Dataset Information

Are the so-called low penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2, high risk for women with strong family histories?

ABSTRACT: A woman typically presents for genetic counselling because she has a strong family history and is interested in knowing the probability she will develop disease in the future; that is, her absolute risk. Relative risk for a given factor refers to risk compared with either population average risk (sense a), or risk when not having the factor, with all other factors held constant (sense b). Not understanding that these are three distinct concepts can result in failure to correctly appreciate the consequences of studies on clinical genetic testing. Several studies found that the frequencies of mutations in ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2 were many times greater for cases with a strong family history than for controls. To account for the selected case sampling (ascertainment), a statistical model that assumes that the effect of any measured variant multiplies the effect of unmeasured variants was applied. This multiplicative polygenic model in effect estimated the relative risk in the sense b, not sense a, and found it was in the range of 1.7 to 2.4. The authors concluded that the variants are "low penetrance". They failed to note that their model fits predicted that, for some women, absolute risk may be as high as for BRCA2 mutation carriers. This is because the relative risk multiplies polygenic risk, and the latter is predicted by family history. Therefore, mutation testing of these genes for women with a strong family history, especially if it is of early onset, may be as clinically relevant as it is for BRCA1 and BRCA2.

SUBMITTER: Byrnes GB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2481495 | biostudies-literature | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are the so-called low penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2, high risk for women with strong family histories?

Byrnes Graham B GB Southey Melissa C MC Hopper John L JL

Breast cancer research : BCR 20080605 3

A woman typically presents for genetic counselling because she has a strong family history and is interested in knowing the probability she will develop disease in the future; that is, her absolute risk. Relative risk for a given factor refers to risk compared with either population average risk (sense a), or risk when not having the factor, with all other factors held constant (sense b). Not understanding that these are three distinct concepts can result in failure to correctly appreciate the c ...[more]

PMID: 18557994

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceScreening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women.ObjectiveTo estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32 247 cases and 32 544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985.InterventionsScreening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges.ResultsThe mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women.Conclusions and relevanceThis analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit.

Project description:Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecological malignancy, responsible for 13 000 deaths per year in the United States. Risk prediction based on identifying germline mutations in ovarian cancer susceptibility genes could have a clinically significant impact on reducing disease mortality. Next generation sequencing was used to identify germline mutations in the coding regions of four candidate susceptibility genes-BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2 and NBN-in 3236 invasive EOC case patients and 3431 control patients of European origin, and in 2000 unaffected high-risk women from a clinical screening trial of ovarian cancer (UKFOCSS). For each gene, we estimated the prevalence and EOC risks and evaluated associations between germline variant status and clinical and epidemiological risk factor information. All statistical tests were two-sided. We found an increased frequency of deleterious mutations in BRIP1 in case patients (0.9%) and in the UKFOCSS participants (0.6%) compared with control patients (0.09%) (P = 1 x 10(-4) and 8 x 10(-4), respectively), but no differences for BARD1 (P = .39), NBN1 ( P = .61), or PALB2 (P = .08). There was also a difference in the frequency of rare missense variants in BRIP1 between case patients and control patients (P = 5.5 x 10(-4)). The relative risks associated with BRIP1 mutations were 11.22 for invasive EOC (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.22 to 34.10, P = 1 x 10(-4)) and 14.09 for high-grade serous disease (95% CI = 4.04 to 45.02, P = 2 x 10(-5)). Segregation analysis in families estimated the average relative risks in BRIP1 mutation carriers compared with the general population to be 3.41 (95% CI = 2.12 to 5.54, P = 7×10(-7)). Deleterious germline mutations in BRIP1 are associated with a moderate increase in EOC risk. These data have clinical implications for risk prediction and prevention approaches for ovarian cancer and emphasize the critical need for risk estimates based on very large sample sizes before genes of moderate penetrance have clinical utility in cancer prevention.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Two major high-penetrance breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are responsible for approximately 20% of hereditary breast cancer (HBC) cases in Finland. Additionally, rare mutations in several other genes that interact with BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase the risk of HBC. Still, a majority of HBC cases remain unexplained which is challenging for genetic counseling. We aimed to analyze additional mutations in HBC-associated genes and to define the sensitivity of our current BRCA1/2 mutation analysis protocol used in genetic counseling. METHODS:Eighty-two well-characterized, high-risk hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) BRCA1/2-founder mutation-negative Finnish individuals, were screened for germline alterations in seven breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BRIP1, RAD50, and CDH1. BRCA1/2 were analyzed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and direct sequencing. CHEK2 was analyzed by the high resolution melt (HRM) method and PALB2, RAD50, BRIP1 and CDH1 were analyzed by direct sequencing. Carrier frequencies between 82 (HBOC) BRCA1/2-founder mutation-negative Finnish individuals and 384 healthy Finnish population controls were compared by using Fisher's exact test. In silico prediction for novel missense variants effects was carried out by using Pathogenic-Or-Not -Pipeline (PON-P). RESULTS:Three previously reported breast cancer-associated variants, BRCA1 c.5095C > T, CHEK2 c.470T > C, and CHEK2 c.1100delC, were observed in eleven (13.4%) individuals. Ten of these individuals (12.2%) had CHEK2 variants, c.470T > C and/or c.1100delC. Fourteen novel sequence alterations and nine individuals with more than one non-synonymous variant were identified. One of the novel variants, BRCA2 c.72A > T (Leu24Phe) was predicted to be likely pathogenic in silico. No large genomic rearrangements were detected in BRCA1/2 by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). CONCLUSIONS:In this study, mutations in previously known breast cancer susceptibility genes can explain 13.4% of the analyzed high-risk BRCA1/2-negative HBOC individuals. CHEK2 mutations, c.470T > C and c.1100delC, make a considerable contribution (12.2%) to these high-risk individuals but further segregation analysis is needed to evaluate the clinical significance of these mutations before applying them in clinical use. Additionally, we identified novel variants that warrant additional studies. Our current genetic testing protocol for 28 Finnish BRCA1/2-founder mutations and protein truncation test (PTT) of the largest exons is sensitive enough for clinical use as a primary screening tool.

Dataset Information

Are the so-called low penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2, high risk for women with strong family histories?

Publications

Are the so-called low penetrance breast cancer genes, ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2, high risk for women with strong family histories?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets