PURPOSE: To provide precise age-specific risk estimates of cancers other than female breast and ovarian cancers associated with pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for effective cancer risk management. METHODS: We used data from 3,184 BRCA1 and 2,157 BRCA2 families in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 to estimate age-specific relative (RR) and absolute risks for 22 first primary cancer types adjusting for family ascertainment. RESULTS: BRCA1 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 4.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 16.96), pancreatic (RR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.68), and stomach (RR = 2.17; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.77) cancers. Associations with colorectal and gallbladder cancers were also suggested. BRCA2 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 44.0; 95% CI, 21.3 to 90.9), stomach (RR = 3.69; 95% CI, 2.40 to 5.67), pancreatic (RR = 3.34; 95% CI, 2.21 to 5.06), and prostate (RR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.63 to 3.03) cancers. The stomach cancer RR was higher for females than males (6.89 v 2.76; P = .04). The absolute risks to age 80 years ranged from 0.4% for male breast cancer to approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer for BRCA1 carriers and from approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer to 27% for prostate cancer for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION: In addition to female breast and ovarian cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are associated with increased risks of male breast, pancreatic, stomach, and prostate (only BRCA2 PVs) cancers, but not with the risks of other previously suggested cancers. The estimated age-specific risks will refine cancer risk management in men and women with BRCA1/2 PVs.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 170 breast cancer susceptibility loci. Here we hypothesize that some risk-associated variants might act in non-breast tissues, specifically adipose tissue and immune cells from blood and spleen. Using expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) reported in these tissues, we identify 26 previously unreported, likely target genes of overall breast cancer risk variants, and 17 for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, several with a known immune function. We determine the directional effect of gene expression on disease risk measured based on single and multiple eQTL. In addition, using a gene-based test of association that considers eQTL from multiple tissues, we identify seven (and four) regions with variants associated with overall (and ER-negative) breast cancer risk, which were not reported in previous GWAS. Further investigation of the function of the implicated genes in breast and immune cells may provide insights into the etiology of breast cancer.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, “select and shrink for summary statistics” (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestries; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestries; 1,072 women of African ancestries, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestries. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28–1.48, AUC: 0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestries; 1.14 (95% CI: 1.08–1.19, AUC: 0.538) in women of East Asian ancestries; 1.38 (95% CI: 1.21–1.58, AUC: 0.593) in women of African ancestries; hazard ratios of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29–1.43, AUC: 0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.35–1.64, AUC: 0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs.

Breast cancer (BC) risk forBRCA1andBRCA2mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases withBRCA1orBRCA2mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC forBRCA1and 3 forBRCA2mutation carriers,P < 10⁻⁸, at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 whereMADD,SP11andEIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores forBRCA1andBRCA2mutation carriers.

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) serves as a valuable biomarker for early disease detection and monitoring. However, the use of cfDNA for analysis faces challenges owing to general low but variable abundance and fragmentation. Preanalytical factors, including cfDNA extraction, impact cfDNA quality and quantity. Efficient and robust cfDNA extraction is essential for reliable results in downstream applications, and various commercial extraction methods exist, each with trade-offs. To aid researchers and clinicians in choosing the proper cfDNA extraction method, manual, semiautomated, and automated methods were evaluated, including the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (manual and QIAcube), QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube), and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony). For each extraction method, cfDNA was extracted on two separate days, using samples obtained from 18 healthy donors. This study assessed extraction efficiency, quantity, and quality using droplet digital PCR and TapeStation. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, both manual and semiautomated, outperformed the QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube) and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony), showing higher recovery rates and cfDNA quantity. All methods were reproducible, with no day-to-day variability and no contamination by high-molecular-weight DNA. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit offers high yield without compromising quality. Implementation of the method should consider specific study and clinical needs, taking into account each method's advantages and limitations for optimal outcomes.