@article{WeberLassalleHaukeRamseretal.2018,
  author    = {Weber-Lassalle, Nana and Hauke, Jan and Ramser, Juliane and Richters, Lisa and Groß, Eva and Bl{\"u}mcke, Britta and Gehrig, Andrea and Kahlert, Anne-Karin and M{\"u}ller, Clemens R. and Hackmann, Karl and Honisch, Ellen and Weber-Lassalle, Konstantin and Niederacher, Dieter and Borde, Julika and Thiele, Holger and Ernst, Corinna and Altm{\"u}ller, Janine and Neidhardt, Guido and N{\"u}rnberg, Peter and Klaschik, Kristina and Schroeder, Christopher and Platzer, Konrad and Volk, Alexander E. and Wang-Gohrke, Shan and Just, Walter and Auber, Bernd and Kubisch, Christian and Schmidt, Gunnar and Horvath, Judit and Wappenschmidt, Barbara and Engel, Christoph and Arnold, Norbert and Dworniczak, Bernd and Rhiem, Kerstin and Meindl, Alfons and Schmutzler, Rita K. and Hahnen, Eric},
  title     = {BRIP1 loss-of-function mutations confer high risk for familial ovarian cancer, but not familial breast cancer},
  series = {Breast Cancer Research},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {Breast Cancer Research},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13058-018-0935-9},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-233433},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HarterHaukeHeitzetal.2017,
  author    = {Harter, Philipp and Hauke, Jan and Heitz, Florian and Reuss, Alexander and Kommoss, Stefan and Marm{\´e}, Frederik and Heimbach, Andr{\´e} and Prieske, Katharina and Richters, Lisa and Burges, Alexander and Neidhardt, Guido and de Gregorio, Nikolaus and El-Balat, Ahmed and Hilpert, Felix and Meier, Werner and Kimmig, Rainer and Kast, Karin and Sehouli, Jalid and Baumann, Klaus and Jackisch, Christian and Park-Simon, Tjoung-Won and Hanker, Lars and Kr{\"o}ber, Sandra and Pfisterer, Jacobus and Gevensleben, Heidrun and Schnelzer, Andreas and Dietrich, Dimo and Neunh{\"o}ffer, Tanja and Krockenberger, Mathias and Brucker, Sara Y. and N{\"u}rnberg, Peter and Thiele, Holger and Altm{\"u}ller, Janine and Lamla, Josefin and Elser, Gabriele and du Bois, Andreas and Hahnen, Eric and Schmutzler, Rita},
  title     = {Prevalence of deleterious germline variants in risk genes including \(BRCA1/2\) in consecutive ovarian cancer patients (AGO-TR-1)},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {10},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0186043},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-173553},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background Identification of families at risk for ovarian cancer offers the opportunity to consider prophylactic surgery thus reducing ovarian cancer mortality. So far, identification of potentially affected families in Germany was solely performed via family history and numbers of affected family members with breast or ovarian cancer. However, neither the prevalence of deleterious variants in \(BRCA1/2\) in ovarian cancer in Germany nor the reliability of family history as trigger for genetic counselling has ever been evaluated. Methods Prospective counseling and germline testing of consecutive patients with primary diagnosis or with platinum-sensitive relapse of an invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Testing included 25 candidate and established risk genes. Among these 25 genes, 16 genes (\(ATM\), \(BRCA1\), \(BRCA2\), \(CDH1\), \(CHEK2\), \(MLH1\), \(MSH2\), \(MSH6\), \(NBN\), \(PMS2\), \(PTEN\), \(PALB2\), \(RAD51C\), \(RAD51D\), \(STK11\), \(TP53\)) were defined as established cancer risk genes. A positive family history was defined as at least one relative with breast cancer or ovarian cancer or breast cancer in personal history. Results In total, we analyzed 523 patients: 281 patients with primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and 242 patients with relapsed disease. Median age at primary diagnosis was 58 years (range 16-93) and 406 patients (77.6\%) had a high-grade serous ovarian cancer. In total, 27.9\% of the patients showed at least one deleterious variant in all 25 investigated genes and 26.4\% in the defined 16 risk genes. Deleterious variants were most prevalent in the \(BRCA1\) (15.5\%), \(BRCA2\) (5.5\%), \(RAD51C\) (2.5\%) and \(PALB2\) (1.1\%) genes. The prevalence of deleterious variants did not differ significantly between patients at primary diagnosis and relapse. The prevalence of deleterious variants in \(BRCA1/2\) (and in all 16 risk genes) in patients <60 years was 30.2\% (33.2\%) versus 10.6\% (18.9\%) in patients \(\geq\)60 years. Family history was positive in 43\% of all patients. Patients with a positive family history had a prevalence of deleterious variants of 31.6\% (36.0\%) versus 11.4\% (17.6\%) and histologic subtype of high grade serous ovarian cancer versus other showed a prevalence of deleterious variants of 23.2\% (29.1\%) and 10.2\% (14.8\%), respectively. Testing only for \(BRCA1/2\) would miss in our series more than 5\% of the patients with a deleterious variant in established risk genes. Conclusions 26.4\% of all patients harbor at least one deleterious variant in established risk genes. The threshold of 10\% mutation rate which is accepted for reimbursement by health care providers in Germany was observed in all subgroups analyzed and neither age at primary diagnosis nor histo-type or family history sufficiently enough could identify a subgroup not eligible for genetic counselling and testing. Genetic testing should therefore be offered to every patient with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and limiting testing to \(BRCA1/2\) seems to be not sufficient.},
  language  = {en}
}