@article{RolfesBordeMoellenhoffetal.2022,
  author    = {Rolfes, Muriel and Borde, Julika and M{\"o}llenhoff, Kathrin and Kayali, Mohamad and Ernst, Corinna and Gehrig, Andrea and Sutter, Christian and Ramser, Juliane and Niederacher, Dieter and Horv{\´a}th, Judit and Arnold, Norbert and Meindl, Alfons and Auber, Bernd and Rump, Andreas and Wang-Gohrke, Shan and Ritter, Julia and Hentschel, Julia and Thiele, Holger and Altm{\"u}ller, Janine and N{\"u}rnberg, Peter and Rhiem, Kerstin and Engel, Christoph and Wappenschmidt, Barbara and Schmutzler, Rita K. and Hahnen, Eric and Hauke, Jan},
  title     = {Prevalence of cancer predisposition germline variants in male breast cancer patients: results of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {13},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers14133292},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281758},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Male breast cancer (mBC) is associated with a high prevalence of pathogenic variants (PVs) in the BRCA2 gene; however, data regarding other BC predisposition genes are limited. In this retrospective multicenter study, we investigated the prevalence of PVs in BRCA1/2 and 23 non-BRCA1/2 genes using a sample of 614 patients with mBC, recruited through the centers of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. A high proportion of patients with mBC carried PVs in BRCA2 (23.0\%, 142/614) and BRCA1 (4.6\%, 28/614). The prevalence of BRCA1/2 PVs was 11.0\% in patients with mBC without a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Patients with BRCA1/2 PVs did not show an earlier disease onset than those without. The predominant clinical presentation of tumor phenotypes was estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, and HER2-negative (77.7\%); further, 10.2\% of the tumors were triple-positive, and 1.2\% were triple-negative. No association was found between ER/PR/HER2 status and BRCA1/2 PV occurrence. Comparing the prevalence of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) between patients with mBC and control data (ExAC, n = 27,173) revealed significant associations of PTVs in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 with mBC (BRCA1: OR = 17.04, 95\% CI = 10.54-26.82, p < 10\(^{-5}\); BRCA2: OR = 77.71, 95\% CI = 58.71-102.33, p < 10\(^{-5}\)). A case-control investigation of 23 non-BRCA1/2 genes in 340 BRCA1/2-negative patients and ExAC controls revealed significant associations of PTVs in CHEK2, PALB2, and ATM with mBC (CHEK2: OR = 3.78, 95\% CI = 1.59-7.71, p = 0.002; PALB2: OR = 14.77, 95\% CI = 5.02-36.02, p < 10\(^{-5}\); ATM: OR = 3.36, 95\% CI = 0.89-8.96, p = 0.04). Overall, our findings support the benefit of multi-gene panel testing in patients with mBC irrespective of their family history, age at disease onset, and tumor phenotype.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DumontWeberLassalleJolyBeauparlantetal.2022,
  author    = {Dumont, Martine and Weber-Lassalle, Nana and Joly-Beauparlant, Charles and Ernst, Corinna and Droit, Arnaud and Feng, Bing-Jian and Dubois, St{\´e}phane and Collin-Deschesnes, Annie-Claude and Soucy, Penny and Vall{\´e}e, Maxime and Fournier, Fr{\´e}d{\´e}ric and Lema{\c{c}}on, Audrey and Adank, Muriel A. and Allen, Jamie and Altm{\"u}ller, Janine and Arnold, Norbert and Ausems, Margreet G. E. M. and Berutti, Riccardo and Bolla, Manjeet K. and Bull, Shelley and Carvalho, Sara and Cornelissen, Sten and Dufault, Michael R. and Dunning, Alison M. and Engel, Christoph and Gehrig, Andrea and Geurts-Giele, Willemina R. R. and Gieger, Christian and Green, Jessica and Hackmann, Karl and Helmy, Mohamed and Hentschel, Julia and Hogervorst, Frans B. L. and Hollestelle, Antoinette and Hooning, Maartje J. and Horv{\´a}th, Judit and Ikram, M. Arfan and Kaulfuß, Silke and Keeman, Renske and Kuang, Da and Luccarini, Craig and Maier, Wolfgang and Martens, John W. M. and Niederacher, Dieter and N{\"u}rnberg, Peter and Ott, Claus-Eric and Peters, Annette and Pharoah, Paul D. P. and Ramirez, Alfredo and Ramser, Juliane and Riedel-Heller, Steffi and Schmidt, Gunnar and Shah, Mitul and Scherer, Martin and St{\"a}bler, Antje and Strom, Tim M. and Sutter, Christian and Thiele, Holger and van Asperen, Christi J. and van der Kolk, Lizet and van der Luijt, Rob B. and Volk, Alexander E. and Wagner, Michael and Waisfisz, Quinten and Wang, Qin and Wang-Gohrke, Shan and Weber, Bernhard H. F. and Devilee, Peter and Tavtigian, Sean and Bader, Gary D. and Meindl, Alfons and Goldgar, David E. and Andrulis, Irene L. and Schmutzler, Rita K. and Easton, Douglas F. and Schmidt, Marjanka K. and Hahnen, Eric and Simard, Jacques},
  title     = {Uncovering the contribution of moderate-penetrance susceptibility genes to breast cancer by whole-exome sequencing and targeted enrichment sequencing of candidate genes in women of European ancestry},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {14},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers14143363},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281768},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Rare variants in at least 10 genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2, are associated with increased risk of breast cancer; however, these variants, in combination with common variants identified through genome-wide association studies, explain only a fraction of the familial aggregation of the disease. To identify further susceptibility genes, we performed a two-stage whole-exome sequencing study. In the discovery stage, samples from 1528 breast cancer cases enriched for breast cancer susceptibility and 3733 geographically matched unaffected controls were sequenced. Using five different filtering and gene prioritization strategies, 198 genes were selected for further validation. These genes, and a panel of 32 known or suspected breast cancer susceptibility genes, were assessed in a validation set of 6211 cases and 6019 controls for their association with risk of breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor (ER) disease subtypes, using gene burden tests applied to loss-of-function and rare missense variants. Twenty genes showed nominal evidence of association (p-value < 0.05) with either overall or subtype-specific breast cancer. Our study had the statistical power to detect susceptibility genes with effect sizes similar to ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2, however, it was underpowered to identify genes in which susceptibility variants are rarer or confer smaller effect sizes. Larger sample sizes would be required in order to identify such genes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SepahiFaustSturmetal.2019,
  author    = {Sepahi, Ilnaz and Faust, Ulrike and Sturm, Marc and Bosse, Kristin and Kehrer, Martin and Heinrich, Tilman and Grundman-Hauser, Kathrin and Bauer, Peter and Ossowski, Stephan and Susak, Hana and Varon, Raymonda and Schr{\"o}ck, Evelin and Niederacher, Dieter and Auber, Bernd and Sutter, Christian and Arnold, Norbert and Hahnen, Eric and Dworniczak, Bernd and Wang-Gorke, Shan and Gehrig, Andrea and Weber, Bernhard H. F. and Engel, Christoph and Lemke, Johannes R. and Hartkopf, Andreas and Huu Phuc, Nguyen and Riess, Olaf and Schroeder, Christopher},
  title     = {Investigating the effects of additional truncating variants in DNA-repair genes on breast cancer risk in BRCA1-positive women},
  series = {BMC Cancer},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {BMC Cancer},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12885-019-5946-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-237676},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Background Inherited pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most common causes of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). The risk of developing breast cancer by age 80 in women carrying a BRCA1 pathogenic variant is 72\%. The lifetime risk varies between families and even within affected individuals of the same family. The cause of this variability is largely unknown, but it is hypothesized that additional genetic factors contribute to differences in age at onset (AAO). Here we investigated whether truncating and rare missense variants in genes of different DNA-repair pathways contribute to this phenomenon. Methods We used extreme phenotype sampling to recruit 133 BRCA1-positive patients with either early breast cancer onset, below 35 (early AAO cohort) or cancer-free by age 60 (controls). Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) was used to screen for variants in 311 genes involved in different DNA-repair pathways. Results Patients with an early AAO (73 women) had developed breast cancer at a median age of 27 years (interquartile range (IQR); 25.00-27.00 years). A total of 3703 variants were detected in all patients and 43 of those (1.2\%) were truncating variants. The truncating variants were found in 26 women of the early AAO group (35.6\%; 95\%-CI 24.7 - 47.7\%) compared to 16 women of controls (26.7\%; 95\%-CI 16.1 to 39.7\%). When adjusted for environmental factors and family history, the odds ratio indicated an increased breast cancer risk for those carrying an additional truncating DNA-repair variant to BRCA1 mutation (OR: 3.1; 95\%-CI 0.92 to 11.5; p-value = 0.07), although it did not reach the conventionally acceptable significance level of 0.05. Conclusions To our knowledge this is the first time that the combined effect of truncating variants in DNA-repair genes on AAO in patients with hereditary breast cancer is investigated. Our results indicate that co-occurring truncating variants might be associated with an earlier onset of breast cancer in BRCA1-positive patients. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm these results.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{EngelRhiemHahnenetal.2018,
  author    = {Engel, Christoph and Rhiem, Kerstin and Hahnen, Eric and Loibl, Sibylle and Weber, Karsten E. and Seiler, Sabine and Zachariae, Silke and Hauke, Jan and Wappenschmidt, Barbara and Waha, Anke and Bl{\"u}mcke, Britta and Kiechle, Marion and Meindl, Alfons and Niederacher, Dieter and Bartram, Claus R. and Speiser, Dorothee and Schlegelberger, Brigitte and Arnold, Norbert and Wieacker, Peter and Leinert, Elena and Gehrig, Andrea and Briest, Susanne and Kast, Karin and Riess, Olaf and Emons, G{\"u}nter and Weber, Bernhard H. F. and Engel, Jutta and Schmutzler, Rita K.},
  title     = {Prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline mutations among 802 women with unilateral triple-negative breast cancer without family cancer history},
  series = {BMC Cancer},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {BMC Cancer},
  organization    = {German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC)},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12885-018-4029-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226763},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}
@article{SilvestriBarrowdaleMulliganetal.2016,
  author    = {Silvestri, Valentina and Barrowdale, Daniel and Mulligan, Anna Marie and Neuhausen, Susan L. and Fox, Stephen and Karlan, Beth Y. and Mitchell, Gillian and James, Paul and Thull, Darcy L. and Zorn, Kristin K. and Carter, Natalie J. and Nathanson, Katherine L. and Domchek, Susan M. and Rebbeck, Timothy R. and Ramus, Susan J. and Nussbaum, Robert L. and Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. and Rantala, Johanna and Yoon, Sook-Yee and Caligo, Maria A. and Spugnesi, Laura and Bojesen, Anders and Pedersen, Inge Sokilde and Thomassen, Mads and Jensen, Uffe Birk and Toland, Amanda Ewart and Senter, Leigha and Andrulis, Irene L. and Glendon, Gord and Hulick, Peter J. and Imyanitov, Evgeny N. and Greene, Mark H. and Mai, Phuong L. and Singer, Christian F. and Rappaport-Fuerhauser, Christine and Kramer, Gero and Vijai, Joseph and Offit, Kenneth and Robson, Mark and Lincoln, Anne and Jacobs, Lauren and Machackova, Eva and Foretova, Lenka and Navratilova, Marie and Vasickova, Petra and Couch, Fergus J. and Hallberg, Emily and Ruddy, Kathryn J. and Sharma, Priyanka and Kim, Sung-Won and Teixeira, Manuel R. and Pinto, Pedro and Montagna, Marco and Matricardi, Laura and Arason, Adalgeir and Johannsson, Oskar Th and Barkardottir, Rosa B. and Jakubowska, Anna and Lubinski, Jan and Izquierdo, Angel and Pujana, Miguel Angel and Balma{\~n}a, Judith and Diez, Orland and Ivady, Gabriella and Papp, Janos and Olah, Edith and Kwong, Ava and Nevanlinna, Heli and Aittom{\"a}ki, Kristiina and Segura, Pedro Perez and Caldes, Trinidad and Van Maerken, Tom and Poppe, Bruce and Claes, Kathleen B. M. and Isaacs, Claudine and Elan, Camille and Lasset, Christine and Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique and Barjhoux, Laure and Belotti, Muriel and Meindl, Alfons and Gehrig, Andrea and Sutter, Christian and Engel, Christoph and Niederacher, Dieter and Steinemann, Doris and Hahnen, Eric and Kast, Karin and Arnold, Norbert and Varon-Mateeva, Raymonda and Wand, Dorothea and Godwin, Andrew K. and Evans, D. Gareth and Frost, Debra and Perkins, Jo and Adlard, Julian and Izatt, Louise and Platte, Radka and Eeles, Ros and Ellis, Steve and Hamann, Ute and Garber, Judy and Fostira, Florentia and Fountzilas, George and Pasini, Barbara and Giannini, Giuseppe and Rizzolo, Piera and Russo, Antonio and Cortesi, Laura and Papi, Laura and Varesco, Liliana and Palli, Domenico and Zanna, Ines and Savarese, Antonella and Radice, Paolo and Manoukian, Siranoush and Peissel, Bernard and Barile, Monica and Bonanni, Bernardo and Viel, Alessandra and Pensotti, Valeria and Tommasi, Stefania and Peterlongo, Paolo and Weitzel, Jeffrey N. and Osorio, Ana and Benitez, Javier and McGuffog, Lesley and Healey, Sue and Gerdes, Anne-Marie and Ejlertsen, Bent and Hansen, Thomas V. O. and Steele, Linda and Ding, Yuan Chun and Tung, Nadine and Janavicius, Ramunas and Goldgar, David E. and Buys, Saundra S. and Daly, Mary B. and Bane, Anita and Terry, Mary Beth and John, Esther M. and Southey, Melissa and Easton, Douglas F. and Chenevix-Trench, Georgia and Antoniou, Antonis C. and Ottini, Laura},
  title     = {Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2},
  series = {Breast Cancer Research},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Breast Cancer Research},
  number    = {15},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13058-016-0671-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-164769},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background BRCA1 and, more commonly, BRCA2 mutations are associated with increased risk of male breast cancer (MBC). However, only a paucity of data exists on the pathology of breast cancers (BCs) in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Using the largest available dataset, we determined whether MBCs arising in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers display specific pathologic features and whether these features differ from those of BRCA1/2 female BCs (FBCs). Methods We characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Results Among BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 × 10-5) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor-positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 \% confidence interval (CI) 5.15-21.80] and progesterone receptor-positive (OR 5.04; 95 \% CI 3.17-8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 × 10-12). Conclusions On the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management.},
  language  = {en}
}