The prevalence of germ line mutations in non‐BRCA1/2 genes associated with hereditary breast cancer (BC) is low, and the role of some of these genes in BC predisposition and pathogenesis is conflicting. In this study, 5589 consecutive BC index patients negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations and 2189 female controls were screened for germ line mutations in eight cancer predisposition genes (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53). All patients met the inclusion criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for germ line testing. The highest mutation prevalence was observed in the CHEK2 gene (2.5%), followed by ATM (1.5%) and PALB2 (1.2%). The mutation prevalence in each of the remaining genes was 0.3% or lower. Using Exome Aggregation Consortium control data, we confirm significant associations of heterozygous germ line mutations with BC for ATM (OR: 3.63, 95%CI: 2.67–4.94), CDH1 (OR: 17.04, 95%CI: 3.54–82), CHEK2 (OR: 2.93, 95%CI: 2.29–3.75), PALB2 (OR: 9.53, 95%CI: 6.25–14.51), and TP53 (OR: 7.30, 95%CI: 1.22–43.68). NBN germ line mutations were not significantly associated with BC risk (OR:1.39, 95%CI: 0.73–2.64). Due to their low mutation prevalence, the RAD51C and RAD51D genes require further investigation. Compared with control datasets, predicted damaging rare missense variants were significantly more prevalent in CHEK2 and TP53 in BC index patients. Compared with the overall sample, only TP53 mutation carriers show a significantly younger age at first BC diagnosis. We demonstrate a significant association of deleterious variants in the CHEK2, PALB2, and TP53 genes with bilateral BC. Both, ATM and CHEK2, were negatively associated with triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) and estrogen receptor (ER)‐negative tumor phenotypes. A particularly high CHEK2 mutation prevalence (5.2%) was observed in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐positive tumors.

There is no international consensus up to which age women with a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and no family history of breast or ovarian cancer should be offered genetic testing for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (gBRCA) mutations. Here, we explored the association of age at TNBC diagnosis with the prevalence of pathogenic gBRCA mutations in this patient group. The study comprised 802 women (median age 40 years, range 19–76) with oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 negative breast cancers, who had no relatives with breast or ovarian cancer. All women were tested for pathogenic gBRCA mutations. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the association between age at TNBC diagnosis and the presence of a pathogenic gBRCA mutation. A total of 127 women with TNBC (15.8%) were gBRCA mutation carriers (BRCA1: n = 118, 14.7%; BRCA2: n = 9, 1.1%). The mutation prevalence was 32.9% in the age group 20–29 years compared to 6.9% in the age group 60–69 years. Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant increase of mutation frequency with decreasing age at diagnosis (odds ratio 1.87 per 10 year decrease, 95%CI 1.50–2.32, p < 0.001). gBRCA mutation risk was predicted to be > 10% for women diagnosed below approximately 50 years. Based on the general understanding that a heterozygous mutation probability of 10% or greater justifies gBRCA mutation screening, women with TNBC diagnosed before the age of 50 years and no familial history of breast and ovarian cancer should be tested for gBRCA mutations. In Germany, this would concern approximately 880 women with newly diagnosed TNBC per year, of whom approximately 150 are expected to be identified as carriers of a pathogenic gBRCA mutation.

Germline mutations in the BRIP1 gene have been described as conferring a moderate risk for ovarian cancer (OC), while the role of BRIP1 in breast cancer (BC) pathogenesis remains controversial. To assess the role of deleterious BRIP1 germline mutations in BC/OC predisposition, 6341 well-characterized index patients with BC, 706 index patients with OC, and 2189 geographically matched female controls were screened for loss-of-function (LoF) mutations and potentially damaging missense variants. All index patients met the inclusion criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for germline testing and tested negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. BRIP1 LoF mutations confer a high OC risk in familial index patients (odds ratio (OR) = 20.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 12.02–36.57, P < 0.0001) and in the subgroup of index patients with late-onset OC (OR = 29.91, 95% CI = 14.99–59.66, P < 0.0001). No significant association of BRIP1 LoF mutations with familial BC was observed (OR = 1.81 95% CI = 1.00–3.30, P = 0.0623). In the subgroup of familial BC index patients without a family history of OC there was also no apparent association (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.70–2.90, P = 0.3030). In 1027 familial BC index patients with a family history of OC, the BRIP1 mutation prevalence was significantly higher than that observed in controls (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 1.43–9.01; P = 0.0168). Based on the negative association between BRIP1 LoF mutations and familial BC in the absence of an OC family history, we conclude that the elevated mutation prevalence in the latter cohort was driven by the occurrence of OC in these families. Compared with controls, predicted damaging rare missense variants were significantly more prevalent in OC (P = 0.0014) but not in BC (P = 0.0693) patients. To avoid ambiguous results, studies aimed at assessing the impact of candidate predisposition gene mutations on BC risk might differentiate between BC index patients with an OC family history and those without. In familial cases, we suggest that BRIP1 is a high-risk gene for late-onset OC but not a BC predisposition gene, though minor effects cannot be excluded.

The use of next-generation sequencing approaches in clinical diagnostics has led to a tremendous increase in data and a vast number of variants of uncertain significance that require interpretation. Therefore, prediction of the effects of missense mutations using in silico tools has become a frequently used approach. Aim of this study was to assess the reliability of in silico prediction as a basis for clinical decision making in the context of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. We tested the performance of four prediction tools (Align-GVGD, SIFT, PolyPhen-2, MutationTaster2) using a set of 236 BRCA1/2 missense variants that had previously been classified by expert committees. However, a major pitfall in the creation of a reliable evaluation set for our purpose is the generally accepted classification of BRCA1/2 missense variants using the multifactorial likelihood model, which is partially based on Align-GVGD results. To overcome this drawback we identified 161 variants whose classification is independent of any previous in silico prediction. In addition to the performance as stand-alone tools we examined the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of combined approaches. PolyPhen-2 achieved the lowest sensitivity (0.67), specificity (0.67), accuracy (0.67) and MCC (0.39). Align-GVGD achieved the highest values of specificity (0.92), accuracy (0.92) and MCC (0.73), but was outperformed regarding its sensitivity (0.90) by SIFT (1.00) and MutationTaster2 (1.00). All tools suffered from poor specificities, resulting in an unacceptable proportion of false positive results in a clinical setting. This shortcoming could not be bypassed by combination of these tools. In the best case scenario, 138 families would be affected by the misclassification of neutral variants within the cohort of patients of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. We show that due to low specificities state-of-the-art in silico prediction tools are not suitable to predict pathogenicity of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1/2. Thus, clinical consequences should never be based solely on in silico forecasts. However, our data suggests that SIFT and MutationTaster2 could be suitable to predict benignity, as both tools did not result in false negative predictions in our analysis.

Cancer patients are at risk of secondary therapy–related myeloid neoplasms (t-MNs). Acquired blood-specific mutations in clonal hematopoiesis (CH)–associated genes are t-MN risk factors, and their occurrence associated with cancer therapy and age. Patients with ovarian cancer (OC) showed a particularly high prevalence of CH–associated gene mutations, which may additionally be explained by the high proportion of a hereditary disease cause in this cancer entity. We performed a retrospective analysis of 448 OC patients enrolled in the AGO-TR1 study; 249 were enrolled at primary diagnosis and 199 at platinum-sensitive recurrence. Analyses included the most frequently altered CH–associated genes (ASXL1, DNMT3A, GNAS, JAK2, PPM1D, SF3B1, SH2B3, SRSF2, TET2, TP53). Results were analyzed according to the BRCA1/2 germline (gBRCA1/2) mutation status. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Advanced age at blood draw and a high number of prior platinum-based chemotherapy lines were risk factors to acquire CH–associated gene mutations, with gene-specific effects observed. Binomial logistic regression suggested increased probabilities for gBRCA1/2 mutation carriers to acquire CH-associated PPM1D and TP53 gene mutations (PPM1D: odds ratio = 4.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.48 to 12.46, P = .007; TP53: odds ratio = 6.20, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 53.9, P = .06). This observation was due to a statistically significantly increased number of platinum-based chemotherapy lines in gBRCA1/2 mutation carriers vs noncarriers (PPM1D: mean [SD] = 2.04 [1.27] vs 1.04 [0.99], P < .001; TP53: mean [SD] = 2.83 [1.33] vs 1.07 [1.01], P < .001). No interaction between platinum-based chemotherapy and gBRCA1/2 mutation status with the occurrence of CH–associated gene mutations was observed. A positive gBRCA1/2 mutation status is not a risk factor to acquire CH–associated gene mutations. OC patients may benefit from monitoring CH–associated gene mutations, especially following carboplatin exposure. Future clinical studies are required to assess whether treatment regimen should be adapted according to individual t-MN risks.