BRCA1 Gene Carriers Research Articles

HE4 Serum Levels in Patients with BRCA1 Gene Mutation Undergoing Prophylactic Surgery as well as in Other Benign and Malignant Gynecological Diseases.

Objective. We assess the behavior of serum concentrations of HE4 marker in female carriers of BRCA1 and assess the diagnostic usefulness of HE4 in ovarian and endometrial cancer. Methods. A total of 619 women with BRCA1 gene mutation, ovarian, endometrial, metastatic, other gynecological cancers, or benign gynecological diseases were included. Intergroup comparative analyses were carried out, the BRCA1 gene carriers subgroup was subjected to detailed analysis, and ROC curves were determined for the assessment of diagnostic usefulness of HE4 in ovarian and endometrial cancer. Results. Statistically lower serum HE4 and CA 125 levels were observed in BRCA1 gene mutation premenopausal carriers. Occult ovarian/fallopian tube cancer was found 3.6%. Each of those patients was characterized by slightly elevated levels of either CA 125 (63.9 and 39.4 U/mL) or HE4 (79 pmol/L). The ROC-AUC curves were 0.892 and 0.894 for diagnostic usefulness of ovarian cancer and 0.865 for differentiation of endometrial cancer from endometrial polyps. Conclusions. Patients with BRCA1 gene mutations have relatively low serum HE4 levels. Even the slightest elevation in HE4 or CA 125 levels in female BRCA1 carriers undergoing prophylactic surgery should significantly increase oncological alertness. The HE4 marker is valuable in ovarian and uterine cancer diagnosis.

Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers and postoperative incidence of peritoneal and breast cancers.

BackgroundThere are no effective methods of diagnosis of early-stage ovarian cancer. Conservative care over patients at high risk of ovarian and breast cancers is ineffective. Prophylactic surgery is considered the best prophylaxis among BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers.MethodsOne hundred ninety-five patients, carriers of one of three most common mutations of the BRCA1 gene (Am J Hum Genet: 66: (6)1963-1968, 2000) in the Polish population (5382insC, 4153delA and C61G), who undergone prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. The study group consisted of consecutive mutation carriers living in Poland, in the West Pomeranian province. Histopathological examination of the surgical material failed to reveal presence of malignancy.ResultsDuring follow-up we diagnosed two peritoneal cancers and 14 breast cancers. Diagnosis of breast cancer before prophylactic surgery increased the risk of peritoneal cancer almost three times. Time from diagnosis of breast cancer to prophylactic surgery increased the risk of peritoneal cancer after prophylactic surgery. This was strongly expressed (HR = 5.0; p = 0.030) in cases of over five-year-long delay in prophylactic surgery. Diagnosis of breast cancer before prophylactic surgery correlated with the risk of death (p = 0.00010). Presence of 5382insC mutation decreased and C61G mutation increased the risk of peritoneal cancer (p = 0.049 vs. p = 0.013).ConclusionsOccurrence of primary peritoneal cancer after prophylactic surgery is similar to that reported in international literature. Primary breast cancer occurred less often than in international literature. We suspect that the risk of development of breast cancer among BRCA1 carriers undergoing prophylactic surgery can differ in a population. The next goal should be to study the molecular basis for the risk of development of malignancies in any population. Carriers of BRCA1 gene diagnosed with breast cancer should undergo prophylactic surgery within five years from the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Abstract A60: My advocacy ecosystem

Abstract My poster is a summary of my 20+ years of advocacy but specifically focuses on my work with (inter)national cancer research, survivorship and advocacy organizations in the last 6 years since my triple negative breast cancer diagnosis. As a mutated BRCA1 gene carrier and fifth generation breast cancer patient whose family has been disproportionately impacted by cancer death, I have been on both sides of the bed as caregiver and patient. My experiences as both caregiver and patient have driven my focus on survivorship and a high quality of life. My advocacy focus is ensuring that scientists and advocates understand our interdependent roles in the cancer fighting ecosystem and our imperative to collectively work together to effect change and progress. My poster outlines my advocacy priorities that include: working with support groups to help other high risk women overcome their fears and becoming their best health advocates by understanding their breast cancer risk factors, attending routine doctor exams, conducting breast self-exams, having routine mammograms and obtaining detailed information about their healthcontinuing my role as a patient advocate as a member of the Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ensuring continued and multiple opportunities for patient representation and collaboration in research studiespartnering with more national organizations to continue to meet with policymakers to request increased federal funding for cancer research.focusing on clinical trials advocacy ensuring the reduction of barriers that can lead to increased minority participation in clinical trials Citation Format: Melanie A. Nix. My advocacy ecosystem. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Seventh AACR Conference on The Science of Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; Nov 9-12, 2014; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24(10 Suppl):Abstract nr A60.

“The Angelina Effect”: The effect of high profile media coverage on referrals to a family history breast clinic

Introduction: In May 2013, Angelina Jolie announced that she had undergone bilateral mastectomies and reconstruction as she is a BRCA1 gene carrier. We investigated the impact of publicity (“The Angelina Effect”) on referrals to our family history breast clinic.

P2-12-03: A Prospective Study of the Prognostic Implications of Being a BRCA1 Carrier for Young Onset Breast Cancer Patients.

Abstract Background BRCA1 gene carriers frequently develop triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) at young ages. Retrospective studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the prognostic implications of breast cancer diagnosed on a background of a constitutional BRCA1 gene mutation. Many studies have the disadvantages of retrospective design and small numbers or both. The Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) recruited 3024 patients diagnosed before 41 years of age and treated for breast cancer in the UK between 2000 and 2007 (protocol published: Eccles et al BMC Cancer 2008). Aim: To investigate the effect of family history and BRCA1 gene mutation status on breast cancer survival in women aged younger than 41 years at diagnosis. Methods: Cases in which the primary tumour pathology report was not available (2.8% of total) were excluded from this analysis. A completed family history questionnaire was available for 2907 cases (99% of total). The primary end point for this analysis was the development of distant metastases from breast cancer. All patients were younger than the starting age for screening in the UK except for known gene carriers of which there were only 8 in total, the remainder of identified gene carriers were tested after cancer diagnosis or as part of this study. Over 90% of patients received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with over 90% of these receiving an anthracycline based regimen. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used to assess survival differences. Results: 2937 patients were included in the analysis. Mean and median age at diagnosis was 36 years and the cohort was followed prospectively for a mean and median follow up time of 50 months. Overall distant disease free survival in the whole cohort was only 75% at 5 years. The effect of family history on presentation was explored. Patients who reported a first or second degree relative with breast cancer presented with smaller tumours (20mm compared to 22.5mm, p= 0.006) but no difference in axillary nodal status (p=0.2605). Survival was however significantly better comparing the 499 patients who reported a family history of breast cancer compared with the rest of the cohort (p=0.0164). 539 patients had been tested for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes and 176 high risk gene BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers were identified. We compared 118 patients with a known BRCA1 gene mutation (almost all diagnosed after the cancer) to the 465 patients with confirmed TNBC (p=0.0118). Survival was significantly better in the BRCA1 carriers (p=0.0118). After excluding 29 gene carriers whose primary tumour showed any of ER, HER2 or PR as positive, the same improved survival trend was seen although significant at the 10% level (p=0.07). Conclusion: This prospective study indicates that BRCA1 gene carriers clearly do not have a worse prognosis when compared to triple negative breast cancers or young onset breast cancer overall and these early follow up data indicate an improved outlook in gene carriers. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-03.

A Novel Tumour-Based Test To Identify Breast Cancer Due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations.

Abstract Background: Family history and young onset are the usual indicators of an underlying genetic predisposition to breast cancer development. BRCA1 associated breast tumours are more likely to be ER negative and express “basal” markers, however most patients with ER negative/ basal marker positive breast cancers (especially young onset) do not have inherited BRCA1 mutations. BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene carriers may have novel treatment options available and may need to consider future cancer prevention strategies. Genetic counselling and germline mutation analysis remains a relatively expensive option that is not appropriate for most breast cancer patients.Aim: To design a sensitive and specific pathology based predictor that would improve identification of BRCA1 and 2 gene carriers.Method: We assembled a training panel of breast cancer tumour blocks from 67 BRCA1, 71 BRCA2 associated and 105 sporadic young onset cases (≤ 40 years at diagnosis). All gene carriers were diagnosed before 50 years and were matched to sporadic cases for ER status. Tissue micro arrays (TMAs) were assembled and subjected to immunohistochemical analysis with a panel of 18 antibodies. DNA was extracted from micro dissected tumour tissue and matched patient lymphocytes and subjected to high resolution tiling path microarray-based Comparative Genomic Hybridisation (aCGH). Using robust statistical approaches, regions significantly differentially lost, gained or amplified in BRCA1, BRCA2 and controls were identified. Probes for chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) for amplified regions were generated.Results: Two differentially amplified clones in BRCA1 cases designated P1 at 3q25.31 and P2 at 3q25.2 and one in BRCA2 cases, P3 at 20q13.13, were identified and amplifications validated in the training set using CISH. Logistic regression analysis of the panel comprising CISH and IHC markers was used to develop the best predictor. The best predictor for BRCA1 gene carriers was a combination of P1, ER and HER2. This combination outperformed all combinations of immunohistochemical markers, including ER and basal markers; the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) was 87.5% and NPV 92% giving a Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve with an AUC of 0.92 (CI 0.88-0.97). The BRCA2 signature panel is currently being evaluated. These BRCA1 and BRCA2 predictor panels are being validated in a new set of TMAs comprising 223 tumours from the POSH study1.Conclusion: This tumour based predictor for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers may prove useful to identify gene carriers at low a priori chance of having a mutation, to direct BRCA1/2 targeted treatment approaches and to identify familial non BRCA1/2 cases that may be suitable for new gene discovery studies.1. Eccles D et al. BMC Cancer 2007; 7(1):160. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 5032.

Identification of personal risk of breast cancer: genetics

Family history has long been recognized to be a potent risk factor for breast cancer [1]. Family histories often comprise only one or two affected relatives, who frequently were not particularly young at onset. Occasionally, a family contains a striking constellation of young-onset breast (and often other) cancers apparently transmitted as a dominant genetic trait. Over a century ago, the much referenced French neurologist Paul Broca wrote about the family of his wife, in which the occurrence of many cancers, particularly of the breast, strongly suggested the presence of a genetic predisposition [1]. It was to be more than a hundred years before the discovery of the structure of DNA and rapid advances in molecular technology would allow the first major breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA1, to be mapped to chromosome 17q [2]. In families linked to the BRCA1 locus, a much younger age at onset than average and the frequent occurrence of ovarian cancers were noted to be typical. At about the same time, the cause of a rare but devastating familial cancer syndrome was identified; mutations in the TP53 gene had also been found to account for the very rare Li Fraumeni syndrome associated with very young onset breast cancers and childhood malignancy, particularly soft tissue sarcomas [3,4]. A second major breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, was mapped to chromosome 13q in 1994 shortly before the sequence of the BRCA1 gene was clarified and family-specific disease-causing mutations started to be reported [5,6]. The full BRCA2 gene sequence was reported in 1995 [7]. Families with mutations in the BRCA2 gene were noted to be more likely to contain a male breast cancer case than might be expected by chance (and more than had been seen in families due to BRCA1 mutations); ovarian and fallopian tube cancers still occurred with increased frequency but overall not as frequently as in BRCA1-associated families. With the discovery of the correct gene sequences for BRCA1 and BRCA2 it became possible to offer predictive genetic testing to members of families in which the causative gene mutation had been identified. Predictive testing for breast cancer susceptibility was introduced as a clinical service from the mid-1990s in some centres in the UK [8]. Families in which mutations were identified through research studies were the first to be informed [9]. Many of these families had been identified because of their high incidence of cancer, and so inevitably the estimated lifetime chance that a carrier of one of these genes would develop cancer was high [10,11]. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are very large, and mutation testing was either very expensive (in the USA) or very slow (in European countries) when it first became available. It soon became clear that mutations in these genes accounted for a relatively small proportion of all families with breast cancer clusters. Families with four or more cancer cases developing at young age, particularly those families in which ovarian cancers occurred, were more likely to yield pathogenic mutations when DNA from a cancer-affected family member was screened for mutations. Smaller clusters of later onset cancers, although clearly familial, were noted to have a much lower probability of harbouring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation [12]. In the presence of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, the lifetime risk for developing breast cancer may be as high as 80% to 90%, although other genes and lifestyle factors may reduce the lifetime risk to levels as low as 26%. Ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 gene carriers is estimated at about 50%, but again this risk is likely to be modified by both genetic and other risk factors. For BRCA2, ovarian cancer risk is about 15%, but all these average risks are likely to be modified by context [13].

Breast cancer incidence, penetrance and survival in probable carriers of BRCA1 gene mutation in families linked to BRCA1 on chromosome 17q12-21.

Eight breast cancer pedigrees with a high probability of containing individuals with the BRCA1 gene mutation (odds 79.2-99.9 per cent) were identified through genetic linkage analysis using probes located within q12-22 on the long arm of chromosome 17. Some 102 female relatives were successfully typed with one or both of adjacent markers D17S588 and D17S579, and 41 were probable non-BRCA1 mutation carriers. Of the remaining 61 women classified as probable BRCA1 carriers, breast cancer was diagnosed in 35. As expected from epidemiological segregation analysis studies, 13 of these had bilateral disease. Approximately two-thirds of women unaffected by malignancy and alive at the time of observation were non-BRCA1 carriers. Lifetime disease penetrance of the BRCA1 gene was 88 per cent and this plateau was reached earlier (by age 65 years) than that estimated in segregation analysis. The survival curve of patients with breast cancer was less steep in BRCA1 gene carriers than that in the general population; 5-, 10- and 20-year survival rates unadjusted for non-cancer deaths were 83, 63 and 41 per cent respectively. The 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in BRCA1 carriers than that in an age-matched Scottish population (P < 0.05).

Too much, too soon? Patients and health professionals' views concerning the impact of genetic testing at the time of breast cancer diagnosis in women under the age of 40

Recent research suggests that women who develop breast cancer between the ages of 30-34 may have specific tumour characteristics: Those with high grade, oestrogen receptor negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative tumours have between a 10% and 27% chance of being a BRCA1 gene carrier. Carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer and cancer of the ovary. Furthermore, recent research indicates that prophylactic mastectomy and/or oophorectomy offer a significant risk reduction in the development of breast/ovarian cancer. In the near future, women in the UK may be offered the choice of a genetic test close to the time of diagnosis. This timing not only provides additional dimensions to treatment decisions, but has psycho-social and familial implications as well. This exploratory study investigates, first, whether or not women diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of 40 would want to be offered information about genetic testing close to the time of their diagnosis. Then secondly, it explores whether the health care professionals treating them support this idea. Third, it highlights the reasons for the women and the health professionals perspectives and concerns. We held focus groups of 13 women who had their only, or first, breast cancer under the age of 40 and who were subsequently identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, asking them how they felt about this timing. We also interviewed 17 health care professionals involved in various aspect of breast cancer care and cancer genetics. The majority of former breast cancer women and professionals believed that there was already emotional overload in coping with the cancer diagnosis and decisions regarding existing cancer treatment options and that offering genetic testing would add too much additional stress. Some members of both groups, however, thought that offering genetic testing around the time of breast cancer diagnosis would be more important if the results could alter treatment decisions.

Tamoxifen and breast cancer risk in women harboring a BRCA1 germline mutation: computed efficacy, effectiveness and impact.

The management of breast cancer prone women remains a tough issue despite the release of institutional guidelines. Currently, only the anti-estrogen agent Tamoxifen and prophylactic surgery are claimed to decrease breast cancer incidence. However, efficacy of Tamoxifen, particularly in BRCA1 gene carriers, remains controversial and acceptability of prophylactic surgery is low. To evaluate the expected impact of Tamoxifen in preventing hereditary breast cancers, a modelling was made according to the efficacy of the treatment with respect to biological predictors of response: estrogen receptor (ER) and pS2 status of a series of 33 BRCA1-related breast cancers (BRCA1-BCs), and using data on BRCA1-BCs penetrance, as well as compliance and acceptability of the strategy. Although, 88% of BRCA1-BCs are ER negative in our series, 30% of cases are pS2 positive, implying a potential hormonal sensitivity of a proportion of these cancers. From our modelling, the expected impact of Tamoxifen in BRCA1 gene carriers is a reduction of breast cancer incidence of about 10% according to acceptability and compliance, close to that of 5% and of 13.5% for prophylactic mastectomy, according to acceptability rates from US and French surveys respectively. Since autonomy of choice is the root of western ethics, cancer prone women should be informed about the low but valuable expected reduction of incidence of breast cancer using Tamoxifen preventive therapy.

Novel indications for BRCA1 screening using individual clinical and morphological features.

Since there is a lack of common family profile among BRCA1-gene carriers, and since the risk of being a mutation carrier is not limited to women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, multivariate statistical analysis using the logistic-regression model was carried out, to discriminate between sporadic cases and BRCA1-breast cancers (BRCA1-BCs), especially when information about the family history of breast/ovarian cancer and ethnicity are irrelevant or unavailable, in order to offer specific medical treatment to this population. We examined 32 BRCA1-BCs selected at cancer genetic clinics and 200 consecutive controls without family history of breast cancer for age at onset and current morphological parameters. Following the multivariate analysis, 3 parameters only, namely, early age at cancer onset [odds ratio (OR) for each year = 1.16; p < 0.0001], estrogen-receptor negativity (OR = 5.7; p = 0.01) and poor differentiation (OR = 5; p = 0.03) were found significant factors for predicting BRCA1-carrier status. The expected impact in BRCA1 screening of our model was estimated using data on 5700 breast-cancer cases from a hospital-based registry. Only 50 and 15% of tumours with early age at onset below 35 years present one or the other 2 discriminant parameters respectively. Consequently, whereas the probability of finding a BRCA1 mutation is rated low (6.2%) when the sole criterion of early onset up to the age of 35 years is used, based on our model, in the sub-group of women with a tumor that is both estrogen-receptor-negative and poorly differentiated the mutation-detection rate is predicted to be above the 10% chance level recommended by the ASCO guidelines. This sub-group of women, representing about 1% of all breast-cancer cases in Western countries, consequently deserves to be tested.

Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer--a combined analysis of six case-control studies.

In a previous study in France, we reported that the relative risk of breast cancer associated with a family history of breast cancer was higher in those subjects with a history of abortions. The present study was undertaken to check the existence of this interaction in other studies and to investigate whether the interaction is modified by the time at which abortions occur. Data were obtained from six case-control studies in France, Australia and Russia, with information on family history of breast cancer and abortion for 2693 breast cancer cases and 3493 controls. The interaction effect was estimated in each study separately, then combined using a multivariate weighted average. The relative risk conferred by a family history of breast cancer increased with the number of abortions (1.8 for no abortion, 1.9 for one abortion, 2.8 for two or more). There was a significant interaction between total number of abortions and family history (P = 0.04), but this was no longer significant when adjusted for other risk factors. The familial risk was highest for those who had had an abortion before first childbirth (1.9 for abortion after first childbirth, 2.7 for abortion before first childbirth). The adjusted risk associated with family history was significantly higher in those with an abortion before first childbirth (P = 0.04). Our findings suggest a synergism between familial factors and abortion. The interaction was not substantially modified by the type of abortion (spontaneous or induced) but was modified by the time at which it occurred in relation to first childbirth. This suggests an effect of abortion itself rather than predisposition to abortion. Further studies of breast cancer cases, particularly among BRCA1 gene carriers and their families, could improve our understanding of this effect.

A Large Kindred With 17q-Linked Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Genetic, Phenotypic, and Genealogical Analysis

Mutation of a specific, but as yet unidentified, gene BRCA1 on chromosome 17q results in increased susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. It is important to know the effects of this gene in terms of the age-specific risks of these cancers and the potential interaction of this gene with other known risk factors. We performed detailed studies on a large multigenerational family, in which there is known 17q-linked breast and ovarian cancer, in order to characterize the effects of the BRCA1 mutation on development of breast and ovarian cancer. Data from the Utah Population Database were used to identify a family (identified as K2082) with a cluster of premenopausal breast cancer and ovarian cancer at any age. Blood samples from 195 members of the family were obtained and these individuals were genotyped for a series of four chromosome 17q polymorphic markers. Information on reproductive history, cancer incidence and treatment, and lifestyle factors was collected on 72 women in the family by questionnaire or through contact with living relatives. Odds in favor of linkage of breast and ovarian cancer in this family to the BRCA1 region of chromosome 17q are greater than 10(8) to 1. The estimated risks for breast or ovarian cancer because of the BRCA1 mutation in this family are 40% by age 50 years and 90% by age 70. No differences between affected and unaffected older BRCA1 gene carriers were observed for a number of known epidemiologic risk factors for these cancers. The gender of the parent from whom the mutant BRCA1 allele was inherited was significantly associated with phenotypic expression (P = .04). A recombinant which places BRCA1 distal to the marker Mfd191 was observed. Women with the BRCA1 mutation are at increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. In our study population, the mutation appears to confer a lower risk of cancer at younger ages than found in previous studies. Continued interaction with family K2082 will be useful in longitudinal follow-up studies and in studies of the psychosocial implications of providing DNA diagnosis of BRCA1.