and the MTHFR 677 C>T (rs1801133) polymorphism, respectively.

RESULTS

There was no evidence of association between the PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with either disease for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers when breast and ovarian cancer associations were evaluated separately. Analysis that evaluated associations for breast and ovarian cancer simultaneously showed some evidence that BRCA1 mutation carriers who had the rare homozygote genotype (TT) of the PHB 1630 C>T polymorphism were at increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancer (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.04 and HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.24-3.76, respectively). However, there was no evidence of association under a multiplicative model for the effect of each minor allele.

CONCLUSION

The PHB 1630TT genotype may modify breast and ovarian cancer risks in BRCA1 mutation carriers. This association need to be evaluated in larger series of BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Interaction and exposure modification: are we asking the right questions?

Most diseases arise not purely through genetic abnormalities nor purely through environmental causes, but as "complex" conditions brought about by the combined effects of genetic susceptibility factors, nongenetic experiences and exposures, and bad luck. Finding simple models capable of both characterizing such joint effects and providing new insight into pathogenesis remains an ongoing challenge in etiologic epidemiology. Additive null models can capture certain pure forms of independent etiologic effects in studies of rare conditions and can be useful for predicting possible effects of interventions. The concept of exposure modification is here proposed as useful, particularly in thinking about biologic interactions between exposures and genetic variants. Openness to parsimonious joint models and the insights they can provide is key to advancing our understanding of etiology.

Ovarian cancer susceptibility alleles and risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified six alleles associated with risk of ovarian cancer for women in the general population. We evaluated four of these loci as potential modifiers of ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs10088218 (at 8q24), rs2665390 (at 3q25), rs717852 (at 2q31), and rs9303542 (at 17q21), were genotyped in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 carriers, including 2,678 ovarian cancer cases. Associations were evaluated within a retrospective cohort approach. All four loci were associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers; rs10088218 per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.98) P-trend = 0.033, rs2665390 HR = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.21-1.83) P-trend = 1.8 × 10(-4), rs717852 HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42) P-trend = 6.6 × 10(-4), rs9303542 HR = 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02-1.33) P-trend = 0.026. Two loci were associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers; rs10088218 per-allele HR = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81-0.99) P-trend = 0.029, rs2665390 HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42) P-trend = 6.1 × 10(-4). The HR estimates for the remaining loci were consistent with odds ratio estimates for the general population. The identification of multiple loci modifying ovarian cancer risk may be useful for counseling women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations regarding their risk of ovarian cancer.

Common variants at the 19p13.1 and ZNF365 loci are associated with ER subtypes of breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

BACKGROUND

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

METHODS

Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined.

RESULTS

We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.27; P = 7.42 × 10(-4)] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94-1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; P = 3.8 × 10(-4)) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.52; P = 1.8 × 10(-3)).

CONCLUSIONS

19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

IMPACT

These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Unravelling modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: update on genetic modifiers

Pathogenic mutations in the tumour suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 confer increased risks for breast and ovarian cancer and account for approximately 15% of the excess familial risk of breast cancer amongst first-degree relatives of patients with breast cancer. There is considerable evidence indicating that these risks vary by other genetic and environmental factors clustering in families. In the past few years, based on the availability of genome-wide association data and samples from large collaborative studies, several common alleles have been found to modify breast or ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. These common alleles explain a small proportion of the genetic variability in breast or ovarian cancer risk for mutation carriers, suggesting more modifiers remain to be identified. We review the so far identified genetic modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk and consider the implications for risk prediction. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers could be some of the first to benefit from clinical applications of common variants identified through genome-wide association studies. However, to be able to provide more individualized risk estimates, it will be important to understand how the associations vary with different tumour characteristics and their interactions with other genetic and environmental modifiers.

Common variants at 12p11, 12q24, 9p21, 9q31.2 and in ZNF365 are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers

INTRODUCTION

Several common alleles have been shown to be associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Recent genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified eight additional breast cancer susceptibility loci: rs1011970 (9p21, CDKN2A/B), rs10995190 (ZNF365), rs704010 (ZMIZ1), rs2380205 (10p15), rs614367 (11q13), rs1292011 (12q24), rs10771399 (12p11 near PTHLH) and rs865686 (9q31.2).

METHODS

To evaluate whether these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers and analysed the associations with breast cancer risk within a retrospective likelihood framework.

RESULTS

Only SNP rs10771399 near PTHLH was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.94, P-trend = 3 × 10-4). The association was restricted to mutations proven or predicted to lead to absence of protein expression (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 3.1 × 10-5, P-difference = 0.03). Four SNPs were associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers: rs10995190, P-trend = 0.015; rs1011970, P-trend = 0.048; rs865686, 2df-P = 0.007; rs1292011 2df-P = 0.03. rs10771399 (PTHLH) was predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 4 × 10-5) and there was marginal evidence of association with ER-negative breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.00, P-trend = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings, in combination with previously identified modifiers of risk, will ultimately lead to more accurate risk prediction and an improved understanding of the disease etiology in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Common variants of the BRCA1 wild-type allele modify the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers

Mutations in the BRCA1 gene substantially increase a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, there is great variation in this increase in risk with several genetic and non-genetic modifiers identified. The BRCA1 protein plays a central role in DNA repair, a mechanism that is particularly instrumental in safeguarding cells against tumorigenesis. We hypothesized that polymorphisms that alter the expression and/or function of BRCA1 carried on the wild-type (non-mutated) copy of the BRCA1 gene would modify the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 mutations. A total of 9874 BRCA1 mutation carriers were available in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) for haplotype analyses of BRCA1. Women carrying the rare allele of single nucleotide polymorphism rs16942 on the wild-type copy of BRCA1 were at decreased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.95, P = 0.003). Promoter in vitro assays of the major BRCA1 haplotypes showed that common polymorphisms in the regulatory region alter its activity and that this effect may be attributed to the differential binding affinity of nuclear proteins. In conclusion, variants on the wild-type copy of BRCA1 modify risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1 mutations, possibly by altering the efficiency of BRCA1 transcription.

Which individuals undergoing BRACAnalysis need BART testing?

Deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 include those identified by sequencing technology as well as large genomic rearrangements (LGR). The main testing laboratory in the United States, Myriad Genetics Laboratory (MGL), has defined criteria for inclusion of LGR testing (i.e., BRACAnalysis Rearrangement Test, or BART™) when BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing is ordered. We were interested in determining how many of our patients with LGR mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 fulfilled these MGL criteria. A retrospective chart review was performed on all individuals who underwent genetic testing at our institution since August 2006. Individuals who underwent LGR testing were classified as either having or not having a LGR in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Each individual's history was classified as meeting MGL defined LGR criteria, meeting criteria using third-degree relatives, or not meeting criteria. A total of 257 BART tests were ordered at our institution from August 2006 to August 2009. Five individuals (1.9%) had an LGR mutation. Two LGR were identified in patients who met MGL defined LGR criteria. One LGR was identified in a patient that met MGL defined LGR criteria only when using third-degree relatives. Two LGR were identified in individuals who did not meet MGL defined criteria. LGR are present in individuals who do not have a high pretest probability of carrying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. These data suggest that when BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing is performed, testing should always include LGR testing so that the results are the most comprehensive and reliable.

Common alleles at 6q25.1 and 1p11.2 are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 6q25.1, near the ESR1 gene, have been implicated in the susceptibility to breast cancer for Asian (rs2046210) and European women (rs9397435). A genome-wide association study in Europeans identified two further breast cancer susceptibility variants: rs11249433 at 1p11.2 and rs999737 in RAD51L1 at 14q24.1. Although previously identified breast cancer susceptibility variants have been shown to be associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the involvement of these SNPs to breast cancer susceptibility in mutation carriers is currently unknown. To address this, we genotyped these SNPs in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from 42 studies from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2. In the analysis of 14 123 BRCA1 and 8053 BRCA2 mutation carriers of European ancestry, the 6q25.1 SNPs (r(2) = 0.14) were independently associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.23, P-trend = 4.5 × 10(-9) for rs2046210; HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.18-1.40, P-trend = 1.3 × 10(-8) for rs9397435], but only rs9397435 was associated with the risk for BRCA2 carriers (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.01-1.28, P-trend = 0.031). SNP rs11249433 (1p11.2) was associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.17, P-trend = 0.015), but was not associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92-1.02, P-trend = 0.20). SNP rs999737 (RAD51L1) was not associated with breast cancer risk for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (P-trend = 0.27 and 0.30, respectively). The identification of SNPs at 6q25.1 associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers will lead to a better understanding of the biology of tumour development in these women.

Genetic testing for familial/hereditary breast cancer-comparison of guidelines and recommendations from the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany

In this review, the national guidelines and recommendations for genetic testing for familial/hereditary breast cancer from the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany were evaluated as to the inclusion criteria for genetic testing. In all four countries, access to genetic testing relies basically on the family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Similarities are obvious for most selection criteria. All four guidelines recommend embedding genetic testing within a framework of genetic counselling, and all agree to perform genetic testing first in an affected person. However, there are differences regarding the thresholds based on certain familial constellations, detailed description of selection criteria, the degree of relatedness between affected individuals and the counsellee, the age of diagnosis, the individual history of early onset breast cancer, bilateral breast cancer, the tumour morphology or the access to intensified surveillance. These differences and open questions not covered by the guidelines, e.g. on how to deal with phenocopies, unclassified variants, genetic variants in newly identified breast cancer susceptibility genes or with family constellations not fitting the criteria, are discussed. New evidence is usually slowly integrated into the guidelines. An exchange process towards the harmonization of the guidelines will ensure high quality health care across Europe.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes, new treatments, new concepts

BACKGROUND

Every year, 60,000 women in Germany are found to have breast cancer, and 9000 to have ovarian cancer. Familial clustering of carcinoma is seen in about 20% of cases.

METHODS

We selectively review relevant articles published up to December 2010 that were retrieved by a search in PubMed, and we also discuss findings from the experience of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

RESULTS

High risk is conferred by the highly penetrant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes as well as by other genes such as RAD51C. Genes for breast cancer that were originally designated as moderately penetrant display higher penetrance than previously thought in families with a hereditary predisposition. The role these genes play in DNA repair is thought to explain why tumors associated with them are sensitive to platin derivatives and PARP inhibitors. In carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2, prophylactic bilateral mastectomy and adnexectomy significantly lowers the incidence of breast and ovarian cancer. Moreover, prophylactic adnexectomy also lowers the breast-and-ovarian-cancer-specific mortality, as well as the overall mortality. If a woman bearing a mutation develops cancer in one breast, her risk of developing cancer in the other breast depends on the particular gene that is mutated and on her age at the onset of disease.

CONCLUSION

About half of all monogenically determined carcinomas of the breast and ovary are due to a mutation in one or the other of the highly penetrant BRCA genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2). Women carrying a mutated gene have an 80% to 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a 20% to 50% chance of developing ovarian cancer. Other predisposing genes for breast and ovarian cancer have been identified. Clinicians should develop and implement evidence-based treatments on the basis of these new findings.