Genetic testing of cancer susceptibility genes is now widely applied in clinical practice to predict risk of developing cancer. In general, sequence‐based testing of germline DNA is used to determine whether an individual carries a change that is clearly likely to disrupt normal gene function. Genetic testing may detect changes that are clearly pathogenic, clearly neutral, or variants of unclear clinical significance. Such variants present a considerable challenge to the diagnostic laboratory and the receiving clinician in terms of interpretation and clear presentation of the implications of the result to the patient. There does not appear to be a consistent approach to interpreting and reporting the clinical significance of variants either among genes or among laboratories. The potential for confusion among clinicians and patients is considerable and misinterpretation may lead to inappropriate clinical consequences. In this article we review the current state of sequence‐based genetic testing, describe other standardized reporting systems used in oncology, and propose a standardized classification system for application to sequence‐based results for cancer predisposition genes. We suggest a system of five classes of variants based on the degree of likelihood of pathogenicity. Each class is associated with specific recommendations for clinical management of at‐risk relatives that will depend on the syndrome. We propose that panels of experts on each cancer predisposition syndrome facilitate the classification scheme and designate appropriate surveillance and cancer management guidelines. The international adoption of a standardized reporting system should improve the clinical utility of sequence‐based genetic tests to predict cancer risk. Hum Mutat 29(11), 1282–1291, 2008.

Purpose: Endometrial cancers have long been divided into estrogen-dependent type I and the less common clinically aggressive estrogen-independent type II. Little is known about risk factors for type II tumors because most studies lack sufficient cases to study these much less common tumors separately. We examined whether so-called classical endometrial cancer risk factors also influence the risk of type II tumors. Patients and Methods: Individual-level data from 10 cohort and 14 case-control studies from the Epidemiology of Endometrial Cancer Consortium were pooled. A total of 14,069 endometrial cancer cases and 35,312 controls were included. We classified endometrioid (n = 7,246), adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified (n = 4,830), and adenocarcinoma with squamous differentiation (n = 777) as type I tumors and serous (n = 508) and mixed cell (n = 346) as type II tumors. Results: Parity, oral contraceptive use, cigarette smoking, age at menarche, and diabetes were associated with type I and type II tumors to similar extents. Body mass index, however, had a greater effect on type I tumors than on type II tumors: odds ratio (OR) per 2 kg/m² increase was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.21) for type I and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.14) for type II tumors (P_{heterogeneity} < .0001). Risk factor patterns for high-grade endometrioid tumors and type II tumors were similar. Conclusion: The results of this pooled analysis suggest that the two endometrial cancer types share many common etiologic factors. The etiology of type II tumors may, therefore, not be completely estrogen independent, as previously believed.

Background: Previously, small studies have found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast tumors differ in their pathology. Analysis of larger datasets of mutation carriers should allow further tumor characterization. Methods: We used data from 4,325 BRCA1 and 2,568 BRCA2 mutation carriers to analyze the pathology of invasive breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancers. Results: There was strong evidence that the proportion of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast tumors decreased with age at diagnosis among BRCA1 (P-trend = 1.2 × 10⁻⁵), but increased with age at diagnosis among BRCA2, carriers (P-trend = 6.8 × 10⁻⁶). The proportion of triple-negative tumors decreased with age at diagnosis in BRCA1 carriers but increased with age at diagnosis of BRCA2 carriers. In both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, ER-negative tumors were of higher histologic grade than ER-positive tumors (grade 3 vs. grade 1; P = 1.2 × 10⁻¹³ for BRCA1 and P = 0.001 for BRCA2). ER and progesterone receptor (PR) expression were independently associated with mutation carrier status [ER-positive odds ratio (OR) for BRCA2 = 9.4, 95% CI: 7.0–12.6 and PR-positive OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.3, under joint analysis]. Lobular tumors were more likely to be BRCA2-related (OR for BRCA2 = 3.3, 95% CI: 2.4–4.4; P = 4.4 × 10⁻¹⁴), and medullary tumors BRCA1-related (OR for BRCA2 = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.18–0.35; P = 2.3 × 10⁻¹⁵). ER-status of the first breast cancer was predictive of ER-status of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer (P = 0.0004 for BRCA1; P = 0.002 for BRCA2). There were no significant differences in ovarian cancer morphology between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (serous: 67%; mucinous: 1%; endometrioid: 12%; clear-cell: 2%). Conclusions/Impact: Pathologic characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors may be useful for improving risk-prediction algorithms and informing clinical strategies for screening and prophylaxis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(1); 134–47. ©2011 AACR.

Previous studies have suggested that breast cancer risk factors are associated with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression status of the tumors. We pooled tumor marker and epidemiological risk factor data from 35,568 invasive breast cancer case patients from 34 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Logistic regression models were used in case-case analyses to estimate associations between epidemiological risk factors and tumor subtypes, and case-control analyses to estimate associations between epidemiological risk factors and the risk of developing specific tumor subtypes in 12 population-based studies. All statistical tests were two-sided. In case-case analyses, of the epidemiological risk factors examined, early age at menarche (≤12 years) was less frequent in case patients with PR(-) than PR(+) tumors (P = .001). Nulliparity (P = 3 × 10(-6)) and increasing age at first birth (P = 2 × 10(-9)) were less frequent in ER(-) than in ER(+) tumors. Obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) in younger women (≤50 years) was more frequent in ER(-)/PR(-) than in ER(+)/PR(+) tumors (P = 1 × 10(-7)), whereas obesity in older women (>50 years) was less frequent in PR(-) than in PR(+) tumors (P = 6 × 10(-4)). The triple-negative (ER(-)/PR(-)/HER2(-)) or core basal phenotype (CBP; triple-negative and cytokeratins [CK]5/6(+) and/or epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR](+)) accounted for much of the heterogeneity in parity-related variables and BMI in younger women. Case-control analyses showed that nulliparity, increasing age at first birth, and obesity in younger women showed the expected associations with the risk of ER(+) or PR(+) tumors but not triple-negative (nulliparity vs parity, odds ratio [OR] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.19, P = .61; 5-year increase in age at first full-term birth, OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.05, P = .34; obesity in younger women, OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.94, P = .09) or CBP tumors. This study shows that reproductive factors and BMI are most clearly associated with hormone receptor-positive tumors and suggest that triple-negative or CBP tumors may have distinct etiology.