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.

Germ-line mutations in the exonuclease domains of POLE and POLD1 have been recently associated with polyposis and colorectal cancer (CRC) predisposition. Here, we aimed to gain a better understanding of the phenotypic characteristics of this syndrome to establish specific criteria for POLE and POLD1 mutation screening and to help define the clinical management of mutation carriers. The exonuclease domains of POLE and POLD1 were studied in 529 kindred, 441 with familial nonpolyposis CRC and 88 with polyposis, by using pooled DNA amplification and massively parallel sequencing. Seven novel or rare genetic variants were identified. In addition to the POLE p.L424V recurrent mutation in a patient with polyposis, CRC and oligodendroglioma, six novel or rare POLD1 variants (four of them, p.D316H, p.D316G, p.R409W, and p.L474P, with strong evidence for pathogenicity) were identified in nonpolyposis CRC families. Phenotypic data from these and previously reported POLE/POLD1 carriers point to an associated phenotype characterized by attenuated or oligo-adenomatous colorectal polyposis, CRC, and probably brain tumors. In addition, POLD1 mutations predispose to endometrial and breast tumors. Our results widen the phenotypic spectrum of the POLE/POLD1-associated syndrome and identify novel pathogenic variants. We propose guidelines for genetic testing and surveillance recommendations.Genet Med 18 4, 325-332.

Purpose: BRCA1/2 mutations increase the risk of breast and prostate cancer in men. Common genetic variants modify cancer risks for female carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. We investigated—for the first time to our knowledge—associations of common genetic variants with breast and prostate cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/ 2 mutations and implications for cancer risk prediction. Materials and Methods: We genotyped 1,802 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 by using the custom Illumina OncoArray. We investigated the combined effects of established breast and prostate cancer susceptibility variants on cancer risks for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations by constructing weighted polygenic risk scores (PRSs) using published effect estimates as weights. Results: In male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations, PRS that was based on 88 female breast cancer susceptibility variants was associated with breast cancer risk (odds ratio per standard deviation of PRS, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.56; P = 8.6 × 10⁻⁶). Similarly, PRS that was based on 103 prostate cancer susceptibility variants was associated with prostate cancer risk (odds ratio per SD of PRS, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81; P = 3.2 × 10⁻⁹). Large differences in absolute cancer risks were observed at the extremes of the PRS distribution. For example, prostate cancer risk by age 80 years at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS varies from 7% to 26% for carriers of BRCA1 mutations and from 19% to 61% for carriers of BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Conclusion: PRSs may provide informative cancer risk stratification for male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations that might enable these men and their physicians to make informed decisions on the type and timing of breast and prostate cancer risk management.

The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co‐segregation, family cancer history profile, co‐occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case‐control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene‐specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.

Mutations in breast cancer BRCA1/2 genes increase breast and ovarian cancer risk and are transmitted with an autosomal dominant pattern. Opinion about reproductive decisions among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 testing in our institutions is unknown. Individuals (n = 77) undergoing BRCA1/2 testing were included in a prospective multicentre study to assess the clinical impact of genetic testing. Demographic and clinical information, psychological status and opinion about reproductive decisions were collected in two questionnaires administered prior to testing. Opinion regarding the use of assisted reproduction techniques for hereditary cancer susceptibility among health care professionals was also collected. Twenty-eight individuals (36%) reported that they would decide to have children, regardless of their result. In case of a mutation, 9 (12%) believed that they would decide not to have children, 42 (55%) would consider prenatal diagnosis (PND), 37 (48%) would consider preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and 23 (30%) would consider adoption. Fifty-seven (74%) and 47 (61%) reported that they considered it ethical to offer PND or PGD, respectively, to BRCA+ patients. Individuals older than 40 years were more likely to consider PND or PGD than younger subjects (P = 0.02 and 0.05, respectively). Individuals with cancer compared with those without a diagnosis of malignancy were more likely to consider PGD (61 versus 30%, P = 0.02) and to consider that it was ethical to offer it (74 versus 44%, P = 0.02). Most health care professionals were in favour of PND and PGD for individuals with hereditary cancer susceptibility (58 and 61%, respectively). BRCA1/2 genetic results could influence an individual's decisions regarding reproduction. Health care professionals who serve individuals undergoing BRCA testing should incorporate patient education regarding the potential impact of such testing on family planning.