Literature DB >> 34287479

Germline and Somatic mutations in postmenopausal breast cancer patients.

Tauana Rodrigues Nagy1, Simone Maistro1, Giselly Encinas1, Maria Lucia Hirata Katayama1, Glaucia Fernanda de Lima Pereira1, Nelson Gaburo-Júnior2, Lucas Augusto Moyses Franco3, Ana Carolina Ribeiro Chaves de Gouvêa1, Maria Del Pilar Estevez Diz1, Luiz Antonio Senna Leite1, Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In breast cancer (BC) patients, the frequency of germline BRCA mutations (gBRCA) may vary according to the ethnic background, age, and family history of cancer. Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) is the second most common somatic mutated gene in BC; however, the association of mutations in both genes with cancer has not been thoroughly investigated. Thus, our aims were to investigate gBRCA mutation frequency in a cohort of postmenopausal Brazilian BC patients and the association of gBRCA1/BRCA2 and PIK3CA somatic mutations.
METHODS: Forty-nine postmenopausal (>55 years) and forty-one young (≤35 years) BC patients were included in this study. The postmenopausal group included patients who reported a positive family history of cancer. For these patients, gBRCA1/BRCA2 were sequenced using next-generation sequencing (NGS) or Sanger sequencing. Data for gBRCA in young patients were already available from a previous study. DNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors was obtained from 27 postmenopausal and 41 young patients for analyzing exons 9 and 20 of PIK3CA. The association between gBRCA1/BRCA2 and somatic mutations in PIK3CA was investigated.
RESULTS: The overall frequency of gBRCA1/BRCA2 among the 49 postmenopausal patients was 10.2%. The frequencies of somatic mutations in PIK3CA in the postmenopausal and young patients were 37% and 17%, respectively (ns). The most common PIK3CA mutation was found to be E454A. Nonsense and frameshift mutations, which may counteract the oncogenic potential of PIK3CA were also detected. Regardless of age, 25% of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers , each, had PIK3CA somatic mutations.
CONCLUSIONS: Data obtained indicate that BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing may be considered for postmenopausal patients with BC who have a family history of cancer. Although some of them are not considered pathogenic, somatic variants of PIK3CA are frequently observed in BC patients, especially in postmenopausal patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34287479      PMCID: PMC8266163          DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2021/e2837

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)        ISSN: 1807-5932            Impact factor:   2.365


BACKGROUND

Breast cancer affects women of all ages; however, the incidence of breast cancer increases with age, and the peak incidence occurs between 45-64 years (1). In addition, breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women aged 30-39 years (2). The main risk factors for breast cancer are a) age, b) positive family history of breast and ovarian cancer, and c) hormone exposure (3). A positive family history is observed in approximately 10-20% of the breast cancer patients, but mutations in predisposing genes have been identified in <30% of these cases (4). BRCA1/BRCA2—both related to the homologous repair of DNA double-strand breaks—are the major breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Generally, women who harbor BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are more frequently diagnosed with breast cancer at an early age (≤40 years) or with ovarian cancer at any age. In addition, women who develop breast cancer at an older age and report a strong family history of breast/ovarian cancer mainly in close relatives—first, second, or third degree—may also be BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers (5). However, the majority of breast cancer cases are sporadic, i.e., not related to genetic syndromes. In this case, somatic mutations accumulate over an individual’s lifetime, similar to an ‘evolutionary’ process, a phenomenon that makes age itself a risk factor for cancer (6). In this process, some cells acquire mutations that are advantageous from a tumoral perspective, which allows aberrant proliferation, invasion, and metastasis. In breast cancer, somatic mutations in the PIK3CA gene are the most frequent, just after TP53 (7). The PIK3CA gene encodes the p110 catalytic subunit of a heterodimeric lipid kinase called PI3K that is activated in response to various extracellular signals that are transduced through receptor tyrosine kinases. After activation, PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PI-4,5-P2), generating phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3), which functions as a second messenger and recruits proteins that harbor pleckstrin homology (PH) domains (e.g., AKT) (8). Mutations in the helical or kinase domain of PIK3CA resulted in the activation of the p110a kinase, with the subsequent downstream activation of mediators that culminates in cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and promotion of metastasis (9,10). In breast cancer, an association between somatic mutations in PIK3CA and the positive expression of the estrogen receptor (ER) has been reported (11-14). However, the association between the frequency of somatic mutations in PIK3CA and age is unclear (15,16). Moreover, it seems likely that the frequency of somatic mutations in PIK3CA increases in ER-positive tumors in aging patients (7). Thus, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most common germline mutated genes, while PIK3CA is the second most common somatic mutated gene in breast cancer patients; however, subtle frequency differences may be related to the age of onset of the disease. Carcinogenic mechanisms elicited by BRCA1/BRCA2 loss of function and PIK3CA gain of function may be targeted for therapy. There is evidence that combination therapies targeting tumors harboring BRCA mutations—such as PARP inhibitors—with PI3K pathway inhibition therapies may exhibit synergy in vivo for the treatment of endogenous BRCA1-related breast cancer mouse model (17). However, it has been previously reported that the frequency of PIK3CA mutations may be different in breast cancer patients based on the presence of germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 (in both women and men) (18,19). Thus, our aim was to investigate the frequency of BRCA mutations in a cohort of postmenopausal Brazilian breast cancer patients, for whom scarce information is available. The secondary exploratory aim of this study was to evaluate the association of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations with somatic PIK3CA mutations in a cohort of young and postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients

Patients were recruited at the Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), the cancer treatment branch of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, the largest public hospital complex in Latin America, São Paulo, Brazil. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (Comitê de Ética da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; protocol 397/11). All patients signed informed consent forms. The inclusion criteria were 1) histopathological diagnosis of invasive breast carcinoma in patients aged <36 years or >54 years; 2) patients aged 55 years or older with at least one relative having first, second, or third degrees and diagnosed with breast, ovarian pancreatic, or prostate cancer; 3) triple-negative tumor and age ≤60 years. The expression of hormone receptor was classified as positive if at least 1% of the malignant cells were stained with antibodies against estrogen or progesterone receptor; HER2 positivity was defined as immunohistochemistry scores of 3(+) or 2(+), the latter, associated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-amplification. HER2 immunohistochemistry and FISH were scored according to the ASCO/CAP guidelines (20). The Ki67 expression cut-off was set at >14% for a high proliferation index. The molecular subtypes were classified using previously established criteria (21). Personal and familial cancer histories were collected through a structured questionnaire. Patients were also asked about their ancestry to obtain information about the country or continent where their parents and grandparents (at least) were born. A pedigree that reached up to third-degree relatives was designed. Clinical and pathological data were retrieved from hospital files. In a previous study, 79 very young breast cancer patients (≤35 years) were evaluated for the presence of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, among whom, four harbored BRCA1 mutations (c.66_67insA; c.211A>G; c.3331_3334delCAAG; c.5263_5264insC) and nine harbored BRCA2 mutations (c.483T>A; c.1138_1138delA; c.2808_2811delACAA (n=2); c.3956_3959delATGA; c.6656C>G; c.6990_6994delTACCT; c.9154C>T; c.9382C>T) (22). For detecting PIK3CA mutations, tumor samples were available for 41 patients (among the 79 patients) and were included in the present analysis. Clinical data and tumor subtypes based on ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 expression levels (as described above) are summarized in Table 4 (22). Six of these forty-one patients harbored BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
Table 4

Clinical and pathological features of breast cancer patients according to their age.

FeaturesPostmenopausalYoung
n=27n=41 p
Age at diagnosis, median (range), years61 (55-74)32 (23-35)
Tumor Subtype
    Luminal A8 (8)2 (4.9)0.04
    Luminal B14 (51.9)19 (46.3)
    Luminal2 (7.4)4 (9.8)
    HER2+1 (3.7)5 (12.2)
    Triple Negative2 (7.4)10 (24.4)
    Not Determined01 (2.4)
Clinical Stage, n (%)
    I/II19 (73.1)23 (65.7)0.539
    III/IV7 (26.9)12 (34.3)
BRCA germline status
BRCA1/BRCA2 mut2 (7.4)6 (14.6)0.365
BRCA1/BRCA2 wt25 (92.6)35 (85.4)
PIK3CA somatic status
PIK3CA path mut10 (37)7(17.1)*
PIK3CA wt17 (63)34 (82.9)
Luminal Tumors vs PIK3CA somatic status
    Luminal PIK3CA mut8 (33.3%)5 (20%)0.291
    Luminal PIK3CA wt16 (66.7%)20 (80%)

Tumor Subtype based on ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 expression, as described in methods. Missing data were not computed. Pearson's chi-Square. *not tested owing to the small sample size.

DNA Extraction from the Blood and Tumor Tissue

Genomic DNA from peripheral blood samples was extracted using the Illustra Blood Genomic Prep Mini Spin Kit (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), and from cancer cell-enriched areas from the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples using the QIAamp® DNA FFPE Tissue (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA), as per the manufacturer's protocol. DNA concentration and purity were determined using a NanoDrop 1000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA), and the absorbance260/280 ratio varied from 1.42 to 2.2. DNA concentration from samples analyzed using next-generation sequencing (NGS) was also evaluated using a Qubit® dsDNA BR Assay kit on a Qubit® 3.0 Fluorometer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California, USA).

Analysis of Germline Mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2

The entire coding regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2, including exon-intron boundaries, were sequenced by NGS using the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM) platform (n=38) or by Sanger sequencing (n=11), to determine the presence of germline mutations.

Next-Generation Sequencing

BRCA1 and BRCA2 were sequenced using the Ion AmpliSeq™ BRCA1 and BRCA2 Panel (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) consisting of three primer pools, covering the target regions in 167 amplicons that target the entire coding region, including 10-20 bp of non-coding sequences, flanking the 5’ and 3’ ends of each exon, for both genes. Libraries containing the PCR product were sequenced on a 314 v2 Ion Chip, which allows the simultaneous analysis of 12 samples per chip on a PGM sequencer (Ion Torrent™), and the Ion PGM Sequencing 200 Kit version 2 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Data analysis was performed using the Ion Reporter™ Server System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA). Sequence data were also visually evaluated using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV). Amplicons with coverage less than 30x, pathogenic variants, and new variants were confirmed by PCR followed by conventional bidirectional Sanger sequencing. Full details of the methods are provided in the Appendix.

PCR and Sanger Sequencing

All coding regions, including the intron-exon boundaries of BRCA1 (NM_7294.3) and BRCA2 (NM_000059.3) were amplified by PCR. Primers and conditions are described in the Appendix. The amplicons were purified (Illustra™ ExoStar™ 1-Step-GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and were sequenced using the BigDyeTM Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied BiosystemsTM, Foster City, California, USA), as described previously (22). Following purification, samples were analyzed on a 3500 Genetic Analyzer or ABI 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™, Foster City, California, USA) in both forward and reverse directions (Appendix). The results were analyzed using Mutation Surveyor DNA Variant Analysis Software (v3.30, SoftGenetics LLC). All pathogenic mutations were confirmed using Sanger sequencing.

Analysis of Copy Number Variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2

For the analysis of large deletions and duplications—that would have provided comprehensive information regarding germline mutations—patient DNA was subjected to BRCA1 and BRCA2 multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) analysis (BRCA1: SALSA® MLPA® P002 and P087 Probemix; BRCA2: SALSA® MLPA® P045 BRCA2/CHEK2 Probemix; MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), as per the manufacturer's protocols (Appendix), as described previously (22,23).

Mutation Nomenclature and Classification

BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were named according to the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature (24) and were searched in publicly accessible databases, i.e., BRCA Share™, BRCA Exchange, BRCA Mutation Database, and ClinVar. The search was performed in 2020 (between January and June). In silico analyzes were performed using the following prediction tools: Polymorphism Phenotyping (PolyPhen; v2.2.2), Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant (SIFT; v1.0.3), Align-GVGD, Protein Variation Effect Analyzer (Provean; v1.1), and Human Splicing Finder to analyze variants of unknown clinical significance. Minor allele frequency (MAF) was checked on the 1000 Genomes Project database, Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), Global MAF dbSNP, Exome Variant Server, NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (ESP), Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD), Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed), and Brazilian genomic variants (ABraOM). More details are provided in the Appendix. The variants were then classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, benign, likely benign, and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) based on the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (25). VUS for BRCA was also checked for co-occurrence with known pathogenic mutations in the same patient. For some variants, we considered that consensus information in ≥2 databases was strong enough to classify them as benign or VUS.

Analysis of Somatic Mutations in PIK3CA

Among the 49 postmenopausal patients, 27 FFPE tumor samples were available for analysis. Tumor samples from another 22 patients were not available because they had been operated on at another service. Tumor samples from all 41 young patients were used for further analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1

The flowchart summarizes the samples used for each analysis.

PIK3CA (NM_006218.2) exons 9 (helical domain) and 20 (kinase domain), which are the regions with the highest mutation frequency (26), were amplified by PCR and were analyzed by Sanger sequencing. Primer sets were designed using software Primer3 (http://bioinfo.ut.ee/primer3/). To avoid non-specific product formation, BLAST (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast) and BLAT (https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgBlat) were performed. Primers and conditions are described in the Appendix.

Statistical Analysis and Sample Size Calculation

To detect the frequency of germline BRCA mutations in postmenopausal breast cancer patients (varying from 2% to 17%), a sample size of 50 was estimated (27,28). For analyzing the frequency of PIK3CA mutations in young and postmenopausal patients; this was a convenient sample size, because only 55% of tumor samples were available for the latter. Assuming that the frequency of PIK3CA mutations in young and postmenopausal patients was 7% and 35%, respectively (7) and the correlation of two postmenopausal patients for every three young patients, the estimated sample size to detect a difference with 0.05 one-sided significance level and 80% power would be 31 young and 21 postmenopausal patients. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between variables, and a two-sided significance level of 0.05 was considered.

RESULTS

Forty-nine elderly women aged ≥55 years who were diagnosed with invasive ductal breast carcinoma were included between May 2014 and May 2015 and evaluated for the presence of germline mutations in BRCA. FFPE tumor samples of 27 patients were analyzed for the presence of somatic mutations in PIK3CA. The median ages at the time of diagnosis and enrollment in the study were 61 years (55-80 years) and 64 years (56-87 years), respectively. The majority of the patients had Nottingham histological grade II tumors (63.3%) and clinical stage I/II tumors (67.4%). With respect to the tumor subtype, most tumors were luminal B (44.9%) or luminal A (22.4%), followed by HER2+ and triple-negative tumors (10.2% each) (Table 1; Additional Table 1). Most patients (95.9%)—except for two patients (one with a triple-negative tumor and age ≤60 years)—reported a positive family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancers. A large proportion of the patients (69.4%) reported at least one affected first-degree family member with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Most women were born in the Southeast (67.3%)—followed by the Northeast (18.4%)—regions of Brazil. With respect to ancestry, 28.6% of the patients reported Brazilian and European ancestries, 26.5% reported only Brazilian ancestry, and 18.4% and 8.4% reported European-only or Asian ancestry, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1

Clinical and pathological features of breast cancer patients according to deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Features BRCA1/BRCA2 mut BRCA1/BRCA2 wt
n=49n=5n=44
Age at diagnosis, median (range), years61 (55-80)58 (56-80)62 (55-80)
Age at enrollment, median (range), years64 (56-87)60 (58-82)64.5 (56-87)
Histological grade, n (%)
    I10010 (100)
    II312 (6.5)29 (93.5)
    III73 (42.8)4 (57.8)
    Missing101 (100)
Clinical Stage, n (%)
    I14014 (100)
    II191 (5.3)18 (94.7)
    III102 (20)8 (80)
    Missing62 (33.5)4 (66.5)
Molecular Subtype
    Luminal A11011 (100)
    Luminal B223 (13.7)19 (86.4)
    Luminal606 (100)
    HER2+505 (100)
    Triple Negative52 (40)3 (60)
Affected relatives, n (%)
    First Degree344 (11.8)30 (82.2)
    Second Degree909 (100)
    Third Degree41 (25)3 (75)
    Negative202 (100)
Ancestry until second degree, n (%)
    Brazilian only132 (15.4)11 (84.6)
    European only909 (100)
    Asian only51 (20)4 (80)
    Brazilian and European141 (7.2)13 (92.8)
    Brazilian and Indigenous101 (100)
    Brazilian and Australian11 (100)0
    Brazilian and South American101 (100)
    Brazilian and European and Australian101 (100)
    Indigenous and European101 (100)
    European and Unknown101 (100)
    Indigenous and Unknown101 (100)
    Unknown101 (100)
Region of origin, n (%)
    Southeast332 (6)31 (94)
    Northeast92 (22.2)7 (77.8)
    South303 (100)
    Abroad41 (25)3 (75)
Additional Table 1

Clinical and pathological characteristics of breast cancer patients, BRCA sequencing, and the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) results.

IDAge YearsHTHGER (%)PR (%)HER2Ki67 (%)Molecular SubtypeCSFH BRCA MLPA
171IDC210080Neg.25Luminal BIIIYeswtwt
280IDC28080Neg.30Luminal BNDYes BRCA2 wt
366IDC19580Neg.15Luminal BIIYeswtND
461IDC295Neg.Neg.20Luminal BIIYeswtwt
561IDC2100100Neg.12Luminal AIIYeswtwt
674IDC1100100Neg.10Luminal AIYeswtwt
766IDC26066Neg.30Luminal BIYeswtwt
861IDC2Pos.Pos.Neg.30Luminal BIIIYeswtwt
973IDC2100100Neg.10Luminal AIYeswtwt
1057IDCND9070Neg.10Luminal AIYeswtwt
1173IDC295Neg.Neg.15Luminal BIIYeswtwt
1273IDC31005Neg.NDLuminalIYeswtwt
1359IDC1Neg.Neg.Pos.18HER 2IIIYeswtwt
1462IDC29070Neg.NDLuminalIIYeswtwt
1660IDC190100Neg.8Luminal AIIYeswtwt
1756IDC3Pos.Pos.Neg.80Luminal BIIIYes BRCA1 wt
1856IDC3Neg.Neg.Neg.30TNIYeswtwt
1963IDC210Neg.Neg.20Luminal BIYeswtwt
2065IDC250Neg.Neg.30Luminal BIIYeswtwt
2167IDC1100100Neg.30Luminal BIIYeswtwt
2256IDC2661Neg.30Luminal BIIYeswtwt
2362IDC2951Neg.18Luminal BIYeswtwt
2476IDC3Neg.Neg.Pos.40HER2IIIYeswtwt
2560IDC2Neg.Neg.Neg.65TNNDYeswtwt
2660IDC2Pos.Neg.Neg.30Luminal BIIYeswtwt
2756IDC2Pos.Pos.Neg.30Luminal BNDYeswtwt
2863IDC26666Neg.30Luminal BNDYeswtwt
2958IDC2Neg.Neg.Neg.33TNNDYes BRCA1 wt
3062IDC1100Neg.Neg.5Luminal AIIIYeswtwt
3160IDC26666Neg.30Luminal BNDYeswtwt
3256IDC19070Neg.10Luminal AINowtwt
3355IDC1Neg.Neg.Neg.NDTNINowtwt
3461IDC29515Neg.20Luminal BIIYeswtwt
3568IDC26666Neg.10Luminal AIIYeswtwt
3663IDC19080Neg.10Luminal AIYeswtwt
3762IDC2950,1Pos.40Luminal BIYeswtwt
3859IDC24075Neg.20Luminal BIYeswtwt
3963IDC2100100Neg.13Luminal AIIYeswtwt
4063IDC210030Pos.20Luminal BIIIYeswtwt
4162IDC2Pos.Pos.Pos.NDLuminalIIYeswtwt
4277IDC3Neg.Neg.Pos.70HER2IIIYeswtwt
4365IDC2>50>50Neg.5-30LuminalIIYeswtwt
4456IDC390Neg.Neg.30-40Luminal BIIYes BRCA2 wt
4564IDC2Pos.Pos.Neg.NDLuminalIIYeswtwt
4655IDC2Neg.Neg.Pos.10HER2IIIYeswtwt
4758IDC3Neg.Neg.Neg.70TNIIIYeswt BRCA1
4875IDC1>66>66Neg.<15Luminal AIYeswtND
4979IDC2Neg.Neg.Pos.40HER2IIYeswtwt
5080IDC2Pos.Pos.Neg.NDLuminalIIYeswtwt

ID: Patient identification; HT: Histological type; HG: Histological grade; ER: Estrogen receptor; PR: Progesterone receptor; CS: Clinical stage; FH: Family history for breast and/or ovarian cancer; ND: Not determined; wt: Wild type; MLPA: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification.

Another 41 young patients, aged ≤35 years, had their tumor samples evaluated for the presence of somatic mutations in PIK3CA. This is a subgroup of patients whose clinical data, as well as germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing results had already been reported in a previous study (22). The cohort of patients now reported comprehends those young patients who had FFPE tumor samples available for PIK3CA analysis. The median age at the time of diagnosis was 32 years (range, 23-35 years). Most patients presented tumors with histological grade II (43.9%) or III (48.8%), and disease clinical stage I/II (65.7%). Luminal B (46.3%) was the most frequent tumor subtype, followed by triple-negative (24.4%) and HER2 (+) (12.2%) tumors (Table 4). Among these patients, 14.6% and 12.2% reported first-or second-degree relatives diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, respectively, while 39% reported a negative family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, and 24.4% were not able to describe their family history. Six out of the forty-one patients harbored pathogenic mutations (14.6%) in BRCA1 or BRCA2, as previously reported (22).

Germline Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Postmenopausal Patients

Among 49 postmenopausal unrelated women, 5 (10.2%) were identified to harbor mutations of clinical significance, 3 in BRCA1 and 2 in BRCA2 (Table 2; Additional Tables 2-3). All five BRCA mutations were identified among 47 patients who reported a positive family history of breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers in close relatives (10.6%), including four mutations detected among 34 patients reporting first-degree relatives affected by these types of cancer (11.76%) (Table 1).
Table 2

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast cancer patients: Clinical aspects and molecular description.

IDHGVS cDNAHGVS proteinTypeBrCa AgeOvCa AgeTumor SubtypeHGCSAncestryFH
BRCA1
    29c.5074+2T>C-SS58-TN2NDBRZPos
    17c.5123C>Ap.Ala1708GluM56-Lum B3IIIBRZ/AUSPos
    47Exon 1-19 deleted-LGR58-TN3IIIBRZ/EURPos
BRCA2
    44c.2T>Gp.Met1ArgM56-Lum B3IIBRZPos
    2c.5645C>Ap.Ser1882TerNS80>70Lum B2NDAsianPos

ID: Patient identification; SS: Splice site; M: Missense; LGR: Large genomic rearrangement; NS: Nonsense; Lum: Luminal; HG: Histological grade; CS: Clinical stage; AUS: Australian; FH: Family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer; Pos: Positive.

Additional Table 2

BRCA1 variants.

ExonHGVS NucleotideHGVS ProteinProteinOther namesTypeLocalization (GRCh37)NCBI 1000 Genomes BrowserGlobal MAF dbSNPAllele Frequency ExACGlobal MAF 1000 genomesESPgnomADTOPMedABraOMSIFTPolyPhenProveanAlign-GVGD (Pufferfish)Human Splicing FinderBRCA ExchangeBRCA Mutation DatabaseBRCA Share™ClinVarInterpretationn
1c.-19-115T>C--IVS1-115T>C5'UTR17: 41276247rs37656400.35363 (G)-0,35363-0,316880,302480.304260----Mutant type not implemented in HSF yetBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceNDNDBenignBenign9
2c.81-14C>T--IVS2-14C>TIVS17: 41267810rs80358006---0.00069-0,000520.001642----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenign/Likely BenignBenign/Likely Benign1
3c.134+111C>T--IVS3+111C>TIVS17: 41267632rs81761000.00379 (A)-0,00379-0,002270.00128-----Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
6c.301+43A>G--IVS6+43A>GIVS17: 41256841------------No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.NDNDNDNDUncertain Significance1
7c.441+36_441+49delCTTTTCTTTTTTTT--IVS7+36del14IVS17: 41256090_41256103rs373413425------0.295230----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Not Yet ReviewedND1-NeutralBenignBenign23
7c.441+36C>T--IVS7+36C>TIVS17: 41256103rs45569832----0,00009------No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Not Yet ReviewedND3-UVUncertain significance?Uncertain Significance2
7c.441+41C>T--IVS7+41C>TIVS17: 41256098rs45489593-0,00024--0,00104------No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Not Yet ReviewedND1-NeutralUncertain significance?Uncertain Significance1
7c.442-34C>T--IVS7-34C>TIVS17: 41251931rs7999230.09864 (A)0,173790,098640,175690,173030,148020.200328----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Not Yet ReviewedND1-NeutralBenignBenign15
9c.548-58delT--c.IVS8-58delTIVS17: 41249364 rs8176144 0.33486 (AAAAAA)--0,278330.30050,28382-----Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing.NDND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
9c.591C>Tp.Cys197=C197=710C>TSyn17: 41249263rs17999650.00040 (A)0,001470.000400,001230,001780,00076---Neutral-Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.1067A>Gp.Gln356ArgQ356R1186A>GM17: 41246481rs17999500.02177 (C )0,044070,021770,04590,051960,041290.049261Deleterious (0.01)Probably Damaging (0.988)DeleteriousClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign6
11c.1971A>Gp.Gln657=Q657=2090 A>GSyn17: 41245577rs288976790.00639 (C)0,002170,006390,008690,006050,007410.005747--Neutral-Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.2077G>Ap.Asp693AsnD693N2196G>AM17: 41245471rs49868500.03355 (T)0.056810,033550,054290.054510.053360.056650Tolerated (0.08)Benign (0.01)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign9
11c.2082C>Tp.Ser694=S694=2201C>TSyn17: 41245466rs17999490.33646 (A)0,348270,336460,295680,316330,301450.302956--Neutral-Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign22
11c.2311T>Cp.Leu771=L771L2430T>CSyn17: 41245237rs169400.33526 (G)0,341960,335260,277640,300180,283840.282430--Neutral-Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign22
11c.2596C>Tp.Arg866CysR866C2715C>TM17: 41244952rs41286300-0,0001--0,000160,00017-Deleterious (0)Probably Damaging (1)DeleteriousClass C65Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.2612C>Tp.Pro871LeuP871L2731C>TM17: 41244936rs7999170.45607 (G)0,410050,543930,49316-0,48930.450739Tolerated (1)Benign (0)NeutralClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign26
11c.3113A>Gp.Glu1038GlyE1038G3232A>GM17: 41244435rs169410.33566 (C)0,342870,335660,279030,300810,284560.282430Tolerated (0.16)Possibly Damaging (0.606)DeleteriousClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign22
11c.3119G>Ap.Ser1040AsnS1040N3238G>AM17: 41244429rs49868520.00978 (T)0.00978 (T)0,00978-0,011090,015710.035304Tolerated (0.21)Possibly Damaging (0.831)NeutralClass C0No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign5
11c.3305A>Gp.Asn1102SerN1102S-M17: 41244243rs80356900-0,00002-0,000080,000010,00001-Tolerated (0.17)Benign (0.156)DeleteriousClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Not Yet Reviewed2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance3-UVUncertain significance?Uncertain Significance1
11c.3548A>Gp.Lys1183ArgK1183R3667A>GM17: 41244000rs169420.35264 (C)0,349010,352640,295250,315480,301330.299672Tolerated (1)Benign (0)NeutralClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign22
11c.3752G>Ap.Cys1251TyrC1251Y-M17: 41243796 rs879254079 -------Tolerated (1)Benign (0.001)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Not Yet ReviewedNDNDUncertain significance?Uncertain Significance1
11c.4039A>Gp.Arg1347GlyR1347G4158A>GM17: 41243509rs288976890.00060 (C)0.003980,00060,004840,004230,004810.005747Tolerated (0.09)Benign (0.071)NeutralClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign2
12c.4113G>Ap.Gly1371=G1371=-Syn17: 41243033rs1474488070.00160 (T)0.000500,00160,001230,00156----Neutral-No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Likely benignND2-Likely NeutralLikely BenignLikely Benign1
13c.4308T>Cp.Ser1436=S1436=4427T>CSyn17: 41234470rs10609150.33626 (G)0,34310,336260,279560,301420,284890.283251--Neutral-No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign22
15c.4485-63C>G--IVS 14-63C>GIVS17: 41226601 rs273900734 0.35344 (C)-0,35344-0,316450,302110.300493-----Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceNDNDBenignBenign2
16c.4837A>Gp.Ser1613GlyS1613G4956A>GM17: 41223094rs17999660.35583 (C)-0,355830,29817-0,303330.300987Tolerated (0.11)Benign (0.038)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign22
16c.4987-92A>G--IVS16-92A>GIVS17: 41219804rs81762330.35463 (C)-0,35463-0,312760,302940.300493----Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.-Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign3
16c.4987-68A>G--VS16-68A>GIVS17: 41219780rs81762340.35463 (C)-0,35463-0,314830,302950.301314----Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign3
17c.5074+2T>C--IVS17+2T>CSS17: 41219623rs80358089-----------Alteration of the WT donor site, most probably affecting splicingPathogenic5-Definitely pathogenicNDPathogenic?Pathogenic1
17c.5075-53C>T--IVS17-53C>TIVS17: 41216021rs81762580.01098 (A)-0,010980,017080,018250,017210.018062----Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
18c.5123C>Ap.Ala1708GluA1708E5242C>AM17: 41215920rs28897696-0,02487-0.00023 (T)---Deleterious (0)Possibly Damaging (0.633)NeutralClass C65Activation of an exonic cryptic acceptor site, with presence of one or more cryptic branch point(s). Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Pathogenic5-Definitely pathogenic5-CausalPathogenic?Pathogenic?1
18c.5152+66G>A--IVS18+66G>AIVS17: 41215825rs30929940.34245 (T)-0,34245-0,313940,295990.291461----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign3
21c.5304C>Tp.Cys1768=C1769C-M17: 41203108rs1384938640.00060 (A)0.000020,00060,000150,000130,00009---Neutral-Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Likely benignNDNDLikely BenignLikely Benign1

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; MAF: Minor allele frequency; ESP: NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project Exome Variant Server; gnomAD: The Genome Aggregation Database; TOPMed: Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine; ABraOM: Brazilian genomic variants; SIFT: Sorting intolerant from tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; IVS: Intervening sequence; M: Missense; SS: splice site; ND, Not determined; n: Number of patients harboring the variant

Additional Table 3

BRCA2 variants.

ExonHGVS NucleotideHGVS ProteinProtein AbbrevOther namesTypeLocalization (GRCh37)NCBI 1000 Genomes BrowserGlobal MAF dbSNPAllele Frequency ExACGlobal MAF 1000 genomesESPgnomADTOPMedABraOMSIFTPolyPhenProveanAlign-GVGD (Pufferfish)Human Splicing FinderBRCA ExchangeBRCA Mutation DatabaseBRCA Share™ClinVarInterpretationn
2c.-26G>A--203G>A5'UTR13: 32890572rs17999430.20927 (A)0,246520,209270,208830,220320,215670.217570----NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceNDNDBenignBenign21
2c.-15A>C--214A>C5'UTR13: 32890583rs1387052020.00080 (C)0.000220,00080,000380,000640,000760.002463----NDNot Yet ReviewedNDNDBenign/ Likely BenignLikely benign1
2c.-11C>T--218C>T5'UTR13: 32890587rs768747700.00439 (T)0,001630,004390,005840,00510,005460.007389----NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceNDNDBenignBenign2
2c.2T>Gp.Met1ArgM1R-M13: 32890599rs80358547-0,00001--0,00001--Damaging (0.00)Probably Damaging (0.998)DeleteriousClass C65NDNot Yet Reviewed5-Definitely pathogenic5-CausalPathogenic?Pathogenic1
3c.125A>Gp.Tyr42CysY42C353A>GM13: 32893271rs49870460.00080 (G)0,00170,00080,002460,001620,001580.001642Tolerate (0.12)Benign (0.090)NeutralClass C0Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign1
4c.425+33A>G--IVS4+33A>CIVS13: 32899354rs2000657090.00060 (G)0,000520,00060,000310.000100,000290.000821----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Not Yet ReviewedND2-Likely NeutralBenign/ Likely BenignLikely benign1
4c.425+67A>C--IVS4+67A>CIVS13: 32899388rs115716100.07428 (C)-0,07428-0,030640,039730.045156----Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign6
6c.517-19C>T--IVS6-19C>TIVS13: 32900617rs115716230.00819 (T)0,002190,008190,007380,005860,0070.003284----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
8c.681+56C>T--IVS8+56C>TIVS13: 32903685rs21260420.18590 (T)-0,1859-0,216270,200760.184729----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Not Yet ReviewedND1-NeutralBenignBenign17
10c.865A>Cp.Asn289HisN289H1093A>CM13: 32906480rs7661730.07368 (C)-0,073680,030550,030550,039680.045156Damaging (0.003)Benign (0.278)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicingBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign7
10c.1114A>Cp.His372AsnH372N1342 A>CM13: 32906729rs1448480.24940 (C)0,277930,2494-0,223030,236570.259442Tolerated (0.35)Benign (0.00)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign19
10c.1365A>Gp.Ser455=S455=1593A>GSyn13: 32906980rs18014390.07368 (G)0,0517873680,031010,030480,039680.045156--Neutral-Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicingNDND1-NeutralBenignBenign7
10c.1514T>Cp.Ile505ThrI505TM13: 32907129rs288977080.00040 (C)0,000720,00040,000770,000830,000650.000821Tolerated (0.1)Possibly Damaging (0.651)NeutralClass C0No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign1
10c.1909+92_1909+96del--IVS10+92del5IVS13: 32907615-32907620rs1445498700.01577 (TAT)-----0.006568-----NDNDNDBenignBenign2
10c.1910-74T>C--IVS10-74T>CIVS13: 32910328rs23202360.17452 (C)-0,17452-0,205610,20561rs2320236----Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign14
10c.1910-51G>T--IVS10-51G>TIVS13: 32910351rs115716510.07348 (T)0,049340,073480,030560,030410,039680.045977----Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign6
11c.2229T>Cp.His743=H743=2457T>CSyn13: 32910721rs18014990.07348 (C)0,051580.073480,031290,030650,039720.045156--Neutral-No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign7
11c.2350A>Gp.Met784ValM784V2578A>GM13: 32910842rs115716530.00359 (G)0,000310,00359-0,000230,000220.002463Tolerated (1.00)Benign (0.00)NeutralClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance3-Uncertain3-UVBenignBenign1
11c.2971A>Gp.Asn991AspN991D3199A>GM13: 32911463rs17999440.08007 (G)0,053410,080070,037250,037230,04610.046798Tolerated (1.00)Benign (0.00)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicingBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign7
11c.3264T>Cp.Pro1088=P1088=3492T>CSyn13: 32911756rs360605260.00679 (C)0.002380,006790,007560,007620,007560.006568--Neutral-NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.3371A>Gp.Gln1124ArgQ1124RM13: 32911863rs1555283204-------Damaging (0.01)Probably Damaging (1.00)DeleteriousClass C35Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Potential alteration of splicing.Not Yet ReviewedNDNDUncertain significanceUncertain significance1
11c.3396A>Gp.Lys1132=L1132=3624A>GSyn13: 32911888rs18014060.26677 (G)0,294490,266770,279840,297620,282210.283251--Neutral-Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign23
11c.3807T>Cp.Val1269=V1269=4035T>CSyn13: 32912299rs5433040.16813 (C)0,189850,168130,191110,181440,186220.187192--Neutral-No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign23
11c.4068G>Ap.Leu1356=L1356=4296G>ASyn13: 32912560rs288977240.00040 (A)0,003050,00040,003150.002450,003120.002463--Neutral-NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.4090A>Cp.Ile1364LeuI1364L4318A>CM13: 32912582rs562485020.00439 (C)0,001720,004390,006310,005770.006568Tolerated (0.76)Benign (0.001)NeutralClass C0No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
11c.4258G>Tp.Asp1420TyrD1420Y4486G>TM13: 32912750rs288977270.00399 (T)0,00680,003990,003960,007940,004250.001642Damaging (0.01)Benign (0.030)DeleteriousClass C15NDBenign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.5418A>Gp.Glu1806=E1806=5646A>GSyn13: 32913910rs343511190.00679 (G)0,002330,006790,00830,007640,007850.006568--Neutral-NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
11c.5640T>Gp.Asn1880LysN1880K5868T>GM13: 32914132rs115716570.00220 (G)0,000760,00220,003150,002640,002940.000821Damaging (0.05)Benign (0.167)NeutralClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance2-Likely NeutralBenign/Likely BenignLikely benign1
11c.5645C>Ap.Ser1882TerS1882X5873C>AN13: 32914137rs80358785-0,00002--0,000020,00002-----Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Pathogenic5-Definitely pathogenic5-CausalPathogenicPathogenic1
11c.5744C>Tp.Thr1915MetT1915M5972C>TM13: 32914236rs49871170.00859 (T)0,021140,021140,021140.00859 (T)0,017440.017241Tolerated (0.13)Benign (0.000)NeutralClass C0Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
11c.5768A>Cp.Asp1923AlaD1923A5996A>CM13: 32914260rs454910050.00020 (C)-0,00020,00020.000540.00105-Tolerated (0.29)Benign (0.144)DeleteriousClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance2-Likely NeutralBenignLikely benign1
11c.6841+53delTATTCAGTAG---IVS13: 32915384-32915394------------Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing.NDNDNDNDUncertain Significance1
11c.6841+80delTTAA--IVS11+80delTTAAIVS13: 32915411-32915414rs115716610.26578 (AA)-----0.279605----Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign7
14c.7017G>Cp.Lys2339AsnK2339N7245 G>CM13: 32929007rs455743310.00679 (C)0,002280,006790,008080,007640,007860.006568Damaging (0.01)Benign (0.105)NeutralClass C0No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND2-Likely NeutralBenignBenign1
14c.7242A>Gp.Ser2414=S2114=7470A>GSyn13: 32929232rs17999550.23263 (G)-0,232630,21136-0,224640.238095--Neutral-No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign19
14c.7319A>Gp.His2440ArgH2440R7547A>GM13: 32929309rs49868600.01038 (G)0,003040,010380,010540,009460,009670.007389Tolerated (0.55)Benign (0.002)NeutralClass C0NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
14c.7397T>Cp.Ala2466ValA2466V-M13: 32929387rs1695470.02416 (T)0,993720.975840,97770,978810,981910.983580Tolerated (0.98)Possibly Damaging (0.793)NeutralClass C0NDNDND1-NeutralBenignBenign50
14c.7435+53C>T--IVS14+53C>TIVS13: 32929478rs111474890.07248 (T)-0,07248-0,03010,03924-----Creation of an intronic ESE site.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
15c.7469T>Cp.Ile2490ThrI2490T7697T>CM13: 32930598rs115717070.01597 (C)0,014360.015970,001610,00350,009130.021346Tolerated (1.00)Benign (0.010)NeutralClass C45No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
17c.7806-14T>C--IVS16-14T>CIVS13: 32936646rs95342620.46845 (T)0,520830,531550,520150,546790,531510.523810----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND3-UVBenignLikely benign36
19c.8460A>Cp.Val2820=V2820=8688A>CSyn13: 32944667rs95909400.01438 (C)0,003680,014380,012990,011050,012190.006568--Neutral-No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
19c.8487+47C>T--IVS19+47C>TIVS13: 32944741rs115717440.01617 (T)-0,016170,01523-0,014810.006568----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND3-UVBenignBenign3
20c.8632+132dup--c.IVS20+132insCIVS13: 32945368-32945369rs2013921230.00899 (CC)-0.00899-0,006190,007540.002627----NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign2
21c.8755-66T>C--IVS21-66T>CIVS13: 32953388rs49424860.48842 (T)-0,51158-0,525690,510370.508210----Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign38
22c.8851G>Ap.Ala2951ThrA2951T9079G>AM13: 32953550rs115717690.00998 (A)0,007850.009980,004380,003630,007210.013136Damaging (0.00)Probably Damaging (1.00)NeutralClass C55No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
22c.8942A>Gp.Glu2981GlyE2981G9170A>GM13: 32953641rs398122716-0,00001--0,000020,00001-Tolerated (0.16)Benign (0.030)NeutralClass C65NDNDND3-UVConflicting interpretations of pathogenicity? Likely benign(1);Uncertain significance(3)Uncertain significance1
23c.9038C>Tp.Thr3013IleT3013I-M13: 32953971rs28897755-0,00023-0,000460,000190,0002-Tolerated (0.24)Probably Damaging (0.875)NeutralClass C0NDBenign / Little Clinical Significance1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign1
24c.9257-83G>A--IVS24-83G>AIVS13: 32968743rs95954560.05052 (A)-0,05052-0,041160.045750.022989----Creation of an intronic ESE site.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign4
24c.9257-16T>C--IVS24-16T>CIVS13: 32968810rs115718180.00439 (C)0,004390,007650,005920,005480,005480.004926----No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing.NDND3-UVBenignLikely benign1
27c.9730G>Ap.Val3244IleV3244I9958 G>AM13: 32972380rs115718310.00679 (A)--0,00830,007670,00787-Tolerated (0.49)Benign (0.000)NeutralClass C0NDBenign / Little Clinical SignificanceND2-Likely NeutralBenignBenign1
27c.9976A>Tp.Lys3326TerK3326X10204A>TN13: 32972626rs115718330.00439 (T)0,007020,004390.006460,005440,005470.004926----Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical Significance2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance1-NeutralBenignBenign1
27c.10110G>Ap.Arg3370=R3370=-Syn13: 32972760rs288977620.00080 (A)0,001470,00080,002150,00140,001310.000821--Neutral-Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign1
27c.10234A>Gp.Ile3412ValI3412V10462 A>GM13: 32972884rs18014260.04493 (G)0,022660,044930,037290,03690,040540.021346Tolerrated (0.34)Benign (0.002)NeutralClass C0Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.Benign / Little Clinical SignificanceND1-NeutralBenignBenign4

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; MAF: Minor allele frequency; EXAC: Exome Aggregation Consortium; ESP: NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project Exome Variant Server; gnomAD: The Genome Aggregation Database; TOPMed: Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine; ABraOM: Brazilian genomic variants; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; IVS: Intervening sequence; M: Missense; SS: Splice site; ND: Not determined; n: Number of patients bearing the variant

Mutations in BRCA1 comprised one splice-site variant (c.5074+2T>C, in exon 17), one missense mutation (c.5123C>A), and one BRCA1 rearrangement generating a large deletion encompassing exons 1-19. The two pathogenic mutations in BRCA2 included one missense variant (c.2T>G) and one nonsense variant (c.5645C>A) (Table 2). The presence of CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation was investigated in 47 out of the 49 patients; however, no mutations were detected. Eight VUS were detected, five in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2. Among the VUS, four distinct missense variants were identified, two in each gene (BRCA1: c.3305A>G and c.3752G>A; BRCA2: c.3371A>G and c.8942A>G), among which BRCA2 c.3371A>G was predicted to be deleterious by at least three out of four mutation function prediction models (SIFT, Polyphen-2, Align-GVGD, or Provean) (Table 3). The remaining VUS were located in the intronic regions, at least 36 nucleotides away from the intron-exon boundary.
Table 3

In silico analysis of VUS identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using mutation function prediction models.

GeneHDVS cDNAHGVS proteinSIFTPolyPhenAlign-GVGDProveanHuman Splicing FinderID
BRCA1 c.3305A>Gp.Asn1102SerToleratedBenignClass C0DeleteriousCreation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing.49
c.3752G>Ap.Cys1251TyrToleratedBenignClass C0NeutralAlteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.48
BRCA2 c.3371A>Gp.Gln1124ArgDamagingProbably DamagingClass C35DeleteriousActivation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Potential alteration of splicing.24
c.8942A>Gp.Glu2981GlyToleratedBenignClass C65NeutralND12

Presence of Somatic Mutations in PIK3CA in Postmenopausal and Young Patients

Tumor sequencing was performed on samples from 27 elderly patients to identify PIK3CA mutations. Fourteen tumors (51.8%) were found to harbor mutations in exons 9 or 20; however, only ten (37%) harbored meaningful deleterious or possibly deleterious variants (pathogenic in at least one out of four function prediction tests). Recurrent mutations were E545A (observed in four samples) and H1047L (in the other two samples). Among these 27 elderly patients, two were BRCA1 mutation carriers, both of whom harbored somatic pathogenic (E545A) or possibly pathogenic PIK3CA mutations (Additional Table 4).
Additional Table 4

In silico analysis of the alterations in exons 9 and 20 of PIK3CA in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

Sample IDAge at diagnosisMolecular SubtypeExonCdnaProteinProteinMutation TypeID COSMICPolyphenSIFTProveanAlign-GVGD
171Luminal B9c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
366Luminal B9c.1639G>Cp.Glu547GlnE547QM-Probably DamagingDamagingNeutralClass C25
861Luminal B20c.3075C>Tp.Thr1025=T1025TSynCOSM21451-ToleratedNeutral-
c.3140A>Tp.His1047LeuH1047LMCOSM776BenignDamagingNeutralClass C65
973Luminal A9c.1629C>Tp.Ile543=I543ISynCOSM5020257-ToleratedNeutral-
1057Luminal A9c.1549C>Tp.Leu517=L517LSyn--ToleratedNeutral-
17*56Luminal B9c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
2167Luminal B9c.1550T>Cp.Leu517ProL517PM-BenignDamagingNeutralClass C65
2362Luminal B20c.3140A>Tp.His1047LeuH1047LMCOSM776BenignDamagingNeutralClass C65
2660Luminal B9c.1547G>Ap.Arg516LysR516KMCOSM3724545BenignToleratedNeutralClass C25
20c.3170G>Ap.Trp1057*W1057XNCOSM6475611----
3256Luminal A20c.3098A>GGln1033ArgQ1033RMCOSM303947Possible DamagingDamagingNeutralClass C35
3663Luminal A9c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
c.1658_1659delGTinsCp.Ser553Thrfs*7S553fsF-----
3963Luminal A9c.1638G>Ap.Gln546=Q546QSynCOSM5622324-ToleratdNeutral-
c.1664+46G>A--IVS-----
20c.3102G>Ap.Glu1034=E1034ESyn--ToleratedNeutral-
4655HER29c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
c.1651C>Tp.Leu551=L551LSynCOSM308546-ToleratedNeutral-
c.1658_1659delGTinsCp.Ser553Thrfs*7S553fsF-----
47*58TN9c.1622C>Tp.Ser541PheS541FMCOSM6438100Possible DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
20c.3110A>Tp.Glu1037ValE1037VM-BenignDamagingDeleteriousClass C65

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; IVS: Intervening Sequence; M: Missense; N: Nonsense. *Patients also harboring pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1.

Another three tumors (11.1%), all luminal A subtypes, harbored synonymous variants (in one case, associated with an intronic variant) (sample 39). In addition, tumors from another six patients harbored multiple PIK3CA variants; however, two tumors harbored (samples 26 and 39) a combination of non-pathogenic variants represented by missense non-pathogenic and nonsense variants (sample 26) or a combination of a deep intronic and two synonymous variants (sample 39). In the third tumor, PIK3CA double mutation (sample 47) (S541P and E1037V) was considered pathogenic in at least three function prediction tests, even though none of them were located in a hotspot. In the fourth and fifth tumors (samples 36 and 46), the contribution of the mutations were difficult to define because the PIK3CA pathogenic missense variant (E545A) was accompanied by a frameshift (FS) mutation (S553FS). If it occurs in cis, FS S553FS might counteract the oncogenic potential of E545A. The sixth tumor (sample 8) harbored a pathogenic hotspot (H1047L) and a synonymous variant (Additional Table 4). In a cohort of young patients, PIK3CA variants were observed in 12 tumors, including synonymous variants—detected in two tumors (one luminal B, sample 484, and one HER2+ sample 503)—and missense non-pathogenic variants detected in another two samples (samples 455 and 478). In addition, a nonsense variant, W552* was detected in a luminal A tumor (sample 468). Hence, pathogenic or possibly pathogenic PIK3CA mutations were detected in seven out of forty-one young patients (17.1%) (Additional Table 5).
Additional Table 5

In silico analysis of the alterations in exons 9 and 20 of PIK3CAin young patients with breast cancer.

Sample IDAge at diagnosisMolecular SubtypeExoncDNAProteinp.Asn1044AspMutation TypeID COSMICPolyphenSIFTProveanAlign-GVGD
45234Luminal B20c.3130A>Gp.Asn1044AspN1044DMCOSM27134Probably DamagingToleratedNeutralClass C15
45434Luminal20c.3146G>Ap.Gly1049AspG1049DMCOSM308548Probably DamagingToleratedNeutralClass C65
45528Luminal B9c.1558G>Ap.Asp520AsnD520NMCOSM29096BenignToleratedNeutralClass C15
45733Luminal B9c.1615C>Tp.Pro539SerP539SMCOSM249880Probably DamagingToleratedDeleteriousClass C65
c.1664G>Ap.Arg555LysR555KMCOSM1716158Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C25
46833Luminal A9c.1656G>Ap.Trp552*W552XNCOSM37025----
47727TN9c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
47829HER220c.3165G>Ap.Met1055IleM1055IMCOSM9146166BenignToleratedNeutralClass C0
c.3201G>Ap. Leu1067=L1067LSyn--ToleratedNeutral-
48031TN9c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
20c.3203A>Cp.Asn1068ThrN1068TM-Probably DamagingDamagingNeutralClass C55
48335Luminal B9c.1634A>Cp.Glu545AlaE545AMCOSM12458Probably DamagingDamagingDeleteriousClass C65
48435Luminal B9c.1593C>Ap.Leu531=L531LSyn--ToleratedNeutral-
50335HER220c.3150C>Tp.Gly1050=G1050GSyn--ToleratedNeutral-
51831Luminal B9c.1615C>Tp.Pro539SerP539SMCOSM249880Probably DamagingToleratedDeleteriousClass C65

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; M: Missense; N: Nonsense.

Among the young patients, E545A was the most frequent mutation (detected in three different samples, one luminal B and two triple-negative tumors). In one of these triple-negative tumors, E545A occurred concomitantly with N1068T, another pathogenic variant. The variant P539S, considered pathogenic in the prediction models, was detected in two luminal B samples, in one of these cases, in combination with R555K, which is also a pathogenic variant. We then compared frequency of pathogenic PIK3CA mutation in tumors from postmenopausal and young patients (37% vs. 17%); however, we could not find a significant difference (Table 4). Using our data with a sample size of 27 postmenopausal and 41 young women and the reported frequency of PIK3CA mutation, the power to detect a difference with a one-sided significance level of 0.05% was 58.51%. The frequency of PIK3CA is enriched in ER-positive tumors, and in a previous study we detected a trend toward a higher frequency of PIK3CA mutations in ER-positive tumor from elderly women compared to that observed in younger women (7). Upon considering the characteristics of the patients in the present series, we observed differences between the two groups, reflecting a higher proportion of luminal tumors in postmenopausal women. We then analyzed the frequency of PIK3CA mutations in luminal tumors and observed that eight out of the twenty-four samples (33.3%) from postmenopausal patients and five out of the twenty-five samples (20%) from young patients harbored pathogenic PIK3CA mutations (Table 4; p=0.291). A future meta-analysis including more recent data may help to clarify this aspect. We next considered a total of 68 patients, postmenopausal as well as young, who were tested for the presence of germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 and somatic mutations in PIK3CA. Upon simultaneously considering patients from both age groups, two out of eight germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutant carriers (25%) were also found to harbor somatic mutations in PIK3CA. Among the 60 patients who were BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type, 15 manifested tumors harboring PIK3CA mutations (25%).

DISCUSSION

In this cohort of postmenopausal breast cancer patients, 10.2% harbored pathogenic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 variants; 11.7% of these patients had at least one family member who was affected with breast, ovarian, prostate, or pancreatic cancer. Age at the onset of breast cancer and a family history of breast and ovarian cancer are important factors associated with the frequency of germline BRCA mutations (29). For elderly patients who were not selected for a family history of cancer, the frequency of BRCA mutations tended to be relatively low. Accordingly, a recent nested case-control study conducted in the USA revealed that only 1.18% of the unselected postmenopausal breast cancer patients were BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers (27). In a large cohort comprising 1554 Brazilian breast cancer patients referred for genetic testing at a single clinical diagnostic laboratory in Brazil, 9.84% were found to be BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers independent of age (30). Higher BRCA mutation frequencies (varying from 15% to 22%) have been reported among young Brazilian breast cancer patients with ages up to 35 years (22,31,30). However, specifically for postmenopausal Brazilian patients with breast cancer, little data are available. Our study indicates that 10.6% of the breast cancer patients with at least one close relative affected by the disease (until third degree) harbor germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. A previous study evaluated 39 breast cancer patients aged more than 50 years, among whom 17.9% were BRCA mutation carriers (32). These latter patients reported a strong family history based on the early age of cancer onset or multiple relatives with breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer at any age, which may explain the higher BRCA mutation frequency. An important issue to take into consideration is the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic program for germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 genes and preventative strategies for relatives of patients diagnosed with the mutation. In the scenario of Brazilian ovarian cancer patients, for whom BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation frequency is 20%, performing genetic testing and adopting prophylactic measures for family members was considered a cost-effective measure (33). In a more inclusive model, BRCA testing may be offered to women of the general population to avoid missing mutation carriers, owing to test indications based on clinical criteria and family history. In this context, population-based BRCA testing was estimated to be cost-effective for the Brazilian population and to prevent a large number of breast and ovarian cancer cases (34). Although direct studies for postmenopausal Brazilian breast cancer patients are necessary, the previous two studies might suggest that genetic testing may be valuable for these women in the context of a positive family history. The variants detected in the present study were not among the most frequent mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Brazilian patients with breast cancer. Variants BRCA1 c.5074+2T>C, BRCA1 c.5123C>A, and BRCA2 c.2T>G respectively represent 2.2%, 0.5%, and 1.2% of the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations previously reported (28). The other two BRCA mutations, BRCA1 large rearrangement (del exons 1-19) and BRCA2 c.5645C>A, have not been previously reported in the Brazilian population. The variant, BRCA2 c.5645C>A has been reported in breast cancer patients from Japan, China, and the Czech Republic (35,36,37), and in prostate cancer patients (38). Interestingly, our patient who harbored this variant was also born in Japan. Somatic mutations in PIK3CA gene are the second most common mutations in breast cancer, just after TP53 (7). The PIK3CA mutation hotspots were clustered in exon 9 in nucleotides corresponding to codons E542K and E545K (helical domain) and in exon 20 in nucleotides corresponding to codon H1047R (kinase domain) (39,40). In the present series, the most frequent mutation in PIK3CA in tumors from both postmenopausal and young patients was E545A, a variant with intermediate oncogenic potency, located in the helical domain (39). In agreement with our data, studies on breast cancer patients from Singapore and Peru have also found E545A to be the most frequent PIK3CA variant in tumor samples (41,42). Nevertheless, a method was developed to specifically enhance the detection of E454A (43). In contrast, data from another cohort of Brazilian patients with sporadic breast cancer have reported that the most frequent PIK3CA hotspot mutations were E542K, E545K, and H1047R (13). The second most commonly found mutations in elderly patients were H1047L and S553FS. H1047L is located in the kinase domain and is associated with high oncogenic potential (39). Further, the frameshift mutation S553FS might counteract the proto-oncogene potential of PIK3CA. In addition, nonsense mutations were detected in tumors from both elderly and young patients, which might also neutralize the proto-oncogenic activity of PIK3CA. However, another study has specified that nonsense mutations in PIK3CA are not frequently encountered (44). Six tumors were found to harbor double or triple PIK3CA variants (four from elderly patients and two from young patients). It has been previously shown that approximately 13% of all the PIK3CA mutations correspond to multiple variants occurring in the same tumor. It has also been reported that most double mutations occur in cis and induce the activation of the downstream PI3K pathway (compared to single-hotspot mutants) (40). However, in the present study, among the four tumors in elderly patients harboring double or triple variants, only one might be deleterious, involving a combination of S541P and E1037V. In the other three tumors, concomitant variants included nonsense, frameshift, synonymous, and intronic variants, in addition to missense variants with pathogenic or non-pathogenic potential. The determination of whether these variants were in cis might have helped to determine the oncogenic potential of the combinations because if a driver mutation occurred in trans, the effect of the driver mutation might have prevailed. In the present cohort of patients, somatic mutations in PIK3CA were detected in 25% of the patients harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (two of the eight postmenopausal patients were analyzed for the presence of both gene mutations). This finding may be attributed to the small sample size. In other studies, the frequency of the combination of both mutations appeared to be less than that of individual mutations. In Chinese breast cancer patients, PIK3CA somatic mutations were detected in 14% and 43% of the patients harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (vs. wild type carriers), respectively (18). PIK3CA somatic mutations were not detected in male patients with breast cancer who harbored BRCA2 mutations (19). Although we were not able to identify any associations between the germline BRCA and somatic PIK3CA mutations because of the small number of patients involved in this study, this is an intriguing situation involving two genes that are treatment targets; therefore, this information may be aggregated in future studies. The limitations of our study are the small sample size and the sequencing of hotspots (but not all exons of PIK3CA), which may have resulted in the underestimation of the mutation frequency. The strengths of this study are the combined analysis of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 and somatic PIK3CA mutations in a group of postmenopausal and young patients with breast cancer. In conclusion, the present data indicate that BRCA1/BRCA2 sequencing may be considered for postmenopausal breast cancer patients having a family history of cancer. In addition, although the frequency of PIK3CA variants in exons 9 and 20 is high in both elderly and young patients, some of these variants may not be pathogenic in the context of breast cancer.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Nagy TR conceived the study, enrolled patients, collected clinical data, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, analyzed and interpreted the mutational data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Maistro S conceived the study, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, analyzed the mutational data, interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Encinas G conceived the study, performed the experiments, analyzed the mutational data, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Katayama MLH performed the experiments, analyzed the data, analyzed the mutational data, interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Pereira GFL analyzed and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Gaburo-Júnior N and Franco LAM performed the experiments and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Gouvêa ACRC, Leite LAS and Diz MPE enrolled the patients, collected the clinical data, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Folgueira MAAK conceived the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.
  58 in total

1.  Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions.

Authors:  P C Ng; S Henikoff
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Prevalence of Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Susceptibility Genes Among Women With Postmenopausal Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Ryan Bernhisel; Katie Larson; Jennifer L Caswell-Jin; Aladdin H Shadyab; Heather Ochs-Balcom; Marcia L Stefanick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  The cancer genome.

Authors:  Michael R Stratton; Peter J Campbell; P Andrew Futreal
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Somatic mutations in breast and serous ovarian cancer young patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Giselly Encinas; Simone Maistro; Fátima Solange Pasini; Maria Lucia Hirata Katayama; Maria Mitzi Brentani; Geertruida Hendrika de Bock; Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira
Journal:  Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992)       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.209

5.  Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels.

Authors:  Yongwook Choi; Gregory E Sims; Sean Murphy; Jason R Miller; Agnes P Chan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in epithelial ovarian cancer patients in Brazil.

Authors:  Simone Maistro; Natalia Teixeira; Giselly Encinas; Maria Lucia Hirata Katayama; Vivian Dionisio Tavares Niewiadonski; Larissa Garcia Cabral; Roberto Marques Ribeiro; Nelson Gaburo Junior; Ana Carolina Ribeiro Chaves de Gouvêa; Dirce Maria Carraro; Ester Cerdeira Sabino; Maria Del Pilar Estevez Diz; Roger Chammas; Geertruida Hendrika de Bock; Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-12-03       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans.

Authors:  Monkol Lek; Konrad J Karczewski; Eric V Minikel; Kaitlin E Samocha; Eric Banks; Timothy Fennell; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; James S Ware; Andrew J Hill; Beryl B Cummings; Taru Tukiainen; Daniel P Birnbaum; Jack A Kosmicki; Laramie E Duncan; Karol Estrada; Fengmei Zhao; James Zou; Emma Pierce-Hoffman; Joanne Berghout; David N Cooper; Nicole Deflaux; Mark DePristo; Ron Do; Jason Flannick; Menachem Fromer; Laura Gauthier; Jackie Goldstein; Namrata Gupta; Daniel Howrigan; Adam Kiezun; Mitja I Kurki; Ami Levy Moonshine; Pradeep Natarajan; Lorena Orozco; Gina M Peloso; Ryan Poplin; Manuel A Rivas; Valentin Ruano-Rubio; Samuel A Rose; Douglas M Ruderfer; Khalid Shakir; Peter D Stenson; Christine Stevens; Brett P Thomas; Grace Tiao; Maria T Tusie-Luna; Ben Weisburd; Hong-Hee Won; Dongmei Yu; David M Altshuler; Diego Ardissino; Michael Boehnke; John Danesh; Stacey Donnelly; Roberto Elosua; Jose C Florez; Stacey B Gabriel; Gad Getz; Stephen J Glatt; Christina M Hultman; Sekar Kathiresan; Markku Laakso; Steven McCarroll; Mark I McCarthy; Dermot McGovern; Ruth McPherson; Benjamin M Neale; Aarno Palotie; Shaun M Purcell; Danish Saleheen; Jeremiah M Scharf; Pamela Sklar; Patrick F Sullivan; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Ming T Tsuang; Hugh C Watkins; James G Wilson; Mark J Daly; Daniel G MacArthur
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods.

Authors:  Ewy Mathe; Magali Olivier; Shunsuke Kato; Chikashi Ishioka; Pierre Hainaut; Sean V Tavtigian
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2006-03-06       Impact factor: 16.971

9.  ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype.

Authors:  Melissa J Landrum; Jennifer M Lee; George R Riley; Wonhee Jang; Wendy S Rubinstein; Deanna M Church; Donna R Maglott
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-11-14       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  The sensitivity and efficacy method of PIK3CA exon 9 E545A as a high diagnostic accuracy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Fuad Al-Ahwani
Journal:  J Genet Eng Biotechnol       Date:  2017-10-26
View more
  1 in total

1.  Detection of germline variants in Brazilian breast cancer patients using multigene panel testing.

Authors:  Rodrigo Santa Cruz Guindalini; Danilo Vilela Viana; João Paulo Fumio Whitaker Kitajima; Vinícius Marques Rocha; Rossana Verónica Mendoza López; Yonglan Zheng; Érika Freitas; Fabiola Paoli Mendes Monteiro; André Valim; David Schlesinger; Fernando Kok; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 4.379

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.