A transposon mutagenesis screen indicates that loss of 53BP1 expression rescues the clonal growth defect of BRCA1 null cells. 53BP1 deficiency is shown to abrogate the cell cycle arrest triggered in the absence of BRCA1 and to partially restore homologous recombination. The potential clinical implications of these findings are supported by the reduction of 53BP1 expression in sporadic triple-negative and BRCA-associated breast cancers. Germ-line mutations in breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) result in predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. BRCA1-mutated tumors show genomic instability, mainly as a consequence of impaired recombinatorial DNA repair. Here we identify p53-binding protein 1 (53BP1) as an essential factor for sustaining the growth arrest induced by Brca1 deletion. Depletion of 53BP1 abrogates the ATM-dependent checkpoint response and G2 cell-cycle arrest triggered by the accumulation of DNA breaks in Brca1-deleted cells. This effect of 53BP1 is specific to BRCA1 function, as 53BP1 depletion did not alleviate proliferation arrest or checkpoint responses in Brca2-deleted cells. Notably, loss of 53BP1 partially restores the homologous-recombination defect of Brca1-deleted cells and reverts their hypersensitivity to DNA-damaging agents. We find reduced 53BP1 expression in subsets of sporadic triple-negative and BRCA-associated breast cancers, indicating the potential clinical implications of our findings.

To the Editor: We read the article by Antoniou et al. (August 7 issue)¹ because we like to know the penetrance of breast-cancer genes before we recommend surgery. After reading the article, we are unsure of what to tell patients. The simplest message would be that the risk up to 70 years of age is 35%, but this is based on an analysis of patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 1930 to the present. The relevant risk value is that for a woman without breast cancer who is found to have a PALB2 mutation today. Most patients . . .

Immunohistochemical markers are often used to classify breast cancer into subtypes that are biologically distinct and behave differently. The aim of this study was to estimate mortality for patients with the major subtypes of breast cancer as classified using five immunohistochemical markers, to investigate patterns of mortality over time, and to test for heterogeneity by subtype. We pooled data from more than 10,000 cases of invasive breast cancer from 12 studies that had collected information on hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, and at least one basal marker (cytokeratin [CK]5/6 or epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]) together with survival time data. Tumours were classified as luminal and nonluminal tumours according to hormone receptor expression. These two groups were further subdivided according to expression of HER2, and finally, the luminal and nonluminal HER2-negative tumours were categorised according to expression of basal markers. Changes in mortality rates over time differed by subtype. In women with luminal HER2-negative subtypes, mortality rates were constant over time, whereas mortality rates associated with the luminal HER2-positive and nonluminal subtypes tended to peak within 5 y of diagnosis and then decline over time. In the first 5 y after diagnosis the nonluminal tumours were associated with a poorer prognosis, but over longer follow-up times the prognosis was poorer in the luminal subtypes, with the worst prognosis at 15 y being in the luminal HER2-positive tumours. Basal marker expression distinguished the HER2-negative luminal and nonluminal tumours into different subtypes. These patterns were independent of any systemic adjuvant therapy. The six subtypes of breast cancer defined by expression of five markers show distinct behaviours with important differences in short term and long term prognosis. Application of these markers in the clinical setting could have the potential to improve the targeting of adjuvant chemotherapy to those most likely to benefit. The different patterns of mortality over time also suggest important biological differences between the subtypes that may result in differences in response to specific therapies, and that stratification of breast cancers by clinically relevant subtypes in clinical trials is urgently required. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary