BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in Japanese women with ductal carcinoma in situ.
BRCA 1/2 mutations
breast cancer
ductal carcinoma in situ
family history
Journal
Molecular genetics & genomic medicine
ISSN: 2324-9269
Titre abrégé: Mol Genet Genomic Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
05
03
2018
revised:
26
08
2018
accepted:
02
10
2018
pubmed:
18
1
2019
medline:
9
5
2019
entrez:
18
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a component of the clinical spectrum of breast cancer even in those with BRCA1/2 mutation. The aim of this study was to report the feature of DCIS raised in Japanese women with BRCA1/2 mutations. A total of 325 Japanese women with breast cancer (BC) (with or without invasive cancer) were referred for genetic counseling and underwent genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Showa University Hospital between December 2011 and August 2016. And 49 of them who were pathologically diagnosed as DCIS were included in this study. Logistic regression models were fit to determine the associations between potential predictive factors and BRCA status. A Cox proportional hazards model is used to predictive value of parameters for Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and contralateral breast tumor recurrence (CBTR). (a) Of 325 patients (with or without invasive cancer), 19.1% (62/325) tested positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. And 18.4% (9/49) was positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in DCIS, compared with 19.2% (53/276) in IDC (p = 1.000). Among BRCA mutations, 14.5% (9/62) had DCIS compared with nonmutations (15.2%, 40/263). Incidence of DCIS was 3.0% (1/33) of BRCA1 mutations and 27.5% (8/29) of BRCA2 mutation (p = 0.009). (b) Median age of diagnosis in BRCA mutation carriers was 39 years, compared with 46 years in noncarriers. Age, Family history (FH) of BC, FH of first or second BC and total number of relatives with BC diagnosis (DX) has significant difference between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers in univariate analysis. In a multivariate logistic model, total relatives with BC DX ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.128; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.266-20.763; p = 0.022), age at diagnosis ≤35 years (OR 0.149, 95% CI 0.023-0.954, p = 0.045) and ER+/HER2+ status (OR 5.034, 95% CI 1.092-23.210, p = 0.038) remained as independent significant predictors for BRCA mutation. Ki67 index (cut off by 14% or 30%) did not differ between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.459 and p = 0.651). (c) There was a significant difference in ER-positive tumors among BRCA2 carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.042). Subgroup analysis showed BRCA2 carriers tend to be of higher grade (Grade 2 and 3), more frequently ER+/PR+ (p = 0.041) and lower proliferation (Ki67 index) than noncarriers, whereas differences in nuclear grade and ki67 index were not found significantly in our study. (d) BRCA mutation was not associated with an increased risk of IBTR and CBTR. DCIS is equally as prevalent in patients who were BRCA mutation carriers as in high familial-risk women who were noncarriers, but occurs at earlier age. BRCA2 carriers have higher incidence in DCIS than that of BRCA1 carriers, and tend to be higher grade and more frequently ER positive and lower proliferation. Total relatives with BC DX ≥2, age at diagnosis ≤35 years and ER+/HER2+ might be independent predictors for BRCA mutation in Japanese women with DCIS and patients of these risk factors should be recommended to receive genetic counseling and BRCA testing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a component of the clinical spectrum of breast cancer even in those with BRCA1/2 mutation. The aim of this study was to report the feature of DCIS raised in Japanese women with BRCA1/2 mutations.
METHODS
A total of 325 Japanese women with breast cancer (BC) (with or without invasive cancer) were referred for genetic counseling and underwent genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Showa University Hospital between December 2011 and August 2016. And 49 of them who were pathologically diagnosed as DCIS were included in this study. Logistic regression models were fit to determine the associations between potential predictive factors and BRCA status. A Cox proportional hazards model is used to predictive value of parameters for Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and contralateral breast tumor recurrence (CBTR).
RESULTS
(a) Of 325 patients (with or without invasive cancer), 19.1% (62/325) tested positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. And 18.4% (9/49) was positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in DCIS, compared with 19.2% (53/276) in IDC (p = 1.000). Among BRCA mutations, 14.5% (9/62) had DCIS compared with nonmutations (15.2%, 40/263). Incidence of DCIS was 3.0% (1/33) of BRCA1 mutations and 27.5% (8/29) of BRCA2 mutation (p = 0.009). (b) Median age of diagnosis in BRCA mutation carriers was 39 years, compared with 46 years in noncarriers. Age, Family history (FH) of BC, FH of first or second BC and total number of relatives with BC diagnosis (DX) has significant difference between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers in univariate analysis. In a multivariate logistic model, total relatives with BC DX ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.128; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.266-20.763; p = 0.022), age at diagnosis ≤35 years (OR 0.149, 95% CI 0.023-0.954, p = 0.045) and ER+/HER2+ status (OR 5.034, 95% CI 1.092-23.210, p = 0.038) remained as independent significant predictors for BRCA mutation. Ki67 index (cut off by 14% or 30%) did not differ between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.459 and p = 0.651). (c) There was a significant difference in ER-positive tumors among BRCA2 carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.042). Subgroup analysis showed BRCA2 carriers tend to be of higher grade (Grade 2 and 3), more frequently ER+/PR+ (p = 0.041) and lower proliferation (Ki67 index) than noncarriers, whereas differences in nuclear grade and ki67 index were not found significantly in our study. (d) BRCA mutation was not associated with an increased risk of IBTR and CBTR.
CONCLUSION
DCIS is equally as prevalent in patients who were BRCA mutation carriers as in high familial-risk women who were noncarriers, but occurs at earlier age. BRCA2 carriers have higher incidence in DCIS than that of BRCA1 carriers, and tend to be higher grade and more frequently ER positive and lower proliferation. Total relatives with BC DX ≥2, age at diagnosis ≤35 years and ER+/HER2+ might be independent predictors for BRCA mutation in Japanese women with DCIS and patients of these risk factors should be recommended to receive genetic counseling and BRCA testing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30652428
doi: 10.1002/mgg3.493
pmc: PMC6418441
doi:
Substances chimiques
BRCA1 Protein
0
BRCA1 protein, human
0
BRCA2 Protein
0
BRCA2 protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e493Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Cancer. 1999 May 15;85(10):2200-5
pubmed: 10326698
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010 Dec;3(12):1579-85
pubmed: 21149333
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Feb 20;24(6):863-71
pubmed: 16484695
JAMA. 2005 Feb 23;293(8):964-9
pubmed: 15728167
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 20;25(6):642-7
pubmed: 17210933
Nature. 1995 Dec 21-28;378(6559):789-92
pubmed: 8524414
Hum Pathol. 1998 Oct;29(10):1140-4
pubmed: 9781655
Cancer. 2012 Mar 15;118(6):1515-22
pubmed: 22009639
Science. 1994 Oct 7;266(5182):66-71
pubmed: 7545954
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec;16(12):3380-7
pubmed: 19649554
Lancet. 1994 Mar 19;343(8899):692-5
pubmed: 7907678
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 1;10(15):5160-7
pubmed: 15297420
Int J Cancer. 2001 Jan 1;91(1):83-8
pubmed: 11149425
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Feb;120(1):119-26
pubmed: 20033769
J Hum Genet. 2004;49(7):391-395
pubmed: 15168169
Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):1993-2000
pubmed: 10376613
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Mar 15;20(6):1480-90
pubmed: 11896095
N Engl J Med. 2004 Apr 1;350(14):1430-41
pubmed: 15070793
Hum Mutat. 2002 Sep;20(3):235
pubmed: 12204006
Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Mar;6(3):782-9
pubmed: 10741697
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jul;16(7):2417-25
pubmed: 9667259
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Oct;7(10):3144-50
pubmed: 11595708
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Oct 16;94(20):1546-54
pubmed: 12381707
J Clin Oncol. 1998 May;16(5):1969-77
pubmed: 9586917
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Oct 15;20(20):4141-9
pubmed: 12377957
Lancet. 1997 May 24;349(9064):1505-10
pubmed: 9167459
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009 Feb;2(2):122-7
pubmed: 19174581
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Aug 4;91(15):1310-6
pubmed: 10433620
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998 Jan;47(2):121-7
pubmed: 9497100
Cancer Res. 1996 Nov 15;56(22):5260-5
pubmed: 8912866
Breast Cancer. 2015 Sep;22(5):462-8
pubmed: 24249303
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 10;27(35):5887-92
pubmed: 19858402
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Jul 15;13(14):4306-10
pubmed: 17634561
Cancer Sci. 2008 Oct;99(10):1967-76
pubmed: 19016756
Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7(1):R93-100
pubmed: 15642173
Lancet. 1996 Oct 19;348(9034):1098
pubmed: 8874470
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019 Mar;7(3):e493
pubmed: 30652428
Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Mar;62(3):676-89
pubmed: 9497246
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Mar 15;10(6):2029-34
pubmed: 15041722
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 10;27(35):5862-4
pubmed: 19858367
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 May 6;90(9):697-703
pubmed: 9586667