Characterization of familial non-BRCA1/2 breast tumors by loss of heterozygosity and immunophenotyping

Differential Profile of BRCA1 vs. BRCA2 Mutated Families: A Characterization of the Main Differences and Similarities in Patients

The identification of families at-risk for hereditary breast cancer (BC) is important because affected individuals present a much higher cancer risk than the general population. The aim of this study was to identify the most important factors associated with the presence of a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. Family history (FH), histopathological and immunohistochemical characteristics were compared among BC women with pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variants; VUSs in BRCA1/BRCA2; BRCA1/BRCA2 WT and sporadic BC. The most significative differences observed concerned the molecular subtype of the tumors, age at cancer diagnosis and FH of cancer. The presence of bilateral breast cancer (BBC), number of BC cases and the presence of ovarian cancer (OC) increased (respectively) 5.797, 5.033 and 4.412 times the risk of being a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carrier. Besides, women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations presented different tumor and FH profiles. The main characteristics associated with a BRCA1 mutation were triple negativity (OR: 17.31), BBC history (OR: 4.96) and occurrence of OC (OR: 4.32). There were no major discerning components associated with BRCA2 mutations. Thus, we conclude that tumor pathology and FH of cancer might be considered together at the time of genetic testing mainly in countries where access to genetic testing is still restricted.

Hereditary breast cancer: clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics

Pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are only detected in 25% of families with a strong history of breast cancer, though hereditary factors are expected to be involved in the remaining families with no recognized mutation. Molecular characterization is expected to provide new insight into the tumor biology to guide the search of new high-risk alleles and provide better classification of the growing number of BRCA1/2 variants of unknown significance (VUS). In this review, we provide an overview of hereditary breast cancer, its genetic background, and clinical implications, before focusing on the pathologically and molecular features associated with the disease. Recent transcriptome and genome profiling studies of tumor series from BRCA1/2 mutation carriers as well as familial non-BRCA1/2 will be discussed. Special attention is paid to its association with molecular breast cancer subtypes as well as the latest advances in predicting BRCA1/2 involvement (BRCAness) using molecular signatures, for improved diagnostics and selection of patients sensitive to targeted therapeutics.

RNA profiling reveals familial aggregation of molecular subtypes in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families

BACKGROUND

In more than 70% of families with a strong history of breast and ovarian cancers, pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 cannot be identified, even though hereditary factors are expected to be involved. It has been proposed that tumors with similar molecular phenotypes also share similar underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. In the current study, the aim was to investigate if global RNA profiling can be used to identify functional subgroups within breast tumors from families tested negative for BRCA1/2 germline mutations and how these subgroupings relate to different breast cancer patients within the same family.

METHODS

In the current study we analyzed a collection of 70 frozen breast tumor biopsies from a total of 58 families by global RNA profiling and promoter methylation analysis.

RESULTS

We show that distinct functional subgroupings, similar to the intrinsic molecular breast cancer subtypes, exist among non-BRCA1/2 breast cancers. The distribution of subtypes was markedly different from the distribution found among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. From 11 breast cancer families, breast tumor biopsies from more than one affected family member were included in the study. Notably, in 8 of these families we found that patients from the same family shared the same tumor subtype, showing a tendency of familial aggregation of tumor subtypes (p-value = 1.7e-3). Using our previously developed BRCA1/2-signatures, we identified 7 non-BRCA1/2 tumors with a BRCA1-like molecular phenotype and provide evidence for epigenetic inactivation of BRCA1 in three of the tumors. In addition, 7 BRCA2-like tumors were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our finding indicates involvement of hereditary factors in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families in which family members may carry genetic susceptibility not just to breast cancer but to a particular subtype of breast cancer. This is the first study to provide a biological link between breast cancers from family members of high-risk non-BRCA1/2 families in a systematic manner, suggesting that future genetic analysis may benefit from subgrouping families into molecularly homogeneous subtypes in order to search for new high penetrance susceptibility genes.

The complex genetic landscape of familial breast cancer

Familial breast cancer represents a minor percentage of all human breast cancers. Mutations in two high susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain around 25 % of familial breast cancers, while other high, moderate and low susceptibility genes explain up to 20 % more of breast cancer families. Thus, it is important to decipher the genetic architecture of families that show no mutations to improve genetic counselling. The comprehensive description of familial breast cancer using different techniques and platforms has shown to be very valuable for better patient diagnosis, tumour surveillance, and ultimately patient treatment. This review focuses on the complex landscape of pathological, protein, genetic and genomic features associated with BRCA1-, BRCA2-, and non-BRCA1/BRCA2-related cancers described up to date. Special emphasis deserves the coexistence of distinct molecular breast cancer subtypes, the development of tumour classifiers to predict BRCA1/2 mutations, and the last insights from recent whole genome sequencing studies and miRNA profiling.

Comprehensive analysis of BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 germline mutation and tumor characterization: a portrait of early-onset breast cancer in Brazil

Germline mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 genes have been identified as one of the most important disease-causing issues in young breast cancer patients worldwide. The specific defective biological processes that trigger germline mutation-associated and -negative tumors remain unclear. To delineate an initial portrait of Brazilian early-onset breast cancer, we performed an investigation combining both germline and tumor analysis. Germline screening of the BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 (c.1100delC) and TP53 genes was performed in 54 unrelated patients <35 y; their tumors were investigated with respect to transcriptional and genomic profiles as well as hormonal receptors and HER2 expression/amplification. Germline mutations were detected in 12 out of 54 patients (22%) [7 in BRCA1 (13%), 4 in BRCA2 (7%) and one in TP53 (2%) gene]. A cancer familial history was present in 31.4% of the unrelated patients, from them 43.7% were carriers for germline mutation (37.5% in BRCA1 and in 6.2% in the BRCA2 genes). Fifty percent of the unrelated patients with hormone receptor-negative tumors carried BRCA1 mutations, percentage increasing to 83% in cases with familial history of cancer. Over-representation of DNA damage-, cellular and cell cycle-related processes was detected in the up-regulated genes of BRCA1/2-associated tumors, whereas cell and embryo development-related processes were over-represented in the up-regulated genes of BRCA1/2-negative tumors, suggesting distinct mechanisms driving the tumorigenesis. An initial portrait of the early-onset breast cancer patients in Brazil was generated pointing out that hormone receptor-negative tumors and positive familial history are two major risk factors for detection of a BRCA1 germline mutation. Additionally, the data revealed molecular factors that potentially trigger the tumor development in young patients.

The contribution of breast cancer pathology to statistical models to predict mutation risk in BRCA carriers

BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated breast cancer comprises a small but important group of hereditary breast cancer. Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 has significant clinical and personal implications for the patients in terms of therapy and follow-up of individual family members. The sequencing of the genes is expensive and since the information derived may have a profound effect on the individual and family members, it is important that testing is done only when the risk of carrying a mutation is thought to be high. Over the last decade, researchers have developed a number of statistical models for predicting risk for harboring mutations in these genes and the risk of subsequently developing breast and ovarian cancer. These models usually take into account the type of tumor and age at occurrence as well as family history. Data from pathological analysis show that although breast tumours are heterogeneous, there are histological characteristics that are seen more frequently in carriers of BRCA1 germ line mutations compared to BRCA2 and sporadic breast cancers. A number of authors have suggested that the addition of pathological data to risk algorithms may improve the predictive power of these models and provide a more accurate way of identifying individuals who may benefit from testing. Here we review the pathology of familial breast cancer and assess the evidence to justify the use of pathology in refining risk assessment models.

Familial concordance of breast cancer pathology as an indicator of genotype in multiple-case families

The heterogeneity of multiple case breast cancer families that do not carry mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (non-BRCA1/2 families) poses a challenge to the identification of breast cancer susceptibility genes. The aim of this study was to determine whether intrafamilial concordance in breast cancer pathology could identify subgroups of non-BRCA1/2 families with consistent genotypic features. Invasive breast cancers were reviewed from 84 individuals belonging to 30 multiple-case families; BRCA1 (n = 9), BRCA2 (n = 10), and non-BRCA1/2 (n = 11). Hierarchical cluster analysis based on histopathology and age at first diagnosis was then used to specify three subgroups designated Clusters 1-3. The genomic features of non-BRCA1/2 families were examined by genome wide linkage and FGFR2 SNP genotyping, according to whether they showed cluster-concordant or cluster-mixed familial pathology. The majority of pathogenic BRCA1 mutation carriers (80%) fell into a single cluster. In contrast pathogenic BRCA2 mutation carriers were distributed across all three clusters and within families, cluster groups were also generally mixed. Most non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers belonged to Cluster 3 (71%). Genome wide linkage data from five non-BRCA1/2 Cluster 3-concordant families were compared with four mixed cluster non-BRCA1/2 families. This revealed a number of distinct linkage peaks, including some regions previously associated with breast cancer susceptibility. The distribution of low risk alleles in FGFR2 was not different between these two subgroups (P = 0.237). The pattern of breast cancer pathology concordance amongst family members may assist the investigation of breast cancer susceptibility in multiple case families.

A non-BRCA1/2 hereditary breast cancer sub-group defined by aCGH profiling of genetically related patients

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain approximately 25% of all familial breast cancers. Despite intense efforts to find additional high-risk breast cancer genes (BRCAx) using linkage analysis, none have been reported thus far. Here we explore the hypothesis that BRCAx breast tumors from genetically related patients share a somatic genetic etiology that might be revealed by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) profiling. As BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors can be identified on the basis of specific genomic profiles, the same may be true for a subset of BRCAx families. Analyses used aCGH to compare 58 non-BRCA1/2 familial breast tumors (designated BRCAx) to sporadic (non-familiar) controls, BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors. The selection criteria for BRCAx families included at least three cases of breast cancer diagnosed before the age of 60 in the family, and the absence of ovarian or male breast cancer. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to determine sub-groups within the BRCAx tumor class and family heterogeneity. Analysis of aCGH profiles of BRCAx tumors indicated that they constitute a heterogeneous class, but are distinct from both sporadic and BRCA1/2 tumors. The BRCAx class could be divided into sub-groups. One subgroup was characterized by a gain of chromosome 22. Tumors from family members were classified within the same sub-group in agreement with the hypothesis that tumors from the same family would harbor a similar genetic background. This approach provides a method to target a sub-group of BRCAx families for further linkage analysis studies.

Immunophenotypic predictive profiling of BRCA1-associated breast cancer

The immunophenotypic predictive profile of BRCA1-associated cancers including major predictive markers, i.e., PARP-1, EGFR, c-kit, HER-2, and steroid hormones (ER/PR) that may have therapeutic relevance has not yet been reported in a comprehensive study. Using immunohistochemistry, we examined the expression of these proteins in a large cohort of BRCA1-associated breast cancers. PARP-1 immunoreactivity was found in 81.9%, EGFR in 43.6%, ER/PR in 17.9%, c-kit in 14.7%, and overexpression of HER-2 in 3.6% of cancers. For all markers studied, 8.2% of tumors were negative. Expression of only one predictive marker was found in 29.7% of cancers, and most frequently, it was PARP-1 (20.8%). In 62.1% of tumors, more than one predictive marker was expressed: PARP-1 and EGFR in 30.4%, PARP-1, and hormone receptors in 13.3% and PARP-1 with c-kit in 7.5% of all tumors. Coexpression of two or more other predictive markers was rare. There were significant differences in the median age at diagnosis of BRCA1-associated cancer between patients with ER+ vs. ER- and grades 1-2 vs. grade 3 tumors. These results demonstrate that BRCA1-associated cancers differ with respect to expression of proteins that are regarded as targets for specific therapies and that 92% of patients with BRCA1-associated cancers may benefit from one or several options for specific therapy (in addition to DNA damaging agents, e.g., cisplatin). About 8% of cancers which do not express therapeutic target proteins may not respond to such therapies. Knowledge of the immunophenotypic predictive profile may help with the recruitment of patients for trials of targeted therapies.

Subtypes of familial breast tumours revealed by expression and copy number profiling

Extensive expression profiling studies have shown that sporadic breast cancer is composed of five clinically relevant molecular subtypes. However, although BRCA1-related tumours are known to be predominantly basal-like, there are few published data on other classes of familial breast tumours. We analysed a cohort of 75 BRCA1, BRCA2 and non-BRCA1/2 breast tumours by gene expression profiling and found that 74% BRCA1 tumours were basal-like, 73% of BRCA2 tumours were luminal A or B, and 52% non-BRCA1/2 tumours were luminal A. Thirty-four tumours were also analysed by single nucleotide polymorphism-comparative genomic hybridization (SNP-CGH) arrays. Copy number data could predict whether a tumour was basal-like or luminal with high accuracy, but could not predict its mutation class. Basal-like BRCA1 and basal-like non-BRCA1 tumours were very similar, and contained the highest number of chromosome aberrations. We identified regions of frequent gain containing potential driver genes in the basal (8q and 12p) and luminal A tumours (1q and 17q). Regions of homozygous loss associated with decreased expression of potential tumour suppressor genes were also detected, including in basal tumours (5q and 9p), and basal and luminal tumours (10q). This study highlights the heterogeneity of familial tumours and the clinical consequences for treatment and prognosis.

Genome-wide linkage scan reveals three putative breast-cancer-susceptibility loci

Despite all the research efforts made during the last few decades, most of the cases of families with breast cancer remain unexplained. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, and in other breast-cancer-susceptibility genes, account for about 25% of familial breast cancer. Linkage studies have failed to identify other breast-cancer-susceptibility genes. The selection criteria of the families, differences in the population background, or clinical and genetic heterogeneity, among other factors, might determine the power to detect the linkage signal. We have performed a SNP-based linkage scan with a total of 6000 SNP markers across the genome in 41 breast-cancer Spanish families, with an average of four breast-cancer cases per family not associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. In addition, we have included three BRCA-positive families to test the power in linkage detection from a low-complexity family in which a high-penetrance mutation segregates. We have identified three regions of interest, located on 3q25, 6q24, and 21q22. The two former regions showed a suggestive linkage signal (HLOD scores 3.01 and 2.26, respectively), and the latter region showed a significant linkage signal (HLOD score 3.55). Moreover, we found that a subset of 13 families with bilateral breast cancer presented a HLOD of 3.13 on the 3q25 region. Our results suggest that several variables must be taken into account before performing a linkage study in familial breast cancer because of the high heterogeneity within non-BRCA1/2 families. Phenotypic and geographic homogeneity could be the most important factors.

Tumor characteristics as an analytic tool for classifying genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance

It is important to identify a germline mutation in a patient with an inherited cancer syndrome to allow mutation carriers to be included in cancer surveillance programs, which have been proven to save lives. Many of the mutations identified result in premature termination of translation, and thus in loss-of-function of the encoded mutated protein. However, the significance of a large proportion of the sequence changes reported is unknown. Some of these variants will be associated with a high risk of cancer and have direct clinical consequence. Many criteria can be used to classify variants with unknown significance; most criteria are based on the characteristics of the amino acid change, on segregation data and appearance of the variant, on the presence of the variant in controls, or on functional assays. In inherited cancers, tumor characteristics can also be used to classify variants. It is worthwhile to examine the clinical, morphological and molecular features of a patient, and his or her family, when assessing whether the role of a variant is likely to be neutral or pathogenic. Here we describe the advantages and disadvantages of using the tumor characteristics of patients carrying germline variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in BRCA1, BRCA2, or in one of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6, to infer pathogenicity.

Genome-wide linkage scan in Dutch hereditary non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families identifies 9q21-22 as a putative breast cancer susceptibility locus

Breast cancer accounts for over 20% of all female cancers. A positive family history remains one of the most important risk factors for the disease, with first-degree relatives of patients having a twofold elevated risk. Known breast cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain only 20-25% of this risk, suggesting the existence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. Here, we report the results of a genome-wide linkage scan in 55 high-risk Dutch breast cancer families with no mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Twenty-two of these families were also part of a previous linkage study by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. In addition, we performed CGH analyses in 61 tumors of these families and 31 sporadic tumors. Three regions were identified with parametric HLOD scores >1, and three with nonparametric LOD scores >1.5. Upon further marker genotyping for the candidate loci, and the addition of another 30 families to the analysis, only the locus on chromosome 9 (9q21-22, marker D9S167) remained significant, with a nonparametric multipoint LOD score of 3.96 (parametric HLOD 0.56, alpha = 0.18). With CGH analyses we observed preferential copy number loss at BAC RP11-276H19, containing D9S167 in familial tumors as compared to sporadic tumors (P < 0.001). Five candidate genes were selected from the region around D9S167 and their coding regions subjected to direct sequence analysis in 16 probands. No clear pathogenic mutations were found in any of these genes.

Cyclin D1 expression analysis in familial breast cancers may discriminate BRCAX from BRCA2-linked cases

Most familial breast cancers arise in patients who tested negative for germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (also referred to as BRCAX cases). Several studies aimed to define histopathological and molecular profiles characteristic of BRCA1, BRCA2 and BRCAX tumors have been performed. Major pathological and immunohistochemical differences have been reported in BRCA1 cancers compared to the other two groups, whereas less difference has been observed between BRCA2 and BRCAX cases. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of selected tumor markers to discriminate BRCAX breast cancers from cancers arising in carriers of mutations in BRCA genes, and their usefulness in selecting familial cases in whom testing for such mutations is more likely to result uninformative. We carried out a morphological and immunohistochemical analysis on 22 BRCA1, 16 BRCA2 and 33 BRCAX familial breast cancers. Age at first diagnosis, histological type and grade, and immunostaining for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), p53, HER2/Neu, E-cadherin and cyclin D1 were investigated. The occurrence of somatic mutations of the TP53 gene was also verified. BRCA1 tumors resulted clearly distinguishable from BRCAX cases, occurring at a younger age, being more frequently of higher grade, negative for ER, PR and cyclin D1 expression and positive for p53 alterations. The predictive value of age at diagnosis, histological grade and PR expression was confirmed in a multivariable analysis. When comparing BRCA2 with BRCAX tumors, the only parameter that differed was cyclin D1, which was significantly overexpressed in BRCA2 cases both in the univariable and the multivariable analyses. If confirmed by further studies, our observations indicate that the investigation of cyclin D1 expression in familial breast cancer cases could be used, in conjunction with the analysis of other tumor markers preferentially associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 tumors, to prioritize hereditary cases for mutation testing in BRCA genes.

An integrative hypothesis about the origin and development of sporadic and familial breast cancer subtypes

Do breast cancer tumours have a common cell origin? Do different breast cancer molecular phenotypes arise from distinct cell types? The studies we have performed during the last few years in familial breast tumours (BRCA1, BRCA2 and non-BRCA1/2) widen questions about the development of sporadic breast cancer to hereditary breast cancer. Array-comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) studies show universal genomic aberrations in both familial and sporadic breast cancer subtypes that may be selected in the breast tumour development. The inactivation of BRCA1 seems to play a critical role in oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative cancer stem cells (CSCs), driving the tumour development mostly towards a basal-like or, in some cases, to a luminal B phenotype, but other carcinogenetic events are proposed to explain the remaining tumour subtypes. The existence of common genomic alterations in basal-like, ERBB2 and luminal B breast tumours may suggest a common cell origin or clonal selection of these tumour subtypes, arising from an ER-negative CSC or from a progenitor cell (PC). Finally, specific genomic aberrations in ER-positive tumours could provide cellular proliferation advantages when the cells are exposed to oestrogen. We propose a combination of the CSC hypothesis (for the carcinogenesis processes) and the clonal selection model (in terms of tumour development). We uphold that the basal-like-, ERBB2- and luminal B-sporadic and familial tumour subtypes have an ER-negative breast stem/PC origin, whereas luminal A tumours arise from an ER-positive PC, supporting a hierarchical breast carcinogenesis model, whereas crucial genomic imbalances are clonally selected during the tumour development.

Clinical correlates of low-risk variants in FGFR2, TNRC9, MAP3K1, LSP1 and 8q24 in a Dutch cohort of incident breast cancer cases

Introduction

Seven SNPs in five genomic loci were recently found to confer a mildly increased risk of breast cancer.

Methods

We have investigated the correlations between disease characteristics and the patient genotypes of these SNPs in an unselected prospective cohort of 1,267 consecutive patients with primary breast cancer.

Results

Heterozygote carriers and minor allele homozygote carriers for SNP rs889312 in the MAP3K1 gene were less likely to be lymph node positive at breast cancer diagnosis (P = 0.044) relative to major allele homozygote carriers. Heterozygote carriers and minor allele homozygote carriers for SNP rs3803662 near the TNCR9 gene were more likely to be diagnosed before the age of 60 years (P = 0.025) relative to major allele homozygote carriers. We also noted a correlation between the number of minor alleles of rs2981582 in FGFR2 and the average number of first-degree and second-degree relatives with breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer (P = 0.05). All other disease characteristics, including tumour size and grade, and oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, were not significantly associated with any of these variants.

Conclusion

Some recently discovered genomic variants associated with a mildly increased risk of breast cancer are also associated with breast cancer characteristics or family history of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. These findings provide interesting new clues for further research on these low-risk susceptibility alleles.

Distinct genomic aberration patterns are found in familial breast cancer associated with different immunohistochemical subtypes

Five breast cancer subtypes have been described in sporadic breast cancer (SBC) using expression arrays: basal-like, ERBB2, normal breast-like, luminal A and B. These molecular subtypes show different genomic aberration patterns (GAPs). Recently, our group described these breast cancer subtypes in 50 non-BRCA1/2 familial tumors using immunohistochemistry assays. We extended this study to the other classes of familial breast cancer (FBC), including 62 tumors (18 BRCA1, 16 BRCA2 and 28 non-BRCA1/2), with the same panel of 25 immunohistochemical (IHC) markers and histological grade obtaining a similar classification. We combined these data with results generated by a 1 Mb BAC array-based CGH study to evaluate the genomic aberrations of each group. We found that BRCA1-related tumors are preferentially basal-like, whereas non-BRCA1/2 familial tumors are mainly luminal A subtype. We described distinct GAPs related to each IHC subtype. Basal tumors had a greater number of gains/losses, while luminal B tumors had more high-level DNA amplifications. Our data are similar to those obtained in SBC studies, highlighting the existence of distinct genetic pathways of tumor evolution, common to both SBC and FBC.

Immunohistochemical classification of non-BRCA1/2 tumors identifies different groups that demonstrate the heterogeneity of BRCAX families

Around 25% of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families have mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The search for other genes has until now failed, probably because there is not one single BRCAX gene, but rather various genes that may each be responsible for a small number of breast cancer families and/or may interact according to a polygenic model. We have studied 50 tumors from probands belonging to non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families (BRCAX), using 25 immunohistochemical markers. The objective was to classify these tumors and confirm that they are heterogeneous. Unsupervised cluster analysis showed the existence of the following two main groups of tumors: high-grade and estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors (50%), and low-grade and ER-positive tumors (50%). In addition we identified five subgroups, three among the high-grade and two among the low-grade groups; one overexpressing HER-2 (18%); one with a basal-like phenotype (14%); one with a normal breast-like phenotype (18%); a luminal A subgroup (36%), and a luminal B subgroup (14%). Hypermethylation of the BRCA1 gene was observed in 42% of the cases, spread across all five subgroups, but only 37% of those had loss of heterozygosity as well. These latter cases were all clustered in the high-grade group and the majority of them in the basal-like subgroup. Our results show that familial non-BRCA1/2 tumors are heterogeneous and suggest a polygenic model for explaining the majority of BRCAX families. In addition we have defined a subset of them that have somatic inactivation of the BRCA1 gene.

Genetic susceptibility for breast cancer: How many more genes to be found?

Today, breast cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer among women. It accounts for 22% of all female cancers and the estimated annual incidence of breast cancer worldwide is about one million cases. Many risk factors have been identified but a positive family history remains among the most important ones established for breast cancer, with first-degree relatives of patients having an approximately two-fold elevated risk. It is currently estimated that approximately 20-25% of this risk is explained by known breast cancer susceptibility genes, mostly those conferring high risks, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, these genes explain less than 5% of the total breast cancer incidence, even though several studies have suggested that the proportion of breast cancer that can be attributed to a genetic factor may be as high as 30%. It is thus likely that there are still breast cancer susceptibility genes to be found. It is presently not known how many such genes there still are, nor how many will fall into the class of rare high-risk (e.g. BRCAx) or of common low-risk susceptibility genes, nor if and how these factors interact with each other to cause susceptibility (a polygenic model). In this review we will address this question and discuss the different undertaken approaches used in identifying new breast cancer susceptibility genes, such as (genome-wide) linkage analysis, CGH, LOH, association studies and global gene expression analysis.

Prediction of BRCA1/2 mutation status in patients with ovarian cancer from a hospital-based cohort

PURPOSE

To describe patient, tumor, and family histories of cancer in a hospital-based cohort of patients with ovarian cancer and to identify the predictive value of these characteristics for (non)carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with invasive ovarian cancer between 1999 and 2003 in the west region of The Netherlands and unselected for age at diagnosis or cancer family history were included. Information was gathered on patient and tumor characteristics; p53; HER-2/neu, and KI-67 protein-expression; BRCA1/2 mutations; and family histories of cancer. Prediction tests were constructed using multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Our study included 85 women (mean age at diagnosis, 57.6 years; standard deviation, 11.0 years). Six of these women had been previously or concurrently diagnosed with another tumor. Of the ovarian cancers, 41 (48.2%) were in an early stage (FIGO I or II). Five pathogenic mutations (6.1%) and six unclassified variants (7.3%) were identified in BRCA1/2; when the total sensitivity of the mutation scanning was taken into account, it was estimated to reflect seven pathogenic mutations (8.5%) and eight unclassified variants (9.8%). Sixty-nine women (81.2%) had at least one relative with cancer. A personal history of breast cancer and a family history of breast, ovarian, or uterine/endometrioid cancer were found to predict the presence of pathogenic mutations.

CONCLUSION

As the combination of a personal history of breast cancer and a family history of breast, ovarian, or uterine/endometrioid cancer had good predictive value for the presence of a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation, the presented prediction test is a useful instrument to identify those women eligible for DNA testing.

Pathology and gene expression of hereditary breast tumors associated with BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2 gene mutations

Tumors arising in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers appear to have specific pathological and gene expression profiles, which show a high level of concordance. BRCA1 tumors are high-grade, negative for hormone receptors, have a high proliferation rate, and are positive for some cell cycle promoter genes. BRCA2 tumors present a phenotype opposite to BRCA1 tumors but very similar to sporadic tumors, except that BRCA2 overexpress some DNA repair markers such as CHEK2, show high cytoplasmic expression of RAD51, and are negative for HER-2 amplification and expression. Some of these characteristics have also been found in cDNA expression studies, although more analysis are necessary in order to obtain new markers that can be associated with a germ line mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. In this way, some studies in normal tissues of BRCA1/2 carriers suggest that differences exist in the level of expression of some genes when compared with noncarriers. Finally, IHC studies in tumors carrying a mutation in CHEK2 are rare and show contradictory results, probably due to the low number of these cases. However, they represent an example showing how different mutations of the same gene may be associated with specific histological subtypes of cancer.

High incidence of familial breast cancer segregates with constitutional t(11;22)(q23;q11)

In a family with a high incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer and a case of glioblastoma, the constitutional translocation t(11;22)(q23;q11.2) was shown to segregate with the malignancies. The breakpoints in this family coincided with the common breakpoints in t(11;22) as shown by a translocation-specific PCR assay. Loss of heterozygosity analysis of breast tumor tissue revealed deletion of the normal chromosome 22, but retention of der(22) in the tumor cells, suggesting a predisposing effect of the der(22) for breast and brain tumor development in this family.