Background
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women with 30% of all new cancer diagnoses [
1]. About one out of eight US women will develop breast cancer during her lifetime. It is estimated that hereditary genetic factors explain 5–10% of all breast cancer cases [
2]. In the mid-1990s,
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 [
3‐
5] which are part of the DNA-repair machinery [
6] were identified to play a crucial role in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) [
3‐
5,
7,
8]. Together, pathogenic variants in these two genes explain about 24% (95%-CI,23.4 to 24.6%) of all HBOC cases [
7].
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 are functioning as genome guardians by playing a central role in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway. Up to now, more than 300 gene products have been associated with the DNA-repair machinery and genome integrity maintenance of which 25 genes [
8] have been linked to HBOC.
In female
BRCA1 mutation carriers, the risk of developing breast cancer by the age of 80 is 72% [
9]. Moreover, the incidence of breast cancer rises quickly in early adulthood until age 30 to 40 years in
BRCA1 mutation carriers [
9]. Even though pathogenic variants in
BRCA1 are associated with the highest penetrance of HBOC, the cause for the inter-individual and even intra-familial variation in penetrance is not clear and remains an active field of research. This variation results in difficulties in risk calculation and genetic counseling. Several environmental factors such as birth cohort [
10], age at menarche [
11], number of pregnancies [
12], therapeutic abortion [
13], oral contraceptives [
14], and prophylactic oophorectomy [
15,
16] are suspected to affect the risk of cancer in
BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Using data from the Generations Study, Brewer and colleagues showed that having a first-degree female relative with breast cancer increases the relative risk of breast cancer as compared to those without family history [
17]. Moreover, the variation in penetrance can be due to allelic variation, which means variation in the variant type (truncating or missense) and position within the coding region of the
BRCA1 gene [
18]. As proposed by Thompson and Easton in 2001 and 2002 and also Rebbeck et al. [
19‐
21], the position of the respective causative pathogenic variant within the coding region of
BRCA1/2 can change breast or ovarian cancer risk. In this context, Rebbeck and colleagues identified three putative “breast cancer cluster regions” including BCCR1 which overlaps with the RING domain of the
BRCA1 protein and an “ovarian cancer cluster region” located in exon 11 [
21]. Furthermore, pathogenic variants towards the 3′-end of
BRCA1 lead to a lower risk of ovarian cancer compared to breast cancer [
22].
Another cause of differences in penetrance are modifying genes [
18]. The Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of
BRCA1/2 (CIMBA,
http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/consortia/cimba) screened more than 20,000 mutation carriers and performed Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) to identify genetic modifier loci [
23‐
29] and described several candidates; each adding a small part of risk variation in
BRCA1 mutation carriers (in total 2.2% in
BRCA1) [
23]. The CIMBA consortium suggested using a combination of different modifier loci to increase the precision of risk prediction. Unlike GWAS studies that are based on common variants, this study pursued the goal to predict
BRCA1 penetrance and AAO of breast cancer by analysing rare variants in genes that are part of the DNA damage response and genome integrity maintenance pathways as well as genes which are interacting with
BRCA1. Accurate prediction of AAO can become of clinical relevance in order to prevent overtreatment of carriers who will never develop breast cancer during their lifetime or may develop it later in life. To address this issue, we aimed to investigate the differences in AAO of breast cancer among
BRCA1 mutation carriers by studying 311 DNA-repair genes which are contributing to genome stability along with
BRCA1 and
BRCA2.
Discussion
Genome-wide case control association studies identified susceptibility variants and modifiers of penetrance for
BRCA1 mutation carriers [
23,
25‐
29]. Despite the fact that each modifier explains a small proportion of genetic variation of breast cancer development in carriers of
BRCA1 pathogenic variants [
23], still a large proportion of risk variation is unknown. The effect of each modifying variant can be combined into poly genic risk scores (PRSs), which may confer larger relative risks [
25,
41]. The approach taken in this study was to enrich for rare variants via preferentially selecting the carriers who are most informative cases [
42]. For this reason, the extreme ends of age at onset of hereditary breast cancer were chosen and we aimed to identify differences in the mutational load in these two highly selected cohorts. We hypothesized that inherited truncating variants in DNA-repair genes, which are partner components of
BRCA1 in the maintenance of genome integrity, are likely to interact with
BRCA1 by reducing the age at onset of hereditary breast carcinoma.
Previously reported by Thompson and Easton in 2001 and subject of a more recent study by Rebbeck et al. (2015), it was found that allelic variation in
BRCA1 pathogenic variants is one of the reasons of variation in risk for breast cancer compared to ovarian cancer in HBOC patients. Rebbeck and colleagues described multiple regions associated with a higher risk for breast cancer compared to ovarian cancer (breast cancer cluster regions = BCCRs) and, one region with an increased risk for ovarian cancer compared to breast cancer (OCCR) [
19‐
21]. The mutational position comparison in our cohorts showed no difference for BCCRs but a non-significant higher variant load in the OCCR (
p-value = 0.07) among controls. Although the difference was not statistically significant, it is worth considering that pathogenic variants in OCCR not only lead to increased risk of ovarian cancer but they also decrease the risk of breast cancer [
21]. Regarding the variant type, there was no difference in truncating or missense variants distribution in each cohort. While the most common pathogenic missense variant in both cohort was ENST00000357654: c.181 T > G: p. Cys61Gly, the missense variant ENST00000357654: c.5090G > A: p.Arg1699Gln was exclusively found in two of the patients in the control cohort. This is in line with previous reports where this variant had reduced cumulative risk of breast cancer by age 70 to 20% [
43,
44].
Concerning the sum effect of truncating DNA-repair variants on the risk of breast cancer among
BRCA1 mutation carriers, our results are suggesting an increase in the breast cancer risk for the
BRCA1 mutation carriers who carry additional truncating DNA-repair variants (OR: 3.1; 95% CI 0.92 to 11.5;
p-value = 0.07). The small number of old cancer-free
BRCA1 mutation carriers was a limiting factor in this study. The sum effect of pathogenic variants in DNA-repair genes can lead to a different cancer phenotype as shown by Pritchard and colleagues [
45] who reported a higher prevalence of germline DNA-repair pathogenic variants in metastatic prostate cancer patients compared to localized prostate cancer. More recently, Brohl and colleagues [
46] reported a significantly higher frequency of germline DNA-repair pathogenic variants in patients with Ewing sarcoma in comparison with general population. By pathway analysis they uncovered that hereditary breast cancer genes, and remarkably, genes involved in DSBR were highly mutated.
Despite the small sample size, we carried out a rare variant association study (RVAS) using SKAT-O and Burden tests to shed light on the role of rare variants in the genetic risk of hereditary breast cancer. The results of SKAT-O and Burden tests were not statistically significant after multiple testing corrections. The top ranked gene in the Burden test is
MRE11. Mre11 is a member of MRN (MRE11, RAD50, and NBS1) complex [
47]. This complex is involved in the sensing of DNA double strand breaks and it initiates the processing of double strand break repair [
48‐
50]. Studies showed that hypomorphic mutations in
MRE11 and
NBS1 lead to
Ataxia telangiectasia disorder and Nijmegen breakage syndrome, a rare autosomal recessive disorder [
51,
52]. Pathogenic variants in the MRN complex were also linked to cancer predisposition. Recently Gupta and colleagues showed an association between triple negative breast cancer and MRE11 defects [
53]. The top ranked gene in SKAT-O test and the third top ranked gene in burden test is
MYBBP1 which inhibits colony formation and tumorigenesis and enhances the anoikis in a p53 dependent manner [
54].
We also evaluated the tumor histology and immunohistochemical characteristics of the tumors and whether they were influenced by AAO among
BRCA1 mutation carriers. Although the clinicopathological features of
BRCA1 associated breast tumors are studied widely and previous studies showed that
BRCA1 positive tumors demonstrated higher tumor grade, lower estrogen receptor expression, and lower progesterone receptor expression [
55‐
57], the status of ER and PR expression among young and older
BRCA1 associated breast cancer patients is less well studied. Vaziri and colleagues [
58] observed that the ER and PR negativity was more common in
BRCA1-positive patients with an age at onset younger than 50 years compared to above 50 years of age. In 2005, Eerola and colleagues [
59] showed similar results by studying
BRCA1/2 positive families in comparison with
BRCA1/2 negative families. They observed a significant difference in ER negativity for
BRCA1 positive, premenopausal patients (age of diagnosis below 50 years). These patients also suffered from higher-grade tumors compared to postmenopausal patients. Our results also demonstrate that carrying a truncating variant in DNA-repair genes in addition to a
BRCA1 pathogenic variant does not change tumor characteristics since the differences in histology and histochemical features of tumors did not differ in those with additional truncating variants in DNA-repair genes compared to those without.
As part of the study we also identified double heterozygotes for pathogenic
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 variants. While the frequency of pathogenic variants in
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 is high in the Ashkenazi Jewish population [
60,
61], it was found that 0.3% of all Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients were double heterozygotes for
BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants [
62]. In contrast, double heterozygosity for the two major breast cancer genes is expected to be less common phenomenon in other populations. Several studies reported double heterozygous females including a report by Heidemann and colleagues (2012), showing that double heterozygotes were not younger at the time of first diagnosis compared to other patients. Interestingly, they reported a more severe phenotype in double heterozygote females in comparison with their single heterozygote relatives [
63]. In the present study, we identified two cases with double heterozygosity in
BRCA1/2. One of them was found in early AAO cohort whereas another double heterozygote
BRCA1/2 female had a late breast cancer manifestation. These results advocate panel testing, since panel testing allows detection of variants in different genes simultaneously. The presence of additional truncating variants is also of high relevance for the families and segregation analysis should be offered in families with known pathogenic variants to identify patients with high risk for cancer predisposing syndromes.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.