Dataset Information

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

ABSTRACT: Background: Detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes poses relevant challenges for counseling and managing patients. VUS carriers should be managed similarly to probands with no BRCA1/2 variants detected, and predictive genetic testing in relatives is discouraged. However, miscomprehension of VUSs is common and can lead to inaccurate risk perception and biased decisions about prophylactic surgery. Therefore, efforts are needed to improve VUS evaluation and communication at an individual level. Aims: We aimed at investigating whether cosegregation analysis, integrated with a careful review of available functional data and in silico predictions, may improve VUSs interpretation and counseling in individual families. Methods: Patients with Breast Cancer (BC) and/or Ovarian Cancer (OC) fulfilling established criteria were offered genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 testing; VUSs identified in index cases were checked in other relatives affected by BC/OC whenever possible. As an alternative, if BC/OC clustered only in one branch of the family, the parental origin of the VUS was investigated. Public prediction tools and databases were used to collect additional information on the variants analyzed. Results: Out of 1045 patients undergoing BRCA1/2 testing in the period October 2011-April 2018, 66 (6.3%) carried class 3 VUSs. Cosegregation analysis was performed for 13 VUSs in 11 kindreds. Seven VUSs (53.8%) did not cosegregate with breast/ovarian cancer in the family, which provided evidence against their role in cancer clustering in those families. Among the 6 cosegregating VUSs, for two (BRCA1 c.5152+2T>G and BRCA2 c.7975A>G) additional evidence exists from databases and in silico tools supporting their pathogenicity, which reinforces the hypothesis they may have had a predisposing effect in respective families. For the remaining four VUSs (31%), cosegregation analysis failed to provide relevant information. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that cosegregation analysis in a clinical context may be helpful to improve test result interpretation in the specific family and, therefore, should be offered whenever possible. Besides, obtaining and sharing cosegregation data helps gathering evidence that may eventually contribute to VUS classification.

SUBMITTER: Zuntini R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6141711 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

Zuntini Roberta R Ferrari Simona S Bonora Elena E Buscherini Francesco F Bertonazzi Benedetta B Grippa Mina M Godino Lea L Miccoli Sara S Turchetti Daniela D

Frontiers in genetics 20180911

<b>Background:</b> Detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes poses relevant challenges for counseling and managing patients. VUS carriers should be managed similarly to probands with no BRCA1/2 variants detected, and predictive genetic testing in relatives is discouraged. However, miscomprehension of VUSs is common and can lead to inaccurate risk perception and biased decisions about prophylactic surgery. Therefore, efforts are needed to improve VUS evaluati ...[more]

PMID: 30254663

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations predispose heterozygous carriers to hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. However, unclassified variants (UVs) (variants with unknown clinical significance) and missense polymorphisms in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes pose a problem in genetic counseling, as their impact on risk of breast and ovarian cancer is still unclear. The objective of our study was to identify UVs and missense polymorphisms in Algerian breast/ovarian cancer patients and relatives tested previously for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes germline mutations analysis. METHODS: We analyzed 101 DNA samples from 79 breast/ovarian cancer families. The approach used is based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variants screening by SSCP or High-Resolution Melting (HRM) curve analysis followed by direct sequencing. In silico analyses have been performed using different bioinformatics programs to individualize genetics variations that can disrupt the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes function. RESULTS: Among 80 UVs and polymorphisms detected in BRCA1/2 genes (33 BRCA1 and 47 BRCA2), 31 were new UVs (10 BRCA1 and 21 BRCA2), 7 were rare UVs (4 BRCA1 and 3 BRCA2) and 42 were polymorphic variants (19 BRCA1 and 23 BRCA2). Moreover, 8 new missense UVs identified in this study: two BRCA1 (c.4066C>A/p.Gln1356Lys, c.4901G>T/p.Arg1634Met) located respectively in exons 11 and 16, and six BRCA2 (c.1099G>A/p.Asp367Asn, c.2636C>A/p.Ser879Tyr, c.3868T>A/p.Cys1290Ser, c.5428G>T/p.Val1810Phe, c.6346C>G/p.His2116Asp and c.9256G>A/p.Gly3086Arg) located respectively in exons 10, 11 and 24, show a damaging PSIC score yielded by PolyPhen2 program and could be pathogenic. In addition, 5 new BRCA} missense UVs out of six that were found to be damaging by PolyPhen2 program, also were deleterious according to SIFT program. The rare BRCA1 UV c.5332G>A/p.Asp1778Asn was found here for the first time in co-occurrence in trans with the deleterious BRCA1 mutation c.798_799delTT/p.Ser267LysfsX19 in young breast cancer patient. Moreover, 10 new identified intronic variants with unknown clinical significance (3 BRCA1 and 7 BRCA2) in the present study, could be considered as benign, because GeneSplicer, SpliceSiteFinder and MaxEntScan prediction programs show no splice site alteration for these variants. Several missense polymorphisms of BRCA1 c.2612C>T/p.Pro871Leu, c.3548A>G/p.Lys1183Arg, c.4837A>G/p.Ser1613Gly and BRCA2 c.865A>C/p.Asn289His, c.1114A>C/p.Asn372His, c.2971A>G/p.Asn991Asp, c.7150C>A/p.Gly2384Lys have been identified with high frequency in patients who were tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. These missense polymorphisms could have a role as susceptibility breast cancer markers in Algerian breast/ovarian cancer families where pathological BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were not present. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, UVs and missense polymorphisms in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have been identified in Algerian breast/ovarian cancer families. Evaluation of breast/ovarian cancer risk induced by the eight new missense UVs and common polymorphisms detected in our present work is on going in a larger study.

Project description:BackgroundGermline pathogenic variants in the breast cancer type 1 susceptibility gene BRCA1 are associated with a 60% lifetime risk for breast and ovarian cancer. This overall risk estimate is for all BRCA1 variants; obviously, not all variants confer the same risk of developing a disease. In cancer patients, loss of BRCA1 function in tumor tissue has been associated with an increased sensitivity to platinum agents and to poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. For clinical management of both at-risk individuals and cancer patients, it would be important that each identified genetic variant be associated with clinical significance. Unfortunately for the vast majority of variants, the clinical impact is unknown. The availability of results from studies assessing the impact of variants on protein function may provide insight of crucial importance.Results and conclusionWe have collected, curated, and structured the molecular and cellular phenotypic impact of 3654 distinct BRCA1 variants. The data was modeled in triple format, using the variant as a subject, the studied function as the object, and a predicate describing the relation between the two. Each annotation is supported by a fully traceable evidence. The data was captured using standard ontologies to ensure consistency, and enhance searchability and interoperability. We have assessed the extent to which functional defects at the molecular and cellular levels correlate with the clinical interpretation of variants by ClinVar submitters. Approximately 30% of the ClinVar BRCA1 missense variants have some molecular or cellular assay available in the literature. Pathogenic variants (as assigned by ClinVar) have at least some significant functional defect in 94% of testable cases. For benign variants, 77% of ClinVar benign variants, for which neXtProt Cancer variant portal has data, shows either no or mild experimental functional defects. While this does not provide evidence for clinical interpretation of variants, it may provide some guidance for variants of unknown significance, in the absence of more reliable data. The neXtProt Cancer variant portal ( https://www.nextprot.org/portals/breast-cancer ) contains over 6300 observations at the molecular and/or cellular level for BRCA1 variants.

Project description:IntroductionEfforts are ongoing to determine the significance of unclassified variants (UVs) in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1/BRCA2, but no study has systematically assessed whether women carrying the suspected deleterious UVs have characteristics commonly seen among women carrying known deleterious or disease-causing mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2.MethodsWe sequenced BRCA1/BRCA2 in 1,469 population-based female breast cancer patients diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 49 years. We used existing literature to classify variants into known deleterious mutations, polymorphic variants, and UVs. The UVs were further classified as high risk or low risk based on five methods: allele frequency, Polyphen algorithm, sequence conservation, Grantham matrix scores, and a combination of the Grantham matrix score and sequence conservation. Furthermore, we examined whether patients who carry the variants classified as high risk using these methods have risk characteristics similar to patients with known deleterious BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (early age at diagnosis, family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer, and negative estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor).ResultsWe identified 262 distinct BRCA1/BRCA2 variants, including 147 UVs, in our study population. The BRCA1 UV carriers, but not the BRCA2 UV carriers, who were classified as high risk using each classification method were more similar to the deleterious mutation carriers with respect to family history than those carriers classified as low risk. For example, the odds ratio of having a first-degree family history for the high-risk women classified using Polyphen was 3.39 (95% confidence interval = 1.16 to 9.94) compared with normal/polymorphic BRCA1 carriers. The corresponding odds ratio of low-risk women was 1.53 (95% confidence interval = 1.07 to 2.18). The odds ratio for high-risk women defined by allele frequency was 2.00 (95% confidence interval = 1.14 to 3.51), and that of low-risk women was 1.30 (95% confidence interval = 0.87 to 1.93).ConclusionThe results suggest that the five classification methods yielded similar results. Polyphen was particularly better at isolating BRCA1 UV carriers likely to have a family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer, and may therefore help to classify BRCA1 UVs. Our study suggests that these methods may not be as successful in classifying BRCA2 UVs.

Dataset Information

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

Publications

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets