Europe PMC
Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Risks of breast and ovarian cancer for women harboring pathogenic missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 compared with those harboring protein truncating variants.

Show less

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. Cancer Control and Population Science, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
      Authors
    • Li H 1
    (1 author)
  • 2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology (IMISE), University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
      Authors
    • Engel C 2
    (1 author)
  • 3. Molecular Oncology Laboratory, CIBERONC, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
      Authors
    • de la Hoya M 3
    • Caldes T 3
    (2 authors)
  • 4. Genome Diagnostics Program, IFOM - the FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology, Milan, Italy.
      Authors
    • Peterlongo P 4
    (1 author)
  • 5. Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", INRASTES Institute of Nuclear & Radiological Sciences & Technology, Energy & Safety, Athens, Greece.
      Authors
    • Yannoukakos D 5
    (1 author)
    • Show all (52)

ORCIDs linked to this article

Show all (16)

Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 30 Nov 2021, 24(1):119-129
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2021.08.016 PMID: 34906479 PMCID: PMC10170303

Free full text in Europe PMC

This article has been corrected. See Genet Med. 2022 Oct;24(10):2208.

Abstract 

Purpose

Germline genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants has been a part of clinical practice for >2 decades. However, no studies have compared the cancer risks associated with missense pathogenic variants (PVs) with those associated with protein truncating (PTC) variants.

Methods

We collected 582 informative pedigrees segregating 1 of 28 missense PVs in BRCA1 and 153 pedigrees segregating 1 of 12 missense PVs in BRCA2. We analyzed 324 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA1 and 214 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA2. Cancer risks were estimated using modified segregation analysis.

Results

Estimated breast cancer risks were markedly lower for women aged >50 years carrying BRCA1 missense PVs than for the women carrying BRCA1 PTC variants (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.9 [2.4-6.2] for PVs vs 12.8 [5.7-28.7] for PTC variants; P = .01), particularly for missense PVs in the BRCA1 C-terminal domain (HR = 2.8 [1.4-5.6]; P = .005). In case of BRCA2, for women aged >50 years, the HR was 3.9 (2.0-7.2) for those heterozygous for missense PVs compared with 7.0 (3.3-14.7) for those harboring PTC variants. BRCA1 p.[Cys64Arg] and BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] were associated with particularly low risks of breast cancer compared with other PVs.

Conclusion

These results have important implications for the counseling of at-risk women who harbor missense PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes.

Free full text 

Logo of nihpaLink to Publisher's site
Genet Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2023 May 10.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC10170303
NIHMSID: NIHMS1858554
PMID: 34906479

Risks of breast and ovarian cancer for women harboring pathogenic missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 compared with those harboring protein truncating variants

Hongyan Li,1 Christoph Engel,2 Miguel de la Hoya,3 Paolo Peterlongo,4 Drakoulis Yannoukakos,5 Luca Livraghi,6,7 Paolo Radice,8 Mads Thomassen,9 Thomas V.O. Hansen,10 Anne-Marie Gerdes,10 Henriette R. Nielsen,11 Sandrine M. Caputo,12,13 Alberto Zambelli,6 Ake Borg,14 Angela Solano,15 Abigail Thomas,16 Michael T. Parsons,17 Antonis C. Antoniou,18 Goska Leslie,18 Xin Yang,18 Georgia Chenevix-Trench,17 Trinidad Caldes,3 Ava Kwong,19,20 Inge Søkilde Pedersen,21,22,23 Charlotte K. Lautrup,22,23 Esther M. John,24 Mary Beth Terry,25,26 John L. Hopper,27 Melissa C. Southey,28,29,30 Irene L. Andrulis,31,32 Marc Tischkowitz,33 Ramunas Janavicius,34,35 Susanne E. Boonen,9 Lone Kroeldrup,9 Liliana Varesco,36 Ute Hamann,37 Ana Vega,38 Edenir I. Palmero,39,40 Judy Garber,41 Marco Montagna,42 Christi J. Van Asperen,43 Lenka Foretova,44 Mark H. Greene,45 Tina Selkirk,46 Pal Moller,47,48 Amanda E. Toland,49 Susan M. Domchek,50 Paul A. James,51,52 Heather Thorne,52 Diana M. Eccles,53 Sarah M. Nielsen,54 Siranoush Manoukian,55 Barbara Pasini,56 Maria A. Caligo,57 Conxi Lazaro,58 Judy Kirk,59 Barbara Wappenschmidt,60,61 Amanda B. Spurdle,17 Fergus J. Couch,62 Rita Schmutzler,60,61 and David E. Goldgar1,63,*, ENIGMA Consortium and CIMBA Consortium
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement

Abstract

Purpose:

Germline genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants has been a part of clinical practice for >2 decades. However, no studies have compared the cancer risks associated with missense pathogenic variants (PVs) with those associated with protein truncating (PTC) variants.

Methods:

We collected 582 informative pedigrees segregating 1 of 28 missense PVs in BRCA1 and 153 pedigrees segregating 1 of 12 missense PVs in BRCA2. We analyzed 324 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA1 and 214 pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA2. Cancer risks were estimated using modified segregation analysis.

Results:

Estimated breast cancer risks were markedly lower for women aged >50 years carrying BRCA1 missense PVs than for the women carrying BRCA1 PTC variants (hazard ratio [HR] 3.9 [2.4–6.2] for PVs vs 12.8 [5.7–28.7] for PTC variants; P .01), particularly for missense PVs in the BRCA1 C-terminal domain (HR 2.8 [1.4–5.6]; P .005). In case of BRCA2, for women aged >50 years, the HR was 3.9 (2.0–7.2) for those heterozygous for missense PVs compared with 7.0 (3.3–14.7) for those harboring PTC variants. BRCA1 p.[Cys64Arg] and BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] were associated with particularly low risks of breast cancer compared with other PVs.

Conclusion:

These results have important implications for the counseling of at-risk women who harbor missense PVs in the BRCA1/2 genes.

Keywords: BRCA1, BRCA2, Cancer risks, Missense variants

Introduction

Germline genetic testing for BRCA1 (OMIM 113705) and BRCA2 (OMIM 600185) variants has long been part of clinical practice. Initially restricted to families that met strict criteria for such testing, the advent of panel tests by a number of clinical diagnostic testing services has led to the use of these tests in a much broader group of individuals. Once a germline pathogenic variant (PV) is identified, women are counseled about their risks of breast, ovarian, and other cancers, and appropriate screening or surgical prevention strategies are discussed. In most situations, these cancer risk estimates are based on studies of large collections of families1 or relatives of patients with breast cancer (BC) largely unselected for family history.2 Typically, these analyses have all PVs pooled, irrespective of the variant type, under the assumption that all such variants are associated with the same risks. The vast majority of the pathogenic BRCA variants included in these studies were variants predicted to result in a transcript encoding a protein termination codon that is subject to nonsense-mediated decay or encoding truncated inactive protein (for simplicity, these will be hereafter referred to as protein truncating [PTC] variants). The most recent estimates for BRCA1/2 risks associated with PVs were taken from a large prospective study of BRCA PV heterozygotes conducted by the IBCCS/ PROF-SC/kConFab group.3 Cumulative risks of BC at age 70 were 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61–72) for BRCA1 heterozygotes and 69% (95% CI, 55–68) for BRCA2 heterozygotes; corresponding risks of ovarian cancer (OC) were 41% (95% CI, 33–50) and 15% (95% CI, 10–23), respectively. There is also accumulating evidence from genotype/phenotype studies that even PTC variants may not all be associated with the same risks, depending on their position within the gene.3–6

Analysis of missense variants poses a particular problem because most such variants are expected, a priori, to be of little clinical significance. Through the work of the Evidence-Based Network Investigating Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) Consortium7 and others, approximately 60 missense variants have now been classified/reclassified as pathogenic by multifactorial methods8 using lines of evidence such as cosegregation,9 family history of index individual in clinical testing series,10,11 and tumor histopathology12 to classify variants of uncertain significance.13

To date, all predicted BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense substitution variants that have been classified on the basis of genetic data as PVs (excluding those that act by disruption of normal splicing) reside in 1 of 3 domains of these proteins: the RING domain of BRCA1 (nucleotides 4–294), the BRCA1-C-Terminal (BRCT) repeats in BRCA1 (nucleotides 4987–5577), and the DNA-binding domain (DBD) of BRCA2 (nucleotides 7669–9558). However, it is not clear whether pathogenic missense variants in these important domains are associated with the same levels of risk of BCs and OCs as the PTC/null variants that have been the subject of most studies designed to estimate these risks. Indeed, the BRCA1 variant c.5096G>A, p.[Arg1699Gln] was shown to be associated with lower risks of BC (approximately 20% by age 70)14,15 and had reduced function in a transcriptional activation assay in 293T cell line (78% of wild-type activity compared with 45% of the p.[Arg1699Trp] variant activity included in this study).14 Similarly, functional and case-control analyses have identified BRCA2 p.[Tyr3035Ser] variant as a hypomorphic allele associated with only a 2.5-fold increased risk of BC (95% CI, 1.05–6.05).16

To comprehensively examine the risks associated with established (eg, those classified as such in ClinVar,17 BRCA Challenge,18 ENIGMA7) missense PVs in BRCA1 and BRCA2, a large series of pedigrees segregating missense PVs were collected through the ENIGMA and Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA)19 consortia and compared with a set of pedigrees segregating PTC variants using detailed statistical and genetic analyses. In addition, the histopathological profiles of breast tumors of patients carrying BRCA1 PVs and PTC variants were compared.

Here we show that pathogenic missense variants, especially in BRCA1, are associated with a reduced risk of BC compared with PTC variants, particularly for older women.

Material and Methods

Through the ENIGMA7 Consortium we put out a broad call for pedigree and tumor pathology information from families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 missense variant that, at the time of initiation of the study, had evidence in favor of pathogenicity; this initial list comprised 58 such variants. We also obtained qualifying families from the CIMBA8 Consortium in which complete pedigree information was available. Criteria for inclusion of families for this study were as follows:

  1. index individual (proband) with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic missense variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, as determined by ENIGMA through multifactorial analysis13 or ClinVar17 (at least 2 submitters with a review status of at least 1 * denoting it to be pathogenic/likely pathogenic with none calling it benign or likely benign) and

  2. information on segregation analysis, ie, at least 1 nonproband individual tested for the variant.

As a comparison group, we also received a set of 538 pedigrees segregating PTC variants from the large German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). These pedigrees were matched by specific clinical center and date of ascertainment/testing to the GC-HBOC missense variant pedigrees.

Variant selection

Pedigrees in which the index individual had 1 of 58 selected missense variants were contributed to the study. Of these, 18 variants were excluded from the analysis because they were determined at the time of analysis to not meet the specified criteria either because they were found to be acting primarily through disruption of normal splicing and/or other evidence that cast doubt on their classification as pathogenic missense variant. The remaining 40 variants consisted of 11 variants in the BRCA1 RING domain, 17 in the BRCA1 BRCT domain, and 12 in the BRCA2 DBD. Supplemental Table 1 provides detailed genetic and functional information regarding the 40 included variants. One BRCA1 missense variant (p.[Cys64Gly]) and 2 BRCA2 missense variants (p.[Glu2663Val] and p.[Asp2723Gly]) show experimental and bioinformatics evidence of pathogenicity through both protein effects and potential splicing effects.20,21 Because these variants showed strong deleterious effects in functional assays22–24 and only partial splicing defects,25,26 they were included in our analyses.

Family data

A total of 1146 missense PV pedigrees and 543 PTC variant pedigrees from 45 collaborators representing 17 countries from around the world were contributed for this study. The requested information included pedigree data, age at testing, age at death, current age, age at diagnosis of BC, and age at diagnosis of OC; any available information on breast tumor grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and HER2 status; and prophylactic surgeries. All pedigrees segregating PTC variants (326 BRCA1 and 217 BRCA2) and 527 of the missense variant pedigrees (including 279 c.181T>G, p.[Cys61Gly]) were contributed by the GC-HBOC network. In addition, we also had relatively large contributions of 2 founder variants: (BRCA1:c.190T>C, p.[Cys64Arg])27 with 51 informative families submitted from Italy and (BRCA1:c.5212G>A, p.[Gly1738Arg])28 21 informative families submitted from Greece. Of the total 1689 contributed families, 416 were excluded from all analyses because they proved to be not informative (308 families) for the planned analyses, did not have 1 of the 40 final selected variants (93 families), or had unclear pedigree structures or multiple variants (15 families).

After the exclusions described earlier, the data used for the analyses in this study included 582 informative pedigrees with pathogenic missense variants in BRCA1, 153 informative pedigrees with pathogenic missense variants in BRCA2, 324 informative pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA1, and 214 informative pedigrees with PTC variants in BRCA2. Summary of the characteristics of the set of families included in the study for each of the included variants is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Description of variants and families included in the risk estimation analyses

Breast Cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Variant/GroupInformative FamiliesHeterozygousWild TypeUnknownHeterozygousWild TypeUnknown
BRCA1
GC-HBOC BRCA1 PTC324857495222125
RING domain
c.181T>G, p.[Cys61Gly]3161141449020087
c.190T>C, p.[Cys64Arg]5514101164033
Other RING domaina34133557023
All RING domain40514127662310143
GC-HBOC c.181T>G, p.[Cys61Gly]2778194229073
BRCT domain
c.5095C>T, p.[Arg1699Trp]431124513036
c.5123C>A, p.[Ala1708Glu]56170843119
c.5212G>A, p.[Gly1738Arg]36252391209
Other BRCT domainb422165910014
All BRCT domain177741022738178
All BRCA1 nissense58221537889691221
BRCA2
GC-HBOC BRCA2 PTC2144893765038
DBD
c.7878G>C, p.[Trp2626Cys]343044019
c.8167G>C, p.[Asp2723His]33183662012
c.9154C>T, p.[Arg3052Trp]209239008
Other B2 DBDc661961216118
All DBD Missense15349112708247

Index individuals are excluded from tabulations.

B2, BRCA2; DBD, DNA binding domain; GC-HBOC, German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer; PTC, protein truncating.

ac.53T>C, p.[Met18Thr]; c.65T>C, p.[Leu22Ser]; c.110C>A, p.[Thr37Lys]; c.115T>C, p.[Cys39Arg]; c.116G>A, p.[Cys39Tyr]; c.130T>A, p.[Cys44Ser]; c.131G>T, p.[Cys44Phe]; c.190T>G, p.[Cys64Gly]; c.191G>A, p.[Cys64Tyr].
bc.5053A>G, p.[Thr1685Ala]; c.5054C>T, p.[Thr1685Ile]; c.5089T>C, p.[Cys1697Arg]; c.5117G>A, p.[Gly1706Glu); c.5143A>C, p.[Ser1715Arg]; c.5213G>A, p.[Gly1738Glu]; c.5216A>T, p.[Asp1739Val]; c.5291T>C, p.[Leu1764Pro]; c.5297T>G, p.[Ile1766Ser]; c.5309G>T, p.[Gly1770Val]; c.5324T>A, p.[Met1775Lys]; c.5324T>G, (p.Met1775Arg]; c.5363G>T, p.[Gly1788Val]; c.5513T>A, p.[Val1838Glu].
cc.7879A>T, p.[Ile2627Phe]; c.7940T>C, p.[Leu2647Pro]; c.7958T>C, p.[Leu2653Pro]; c.7988A>T p.[Glu2663Val]; c.8165C>G, p.[Thr2722Arg]; c.8168G>A, p.[Asp2723Gly]; c.8243G>A, p.[Gly2748Asp]; c.9004G>A, p.[Glu3002Lys]; c.9227G>A, p.[Gly3076Glu].

Imputation of missing ages and censoring

To avoid any biases owing to differential information provided by submitting center (and hence BRCA variant), we imputed missing ages at last follow up/death and missing years of birth using the program PedPro29 that uses the ages/ years of birth of close relatives to assign an age or year of birth to individuals missing such information. Those with imputed ages ≥90 years were assumed to be aged 65 years because these were likely in older generations without reliable data, and those imputed to be 80–89 were censored at age 80 years. To be conservative, we assumed that 324 cases with missing ages at diagnosis of BC or OC were diagnosed at the age at their last follow up/age at death (including imputed ages). Women with BC and OC were considered to have both cancers if BC occurred first, whereas women with BC after OC were considered to have only OC and were censored at the age of diagnosis of OC. Age at bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) was available in the GC-HBOC data set, in several smaller centers, and in the 36 families contributed from the CIMBA consortium but were not available in the remainder of the data sets. Women without BC or OC were censored at their age at last observation or, if deceased, at the age at death. When such information was provided, women known to have had a prophylactic mastectomy were censored at the age at surgery. Because only a very small subset of the contributed families provided data on risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, we chose not to censor women at this age; this may lead to an underestimation of OC risk, but this effect is expected to be the same for the PTC variant pedigrees as well as the missense PV set, particularly for the p.[Cys61Gly] variant, which has been known to be pathogenic for >20 years.

Estimation of risk

BC and OC risks were estimated by maximum likelihood analysis using modified segregation analysis with the MENDEL package of programs30 as implemented for BC, OC, and other cancers in the recent analyses of families with PVs in PALB2.31 In the present analyses, we estimated the risks for BC and OC jointly, censoring each affected individual at their age at the first occurrence of BC or OC. For each data set, we estimated the hazard ratio (HR) associated with development of BC in the following 2 age groups: <50 and ≥50 years. Because of the more limited data for OC in these data sets, we assumed a constant HR across ages. Thus, in each analysis 3 parameters were estimated simultaneously. For both BC and OC analyses, the baseline population incidence rates specified in the model were assumed to be those for the United Kingdom. To account for temporal trends we utilized rates for 8 10-year birth cohorts (Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Reports).32 To adjust for the ascertainment process of the families, the likelihood of observing the pedigree phenotypes and variant genotypes was calculated conditional on the pedigree phenotypes and the genotype of the index individual; all information for risk estimation thus comes from the distribution of genotypes (ie, genotype status) among the phenotypes of the family members of the proband. From the resulting parameter estimates of BC and OC relative risks, age-specific cumulative risk estimates were calculated from the cumulative incidence Λ(t): F(t) 1 – exp(–Λ(t)), assuming the United Kingdom rates for the cohort between 1970 and 1979; the corresponding CIs were calculated using a parametric bootstrap. Heterogeneity of BC or OC risk between variants in the same domain was tested by a likelihood ratio test of model likelihoods. Comparisons of parameters estimate from the missense variants (or groups of variants) pedigrees with those from PTC variant pedigrees were done by constructing a Z-test on the basis of the parameter estimates and their respective SEs.

Results

BRCA1 and BRCA2 risk estimates

Table 2 shows the results of the modified segregation analyses in which we estimated the risks of BC and OC relative to United Kingdom population incidence rates. Based on the estimated HRs, the biggest difference between pathogenic missense variants and PTC variants was in the risk of BC for women aged >50 years. For example, for women aged ≥50 years, the HR for BRCA1 RING domain variants was roughly half the corresponding HR estimated for the BRCA1 PTC variants. Of note, the estimated HR for c.181T>G, p.[Cys61Gly] in women aged ≥50 for the subset of 217 informative pedigrees with this variant ascertained from the GC-HBOC clinical network was significantly different from the corresponding HR for pedigrees with BRCA1 PTC variant ascertained from the same GC-HBOC clinical centers (P = .049). The 3 groups of BRCA1 RING domain variants, as shown in Table 2, did not reveal statistically significant heterogeneity in the estimated HRs (χ2 = 10.0, 6 degrees of freedom; P = .12) by likelihood ratio test). For women aged ≥50 years, the HR for BRCA1 BRCT domain missense variants was significantly reduced compared with the HR for PTC variant heterozygotes (2.0 vs 12.8; P = .005). There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity between variants within the BRCT domain, and there was no significant difference between the overall estimated models for the RING and BRCT domains (χ2 = 5.48; 3 degrees of freedom; P =.14).

Table 2

HR estimates by variant/group of variants

Variant/Variant GroupBreast Cancer Dx <50 HR (95% CI)Breast Cancer Dx ≥50HR (95% CI)Ovarian Cancer HR (95% CI)
BRCA1
GC-HBOC BRCA1 PTC17.0 (9.4–30.5)12.8 (5.7–28.7)27.1 (8.6–85.2)
RING domain
p.[Cys61Gly]14.6 (8.8–24.3)7.6 (3.6–16.4)41.2 (19.0–89.3)
p.[Cys64Arg]3.7 (1.4–9.5)a4.1 (0.9–18.3)99.9 (37.8–264)
Other RING domain12.0 (3.2–37.4)2.9 (0.5–17.0)23.9 (4.6–119)
All RING Domain11.5 (7.2–18.3)5.8 (3.0–11.3)41.0 (20.9–80.4)
GC-HBOC p.[Cys61Gly]15.3 (8.3–28.2)3.7 (1.5–9.4)a27.1 (7.2–102.8)
BRCT domain
p.[Arg1699Trp]10.4 (2.7–39.4)2.0 (0.2–21.8)31.5 (5.1–195)
p.[Ala1708Glu]12.1 (4.3–34.0)4.9 (1.3–18.3)5.2 (0.8–33.8)
p.[Gly1738Arg]22.8 (9.2–56.9)3.6 (1.4–8.9)14.7 (3.8–57.8)
Other BRCT domain15.0 (6.0–37.5)2.1 (0.7–6.2)b18.8 (6.3–56.2)
All BRCT domain14.8 (8.7–25.1)2.8 (1.4–5.6)b15.2 (7.6–30.4)
All BRCA1 missense13.1 (9.2–18.9)3.9 (2.4–6.2)b21.7 (12.4–38.0)
BRCA2
GC-HBOC BRCA2 PTC10.4 (5.9–19.8)7.0 (3.3–14.7)13.1 (3.7–45.6)
DBD
p.[Trp2626Cys]5.0 (0.3–92.0)1.7 (0.4–6.9)2.1 (0.1–32.8)
p.[Asp2723His]8.5 (2.5–28.7)5.2 (1.5–18.6)15.0 (2.1–109)
p.[Arg3052Trp]8.1 (0.9–73.3)3.5 (0.4–30.0)4.1 (0.3–115)
Other DBD9.5 (3.8–23.7)5.3 (2.1–13.2)5.6 (1.4–21.8)
All DBD8.3 (2.2–30.8)3.9 (2.0–7.2)5.5 (2.0–14.8)

BRCT, BRCA1-C-Terminal; CI, confidence interval; DBD, DNA binding domain; Dx, Age at diagnosis of breast cancer; GC-HBOC, German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer; HR, hazard ratio; PTC, protein truncating.

aP < .05 for test of parameter vs corresponding parameter for loss of function variants.
bP < .01 for test of parameter vs corresponding parameter for loss of function variants.

No significant difference was observed in the HRs for the combined set BRCA2 missense PVs in the DBD compared with the estimated cancer risks for PTC variants. However, there was some evidence of heterogeneity associated with the BRCA2 variants in the DBD with HRs for women aged >50 years varying from 1.7 (95% CI, 0.4–6.9) for c.7878G>C, p.[Trp2626Cys] to 5.9 (95% CI, 2.2–16.3) for the well-established missense PV p.[Asp2723His] and 7.0 (95% CI, 3.3–14.7) for the BRCA2 PTC variants.

When we examined the risks in women aged >60 years (data not shown), we observed an even larger difference in risks for BC than for PTC variants, although reduction in sample size increased the SEs, resulting in wider CIs. For example, for the RING and BRCT domain PV heterozygotes, the HRs were 2.8 (95% CI, 1.1–7.3) and 2.0 (0.6–6.6), respectively, for these women versus 16.5 (95% CI, 4.3–63.2) for the BRCA1 PTC variants in our study. For women aged >60 years, the HR for BRCA2 pathogenic DBD missense variants was 2.0 (95% CI, 0.6–6.3) compared with 5.3 (95% CI, 1.6–17.9) for the BRCA2 PTC variants.

In general, the estimated HRs for OCs were quite similar in the various pathogenic missense variant analyses, although risks were somewhat reduced for the BRCA1 BRCT variants, but this was not statistically significant. Estimated cumulative risks of BC at age 50 years and 70 years and of OC at age 70 years for the primary sets of variants are shown in Table 3. Globally, risks at age 50 years did not vary substantially between missense PVs and their PTC variant counterparts. However, the estimated risks at age 70 years were more variable owing to the HRs for ages >50 years being, in general, lower for the missense variants.

Table 3

Theoretical cumulative risks for selected groups of variants based on HR estimates and United Kingdom incidence rates (1960–1969)

Breast Cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Variant GroupRisk at Age 50 (95% CI)Risk at Age 70 (95% CI)Risk at Age 70 (95% CI)
GC-HBOC BRCA1 PTC0.33 (0.20–0.51)0.70 (0.51–0.89)0.28 (0.09–0.61)
All RING Domain0.21 (0.14–0.31)0.46 (0.33–0.61)0.36 (0.20–0.58)
All BRCT Domain0.30 (0.18–0.44)0.39 (0.27–0.54)0.16 (0.08–0.28)
All BRCA1 missense0.24 (0.17–0.32)0.40 (0.32–0.49)0.21 (0.12–0.33)
GC-HBOC BRCA2 PTC0.22 (0.12–0.37)0.51 (0.34–0.69)0.15 (0.04–0.39)
All DBD0.18 (0.09–0.31)0.36 (0.24–0.51)0.065 (0.02–0.15)

BRCT, BRCA1-C-Terminal; CI, confidence interval; DBD, DNA binding domain; GC-HBOC, German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer; HR, hazard ratio; PTC, protein truncating.

Estrogen receptor status of breast tumors with BRCA1 variants

ER status was available for 361 breast tumors from women harboring a BRCA1 pathogenic missense variant. These included 250 tumors from missense variants in the RING domain (220 of which were from p.[Cys61Gly] heterozygotes) and 111 tumors in the BRCT domain compared with 210 tumors from BRCA1 PTC variants heterozygotes (Table 4). There was no significant difference in the frequency of ER negative tumors among women with BCs associated with BRCA1 missense PV compared with the tumors among women heterozygous for a PTC variant. Individually, only p.[Ala1708Glu] variant had a nominally significantly lower frequency of ER negative tumors (52% vs 72%; P =.027) than PTC variants, although this was not significant when corrected for the number of comparisons made.

Table 4

ER status in tumors of BRCA1 pathogenic variant heterozygotes

Variant/GroupNo. of TumorsNo. of ER Positive (%)No. of ER Negative (%)
GC-HBOC BRCA1 PTC21059 (28)151 (72)
BRCA1 missense PVs
p.[Cys61Gly]21655 (25)161 (75)
p.[Cys64Arg]214(19)17 (81)
Other RING Domain112 (18)9 (82)
p.[Arg1699Trp]268(31)18 (69)
p.[Ala1708Glu]2914 (48)15 (52)
p.[Gly1738Arg]339 (27)24 (73)
Other BRCT Domain236 (26)17 (74)
All BRCA1 missense35998 (27)261 (73)

BRCT, BRCA1-C-Terminal; ER, estrogen receptor; GC-HBOC, German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer; PTC, protein-truncating.

BC risk associated with specific variants

We found that the BC (but not OC) risks associated with 2 specific missense PVs were lower than that for other BRCA1 missense PVs. The HR associated with the missense PVs, p.[Cys64Arg] for women aged <50 years was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.4–9.5) and that for women aged ≥50 years was 4.1 (95% CI, 0.9–18.3). In particular, the estimated HR for younger women with this missense PV was substantially lower than that for both other RING domain PVs and BRCT domain PVs. We tested this variant against the estimated risk for the p.[Cys61Gly] variant assuming a constant HR and found it to be significantly different (Z-test; P .015). These lower estimated risks were consistent with the observation of 10 BC cases in these families who tested negative for the variant (mean age at diagnosis was 48.6 years) compared with 14 nonproband cases who tested positive (mean age at diagnosis was 43.9 years). Moreover, among 13 women unaffected with BC or OC aged >60 years who were tested for the variant, almost half (6/13) were found to be positive, also indicating a lower penetrance. Thus, the evidence suggests that this BRCA1 missense PV has substantially reduced BC risk (but not necessarily OC) compared with other PVs but still higher than the population incidence rates. The risks associated with the BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] missense variant for BC and OC were significantly reduced compared with both BRCA2 PTC variants and other BRCA2 missense PVs analyzed in this study (Table 2). Among the 31 female relatives who tested positive for the p.[Trp2626Cys] variant in the 34 pedigrees, there were only 3 cases of BC and 1 case of OC. Moreover, among the 22 unaffected women aged >60 years who were tested for the variant, 13 were found to be positive for the p.[Trp.2626Cys] variant, also indicating that this variant has reduced penetrance.

Sensitivity analyses for imputed age

Reanalysis of the data assuming all individuals with missing year of birth were born between 1960 and 1969 (thus eliminating cohort differences in incidence rates for these individuals) resulted in only a minimal effect on the estimates because the vast majority of the missing ages were in individuals who were not tested or closely related to a tested individual and thus did not contribute heavily to the analysis. Individuals with missing current age/age at death were excluded in these analyses as well. Results of these analyses are shown in Supplemental Table 2. For example, for the BRCA1 PTC set of pedigrees, the HR for BC for women aged <50 years, HR for BC for women aged ≥50 years, and HRs for OC were 16.4, 12.1, and 26.3, respectively, without the missing age imputation and 17.0, 12.8, and 27.1, respectively (Table 2), using imputed age data.

Sensitivity analyses of population incidence rates

For the analyses we considered age- and cohort-specific cancer incidence rates for the United Kingdom population. To see how our results and conclusions could be affected by possible differences in rates, we reanalyzed larger subsets of pedigrees considering rates that were 20% higher and 20% lower than these (across all ages and birth cohorts). Given that the vast majority of the pedigrees submitted came from Western European clinical centers, this should account for the incidence rate differences among the various populations included here. The parameter estimates for the BRCA1 BRCT domain variants, RING domain variants, and PTC variants from the GC-HBOC resource were on average 5% higher when incidence rates were assumed to be 20% lower and estimates were 4% lower when rates were set to be 20% higher. The largest differences were seen for the ln(HR) estimates for OC, which were 11% higher for the set of BRCA1 RING domain variants when incidence rates were assumed to be 20% lower. On the basis of these analyses, differences in rates from our assumed incidence rates in the United Kingdom population are an unlikely explanation for the findings.

Discussion

Here we report a large international collaborative study examining the risks of BC and OC for women harboring pathogenic missense variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. We benefited from a large national study of hereditary BC and OC in Germany (GC-HBOC), which contributed approximately half of the missense PV families and a series of families that segregated PTC variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 to form comparison groups for the missense variants in each gene. The results shown in Tables 2 and ​and33 clearly indicate that missense PVs in both functionally important domains (RING and BRCT) in BRCA1 are associated with lower risks of BC than PTC variants. Although data are limited, it appears that OC risks are comparable (though on average perhaps slightly lower) for BRCA1 with those found in published risk estimates for PTC variants1–3 and also comparable with those estimated from the PTC variant pedigrees from GC-HBOC. Although associated with lower BC risks, missense PVs in BRCA1 had similar hormone receptor status profiles as their PTC counterpart; importantly, the families studied here were largely tested before hormone receptor triple negative status was a stand-alone criterion for BRCA testing, suggesting a lack of ascertainment bias based on pathology. Most BRCA2 pathogenic missense variants appeared to be associated with lower risks than the BRCA2 PTC variants in families in the age group >50 years (Table 2); however, these differences were not statistically significant and were of smaller magnitude than the parallel comparisons for BRCA1 variants.

Clinical considerations

Our results provide evidence of the convergence of moderate-to high-risk classes that no longer seem to be distinct but rather describe a risk continuum. We have previously shown that the hypomorphic BRCA1 variant p[Arg1699Gln] is associated with reduced levels of BC risk compared with the average BRCA1 truncating variant.15,16 This raises the question of what clinical measures to offer for different levels of risk. In women aged 70 years, the estimated cumulative risks of 70% for BRCA1 PTC variants compared with 39% for the combined group of missense PVs in the BRCT repeat domains (primarily p.[Ala1708Glu] and p.[Arg1699Trp]) are significantly different and may very well affect a woman’s choice of prevention/screening options, in particular, BPM. Furthermore, these risks will depend on family history, their polygenic risk score,33 and lifestyle factors.34 We believe that these new risk estimates for BRCA1 missense variants should be incorporated into comprehensive risk prediction tools such as BOADICEA.35 Although on average slightly lower, the OC risks associated with both BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense PVs did not seem to differ markedly from that for the PTC variants (with the possible exception of PVs in the BRCT domain of BRCA1). For cancer-free women aged >50 years, many of the BRCA1 pathogenic missense variants are associated with relative BC risks closer to those estimated for PVs in genes such as ATM, CHEK2, and other moderate risk genes, indicating that surveillance might be an optimal approach. However, given the high OC risks of 36% by age 70 for RING domain missense PVs, we recommend that women heterozygous for these variants should be counseled the same with respect to OC as women with BRCA1 PTC variants in terms of recommendations for risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Clinically, these data strengthen the importance of communicating not only the cumulative lifetime risks but also risks within a manageable timespan, eg, 10-year risks. For the BRCA1 p.[Cys64Arg] variants we propose counseling heterozygotes similarly to those proposed for the BRCA1 p.[Arg1699Gln] hypomorphic variant.15 The p.[Cys64Arg] variant has been classified as pathogenic by the majority of clinical laboratories, and therefore, it will be important to collect more genetic data to clarify the status of this variant and its associated cancer risks.

We also particularly noted the low BC risk estimates for BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] variant. The functional effects of this variant have been examined, and although it was classified as functionally deleterious, it was near the boundary between deleterious and intermediate function.36 This variant is denoted in ClinVar as pathogenic by 9 clinical laboratories and as likely pathogenic by 3 others, with a single lab reporting it in ClinVar as a variant of uncertain significance. This variant has also been evaluated in a number of other recent studies. On the basis of the family histories of 12 individuals heterozygous for p.[Trp2626Cys] in a large clinical testing set, we estimated odds of 16:1 against pathogenicity,11 and in the large OncoArray37 BC case-control series, this variant was identified in 16 of 75,350 cases and 5 of 52,793 controls (odds ratio = 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8–7.8; P =.1), which is consistent with the estimate reported here (K. Michailidou, personal communication). Taken together, the available evidence indicates that caution should be exercised in counseling individuals harboring this variant as a pathogenic BRCA2 variant until further genetic and functional studies can be performed.

Limitations and caveats

The primary limitation inherent in our study is that families were submitted from a wide variety of countries and clinical centers that could vary widely with respect to ascertainment criteria, cascade testing, and prospective follow up. Although in our analysis, we adjusted for the phenotypes of all pedigree members and relied only on the genotype status of nonproband family members, it is possible that different practices in different centers could affect the risk estimates. However, the consistency of our results together with the direct comparison of p.[Cys61Gly] with PTC variant pedigrees from the GC-HBOC resource make it highly unlikely that systematic biases could explain our findings.

A second limitation of this study is the lack of complete data on prophylactic surgery and potentially differing rates of uptake across countries. To ensure that the observed differences in risk were not due to the censoring of women at BPM in some of the data sets and not others, we repeated analyses ignoring the BPM information. In particular, we were concerned about the effect in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 reference sets because they were used for comparison with the missense PVs. The mean difference between age at BPM and current age/age at death was only 2.9 years (95% CI, 1.9–3.9), indicating that differential information with regard to BPM would not alter our conclusions.

Conclusion

Our analyses of approximately 1250 informative pedigrees have shown that BRCA1 missense PVs are associated with smaller increased risks of BC in women aged >50 years when compared with variants predicted to result in complete loss of function. The risk reduction was less pronounced for BRCA2 in such women. We have also shown that specific variants are associated with particularly lower risks than other BRCA PVs: BRCA1 p.[Cys64Arg] and BRCA2 p.[Trp2626Cys] for BC and possibly BRCA1 p.[Ala1708-Glu] for OC. Interestingly, the histopathology of BCs from patients carrying pathogenic missense variants in BRCA1 showed similar rates of ER negative/triple negative status as that from patients carrying PTC variants. Future studies should focus on the functional basis for the reduction in relative risks for older women who harbor a pathogenic missense variant in BRCA1 and, to a lesser extent, BRCA2.

Data Availability

Requests for the data files used in the analysis should be made to D.E.G., although European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulations may not permit pedigree data to be transferred outside the European Union.

Supplementary Material

Suppl Table 2

Supplementary Materials

Acknowledgments

The work of A.B.S. and M.T.P. was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research funding (ID1177524). E.I.P. was supported by Barretos Cancer Hospital, FINEP - CT-INFRA (02/2010), and a National Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) scholarship. We wish to thank members of the Center of Molecular Diagnosis, Oncogenetics Department, and Molecular Oncology Research Center of Barretos Cancer Hospital for their contributions to the study. M.d.l.H was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Plan Nacional de I D I 2013-2016, ISCIII (PI15/00059 and PI20/00110) co-funded by FEDER from Regional Development European Funds (European Union). A.V. was supported by the Spanish Health Research Foundation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through Research Activity Intensification Program (contract grants: INT15/00070, INT16/00154, INT17/00133, INT20/00071) and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras (ACCI 2016: ER17P1AC7112/2018); by Autonomous Government of Galicia (Consolidation and structuring program: IN607B); and by the Fundación Mutua Madrileña (call 2018).We thank all participants, clinicians, family doctors, researchers, and technicians for their contributions and commitment to the DKFZ study and the collaborating groups in Lahore, Pakistan and Bogota, Colombia. I.L.A., M.B.T., and E.M.J. were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the US National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the Breast Cancer Family Registry. P.R. was supported by funds from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (IG number 22093).The work of P.P. was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research funding IG-16732. B.P. was supported by the DSM-UniTO Excellence Project n. D15D18000410001. The contribution of F.J.C. was supported by National Institutes of Health grants R35 CA253187, R01 CA225662, and R01 CA116167; a specialized program of research excellence in breast cancer (P50 CA116201); and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. S.D. was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.The work of A.C.A., G.L., and X.Y. were supported by Cancer Research United Kingdom grants C12292/A20861 and PPRPGM-Nov20/100002. S.M.C. thanks the clinicians and biologists (Supplemental Table 2) involved in the French Unicancer Genetic Group for their cooperation.

We thank the families who participated in the study. This work was funded by grants from the French National Cancer Institute INCa BCB (2013-1-BCB-01-531 ICH-1) and from the French Ligue contre le cancer 92. A.E.T. wishes to thank Hayley Cassingham, Leigha Senter, and Kevin Sweet who were instrumental in consenting of study participants and data collection and funding from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Ethics Declaration

This study was covered under Amendment to Project P1051 (PI: A.BS.) approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at QIMR Berghofer, Brisbane, Australia, on October 7, 2020. All patients gave consent to have their data used for research purposes, and all studies received local Ethics Committee approvals. Data from all centers were de-identified before analysis at the coordinating center.

Footnotes

Web Resources

BRCA Exchange. Accessed February 15, 2021. https://brcaexchange.org/.

HCI Priors database. Huntsman Cancer Institute. Accessed February 15, 2021. http://priors.hci.utah.edu/PRIORS/BRCA/viewer.php?gene=BRCA1.

Conflict of Interest

F.J.C. has received consulting fees from Astrazeneca. A.S. has received consulting fees from Pfizer and Astra Zeneca. T.V.O.H. has received honoraria from Pfizer. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional Information

The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2021.08.016) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

1. Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;56(1):265–271. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
2. Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(5):1117–1130. Published correction appears in Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73(3):709. 10.1086/375033. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–2416. 10.1001/jama.2017.7112. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Thompson D, Easton D, Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Variation in BRCA1 cancer risks by mutation position. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11(4):329–336. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
5. Gayther SA, Warren W, Mazoyer S, et al. Germline mutations of the BRCA1 gene in breast and ovarian cancer families provide evidence for a genotype-phenotype correlation. Nat Genet. 1995;11(4):428–433. 10.1038/ng1295-428. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Rebbeck TR, Mitra N, Wan F, et al. Association of type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with risk of breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(13):1347–1361. Published correction appears in JAMA. 2015;314(6):628. 10.1001/jama.2014.5985. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Spurdle AB, Healey S, Devereau A, et al. ENIGMA—evidence-based network for the interpretation of germline mutant alleles: an international initiative to evaluate risk and clinical significance associated with sequence variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Hum Mutat. 2012;33(1):2–7. 10.1002/humu.21628. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, et al. Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet. 2004;75(4):535–544. 10.1086/424388. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Thompson D, Easton DF, Goldgar DE. A full-likelihood method for the evaluation of causality of sequence variants from family data. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;73(3):652–655. 10.1086/378100. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, Pruss D, et al. A systematic genetic assessment of 1,433 sequence variants of unknown clinical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer-predisposition genes. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81(5):873–883. 10.1086/521032. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Li H, LaDuca H, Pesaran T, et al. Classification of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using personal and family history of cancer from individuals in a large hereditary cancer multigene panel testing cohort. Genet Med. 2020;22(4):701–708. 10.1038/s41436-019-0729-1. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Spurdle AB, Couch FJ, Parsons MT, et al. Refined histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status: a large-scale analysis of breast cancer characteristics from the BCAC, CIMBA, and ENIGMA consortia. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(6):3419. 10.1186/s13058-014-0474-y. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Parsons MT, Tudini E, Li H, et al. Large scale multifactorial likelihood quantitative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: an ENIGMA resource to support clinical variant classification. Hum Mutat. 2019;40(9):1557–1578. 10.1002/humu.23818. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Spurdle AB, Whiley PJ, Thompson B, et al. BRCA1 R1699Q variant displaying ambiguous functional abrogation confers intermediate breast and ovarian cancer risk. J Med Genet. 2012;49(8):525–532. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2012-101037. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Shimelis H, Mesman RLS, Von Nicolai C, et al. BRCA2 hypomorphic missense variants confer moderate risks of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77(11):2789–2799. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2568. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. ClinVar. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar. Accessed July 15, 2018. [Google Scholar]
18. Cline MS, Liao RG, Parsons MT, et al. BRCA Challenge: BRCA Exchange as a global resource for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(12): e1007752. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007752. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Chenevix-Trench G, Milne RL, Antoniou AC, et al. An international initiative to identify genetic modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the Consortium of Investigators of modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA). Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(2):104. 10.1186/bcr1670. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Tavtigian SV, Byrnes GB, Goldgar DE, Thomas A. Classification of rare missense substitutions, using risk surfaces, with genetic- and molecular-epidemiology applications. Hum Mutat. 2008;29(11): 1342–1354. 10.1002/humu.20896. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Valleé MP, Di Sera TL, Nix DA, et al. Adding in silico assessment of potential splice aberration to the integrated evaluation of BRCA gene unclassified variants. Hum Mutat. 2016;37(7):627–639. 10.1002/humu.22973. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Richardson ME, Hu C, Lee KY, et al. Strong functional data for pathogenicity or neutrality classify BRCA2 DNA-binding-domain variants of uncertain significance. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(3):458–468. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.02.005. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Woods NT, Baskin R, Golubeva V, et al. Functional assays provide a robust tool for the clinical annotation of genetic variants of uncertain significance. NPJ Genom Med. 2016;1:16001. 10.1038/npjgenmed.2016.1. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Findlay GM, Daza RM, Martin B, et al. Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing. Nature. 2018;562(7726):217–222. 10.1038/s41586-018-0461-z. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Walker LC, Whiley PJ, Couch FJ, et al. Detection of splicing aberrations caused by BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variants encoding missense substitutions: implications for prediction of pathogenicity. Hum Mutat. 2010;31(6):E1484–E1505. 10.1002/humu.21267. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Fraile-Bethencourt E, Valenzuela-Palomo A, Díez-Gó mez B, Caloca MJ, Gó mez-Barrero S, Velasco EA. Minigene splicing assays identify 12 Spliceogenic Variants of BRCA2 Exons 14 and 15. Front Genet. 2019;10:503. 10.3389/fgene.2019.00503. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Caleca L, Putignano AL, Colombo M, et al. Characterization of an Italian founder mutation in the RING-finger domain of BRCA1. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e86924. 10.1371/journal.pone.0086924. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Anagnostopoulos T, Pertesi M, Konstantopoulou I, et al. G1738R is a BRCA1 founder mutation in Greek breast/ovarian cancer patients: evaluation of its pathogenicity and inferences on its genealogical history. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110(2):377–385. 10.1007/s10549-007-9729-y. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. PedPro. Fishing for Gene & Proteins http://www.bjfenglab.org. Accessed September 21, 2018.
30. Lange K, Weeks D, Boehnke M. Programs for pedigree analysis: MENDEL, FISHER, and dGENE. Genet Epidemiol. 1988;5(6):471–472. 10.1002/gepi.1370050611. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Yang X, Leslie G, Doroszuk A, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants: an international study of 524 families. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(7):674–685. 10.1200/JCO.19.01907. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Forman D, Bray F, Brewster DH, et al., eds. Cancer incidence in five continents. IARC Sci Publ No. 164. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2014. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home. Accessed July 22, 2019. [Google Scholar]
33. Barnes DR, Rookus MA, McGuffog L, et al. Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Genet Med. 2020;22(10):1653–1666. 10.1038/s41436-020-0862-x. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Terry MB, Liao Y, Kast K, et al. The influence of number and timing of pregnancies on breast cancer risk for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018;2(4):pky078. 10.1093/jncics/pky078. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(8):1457–1466. Published correction appears in Br J Cancer. 2008;98(12):2015. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604305. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Guidugli L, Carreira A, Caputo SM, et al. Functional assays for analysis of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA2. Hum Mutat. 2014;35(2):151–164. 10.1002/humu.22478. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Amos CI, Dennis J, Wang Z, et al. The OncoArray consortium: a network for understanding the genetic architecture of common cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(1):126–135. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0106. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2021.08.016

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

11
Citations
Jump to Citations
10
Data citations
Jump to Data

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/118110641
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/118110641

Smart citations by scite.ai
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1016/j.gim.2021.08.016

Supporting
Mentioning
Contrasting
0
9
0

Article citations

Go to all (11) article citations

Data 

Data behind the article

This data has been text mined from the article, or deposited into data resources.

Diseases (2)

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

    Funding 

    Funders who supported this work.

    Cancer Research UK (3)

    NCI NIH HHS (5)