Peutz–Jeghers syndrome (PJS, MIM175200) is an autosomal dominant condition defined by the development of characteristic polyps throughout the gastrointestinal tract and mucocutaneous pigmentation. The majority of patients that meet the clinical diagnostic criteria have a causative mutation in the S TK11 gene, which is located at 19p13.3. The cancer risks in this condition are substantial, particularly for breast and gastrointestinal cancer, although ascertainment and publication bias may have led to overestimates in some publications. Current surveillance protocols are controversial and not evidence-based, due to the relative rarity of the condition. Initially, endoscopies are more likely to be done to detect polyps that may be a risk for future intussusception or obstruction rather than cancers, but surveillance for the various cancers for which these patients are susceptible is an important part of their later management. This review assesses the current literature on the clinical features and management of the condition, genotype–phenotype studies, and suggested guidelines for surveillance and management of individuals with PJS. The proposed guidelines contained in this article have been produced as a consensus statement on behalf of a group of European experts who met in Mallorca in 2007 and who have produced guidelines on the clinical management of Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is characterised by the development of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer and various other cancers, and is caused by a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes: MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2 . In 2007, a group of European experts (the Mallorca group) published guidelines for the clinical management of LS. Since then substantial new information has become available necessitating an update of the guidelines. In 2011 and 2012 workshops were organised in Palma de Mallorca. A total of 35 specialists from 13 countries participated in the meetings. The first step was to formulate important clinical questions. Then a systematic literature search was performed using the Pubmed database and manual searches of relevant articles. During the workshops the outcome of the literature search was discussed in detail. The guidelines described in this paper may be helpful for the appropriate management of families with LS. Prospective controlled studies should be undertaken to improve further the care of these families.

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.

Background: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a well-described inherited syndrome, which is responsible for <1% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. The syndrome is characterised by the development of hundreds to thousands of adenomas in the colorectum. Almost all patients will develop CRC if they are not identified and treated at an early stage. The syndrome is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait and caused by mutations in the APC gene. Recently, a second gene has been identified that also gives rise to colonic adenomatous polyposis, although the phenotype is less severe than typical FAP. The gene is the MUTYH gene and the inheritance is autosomal recessive. In April 2006 and February 2007, a workshop was organised in Mallorca by European experts on hereditary gastrointestinal cancer aiming to establish guidelines for the clinical management of FAP and to initiate collaborative studies. Thirty-one experts from nine European countries participated in these workshops. Prior to the meeting, various participants examined the most important management issues according to the latest publications. A systematic literature search using Pubmed and reference lists of retrieved articles, and manual searches of relevant articles, was performed. During the workshop, all recommendations were discussed in detail. Because most of the studies that form the basis for the recommendations were descriptive and/or retrospective in nature, many of them were based on expert opinion. The guidelines described herein may be helpful in the appropriate management of FAP families. In order to improve the care of these families further, prospective controlled studies should be undertaken.

Stig Bojesen, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Alison Dunning and colleagues report common variants at the TERT-CLPTM1L locus associated with mean telomere length measured in whole blood. They also identify associations at this locus to breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility and report functional studies in breast and ovarian cancer tissue and cell lines. TERT-locus SNPs and leukocyte telomere measures are reportedly associated with risks of multiple cancers. Using the Illumina custom genotyping array iCOGs, we analyzed ∼480 SNPs at the TERT locus in breast (n = 103,991), ovarian (n = 39,774) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (n = 11,705) cancer cases and controls. Leukocyte telomere measurements were also available for 53,724 participants. Most associations cluster into three independent peaks. The minor allele at the peak 1 SNP rs2736108 associates with longer telomeres (P = 5.8 × 10−7), lower risks for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (P = 1.0 × 10−8) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.1 × 10−5) breast cancers and altered promoter assay signal. The minor allele at the peak 2 SNP rs7705526 associates with longer telomeres (P = 2.3 × 10−14), higher risk of low-malignant-potential ovarian cancer (P = 1.3 × 10−15) and greater promoter activity. The minor alleles at the peak 3 SNPs rs10069690 and rs2242652 increase ER-negative (P = 1.2 × 10−12) and BRCA1 mutation carrier (P = 1.6 × 10−14) breast and invasive ovarian (P = 1.3 × 10−11) cancer risks but not via altered telomere length. The cancer risk alleles of rs2242652 and rs10069690, respectively, increase silencing and generate a truncated TERT splice variant.

Women who have inherited mutations in BRCA1 (17q21, chromosome 17: base pairs 43,044,294 to 43,125,482) or BRCA2 (13q12.3, chromosome 13: base pairs 32,315,479 to 32,399,671) have an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers.^1,2 Little is known about how cancer risks differ by BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation type. An “ovarian cancer cluster region” (OCCR) has been reported in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 using small sample sets. For BRCA1, initially mutations after exon 11 were associated with a 20% lower ovarian cancer risk than mutations in exons 1 through 11.³ Following that observation, Thompson et al⁴ reported an increased risk of ovarian vs breast cancer specifically was associated with mutations in the central portion of exon 11. This association was attributed to both a decrease in breast cancer risk and an increase in ovarian cancer risk in this region. Mutations in exon 11 of BRCA2 also have been associated with higher ovarian vs breast cancer risk than in other regions of the gene.⁵ It was hypothesized that this risk variation might be explained by the failure of BRCA1/2 exon 11 truncating mutations to trigger nonsense-mediated messenger RNA (mRNA) decay (NMD) because of their extremely large size, contrary to truncating mutations in smaller exons. However, this postulate was not supported by the measures of the relative amounts of mRNA transcript encoded by BRCA1/2 alleles.^6,7 Murine models of different mutations in BRCA1/2 also suggest that genotype-phenotype correlations exist.^8,9 Quiz Ref ID To our knowledge, no study has reported whether BRCA1/2 mutation type is associated with differences in breast and ovarian cancer risk. Thus, we evaluated whether BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation type or location is associated with variation in breast and ovarian cancer risk.