BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families II: impact on relationships

Members of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families often express concern during genetic counseling about the impact of BRCA1/2 testing on close relatives. Yet whether there are likely to be adverse effects of either the decision to undergo genetic testing or the results of testing on family relationships is unknown. One purpose of this study was to assess the impact on close family relationships. Within a randomized trial of breast cancer genetic counseling methods, members of 13 HBOC families were offered BRCA1/2 testing for a known family mutation. The Family Relationship Index (FRI) of the Family Environment Scale (FES) was used to measure perceived family cohesion, conflict, and expressiveness at baseline and again 6-9 months following the receipt of test results, or at the equivalent time for those who declined testing. Participants (n = 212) completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires. Comparisons were made between testers and non-testers as well as between those who tested positive and negative for the family mutation. One hundred eighty-one participants elected to undergo genetic testing (85%) and 47 (26%) were identified to have a mutation. After adjusting for baseline family relationship scores, counseling intervention, gender and marital status, non-testers reported a greater increase in expressiveness (P = 0.006) and cohesion (P = 0.04) than testers. Individuals who tested positive reported a decrease in expressiveness (P = 0.07), although as a trend. Regardless of test decision or test result, those who were randomized to a client-centered counseling intervention reported a decrease in conflict (P = 0.006). Overall, study results suggest that undergoing genetic testing and learning ones BRCA1/2 status may affect family relationships. Those individuals who declined testing reported feeling closer to family members and more encouraged to express emotions to other family members demonstrating potential benefit from the offer of testing. Since those who tested positive reported feeling less encouraged to express their emotions within the family, we recommend helping clients to identify others with whom they feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and feelings about their positive gene status and increased cancer risk.     

BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families III: risk perception and screening

This study aimed to ascertain whether cancer risk perception changed following the offer and subsequent receipt of BRCA1/2 results and to evaluate breast and ovarian screening practices in testers and non-testers. Members of thirteen HBOC families were offered BRCA1/2 testing for a known family mutation. Perceived risk for developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer or for carrying the familial BRCA1/2 mutation, was assessed at baseline and again at 6-9 months following the receipt of test results. Breast and ovarian cancer screening data were obtained at both time-points. A total of 138 women participated and 120 (87%) chose to be tested for a known familial mutation. Twenty-eight women (24%) were identified as carriers and their perceived ovarian cancer risk and their perception of being a mutation carrier increased (P = 0.01 for both). Those testing negatives had a significant decrease in all dimensions of risk perception (P < 0.01). Regression analysis showed test results to be strong predictors of follow-up risk perception (P = 0.001), however, they were not predictors of screening practices at follow-up. Testers were more likely to have completed a clinical breast exam following testing than decliners. Mammography was positively associated with baseline adherence, age, and intrusive thoughts. Ovarian cancer worries only predicted pelvic ultrasound screening post-testing. Baseline practices and psychological factors appear to be stronger predictors of health behavior than test results.     

BRCA1/2 testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families: effectiveness of problem-solving training as a counseling intervention

It remains uncertain whether members of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families experience psychological distress with genetic testing and whether pre-test counseling can have a moderating effect on client well-being. One purpose of this study was to assess change in psychological well-being from baseline to 6-9 months follow-up and the effect of a problem-solving training (PST) intervention on psychological well-being. Two hundred and twelve members of 13 HBOC families were offered BRCA1/2 testing for a previously identified family mutation. Participants received education and were randomized to one of two counseling interventions; PST or client-centered counseling. Psychological well-being was assessed at baseline and again at 6-9 months following the receipt of test results, or at the equivalent time for those participants who chose not to undergo testing. Well-being was assessed using measures of depressive symptoms (CESD), intrusive thoughts (IES), cancer worries, and self-esteem. Comparisons were made between those who chose testing and those who did not as well as between those who received positive and negative test results. One hundred eighty one participants elected to undergo genetic testing (85%) and 47 of these (26%) were identified as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Breast and ovarian cancer worries decreased significantly (p = 0.007 and 0.008, respectively) in those who tested negative while there was no appreciable change in psychological well-being from baseline to follow-up in either those who tested positive or in non-testers. Among all participants, particularly testers, those randomized to PST had a greater reduction in depressive symptoms than those randomized to client-centered counseling (p < 0.05 and p = 0.02, respectively). Regardless of the decision to test, individuals with a personal history of cancer (n = 22) were more likely to have an increase in breast cancer worries compared to those who had never been diagnosed with cancer (p < 0.001). Results suggest that a problem-solving counseling intervention may help to enhance psychological well-being following testing and that a personal history of cancer may increase psychological distress associated with genetic testing.     

The role of targeted BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation analysis in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer families of Portuguese ancestry

We report the analysis of altogether 1050 suspected hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) families, 524 fully screened for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and 526 tested only for the most common mutations. Of the 119 families with pathogenic mutations, 40 (33.6%) had the BRCA2 c.156_157insAlu rearrangement and 15 (12.6%) the BRCA1 c.3331_3334del mutation, the former being specific of Portuguese ancestry and the latter showing a founder effect in Portugal. Interestingly, the two most common mutations were found in a significant proportion of the HBOC families with an a priori BRCAPRO mutation probability <10%. We recommend that all suspected HBOC families from Portugal or with Portuguese ancestry, even those fulfilling moderately stringent clinical‐criteria for genetic testing, should be specifically analyzed for the two most common BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations, and we here present a simple method for this first tier test. Screening of the entire coding regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 should subsequently be offered to those families with a mutation probability ≥10% if none of those founder mutations are found.     

'Indirect' BRCA1/2 testing: a useful approach in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families without a living affected relative

We report an approach for BRCA1/2 testing whereby genetic testing can be offered to families at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer but where no DNA from affected relatives is available. By testing two or more unaffected relatives at 50% risk of being heterozygous for a potential BRCA1/2 mutation, there is a chance of up to 99% of finding a mutation that would have been detectable in an affected individual from the same family. The overall likelihood of identifying a mutation is dependent on the family history, and therefore 'indirect' testing would be most applicable for families with a very high risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation. Using this approach also requires balancing issues of testing resource limitations, family dynamics and adequate preparation of unaffected persons for a positive test, with the advantages of targeting screening and prophylactic surgery.     

Screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Eastern Finnish breast/ovarian cancer families

Familial aggregation is thought to account for 5-10% of all breast cancer cases, and high penetrance breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain < or =20% of these. Hundreds of mutations among breast/ovarian cancer families have been found in these two genes. The mutation spectrum and prevalence, however, varies widely among populations. Thirty-six breast/ovarian cancer families were identified from a population sample of breast and ovarian cancer cases among a relatively isolated population in Eastern Finland, and the frequency of BRCA1/BRCA2 germline mutations were screened using heteroduplex analysis, protein truncation test and sequencing. Five different mutations were detected in seven families (19.4%). Two mutations were found in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2. One of the mutations (BRCA2 4088insA) has not been detected elsewhere in Finland while the other four, 4216-2nt A-->G and 5370 C-->T in BRCA1 and 999del5 and 6503delTT in BRCA2, are recurrent Finnish founder mutations. These results add to the evidence of the geographical differences in distribution of Finnish BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. This screen also provides further evidence for the presumption that the majority of Finnish BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations have been found and that the proportion of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in Finnish breast/ovarian cancer families is around 20%.     

Germline mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Korean breast and/or ovarian cancer families

Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are responsible for the predisposition and development of familial breast and/or ovarian cancer. Most mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer result in truncated proteins. To investigate the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Korean breast and/or ovarian cancer families, we screened a total of 27 cases from 21 families including two or more affected first- or second-degree relatives with breast and/or ovarian cancer. PTT, PCR-SSCP, and DHPLC analysis, followed by sequencing were used in the screening process. In nine families, we found BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations that comprised four frameshift mutations and five nonsense mutations. All nine mutations led to premature termination producing shortened proteins. Among the nine mutations, three novel BRCA1 mutations (E1114X, Q1299X, 4159delGA) and two novel BRCA2 mutations (K467X, 8945delAA) were identified in this work.     

BRCA1 and BRCA2 unclassified variants and missense polymorphisms in Algerian breast/ovarian cancer families

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 BRCA2 and 47 BRCA2), 31 were new UVs (10 BRCA2 and 21 BRCA2), 7 were rare UVs (4 BRCA2 and 3 BRCA2) and 42 were polymorphic variants (19 BRCA2 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 BRCA2 missense UVs out of six that were found to be damaging by PolyPhen2 program, also were deleterious according to SIFT program. The rare BRCA2 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.     

Novel germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast and breast/ovarian cancer families from the Czech Republic

Germline mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are responsible for a substantial proportion of high‐risk breast and breast/ovarian cancer families. To characterize the spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, we screened Czech families with breast/ovarian cancer using the non‐radioactive protein truncation test, heteroduplex analysis and direct sequencing. In a group of 100 high‐risk breast and breast/ovarian cancer families, four novel frame shift mutations were identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In BRCA1, two novel frame shift mutations were identified as 3761‐3762delGA and 2616‐2617ins10; in BRCA2, two novel frame shift mutations were identified as 5073‐5074delCT and 6866delC. Furthermore, a novel missense substitution M18K in BRCA1 gene in a breast/ovarian cancer family was identified which lies adjacent just upstream of the most highly conserved C3HC4 RING zinc finger motif. To examine the tertiary structure of the RING zinc finger domain and possible effects of M18K substitution on its stability, we used threading techniques according to the crystal structure of RAG1 dimerization domain of the DNA‐binding protein. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

BRCA1 mutation analysis in breast/ovarian cancer families from Greece

Germline mutations in BRCA1 gene account for varying proportions of breast/ovarian cancer families, and demonstrate considerable variation in mutational spectra coincident with ethnic and geographical diversity. We have screened for mutations the entire coding sequence of BRCA1 in 30 breast/ovarian cancer women with family history of two or more cases of breast cancer under age 50 and/or ovarian cancer at any age. Genomic DNA from patient was initially analyzed for truncating mutations in exon 11 with PTT followed by DNA sequencing. In the cases where no frameshift mutation was observed in exon 11, all other exons were screened with direct sequencing. Two novel (3099delT, 3277insG) and three already described (3741insA, 1623del5-TTAAA, 5382insC-twice) truncating mutations were identified. In addition, 6 point mutations (L771L, P871L, E1038G, K1183R, S1436S, S1613G) which are already classified as polymorphisms were identified. Three unclassified intronic variants (IVS16-68 G>A, IVS16-92 G>A, IVS18+65G>A) were also detected. These results show that BRCA1 deleterious mutations are present in a fraction (20%) of Greek breast/ovarian cancer families similar to other European countries. Mutations were detected in high- (>/=3 members) as well as in moderate-risk (2 members) families. This is the first report of BRCA1 mutation analysis in Greece.     

遗传性乳腺癌-卵巢癌综合征中BRCA1/2的表达

目的检测BRCA1/2在遗传性乳腺癌-卵巢癌综合征(HBOC)患者所患卵巢癌和散发性卵巢癌组织中蛋白表达的差异,探讨其在HBOC患者卵巢癌发病中的意义。方法收集我院妇科2001年1月至2010年10月HBOC患者卵巢癌40例和散发性卵巢癌20例(对照组)的石蜡组织标本,行免疫组化检测BRCA蛋白的表达;收集2011年1月-2013年12月HBOC卵巢癌11例和同期散发性卵巢癌10例(对照组)的新鲜标本,行Western Blot检测BRCA蛋白的表达。结果免疫组化结果显示HBOC组BRCA2蛋白阳性产物OD值(0.64±0.013)明显高于对照组(0.24±0.002,0.05)。Western blot结果显示HBOC组BRCA2蛋白OD值(0.68±0.02)明显高于对照组(0.26±0.01,0.05)。但是,对于BRCA1没有明显区别。结论 BRCA2蛋白在HBOC患者卵巢癌组织过表达提示BRCA2可能与HBOC的发病相关。     

Evaluation of two different models to predict BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a cohort of Danish hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer families

To meet the increasing demand for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis, a robust system for selecting families who have a higher chance of a mutation has become important. Several models have been developed to help predict which samples are more likely to be mutation positive than others. We have undertaken a complete BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis in 267 Danish families with high-risk family history. We found deleterious mutations in 28% (76) of the families, 68% (52) of those in BRCA1 and 32% (24) in BRCA2. We compared our results with two popular manual models developed to estimate the chance of a positive result. One is the recently published Manchester model and the other is the Frank 2 model updated by Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc. Neither of the models would have suggested screening all mutation-positive samples. The Manchester model would have suggested screening 124 of the families in the cohort, thereby detecting 54 of 76 mutations (sensitivity 71%; specificity 63%), whereas the Frank 2/Myriad model would have found 60 of 76 mutations by screening 169 samples if a 10% likelihood was adapted (sensitivity 79%; specificity 43%). The updated Manchester model suggested screening 172 families whereby 64 mutations would have been detected (sensitivity 84%; specificity 44%). We conclude that although both models would have reduced the number of samples screened significantly, up to 28% of the mutations would not have been found by applying these models to this Danish cohort of families. This raises the question whether models designed for specific populations can be used in a wider setting.     

Ten novel BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast and/or ovarian cancer families from northern Germany

Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene account for the majority of high-risk breast/ovarian cancer families. We have screened such families from Northern Germany by using DHPLC analysis and subsequent direct sequencing techniques. In ten families we identified six novel BRCA1 and 4 novel BRCA2 mutations comprising four frame shift mutations, one nonsense and one splice site mutation in the BRCA1 gene as well as three frameshift mutations and one nonsense mutation in the BRCA2 gene. Our analysis contributes to the further characterisation of the mutational spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2.     

Analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast and breast/ovarian cancer families shows population substructure in the Iberian peninsula

An estimated 5–10% of all breast and ovarian cancers are due to an inherited predisposition, representing a rather large number of patients. In Spain 1/13–1/14 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime. Two major breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 , have been identified. To date, several hundred pathogenic mutations in these two genes have been published or reported to the Breast Cancer Information Core, BIC database ( http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/Intramural_research_Labtransfer/Bic/index.html ). In the present study, 30 Spanish breast and breast/ovarian cancer families (29 from Galicia, NW Spain, and 1 from Catalonia, NE Spain) were screened for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The analysis of these genes was carried out by SSCP for shorter exons and direct sequencing in the case of longer ones. Mutations were found in 8 of the 30 families studied (26.66%). It is important to note that all mutations were detected within the BRCA1 gene: 330 A>G, 910_913delGTTC, 2121 C>T, 3958_3962delCTCAGinsAGGC, and 5530 T>A. The BRCA1 330 A>G mutation was found in four unrelated families and accounted for 50% of all identified mutations.     

Twenty-three novel BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence alterations in breast and/or ovarian cancer families in Southern Germany

BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations cause a substantially increased life time risk of both breast and ovarian cancer. Mutational screening of these genes by means of Denaturing High Performance Liquid Chromatography (DHPLC) in breast and/or ovarian cancer-prone families from Southern Germany revealed 15 novel BRCA1 and 8 novel BRCA2 sequence variants. Predictions on the BRCA1/BRCA2 protein functions lead to the identification of 11 novel deleterious cancer predisposing mutations. Mutation types and their functional relevances are discussed. Our data contribute to phenotype-genotype correlation studies and to the characterisation of the mutation spectrum of BRCA1/BRCA2.     

Pre-test prediction models of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in breast/ovarian families attending familial cancer clinics

Objective: To test whether statistical models developed to calculate pre-test probability of being a BRCA1/2 carrier can differentiate better between the breast/ovarian families to be referred to the DNA test laboratory.

Study design: A retrospective analysis was performed in 109 Spanish breast/ovarian families previously screened for germline mutations in both the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Four easy to use logistic regression models originally developed in Spanish (HCSC model), Dutch (LUMC model), Finnish (HUCH model), and North American (U Penn model) families and one model based on empirical data of Frank 2002 were tested. A risk counsellor was asked to assign a subjective pre-test probability for each family. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and areas under receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated in each case. Correlation between predicted probability and mutation prevalence was tested. All statistical tests were two sided.

Results: Overall, the models performed well, improving the performances of a genetic counsellor. The median ROC curve area was 0.80 (range 0.77-0.82). At 100% sensitivity, the median specificity was 30% (range 25-33%). At 92% sensitivity, the median specificity was 42% (range 33.3-54.2%) and the median negative predictive value was 93% (range 89.7-98%). BRCA1 families tended to score higher risk than BRCA2 families in all models tested.

Conclusions: All models increased the discrimination power of an experienced risk counsellor, suggesting that their use is valuable in the context of clinical counselling and genetic testing to optimise selection of patients for screening and allowing for more focused management. Models developed in different ethnic populations performed similarly well in a Spanish series of families, suggesting that models targeted to specific populations may not be necessary in all cases. Carrier probability as predicted by the models is consistent with actual prevalence, although in general models tend to underestimate it. Our study suggests that these models may perform differently in populations with a high prevalence of BRCA2 mutations.

     

BRCA1 gene-related hereditary susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer in Latvia

PurposeIn this report, we summarise data on BRCA1 gene analysis in Latvia to characterise criteria of genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility.Material/methodsAnalysis by SSCP/HD, MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry or DNA sequencing was used for mutation detection. Mutations identified were confirmed by direct DNA sequencing.ResultsOut of 1068 breast and 231 ovarian cancer patients from different families: 58 carried the c.5266dupC and 43 carried the c.4035delA mutations. Every 4th patient in our study did not report cancer in the family. The breast cancer was diagnosed earlier in carriers of the c.5266dupC than in carriers of the c.4035delA (p = 0.003). The incidence of breast or ovarian cancer does not differ among the 2 mutation carriers in our patient group. The nature of the c.5266dupC mutation might be more deleterious.ConclusionsWe recommend the screening of 4 founder BRCA1 mutations in all breast and ovarian cancer patients in Latvia at diagnosis of disease regardless of family history or age. The BRCA1 screening can be carried out efficiently using the MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry mutation detection method developed in the Biomedical Research and Study Centre (Riga, Latvia).