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.

Introduction: While it has been reported that the risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families is elevated, little is known about contralateral breast cancer risk in patients from high risk families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study was performed from 1996 to 2011 and comprised 6,235 women with unilateral breast cancer from 6,230 high risk families that had tested positive for BRCA1 (n = 1,154) or BRCA2 (n = 575) mutations or tested negative (n = 4,501). Cumulative contralateral breast cancer risks were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and were compared between groups using the log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was applied to assess the impact of the age at first breast cancer and the familial history stratified by mutation status. Results: The cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer 25 years after first breast cancer was 44.1% (95%CI, 37.6% to 50.6%) for patients from BRCA1 positive families, 33.5% (95%CI, 22.4% to 44.7%) for patients from BRCA2 positive families and 17.2% (95%CI, 14.5% to 19.9%) for patients from families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations. Younger age at first breast cancer was associated with a higher risk of contralateral breast cancer. For women who had their first breast cancer before the age of 40 years, the cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer after 25 years was 55.1% for BRCA1, 38.4% for BRCA2, and 28.4% for patients from BRCA1/2 negative families. If the first breast cancer was diagnosed at the age of 50 or later, 25-year cumulative risks were 21.6% for BRCA1, 15.5% for BRCA2, and 12.9% for BRCA1/2 negative families. Conclusions: Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients from high risk families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations is similar to the risk in patients with sporadic breast cancer. Thus, the mutation status should guide decision making for contralateral mastectomy.

Women with highly penetrant BRCA mutations have a 55–60 % lifetime risk for breast cancer and a 16–59 % lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer. However, penetrance differs interindividually, indicating that environmental and behavioral factors may modify this risk. It is well documented that the risk for sporadic breast cancer disease can be modified by changing lifestyle factors that primarily include physical activity, dietary habits, and body weight. It can thus be hypothesized that the modification of these lifestyle factors may also influence the incidence and progression of cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. This multicenter, interdisciplinary, prospective, two-armed, randomized (1:1) controlled trial aims to enroll a minimum of 600 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers to partake in either a lifestyle intervention or usual care. The study primarily aims to demonstrate an improvement of nutritional behavior (adherence to the Mediterranean diet), body mass index, and physical fitness. Furthermore, the effects on quality of life, stress coping capacity, breast cancer incidence, and mortality will be investigated. The intervention group (IG) will receive a structured lifestyle intervention over 12 months, whereas the control group (CG) will only receive information regarding a healthy lifestyle. During the first 3 months, women in the IG will receive structured, individualized, and mainly supervised endurance training with a minimum of 18 MET-h physical activity per week and nutrition education based on the Mediterranean diet. Over the following 9 months, IG monthly group training sessions and regular telephone contacts will motivate study participants. The CG will receive one general training session about healthy nutrition in accordance with the recommendations of the German Society of Nutrition (standard of care in Germany) and the benefits of regular physical activity on health status. At randomization and subsequent time points (3 and 12 months), cardiopulmonary fitness will be assessed by spiroergometry, and nutritional and psychological status will be assessed by validated questionnaires, interviews, and clinical examinations. As data on the role of lifestyle intervention in women with a hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer are currently lacking, this study will be of major importance from a scientific, as well as a practical advice viewpoint. It will investigate the optimal strategy to improve physical fitness, nutritional status, and psychological factors such as quality of life, perceived stress, optimism, as well as incidence and outcome of cancer in this selected group of women at high risk. If the study indicates a positive long-term outcome, a structured lifestyle intervention program could be added to health care prevention strategies for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02516540 . Registered on 22 July 2015.

Women with pathogenic BRCA germline mutations have an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer that seems to be modified by life-style factors. Though, randomized trials investigating the impact of lifestyle interventions on cancer prevention and prognosis in BRCA carriers are still missing. We implemented a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial in BRCA1/2 patients, comparing a lifestyle intervention group (IG) with a control group (CG) with the primary aim to prove feasibility. Intervention comprised a structured, individualized endurance training alongside nutrition education based on the Mediterranean diet (MD) for 3 months, plus monthly group training and regular telephone contact during the subsequent 9 months. The CG attended one session on healthy nutrition and the benefits of physical activity. Primary endpoints were feasibility, acceptance and satisfaction over 12 months. Furthermore, effects on physical fitness, diet profile, body mass index (BMI), quality of life and perceived stress were investigated. Sixty-eight participants (mean age 41, mean BMI 23.2 kg/m2) were enrolled, of whom 55 (81%, 26 IG, 29 CG) completed 12 months. 73% (n = 26) participated in at least 70% of all intervention sessions. Predictors for drop-outs (19%; n = 13) or non-adherence (27%; n = 7) were not found. 73% rated the program highly and 80% would participate again. Severe adverse events did not occur. Positive effects in the IG compared to the CG were observed for secondary endpoints: BMI, MD eating pattern and stress levels. This lifestyle intervention was feasible, safe and well accepted. Positive results on eating habits, physical fitness and stress levels warrant a larger randomized trial. The study has been retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (reference: NCT02087592 ) on March 12, 2014. The first patient was included on February 24, 2014.