Ella R Thompson1, Simone M Rowley1, Na Li1, Simone McInerny1, Lisa Devereux1, Michelle W Wong-Brown1, Alison H Trainer1, Gillian Mitchell1, Rodney J Scott1, Paul A James1, Ian G Campbell2. 1. Ella R. Thompson, Simone M. Rowley, Na Li, Simone McInerny, Lisa Devereux, Alison H. Trainer, Gillian Mitchell, Paul A. James, and Ian G. Campbell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne; Ella R. Thompson, Alison H. Trainer, Gillian Mitchell, Paul A. James, and Ian G. Campbell, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria; Michelle W. Wong-Brown and Rodney J. Scott, The University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute; Rodney J. Scott, Hunter Area Pathology Service, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Na Li, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China; and Gillian Mitchell, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Ella R. Thompson, Simone M. Rowley, Na Li, Simone McInerny, Lisa Devereux, Alison H. Trainer, Gillian Mitchell, Paul A. James, and Ian G. Campbell, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne; Ella R. Thompson, Alison H. Trainer, Gillian Mitchell, Paul A. James, and Ian G. Campbell, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria; Michelle W. Wong-Brown and Rodney J. Scott, The University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute; Rodney J. Scott, Hunter Area Pathology Service, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Na Li, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China; and Gillian Mitchell, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada. ian.campbell@petermac.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gene panel sequencing is revolutionizing germline risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer. Despite scant evidence supporting the role of many of these genes in breast cancer predisposition, results are often reported to families as the definitive explanation for their family history. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 18 genes included in hereditary breast cancer panels among index cases from families with breast cancer and matched population controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases (n = 2,000) were predominantly breast cancer-affected women referred to specialized Familial Cancer Centers on the basis of a strong family history of breast cancer and BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. Controls (n = 1,997) were cancer-free women from the LifePool study. Sequencing data were filtered for known pathogenic or novel loss-of-function mutations. RESULTS: Excluding 19 mutations identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 among the cases and controls, a total of 78 cases (3.9%) and 33 controls (1.6%) were found to carry potentially actionable mutations. A significant excess of mutations was only observed for PALB2 (26 cases, four controls) and TP53 (five cases, zero controls), whereas no mutations were identified in STK11. Among the remaining genes, loss-of-function mutations were rare, with similar frequency between cases and controls. CONCLUSION: The frequency of mutations in most breast cancer panel genes among individuals selected for possible hereditary breast cancer is low and, in many cases, similar or even lower than that observed among cancer-free population controls. Although multigene panels can significantly aid in cancer risk management and expedite clinical translation of new genes, they equally have the potential to provide clinical misinformation and harm at the individual level if the data are not interpreted cautiously.
PURPOSE: Gene panel sequencing is revolutionizing germline risk assessment for hereditary breast cancer. Despite scant evidence supporting the role of many of these genes in breast cancer predisposition, results are often reported to families as the definitive explanation for their family history. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 18 genes included in hereditary breast cancer panels among index cases from families with breast cancer and matched population controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases (n = 2,000) were predominantly breast cancer-affected women referred to specialized Familial Cancer Centers on the basis of a strong family history of breast cancer and BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. Controls (n = 1,997) were cancer-free women from the LifePool study. Sequencing data were filtered for known pathogenic or novel loss-of-function mutations. RESULTS: Excluding 19 mutations identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 among the cases and controls, a total of 78 cases (3.9%) and 33 controls (1.6%) were found to carry potentially actionable mutations. A significant excess of mutations was only observed for PALB2 (26 cases, four controls) and TP53 (five cases, zero controls), whereas no mutations were identified in STK11. Among the remaining genes, loss-of-function mutations were rare, with similar frequency between cases and controls. CONCLUSION: The frequency of mutations in most breast cancer panel genes among individuals selected for possible hereditary breast cancer is low and, in many cases, similar or even lower than that observed among cancer-free population controls. Although multigene panels can significantly aid in cancer risk management and expedite clinical translation of new genes, they equally have the potential to provide clinical misinformation and harm at the individual level if the data are not interpreted cautiously.
Authors: Babatunde Adedokun; Yonglan Zheng; Paul Ndom; Antony Gakwaya; Timothy Makumbi; Alicia Y Zhou; Toshio F Yoshimatsu; Alex Rodriguez; Ravi K Madduri; Ian T Foster; Aminah Sallam; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dezheng Huo Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Na Li; Simone McInerny; Magnus Zethoven; Dane Cheasley; Belle W X Lim; Simone M Rowley; Lisa Devereux; Norah Grewal; Somayeh Ahmadloo; David Byrne; Jue Er Amanda Lee; Jason Li; Stephen B Fox; Thomas John; Yoland Antill; Kylie L Gorringe; Paul A James; Ian G Campbell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Paz Polak; Jaegil Kim; Lior Z Braunstein; Rosa Karlic; Nicholas J Haradhavala; Grace Tiao; Daniel Rosebrock; Dimitri Livitz; Kirsten Kübler; Kent W Mouw; Atanas Kamburov; Yosef E Maruvka; Ignaty Leshchiner; Eric S Lander; Todd R Golub; Aviad Zick; Alexandre Orthwein; Michael S Lawrence; Rajbir N Batra; Carlos Caldas; Daniel A Haber; Peter W Laird; Hui Shen; Leif W Ellisen; Alan D D'Andrea; Stephen J Chanock; William D Foulkes; Gad Getz Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: David D Stenehjem; Claire Telford; Sudhir K Unni; Hillevi Bauer; Amy Sainski; Rishi Deka; Marisa B Schauerhamer; Xiangyang Ye; Casey R Tak; Junjie Ma; Tapashi B Dalvi; Lia Gutierrez; James A Kaye; Jerzy E Tyczynski; Diana I Brixner; Joseph E Biskupiak Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Dennis M Deapen; Paul Abrahamse; Irina Bondarenko; Yun Li; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: C H Yip; D G Evans; G Agarwal; I Buccimazza; A Kwong; R Morant; I Prakash; C Y Song; N A Taib; C Tausch; O Ung; S Meterissian Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Renan Gomes; Pricila da Silva Spinola; Ayslan Castro Brant; Bruna Palma Matta; Caroline Macedo Nascimento; Silvia Maria de Aquino Paes; Cibele Rodrigues Bonvicino; Anna Claudia Evangelista Dos Santos; Miguel Angelo Martins Moreira Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 4.872