@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{DoerkPeterlongoMannermaaetal.2019,
  author    = {D{\"o}rk, Thilo and Peterlongo, Peter and Mannermaa, Arto and Bolla, Manjeet K. and Wang, Qin and Dennis, Joe and Ahearn, Thomas and Andrulis, Irene L. and Anton-Culver, Hoda and Arndt, Volker and Aronson, Kristan J. and Augustinsson, Annelie and Beane Freeman, Laura E. and Beckmann, Matthias W. and Beeghly-Fadiel, Alicia and Behrens, Sabine and Bermisheva, Marina and Blomqvist, Carl and Bogdanova, Natalia V. and Bojesen, Stig E. and Brauch, Hiltrud and Brenner, Hermann and Burwinkel, Barbara and Canzian, Federico and Chan, Tsun L. and Chang-Claude, Jenny and Chanock, Stephen J. and Choi, Ji-Yeob and Christiansen, Hans and Clarke, Christine L. and Couch, Fergus J. and Czene, Kamila and Daly, Mary B. and dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel and Dwek, Miriam and Eccles, Diana M. and Ekici, Arif B. and Eriksson, Mikael and Evans, D. Gareth and Fasching, Peter A. and Figueroa, Jonine and Flyger, Henrik and Fritschi, Lin and Gabrielson, Marike and Gago-Dominguez, Manuela and Gao, Chi and Gapstur, Susan M. and Garc{\´i}a-Closas, Montserrat and Garc{\´i}a-S{\´a}enz, Jos{\´e} A. and Gaudet, Mia M. and Giles, Graham G. and Goldberg, Mark S. and Goldgar, David E. and Guen{\´e}l, Pascal and Haeberle, Lothar and Haimann, Christopher A. and H{\aa}kansson, Niclas and Hall, Per and Hamann, Ute and Hartman, Mikael and Hauke, Jan and Hein, Alexander and Hillemanns, Peter and Hogervorst, Frans B. L. and Hooning, Maartje J. and Hopper, John L. and Howell, Tony and Huo, Dezheng and Ito, Hidemi and Iwasaki, Motoki and Jakubowska, Anna and Janni, Wolfgang and John, Esther M. and Jung, Audrey and Kaaks, Rudolf and Kang, Daehee and Kapoor, Pooja Middha and Khusnutdinova, Elza and Kim, Sung-Won and Kitahara, Cari M. and Koutros, Stella and Kraft, Peter and Kristensen, Vessela N. and Kwong, Ava and Lambrechts, Diether and Le Marchand, Loic and Li, Jingmei and Lindstr{\"o}m, Sara and Linet, Martha and Lo, Wing-Yee and Long, Jirong and Lophatananon, Artitaya and Lubiński, Jan and Manoochehri, Mehdi and Manoukian, Siranoush and Margolin, Sara and Martinez, Elena and Matsuo, Keitaro and Mavroudis, Dimitris and Meindl, Alfons and Menon, Usha and Milne, Roger L. and Mohd Taib, Nur Aishah and Muir, Kenneth and Mulligan, Anna Marie and Neuhausen, Susan L. and Nevanlinna, Heli and Neven, Patrick and Newman, William G. and Offit, Kenneth and Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. and Olshan, Andrew F. and Olson, Janet E. and Olsson, H{\aa}kan and Park, Sue K. and Park-Simon, Tjoung-Won and Peto, Julian and Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana and Pohl-Rescigno, Esther and Presneau, Nadege and Rack, Brigitte and Radice, Paolo and Rashid, Muhammad U. and Rennert, Gad and Rennert, Hedy S. and Romero, Atocha and Ruebner, Matthias and Saloustros, Emmanouil and Schmidt, Marjanka K. and Schmutzler, Rita K. and Schneider, Michael O. and Schoemaker, Minouk J. and Scott, Christopher and Shen, Chen-Yang and Shu, Xiao-Ou and Simard, Jaques and Slager, Susan and Smichkoska, Snezhana and Southey, Melissa C. and Spinelli, John J. and Stone, Jennifer and Surowy, Harald and Swerdlow, Anthony J. and Tamimi, Rulla M. and Tapper, William J. and Teo, Soo H. and Terry, Mary Beth and Toland, Amanda E. and Tollenaar, Rob A. E. M. and Torres, Diana and Torres-Mej{\´i}a, Gabriela and Troester, Melissa A. and Truong, Th{\´e}r{\`e}se and Tsugane, Shoichiro and Untch, Michael and Vachon, Celine M. and van den Ouweland, Ans M. W. and van Veen, Elke M. and Vijai, Joseph and Wendt, Camilla and Wolk, Alicja and Yu, Jyh-Cherng and Zheng, Wei and Ziogas, Argyrios and Ziv, Elad and Dunnig, Alison and Pharaoh, Paul D. P. and Schindler, Detlev and Devilee, Peter and Easton, Douglas F.},
  title     = {Two truncating variants in FANCC and breast cancer risk},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  organization    = {ABCTB Investigators, NBCS Collaborators},
  doi       = {10.1038/s41598-019-48804-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-222838},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Fanconi anemia (FA) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder with 22 disease-causing genes reported to date. In some FA genes, monoallelic mutations have been found to be associated with breast cancer risk, while the risk associations of others remain unknown. The gene for FA type C, FANCC, has been proposed as a breast cancer susceptibility gene based on epidemiological and sequencing studies. We used the Oncoarray project to genotype two truncating FANCC variants (p.R185X and p.R548X) in 64,760 breast cancer cases and 49,793 controls of European descent. FANCC mutations were observed in 25 cases (14 with p.R185X, 11 with p.R548X) and 26 controls (18 with p.R185X, 8 with p.R548X). There was no evidence of an association with the risk of breast cancer, neither overall (odds ratio 0.77, 95\%CI 0.44-1.33, p = 0.4) nor by histology, hormone receptor status, age or family history. We conclude that the breast cancer risk association of these two FANCC variants, if any, is much smaller than for BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2 mutations. If this applies to all truncating variants in FANCC it would suggest there are differences between FA genes in their roles on breast cancer risk and demonstrates the merit of large consortia for clarifying risk associations of rare variants.},
  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}
}