Prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in sporadic breast/ovarian cancer patients and identification of a novel de novo BRCA1 mutation in a patient diagnosed with late onset breast and ovarian cancer: implications for genetic testing.
ABSTRACT In order to adequately evaluate the clinical relevance of genetic testing in sporadic breast and ovarian cancer patients, we offered comprehensive BRCA1/2 mutation analysis in patients without a family history for the disease. We evaluated the complete coding and splice site regions of BRCA1/2 in 193 sporadic patients. In addition, a de novo mutation was further investigated with ultra deep sequencing and microsatellite marker analysis. In 17 patients (8.8%), a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation was identified. The highest mutation detection ratio (3/7 = 42.9%) was obtained in sporadic patients diagnosed with breast and ovarian cancer after the age of 40. In 21 bilateral breast cancer patients, two mutations were identified (9.5%). Furthermore, 140 sporadic patients with unilateral breast cancer were investigated. Mutations were only identified in patients diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 40 (12/128 = 9.4% vs. 0/12 with Dx > 40). No mutations were detected in 17 sporadic male breast cancer and 6 ovarian cancer patients. BRCA1 c.3494_3495delTT was identified in a patient diagnosed with breast and ovarian cancer at the age of 52 and 53, respectively, and was proven to have occurred de novo at the paternal allele. Our study shows that the mutation detection probability in specific patient subsets can be significant, therefore mutation analysis should be considered in sporadic patients. As a consequence, a family history for the disease and an early age of onset should not be used as the only criteria for mutation analysis of BRCA1/2. The relatively high mutation detection ratio suggests that the prevalence of BRCA1/2 may be underestimated, especially in sporadic patients who developed breast and ovarian cancer. In addition, although rare, the possibility of a de novo occurrence in a sporadic patient should be considered.
- SourceAvailable from: Anna Myriam Perrone[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Ovarian cancer (OC) mostly arises sporadically, but a fraction of cases are associated with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The presence of a BRCA mutation in OC patients has been suggested as a prognostic and predictive factor. In addition, the identification of asymptomatic carriers of such mutations offers an unprecedented opportunity for OC prevention. This review is aimed at exploring the current knowledge on epidemiological and molecular aspects of BRCA-associated OC predisposition, on pathology and clinical behavior of OC occurring in BRCA mutation carriers, and on the available options for managing asymptomatic carriers.BioMed Research International 01/2014; 2014:787143. · 2.71 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Early-onset diagnosis is an eligibility criterion for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) testing in sporadic breast cancer patients. Limited family structure has been proposed as a predictor of BRCA mutation status in this group of patients. An overwhelming amount of data supports a strong association between BRCA1 mutations and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Here, we analyze the feasibility of using limited family structure and TNBC as predictors of BRCA mutation status in early-onset breast cancer patients attending genetic counseling units. We have conducted the study in a cohort of sporadic early-onset (≤35 years) breast cancer patients (N = 341) previously selected for BRCA genetic testing in Academic Hereditary Cancer Clinics from Spain. A retrospective review of medical records available at the time of risk assessment allowed us classifying patients according to family structure and TNBC. In addition, BRCAPRO score was calculated for all patients. Association between categorical variables was investigated using the Fisher's exact test. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis was used for multivariate analysis. Limited family structure (OR 3.61, p = 0.013) and TNBC (OR 3.14, p = 0.013) were independent predictors of BRCA mutation status. Mutation prevalence in the subgroup of patients with at least one positive predictor was 14 %, whereas it dropped to 3 % in non-TNBCs with adequate family history (OR 5.31, 95 % CI 1.38-23.89, p = 0.006). BRCAPRO correctly discerned between limited and adequate family structures. Limited family structure and TNBC are feasible predictors of BRCA mutation status in sporadic early-onset (≤35 years) breast cancer patients attending genetic counseling units. The low prevalence of mutations observed in non-TNBCs with adequate family structure suggests that this subgroup of patients might be excluded from genetic testing.Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 10/2014; · 4.47 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose In this report, we summarise data on BRCA1 gene analysis in Latvia to characterise criteria of genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Material/methods Analysis by SSCP/HD, MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry or DNA sequencing was used for mutation detection. Mutations identified were confirmed by direct DNA sequencing. Results Out 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. Conclusions We 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).Advances in Medical Sciences 03/2014; 59(1):114–119. · 0.80 Impact Factor