Related Articles

Background

Primary prevention of breast cancer through prophylactic mastectomy can reduce the risk of malignancy in high-risk individuals. No type of mastectomy completely removes all breast tissue, but a subcutaneous mastectomy leaves more tissue in situ than does a simple mastectomy.

Case presentation

We report a case of invasive breast cancer in a BRCA2-positive woman 33 years after bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy. To our knowledge, only one case of primary breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy in a BRCA1-positive patient has been reported in the literature and none in BRCA2-positive individuals.

Conclusion

Careful documentation and long follow-up is essential to fully assess the benefits and risks of preventive surgical procedures in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumour suppressor genes the alleles of which have to be inactivated before tumour development occurs. Hereditary breast cancers linked to germ-line mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes almost invariably show allelic imbalance (AI) at the respective loci. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are believed to take part in a common pathway in maintenance of genomic integrity in cells. We carried out AI and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses of BRCA2 in breast tumours from germ-line BRCA1 mutation carriers and vice versa. For comparison, 14 sporadic breast tumours were also studied. 8 of the 11 (73%) informative BRCA1 mutation tumours showed AI at the BRCA2 locus. 53% of these tumours showed a copy number loss of the BRCA2 gene by FISH. 5 of the 6 (83%) informative BRCA2 mutation tumours showed AI at the BRCA1 locus. Half of the tumours (4/8) showed a physical deletion of the BRCA1 gene by FISH. Combined allelic loss of both BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene was seen in 12 of the 17 (71%) informative hereditary tumours, whereas copy number losses of both BRCA genes was seen in only 4/14 (29%) sporadic control tumours studied by FISH. In conclusion, the high prevalence of AI at BRCA1 in BRCA2 mutation tumours and vice versa suggests that somatic events occurring at the other breast cancer susceptibility gene locus may be selected in the cancer development. The mechanism resulting in AI at these loci seems more complex than a physical deletion.   http://www.bjcancer.com © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign

The incomplete penetrance of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 suggests that some combination of environmental and genetic factors modifies the risk of breast cancer in mutation carriers. The current study sought to identify possible interactions between established breast cancer risk factors and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations using a case-only study design. Breast cancer cases that had been tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were identified from 11 collaborating centers. Comparisons of reproductive and lifestyle risk factors were made between women with breast cancer who were positive for BRCA1 mutations (n=283), BRCA2 mutations (n=204) or negative for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (n=894). Interaction risk ratios (IRRs) were calculated using multinominal logistic regression models. Compared with non-carriers, statistically significant IRRs were observed for later age at menarche among BRCA2 mutation carriers, for a greater number of pregnancies among both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and for alcohol use among BRCA1 mutation carriers. Our data suggest that the risk for breast cancer among BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers may be modified by reproductive characteristics and alcohol use. However, our results should be interpreted cautiously given the overall inconsistency in the epidemiologic literature on modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Women with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation or a hereditary predisposition for breast and ovarian cancer have substantial risk of breast or ovarian cancer relative to the general US population. Health care professionals can be instrumental in identifying women at increased risk through obtaining a comprehensive family history and becoming familiar with family history characteristics associated with hereditary predisposition for breast and ovarian cancer. BRCA carriers and women at very high risk benefit from multidisciplinary, individualized medical evaluation and risk management. We conducted a search of MEDLINE from 1989 through 2010 for the terms BRCA1, BRCA2, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, risk assessment, and genetic testing. We reviewed abstracts and relevant randomized and prospective studies that included very high-risk patient groups and BRCA mutation carriers. Herein, we review the role of genetic consultation and BRCA testing and the comprehensive, multisystem recommendations for risk management. A multidisciplinary approach offers the ability to educate those at very high risk about cancer prevention, reduce cancer risk, maximize early detection of breast and ovarian cancer, and improve survival.

BRCA-mutation associated breast cancer differs from sporadic breast cancer with regard to future cancer risks and sensitivity to systemic therapies. Now that rapid genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is available at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, BRCA mutation status can be considered when making treatment and prevention decisions for BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer. This article reviews surgical options for management of affected BRCA mutation carriers with emphasis on the risks of ipsilateral recurrence and contralateral breast cancer. The roles of breast conserving surgery, prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy are reviewed. In addition, sensitivity of BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer to endocrine therapy, platinum chemotherapy and poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibitors is reviewed.

Ovarian epithelial tumors are an hallmark of hereditary cancer syndromes which are related to the germ-line inheritance of cancer predisposing mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Although these genes have been associated with multiple different physiologic functions, they share an important role in DNA repair mechanisms and therefore in the whole genomic integrity control. These findings have risen a variety of issues in terms of treatment and prevention of breast and ovarian tumors arising in this context. Enhanced sensitivity to platinum-based anticancer drugs has been related to BRCA1/2 functional loss. Retrospective studies disclosed differential chemosensitivity profiles of BRCA1/2-related as compared to "sporadic" ovarian cancer and led to the identification of a "BRCA-ness" phenotype of ovarian cancer, which includes inherited BRCA1/2 germ-line mutations, a serous high grade histology highly sensitive to platinum derivatives. Molecularly-based tailored treatments of human tumors are an emerging issue in the "era" of molecular targeted drugs and molecular profiling technologies. We will critically discuss if the genetic background of ovarian cancer can indeed represent a determinant issue for decision making in the treatment selection and how the provocative preclinical findings might be translated in the therapeutic scenario. The presently available preclinical and clinical evidence clearly indicates that genetic background has an emerging role in treatment individualization for ovarian cancer patients.

Background

About 5% of all breast cancer cases are attributable to germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. BRCA mutations in suspected carriers, however, may be missed, which hampers genetic counselling.

Materials and methods

Different clinicopathological features were compared between 22 breast cancers from carriers of proved BRCA1 mutations and 604 cancers from sporadic controls. In addition, 5 BRCA2‐related breast cancers and 66 breast cancers of untested patients at intermediate risk and 19 breast cancers of untested patients at high risk of hereditary disease on the basis of family history were evaluated.

Results

A “probably sporadic” class (age ⩾54 years and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) negative; 68% of cases) with a 0% chance of BRCA1‐related breast cancer containing 79% of the sporadic cases was yielded by using a decision tree with age, Ki67 and EGFR. A 75% chance of BRCA1‐related breast cancer was shown by the “probably BRCA1‐related” class (age <54 years and Ki67 ⩾25%; 8% of cases) with 82% of the BRCA1‐related cases but only 1.4% of the sporadic cases. Most cases at intermediate or high risk of hereditary disease on the basis of family history could be classified with high probability as either probably BRCA1 related or probably sporadic.

Conclusion

Breast carcinomas can be classified with a high level of certainty as sporadic or related to BRCA1 germline mutations by using a decision tree with age, Ki67 and EGFR. This can be clinically useful in mutation analysis in families with a borderline risk of hereditary disease.

Introduction

Most breast cancers that occur in women with germline BRCA1 mutations are estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) and also typically lack expression of progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 overexpression. We undertook a study to assess the clinical factors that predict for an estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers and to characterize the pathologic features of these tumors.

Methods

Clinical characteristics of BRCA1 carriers with 58 ER+ and 114 ER- first invasive breast cancers were compared. Pathologic features of BRCA1 ER+ cancers were compared to those of BRCA1 ER- cancers and to age-matched ER+ sporadic cancers.

Results

BRCA1 carriers aged ≥ 50 at diagnosis of first invasive breast cancer were more likely to have an ER+ cancer compared to those aged < 50 (57% vs 29%, P = 0.005). ER+ BRCA1 cancers were less likely than ER- BRCA1 cancers to have "BRCA-associated" features such as high mitotic activity, geographic necrosis/fibrotic focus, and pushing margins (RR 0.06, 0.22, 0.24; P < 0.001, 0.02, 0.03 respectively). When compared to sporadic ER+ cancers, ER+ BRCA1 cancers were more often of invasive ductal type (RR 2.4, P = 0.03), with a high mitotic rate (RR 5.0, P = 0.006) and absent or mild lymphocytic infiltrate (RR 10.2, P = 0.04).

Conclusions

BRCA1 carriers who are older at first breast cancer diagnosis are more likely to have ER+ tumors than younger BRCA1 carriers. These ER+ cancers appear pathologically "intermediate" between ER- BRCA1 cancers and ER+ sporadic breast cancers raising the possibility that either some ER+ BRCA1 cancers are incidental or that there is a unique mechanism by which these cancers develop.

The majority of tumors arising in BRCA1 mutation carriers exhibit inactivation of p53, a key effector of cell death following DNA damage. Despite the loss of p53, BRCA1-deficient tumor cells exhibit increased sensitivity to cisplatin, and patients with BRCA1-associated ovarian carcinomas experience improved outcomes with platinum-based chemotherapy compared to sporadic cases. While it is known that chemosensitivity in BRCA1-associated cancers is associated with unrepaired DNA damage, the specific effector pathway mediating the cellular response to platinum-induced damage in these tumors is poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that the p53-related gene p73, encoding a pro-apoptotic protein which is linked to chemosensitivity in many settings, is upregulated through a novel epigenetic mechanism in both human and murine models of BRCA1-associated ovarian carcinoma. BRCA1-deficient ovarian carcinoma cells exhibit hypermethylation within a p73 regulatory region which includes the binding site for the p73 transcriptional repressor ZEB1, leading to abrogation of ZEB1 binding and increased expression of transactivating p73 isoforms (TAp73). Cisplatin chemotherapy induces TAp73 target genes specifically in BRCA1-deficient cells, and knockdown of TAp73 in these cells causes chemoresistance while having little or no effect on BRCA1-expressing tumor cells. In primary ovarian carcinomas, ZEB1 binding site methylation and TAp73 expression correlate with BRCA1 status and with clinical response. Together, these findings uncover a novel regulatory mechanism that supports the contribution of TAp73 as an important mediator of the response to platinum chemotherapy in a subset of ovarian carcinomas. TAp73 may represent a response predictor and potential therapeutic target for enhancing chemosensitivity in this disease.

In computing the probability that a woman is a BRCA1 or BRCA2 carrier for genetic counselling purposes, it is important to allow for the fact that other breast cancer susceptibility genes may exist. We used data from both a population based series of breast cancer cases and high risk families in the UK, with information on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, to investigate the genetic models that can best explain familial breast cancer outside BRCA1 and BRCA2 families. We also evaluated the evidence for risk modifiers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated the simultaneous effects of BRCA1, BRCA2, a third hypothetical gene ‘BRCA3’, and a polygenic effect using segregation analysis. The hypergeometric polygenic model was used to approximate polygenic inheritance and the effect of risk modifiers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 could not explain all the observed familial clustering. The best fitting model for the residual familial breast cancer was the polygenic, although a model with a single recessive allele produced a similar fit. There was also significant evidence for a modifying effect of other genes on the risks of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Under this model, the frequency of BRCA1 was estimated to be 0.051% (95% CI: 0.021–0.125%) and of BRCA2 0.068% (95% CI: 0.033–0.141%). The breast cancer risk by age 70 years, based on the average incidence over all modifiers was estimated to be 35.3% for BRCA1 and 50.3% for BRCA2. The corresponding ovarian cancer risks were 25.9% for BRCA1 and 9.1% for BRCA2. The findings suggest that several common, low penetrance genes with multiplicative effects on risk may account for the residual non-BRCA1/2 familial aggregation of breast cancer. The modifying effect may explain the previously reported differences between population based estimates for BRCA1/2 penetrance and estimates based on high-risk families.

British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 76–83. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600008 www.bjcancer.com

© 2002 The Cancer Research Campaign

Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) for sporadic breast cancer has been widely accepted by surgeons and patients alike. While BCT is associated with a higher risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), it has not been shown to decrease overall survival (OS) in comparison with mastectomy. Many women with a BRCA1/2 mutation opt for mastectomy instead of breast-conserving measures at the time of a breast cancer diagnosis. In some cases, this is due to fear of aggressive disease, but to date, there have been no studies offering strong evidence that breast conservation should not be offered to these women. BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer has not been found to be more aggressive or resistant to treatment than comparable sporadic tumors, and no study has shown an actual survival advantage for mastectomy in appropriately treated affected mutation carriers. This paper reviews the available literature for breast conservation and surgical decision making in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Introduction

The majority of breast cancers that occur in BRCA1 mutation carriers (BRCA1 carriers) are estrogen receptor-negative (ER-). Therefore, it has been suggested that ER negativity is intrinsic to BRCA1 cancers and reflects the cell of origin of these tumors. However, approximately 20% of breast cancers that develop in BRCA1 carriers are ER-positive (ER+); these cancers are more likely to develop as BRCA1 carriers age, suggesting that they may be incidental and unrelated to BRCA1 deficiency. The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of loss of heterozygosity due to loss of wild type (wt) BRCA1 in ER+ and ER- breast cancers that have occurred in BRCA1 carriers and to determine whether age at diagnosis or any pathologic features or biomarkers predict for loss of wt BRCA1 in these breast cancers.

Methods

Relative amounts of mutated and wt BRCA1 DNA were measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction performed on laser capture microdissected cancer cells from 42 ER+ and 35 ER- invasive breast cancers that developed in BRCA1 carriers. BRCA1 gene methylation was determined on all cancers in which sufficient DNA was available. Immunostains for cytokeratins (CK) 5/6, 14, 8 and 18, epidermal growth factor receptor and p53 were performed on paraffin sections from tissue microarrays containing these cancers.

Results

Loss of wt BRCA1 was equally frequent in ER+ and ER- BRCA1-associated cancers (81.0% vs 88.6%, respectively; P = 0.53). One of nine cancers tested that retained wt BRCA1 demonstrated BRCA1 gene methylation. Age at diagnosis was not significantly different between first invasive ER+ BRCA1 breast cancers with and without loss of wt BRCA1 (mean age 45.2 years vs 50.1 years, respectively; P = 0.51). ER+ BRCA1 cancers that retained wt BRCA1 were significantly more likely than those that lost wt BRCA1 to have a low mitotic rate (odds ratio (OR), 5.16; 95% CI, 1.91 to ∞). BRCA1 cancers with loss of wt BRCA1 were more likely to express basal cytokeratins CK 5/6 or 14 (OR 4.7; 95% CI, 1.85 to ∞).

Conclusions

We found no difference in the prevalence of loss of wt BRCA1 between ER+ and ER- invasive BRCA1-associated breast cancers. Our findings suggest that many of the newer therapies for BRCA1 breast cancers designed to exploit the BRCA1 deficiency in these cancers may also be effective in ER+ cancers that develop in this population.

Background

Given the greatly elevated risks of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) observed in breast cancer patients who carry mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, it is critical to determine the effectiveness of standard adjuvant therapies in preventing CBC in mutation carriers.

Methods

The WECARE study is a matched, case-control study of 708 women with CBC as cases and 1,399 women with unilateral breast cancer (UBC) as controls, including 181 BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. Interviews and medical record reviews provided detailed information on risk factors and breast cancer therapy. All study participants were screened for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) to detect genetic variants in the coding and flanking regions of the genes. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare the risk of CBC associated with chemotherapy and tamoxifen in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers.

Results

Chemotherapy was associated with lower CBC risk both in non-carriers (RR = 0.6 [95% CI: 0.5-0.7]) and carriers (RR = 0.5 [95% CI: 0.2-1.0]; p-value = 0.04). Tamoxifen was associated with a reduced CBC risk in non-carriers (RR = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.6-1.0]; p-value = 0.03). We observed a similar but non-significant reduction associated with tamoxifen in mutation carriers (RR = 0.7 [95% CI: 0.3-1.8]). The tests of heterogeneity comparing carriers to non-carriers did not provide evidence for a difference in the associations with chemotherapy (p-value = 0.51) nor with tamoxifen (p-value = 0.15).

Conclusions

Overall, we did not observe a difference in the relative risk reduction associated with adjuvant treatment between BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers. However, given the higher absolute CBC risk in mutation carriers, the potentially greater impact of adjuvant therapy in reducing CBC risk among mutation carriers should be considered when developing treatment plans for these patients.

Female BRCA1 mutation carriers have a nearly 80% probability of developing breast cancer during their life-time. We hypothesized that the breast epithelium at risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers harbors mammary epithelial cells (MEC) with altered proliferation and differentiation properties. Using a three-dimensional culture technique to grow MECs ex vivo, we found that the ability to form colonies, an indication of clonality, was restricted to the aldehyde dehydrogenase 1–positive fraction in MECs but not in HCC1937 BRCA1-mutant cancer cells. Primary MECs from BRCA1 mutation carriers (n = 9) had a 28% greater ability for clonal growth compared with normal controls (n= 6; P = 0.006), and their colonies were significantly larger. Colonies in controls and BRCA1 mutation carriers stained positive for BRCA1 by immunohistochemistry, and 79% of the examined single colonies from BRCA1 carriers retained heterozygosity for BRCA1 (ROH). Colonies from BRCA1 mutation carriers frequently showed high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression (71% EGFR positive versus 44% in controls) and were negative for estrogen receptor (ERα; 32% ER negative, 44% mixed, 24% ER positive versus 90% ER positive in controls). Expression of CK14 and p63 were not significantly different. Microarray studies revealed that colonies from BRCA1-mutant PMECs anticipate expression profiles found in BRCA1-related tumors, and that the EGFR pathway is up-regulated. We conclude that BRCA1 haploin-sufficiency leads to an increased ability for clonal growth and proliferation in the PMECs of BRCA1 mutation carriers, possibly as a result of EGFR pathway activation. These altered growth and differentiation properties may render BRCA1-mutant PMECs vulnerable to transformation and predispose to the development of ER-negative, EGFR-positive breast cancers.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes predispose to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Our aim was to find associations between the clinical characteristics and positive mutation status in 148 breast cancer families in order to predict the probability of finding a BRCA mutation in a family. Several factors were associated with mutations in univariate analysis, whereas in multivariate analysis (logistic regression with backward selection) only the age of the youngest breast cancer patient and the number of ovarian cancer cases in a family were independent predictors of BRCA mutations. A logistic model was devised to estimate the probability for a family of harbouring a mutation in either BRCA1 or BRCA2. Altogether, 63 out of 148 families (43%) and 28 out of 29 (97%) mutation carrier families obtained probabilities over 10%. The mean probability was 55% for mutation-positive families and 11% for mutation-negative families. The models by Couch et al (1997) and Shattuck-Eidens et al (1997) previously designed for BRCA1 were also tested for their applicability to distinguish carrier families with mutations in either gene. The probability model should be a useful tool in genetic counselling and focusing the mutation analyses, and thus increasing also the cost-effectiveness of the genetic screening. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com

Germline mutations of the tumour suppressor gene BRCA1 are involved in the predisposition and development of breast cancer and account for 20–45% of all hereditary cases. There is an increasing evidence that these tumours are characterised by a specific phenotype and pattern of gene expression. We have hypothesised that differences in chemosensitivity might parallel molecular heterogeneity of hereditary and sporadic breast tumours. To this end, we have investigated the chemosensitivity of the BRCA1-defective HCC1937 breast cancer cell line, and the BRCA1-competent MCF-7 (hormone-sensitive) and MDA-MB231 (hormone-insensitive) breast cancer cell lines using the MTT assay. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) for the individual compounds were derived by interpolate plot analysis of the logarithmic scalar concentration curve after a 48 h exposure. HCC1937 cells were significantly (P<0.005) more sensitive to cisplatin (CDDP) (IC50 : 30–40 μM) compared with MCF-7 (IC50 : 60–70 μM) and MDA-MB231 (IC50 : 90–100 μM) cells. On the other hand, BRCA1-defective breast cancer cells were significantly less sensitive to doxorubicin (Dox) (IC50 : 45–50 μM) compared with MCF-7 (IC50 : 1–5 μM) and MDA-MB231 (IC50 : 5–10 μM) (P<0.02), as well as to paclitaxel (Tax) (IC50 : >2 μM for HCC1937, 0.1–0.2 μM for MCF-7 and 0.01–0.02 μM for MDA-MB231) (P<0.001). Full-length BRCA1 cDNA transfection of BRCA1-defective HCC1937 cells led to the reconstituted expression of BRCA1 protein in HCC1937/WTBRCA1-derived cell clone, but did not reduce tumour cell growth in soft agar. BRCA1 reconstitution reverted the hypersensitivity to CDDP (P<0.02), and restored the sensitivity to Dox (P<0.05) and Tax (P<0.001), compared with parental HCC1937 cells. Taken together, our findings suggest a specific chemosensitivity profile of BRCA1-defective cells in vitro, which is dependent on BRCA1 protein expression, and suggest prospective preclinical and clinical investigation for the development of tailored therapeutical approaches in this setting.

Introduction

BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Tumour cells from germline mutation carriers have frequently lost the wild-type allele. This is predicted to result in genomic instability where cell survival depends upon dysfunctional checkpoint mechanisms. Tumorigenic potential could then be acquired through further genomic alterations. Surprisingly, somatic BRCA mutations are not found in sporadic breast tumours. BRCA1 methylation has been shown to occur in sporadic breast tumours and to be associated with reduced gene expression. We examined the frequency of BRCA1 methylation in 143 primary sporadic breast tumours along with BRCA1 copy number alterations and tumour phenotype.

Methods

Primary sporadic breast tumours were analysed for BRCA1α promoter methylation by methylation specific PCR and for allelic imbalance (AI) at BRCA1 and BRCA2 loci by microsatellite analysis and TP53 (also known as p53) mutations by constant denaturing gel electrophoresis. The BRCA1 methylated tumours were analysed for BRCA1 copy alterations by fluorescence in situ hybridisation and BRCA1 expression by immunostaining.

Results

BRCA1 methylation was found in 13/143 (9.1%) sporadic breast tumours. The BRCA1 methylated tumours were significantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (P = 0.0475) and displayed a trend for BRCA1 AI (P = 0.0731) as well as young-age at diagnosis (≤ 55; P = 0.0898). BRCA1 methylation was not associated with BRCA2 AI (P = 0.5420), although a significant association was found between BRCA1 AI and BRCA2 AI (P < 0.0001).

Absent/markedly reduced BRCA1 expression was observed in 9/13 BRCA1 methylated tumours, most of which had BRCA1 deletion. An elevated TP53 mutation frequency was found among BRCA1 methylated tumours (38.5%) compared with non-methylated tumours (17.2%). The BRCA1 methylated tumours were mainly of tumour grade 3 (7/13) and infiltrating ductal type (12/13). Only one methylated tumour was of grade 1.

Conclusion

BRCA1 methylation is frequent in primary sporadic breast tumours. We found an indication for BRCA1 methylation to be associated with AI at the BRCA1 locus. Almost all BRCA1 methylated tumours with absent/markedly reduced BRCA1 expression (8/9) displayed BRCA1 deletion. Thus, epigenetic silencing and deletion of the BRCA1 gene might serve as Knudson's two 'hits' in sporadic breast tumorigenesis. We observed phenotypic similarities between BRCA1 methylated and familial BRCA1 tumours, based on BRCA1 deletion, TP53 mutations, ER status, young age at diagnosis and tumour grade.

OBJECTIVES: To present a strategy for identifying candidates for consideration of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing. To discuss the implications of identifying patients as BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, and to provide recommendations for managing them. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A MEDLINE search from January 1990 to May 1998 was performed using the terms genetic breast screening, BRCA1, and BRCA2. The bibliographies of articles found were searched for further relevant titles. There are no published, randomized controlled clinical trials of management strategies for known BRCA carriers. Many recommendations for management are based on expert opinion only. MAIN FINDINGS: About 5% of women with breast cancer are carriers of genetic mutations. An accurate and detailed family history is the most important tool for identifying potential BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Women identified as carriers have a substantially increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Male carriers have a moderately increased risk of prostate cancer. Management strategies for carriers are not well studied but include increased surveillance, preventive surgery, chemoprevention, and lifestyle modification. CONCLUSION: Family physicians must be able to identify people at risk, to discuss management strategies, and when appropriate, to offer referral for consideration of genetic testing. There is an urgent need for research to determine the effectiveness of surveillance strategies, preventive surgery, chemoprevention, and lifestyle modification for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Several studies of survival in women with BRCA1 mutations have shown either reduced survival or no difference compared to controls. Programmes for early detection and treatment of inherited breast cancer, have failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

One hundred and sixty-seven women with disease-associated germline BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer from 1980 to 2001 were identified. Tumour characteristics, treatment given and survival were recorded. A control group comprising three hundred and four women matched for age, time of diagnosis and stage were used to compare survival.

BRCA1 mutation carriers were found to have a poorer prognosis, which could be explained by neither the mode of surgical treatment nor the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. BRCA1 mutation carriers with node negative breast cancer had worse overall survival than controls.

Our findings confirm the serious prognosis of BRCA1-associated breast cancer even when diagnosed at an early stage, and that type of treatment does not influence prognosis.

The functional consequences of missense variants in disease genes are difficult to predict. We assessed if gene expression profiles could distinguish between BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic truncating and missense mutation carriers and familial breast cancer cases whose disease was not attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (BRCAX cases). 72 cell lines from affected women in high-risk breast ovarian families were assayed after exposure to ionising irradiation, including 23 BRCA1 carriers, 22 BRCA2 carriers, and 27 BRCAX individuals. A subset of 10 BRCAX individuals carried rare BRCA1/2 sequence variants considered to be of low clinical significance (LCS). BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers had similar expression profiles, with some subclustering of missense mutation carriers. The majority of BRCAX individuals formed a distinct cluster, but BRCAX individuals with LCS variants had expression profiles similar to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Gaussian Process Classifier predicted BRCA1, BRCA2 and BRCAX status, with a maximum of 62% accuracy, and prediction accuracy decreased with inclusion of BRCAX samples carrying an LCS variant, and inclusion of pathogenic missense carriers. Similarly, prediction of mutation status with gene lists derived using Support Vector Machines was good for BRCAX samples without an LCS variant (82–94%), poor for BRCAX with an LCS (40–50%), and improved for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation carriers when the gene list used for prediction was appropriate to mutation effect being tested (71–100%). This study indicates that mutation effect, and presence of rare variants possibly associated with a low risk of cancer, must be considered in the development of array-based assays of variant pathogenicity.

Author Summary

Inherited mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase risk of breast cancer and contribute to a proportion of breast cancer families. However, more than half of the reported sequence alterations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are currently of unknown clinical significance. We analysed gene expression in lymphoblastoid cell lines derived from blood of patients with sequence alterations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and compared these to lymphoblastoid cells from familial breast cancer patients without such alterations. We then classified these lymphoblastoid cells based on their gene profiles. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 samples were more similar to each other than to familial breast cancer patients without BRCA1/2 mutations, and that the type of sequence change in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (missense or truncating) influenced gene expression. We included in the study ten familial breast cancer samples, which carried sequence changes in BRCA1 or BRCA2, that are believed to be of little clinical significance. Interestingly these samples were distinct from other familial breast cancer cases without any sequence alteration in BRCA1 or BRCA2, indicating that further work needs to be performed to determine the possible association of these “low clinical significance” sequence changes with a low to moderate risk of cancer.

Estimates of the contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to breast cancer incidence in outbred populations have been based on studies that are either small or have selected for cases diagnosed at an early age. Only one of these has reported an estimate of the breast cancer risk associated with a mutation in these genes, and there is no published ovarian cancer risk estimate derived from a population-based case series. We screened a population-based series of breast cancer cases diagnosed before the age of 55 for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Pedigree information from the mutation carriers was used to estimate penetrance and the proportion of familial risk of breast cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2. We identified eight (0.7%)BRCA1 and 16 (1.3%)BRCA2 mutation carriers in 1220 breast cancer cases (actual sample size 1435 adjusted for 15% polymerase chain reaction failure rate). Mutation prevalence was substantially higher in cases diagnosed before 35 years-of-age and with increasing number of relatives affected with breast or ovarian cancer. However, most mutation carriers were diagnosed in the older age groups, and a minority reported a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Breast cancer penetrance by age 80 was estimated to be 48% (95% CI 7–82%) for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 74% (7–94%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Ovarian cancer penetrance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 combined was 22% (6–65%) by age 80. 17% of the familial risk of breast cancer was attributable to BRCA1 and BRCA2. At birth, the estimated prevalence of BRCA1 mutation carriers was 0.07% or 0.09% depending on the penetrance function used for the calculation. For BRCA2 the birth prevalence estimates were 0.14% and 0.22%. Mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are rare in the population and account for a small fraction of all breast cancer in the UK. They account for less than one fifth of the familial risk of breast cancer. Eligibility criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing based on family history and age of onset will identify only a small proportion of mutation carriers. © 2000 CancerResearch Campaign

Prostate cancer is a genetically complex disease with multiple predisposing factors affecting presentation, progression, and outcome. Epidemiologic studies have long demonstrated an aggregation of breast and prostate cancer in some families. More recently, studies have reported an apparent excess of prostate cancer cases among BRCA2 mutation carrying families. Additionally, population−based screens of early−onset prostate cancer patients have suggested that the prevalence of deleterious BRCA2 mutations in this group is 1–2%, imparting a significantly increased risk of the disease compared to non−carrier cases. However, studies of high risk prostate cancer families suggest that BRCA2 plays at most a minimal role in these individuals, highlighting the potential genetic heterogeneity of disease. In this commentary we review the current literature and hypotheses surrounding the relationship between BRCA2 mutations and susceptibility to prostate cancer, and speculate on the potential for involvement of additional genes.

Background

Inter-individual variation in DNA repair capacity is thought to modulate breast cancer risk. The phenotypic mutagen sensitivity assay (MSA) measures DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes; women with familial and sporadic breast cancers have a higher mean number of breaks per cell (MBPC) then women without breast cancer. Here, we explore the relationships between the MSA and the Rad51 gene, which encodes a DNA repair enzyme that interacts with BRCA1 and BRCA2, in BRCA1 mutation carriers and women with sporadic breast cancer.

Methods

Peripheral blood lymphoblasts from women with known BRCA1 mutations underwent the MSA (n = 138 among 20 families). BRCA1 and Rad51 genotyping and sequencing were performed to identify SNPs and haplotypes associated with the MSA. Positive associations from the study in high-risk families were subsequently examined in a population-based case-control study of breast cancer (n = 1170 cases and 2115 controls).

Results

Breast cancer diagnosis was significantly associated with the MSA among women from BRCA1 families (OR = 3.2 95%CI: 1.5-6.7; p = 0.004). The Rad51 5'UTR 135 C>G genotype (OR = 3.64; 95% CI: 1.38, 9.54; p = 0.02), one BRCA1 haplotype (p = 0.03) and in a polygenic model, the E1038G and Q356R BRCA1 SNPs were significantly associated with MBPC (p = 0.009 and 0.002, respectively). The Rad51 5'UTR 135C genotype was not associated with breast cancer risk in the population-based study.

Conclusions

Mutagen sensitivity might be a useful biomarker of penetrance among women with BRCA1 mutations because the MSA phenotype is partially explained by genetic variants in BRCA1 and Rad51.

Purpose

To compare the presentation of invasive breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with and without prior bilateral oophorectomy.

Patients and methods

Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation with the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer were identified from ten cancer genetics clinics. The medical history, medical treatment records and pathology reports for the breast cancers were reviewed. Information was abstracted from medical charts, including history (and date) of oophorectomy, date of breast cancer diagnosis, stage of disease, and pathologic characteristics of the breast cancer. Women with prior bilateral oophorectomy were matched by age, year of diagnosis, and mutation with one or more women who had two intact ovaries at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. Characteristics of the breast tumours were compared between the two groups.

Results

Women with prior bilateral oophorectomy presented with smaller tumours on average compared to women without prior oophorectomy (mean size 1.50 cm vs. 1.95 cm; p = 0.01). Additionally, although not statistically significant, women with intact ovaries were more likely to have high-grade tumour (70% vs. 54%: p = 0.10) and to have positive lymph nodes (34% vs. 18%; p = 0.11) compared to women with prior bilateral oophorectomy.

Conclusions

Bilateral oophorectomy prior to breast cancer appears to favourably influence the biological presentation of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

INTRODUCTION—A small fraction of breast cancer is the result of germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cancer susceptibility genes. Mutation carriers frequently have a positive family history of breast and ovarian cancer, are often diagnosed at a young age, and may have a higher incidence of double or multiple primary breast tumours than breast cancer patients in general.
OBJECTIVES—To estimate the prevalence and spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in young Danish patients affected with bilateral or multifocal breast cancer and to determine the relationship of mutation status to family history of cancer.
SUBJECTS—From the files of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG), we selected 119 breast cancer patients diagnosed before the age of 46 years with either bilateral (n=59) or multifocal (n=61) disease.
METHODS—DNA from the subjects was screened for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations using single strand conformation analysis (SSCA) and the protein truncation test (PTT). Observed and expected cancer incidence in first degree relatives of the patients was estimated using data from the Danish Cancer Registry.
RESULTS—Twenty four mutation carriers were identified (20%), of whom 13 had a BRCA1 mutation and 11 carried a BRCA2 mutation. Two mutations in BRCA1 were found repeatedly in the material and accounted for seven of the 24 (29%) mutation carriers. The mutation frequency was about equal in patients with bilateral (22%) and multifocal breast cancer (18%). The incidence of breast and ovarian cancer was greatly increased in first degree relatives of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, but to a much lesser degree in relatives of non-carriers. An increased risk of cancer was also noted in brothers of non-carriers.
CONCLUSIONS—A relatively broad spectrum of germline mutations was observed in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and most of the mutations are present in other populations. Our results indicate that a diagnosis of bilateral and multifocal breast cancer is predictive of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, particularly when combined with information on the patients' age at diagnosis and family history of breast/ovarian cancer.


Keywords: breast cancer; mutations; BRCA1; BRCA2