Maria Adelaide Caligo

Common Breast Cancer-Predisposition Alleles Are Associated with Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 confer high risks of breast cancer. However, evidence suggests that these risks are modified by other genetic or environmental factors that cluster in families. A recent genome-wide association study has shown that common alleles at single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in FGFR2 (rs2981582), TNRC9 (rs3803662), and MAP3K1 (rs889312) are associated with increased breast cancer risks in the general population. To investigate whether these loci are also associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in a sample of 10,358 mutation carriers from 23 studies. The minor alleles of SNP rs2981582 and rs889312 were each associated with increased breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.20-1.45, p(trend) = 1.7 x 10(-8) and HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02-1.24, p(trend) = 0.02) but not in BRCA1 carriers. rs3803662 was associated with increased breast cancer risk in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (per-allele HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.06-1.20, p(trend) = 5 x 10(-5) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 combined). These loci appear to interact multiplicatively on breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers. The differences in the effects of the FGFR2 and MAP3K1 SNPs between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers point to differences in the biology of BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer tumors and confirm the distinct nature of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Germline mutations of the BRCA1‐associated ring domain (BARD1) gene in breast and breast/ovarian families negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 alterations

BARD1 (BRCA1‐associated RING domain) was identified by yeast two‐hybrid screening as a protein interacting with BRCA1. Somatic and germline mutations of BARD1 have been detected in sporadic breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers. The present study represents the first description of BARD1 germline mutations in hereditary breast and breast/ovarian cancer patients. We analyzed the BARD1 gene in 40 families with hereditary breast and breast/ovarian cancer, tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. A mutational analysis by PCR‐SSCP on the coding region and the exon–intron splice boundaries of the BARD1 gene yielded four different germline mutations. A group of 20 patients diagnosed with sporadic breast cancer below the age of 40 was also examined and only one germline mutation was found. A study of loss of heterozygosity at the BARD1 locus in neoplastic tissues from patients with BARD1 germline mutations was carried out. In all cases, we were unable to find any evidence for allelic deletions. The involvement of BARD1 mutations in the susceptibility to hereditary breast and breast/ovarian cancer is discussed.

Penetrances of breast and ovarian cancer in a large series of families tested for BRCA1/2 mutations.

Accurate estimates of breast and ovarian cancer penetrance in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are crucial in genetic counseling. Estimation is difficult because of the low frequency of mutated alleles and the often-uncertain mechanisms of family ascertainment. We estimated the penetrances of breast and ovarian cancers in carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by maximizing the retrospective likelihood of the genetic model, given the observed test results, in 568 Italian families screened for germline mutations. The software BRCAPRO was used as a probability calculation tool in a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach. Breast cancer penetrances were 27% (95% CI 20–34%) at age 50 years and 39% (27–52%) at age 70 in BRCA1 carriers, and 26% (0.18–0.34%) at age 50 and 44% (29–58%) at age 70 in BRCA2 carriers, and ovarian cancer penetrances were 14% (7–22%) at age 50 and 43% (21–66%) at age 70 in BRCA1 carriers and 3% (0–7%) at age 50 and 15% (4–26%) at age 70 in BRCA2 carriers. The new model gave a better fit than the current default in BRCAPRO, the likelihood being 70 log units greater; in addition, the observed numbers of mutations in families stratified by gene and by cancer profile were not significantly different from those expected. Our new penetrance functions are appropriate for predicting breast cancer risk, and for determining the probability of carrying BRCA1/2 mutations, in people who are presently referred to genetic counseling in Italy. Our approach could lead to country-customized versions of the BRCAPRO software by providing appropriate population-specific estimates.

Cancer risk among the relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background/Aims: Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death; the most consistently identified risk factors are smoking and family history. Our aims were to examine familial aggregations of pancreas and other cancers, and to determine the relative risk of the family members. Methods: We prospectively collected data on the families of patients presenting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Smoking habits and alcohol consumption of the probands were compared with the available statistics on the Italian population. Mortality from cancer was investigated in first-degree relatives, and age-dependent risks of dying from pancreatic cancer and other tumors were compared with background population levels. Results: Data for 570 families were collected, including 9,204 relatives. Probands were 3- to 5-fold more often heavy smokers than the general population, and 9.3% of them reported a positive family history of pancreatic cancer. In first-degree relatives, only mortality from pancreatic cancer was significantly increased (relative risk at age 85 years = 2.7). Lifetime risk of dying of pancreas cancer was 4.1% for the relatives of all probands, and was 7.2% for the relatives of probands who developed disease before 60 years of age. Conclusions: The data suggest that genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer may be attributable, in addition to BRCA2, to moderate- to low-penetrance gene(s).

Evaluation of widely used models for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

Deleterious mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are a major risk factor for the development of breast and ovarian cancers.1–4 Mutation tests for these two genes commonly are now offered in specialised clinics.5,6 As a result, a large number of women with personal or family histories of breast or ovarian cancer seek genetic counselling. Accurate evaluation of the probability that a woman carries a germline pathogenic mutation at BRCA1 or BRCA2 therefore is essential to help counsellors and those being counselled to decide whether testing is appropriate. In this context, the questions of practical interest are: Given the pedigree, what is the chance of a mutation being present? and What is the chance of the DNA laboratory finding a mutation? After testing became available, several models were developed to assess the pre-test probability of identifying carriers of mutations. Broadly speaking, two different approaches have been used to develop predictive models: the “empirical approach” and the “Mendelian approach”.7 In empirical models, families are stratified according to variables that describe their family history; regression or other approaches are used to predict the results of Mendelian testing. In some cases, this approach simply consists of observing the proportion of mutations found in different strata. Mendelian models, in contrast, address the probability that a proband is a mutation carrier on the basis of explicit assumptions about the genetic parameters (allele frequencies and cancer penetrances in carriers and non-carriers) and the Mendelian rules of gene transmission. A consequence of the two different strategies is that the Mendelian models evaluate the probability that a proband is a gene carrier, whereas the empirical models evaluate the probability of identifying a mutation. The main purpose of this study was to compare the performances of published models in predicting mutation test results in …

Microsatellite instability and mismatch repair gene inactivation in sporadic pancreatic and colon tumours.

Genomic instability has been proposed as a new mechanism of carcinogenesis involved in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) and in a large number of sporadic cancers like pancreatic and colon tumours. Mutations in human mismatch repair genes have been found in HNPCC patients, but their involvement in sporadic cancer has not been clarified yet. In this study we screened 21 pancreatic and 23 colorectal sporadic cancers for microsatellite instability by ten and six different microsatellite markers respectively. Microsatellite alterations were observed at one or more loci in 66.6% (14/21) of pancreatic cancers and in 26% (6/23) colon tumours, but all the pancreatic and half of the colon samples showed a low rate of microsatellite instability. All the unstable samples were further analysed for mutations in the hMLH1 and hMSH2 genes and for hypermethylation of the hMLH1 promoter region. Alterations in the hMLH1 gene were found only in colorectal tumours with a large presence of microsatellite instability. None of the pancreatic tumours showed any alteration in the two genes analysed. Our results demonstrate that microsatellite instability is unlikely to play a role in the tumorigenesis of sporadic pancreatic cancers and confirm the presence of mismatch repair gene alterations only in sporadic colon tumours with a highly unstable phenotype.

Guidelines for follow-up of women at high risk for inherited breast cancer: consensus statement from the Biomed 2 Demonstration Programme on Inherited Breast Cancer.

Protocols for activity aiming at early diagnosis and treatment of inherited breast or breast-ovarian cancer have been reported. Available reports on outcome of such programmes are considered here. It is concluded that the ongoing activities should continue with minor modifications. Direct evidence of a survival benefit from breast and ovarian screening is not yet available. On the basis of expert opinion and preliminary results from intervention programmes indicating good detection rates for early breast cancers and 5-year survival concordant with early diagnosis, we propose that women at high risk for inherited breast cancer be offered genetic counselling, education in ‘breast awareness’ and annual mammography and clinical expert examination from around 30 years of age. Mammography every second year may be sufficient from 60 years on. BRCA1 mutation carriers may benefit from more frequent examinations and cancer risk may be reduced by oophorectomy before 40–50 years of age. We strongly advocate that all activities should be organized as multicentre studies subjected to continuous evaluation to measure the effects of the interventions on long-term mortality, to match management options more precisely to individual risks and to prepare the ground for studies on chemoprevention.

High level of messenger RNA for BRMS1 in primary breast carcinomas is associated with poor prognosis.

BRMS1 is regarded as a metastasis suppressor gene for its ability to reduce metastatic potential of human and murine breast cancer cells as well as human melanoma cells. However, BRMS1 association to human tumor progression is not clearly understood. In the present study we analyzed BRMS1 mRNA expression in tumor progression and its potential prognostic value for breast carcinoma. BRMS1 mRNA expression level was quantified by real‐time PCR in 47 tumoral, in 14 peritumoral and in 15 metastatic microdissected cellular populations from 47 breast cancer patients with 10‐year follow up. We found BRMS1 expression to be higher in carcinoma cells than in matching normal epithelial cell populations in 10 out of 14 cases (p = 0.0005), while lymph‐nodal carcinoma cells showed lower BRMS1 expression in 9 out of 15 cases (p = 0.001). Using both in vivo (human mammary breast carcinomas) and in vitro systems (breast cancer cell lines) we were able to demonstrate that BRMS1 overexpression was not a bias effect induced by cell proliferation rate. BRMS1 expression levels did not correlate with standard breast cancer prognostic factors but BRMS1 higher expression was associated with patient shorter disease‐free and overall survival. Our findings are apparently inconsistent with the concept of BRMS1 as a metastasis suppressor gene. One possible explanation is that epithelial cells increase their BRMS1 expression as a compensatory response to tumor formation or metastasis progression, which is elevated in proportion to tumor aggressiveness, whereas those cells of the primary tumor that cannot upregulate BRMS1 escape to form metastasis.

Down regulation of NM23.H1, NM23.H2 and c-myc genes during differentiation induced by 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3.

The NM23 gene, involved in the negative regulation of metastatic progression, has been found to be highly homologous to developmentally regulated genes such as the awd gene in Drosophila melanogaster and the Gip17 gene in Dyctiostelium discoideum. To ascertain whether the NM23 genes are involved in the differentiation processes of human cell lines, the NM23.H1 and NM23.H2 expression level has been determined during the monocyte-macrophage differentiation of HL-60 and U-937 cell lines induced by vitamin D3. In both lines, vitamin D3 produced induction of differentiative markers, inhibition of cell proliferation and a decrease of the NM23.H1, NM23.H2 and c-myc genes, behaving both as a differentiative and an antiproliferative agent. The fact that the c-myc transcriptional factor PuF is identical to the NM23.H2 gene and that NM23 protein could be a transcriptional factor suggests that the regulatory action exerted by vitamin D3 on c-myc transcription is mediated by NM23.H2.

Comparison of mRNA Splicing Assay Protocols across Multiple Laboratories: Recommendations for Best Practice in Standardized Clinical Testing

BACKGROUND Accurate evaluation of unclassified sequence variants in cancer predisposition genes is essential for clinical management and depends on a multifactorial analysis of clinical, genetic, pathologic, and bioinformatic variables and assays of transcript length and abundance. The integrity of assay data in turn relies on appropriate assay design, interpretation, and reporting. METHODS We conducted a multicenter investigation to compare mRNA splicing assay protocols used by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. We compared similarities and differences in results derived from analysis of a panel of breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene variants known to alter splicing (BRCA1: c.135-1G>T, c.591C>T, c.594-2A>C, c.671-2A>G, and c.5467+5G>C and BRCA2: c.426-12_8delGTTTT, c.7988A>T, c.8632+1G>A, and c.9501+3A>T). Differences in protocols were then assessed to determine which elements were critical in reliable assay design. RESULTS PCR primer design strategies, PCR conditions, and product detection methods, combined with a prior knowledge of expected alternative transcripts, were the key factors for accurate splicing assay results. For example, because of the position of primers and PCR extension times, several isoforms associated with BRCA1, c.594-2A>C and c.671-2A>G, were not detected by many sites. Variation was most evident for the detection of low-abundance transcripts (e.g., BRCA2 c.8632+1G>A Δ19,20 and BRCA1 c.135-1G>T Δ5q and Δ3). Detection of low-abundance transcripts was sometimes addressed by using more analytically sensitive detection methods (e.g., BRCA2 c.426-12_8delGTTTT ins18bp). CONCLUSIONS We provide recommendations for best practice and raise key issues to consider when designing mRNA assays for evaluation of unclassified sequence variants.