4.5 Article

Differential involvement of germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer genes between DCIS and low-grade invasive cancers

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 60, Issue 8, Pages 740-746

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108790

Keywords

Genetics; Medical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and grade 1 invasive breast cancer (G1BC). The results showed that DCIS was more likely to be associated with both BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA1/2 PVs than G1BC. Extended panel testing is recommended for young-onset DCIS where PV detection rates are highest.
PurposeTo investigate frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and grade 1 invasive breast cancer (G1BC). MethodsWe undertook BRCA1/2 analysis in 311 women with DCIS and 392 with G1BC and extended panel testing (non-BRCA1/2) in 176/311 with DCIS and 156/392 with G1BC. We investigated PV detection by age at diagnosis, Manchester Score (MS), DCIS grade and receptor status. Results30/311 (9.6%) with DCIS and 16/392 with G1BC (4.1%) had a BRCA1/2 PV (p=0.003), and 24/176-(13.6%) and 7/156-(4.5%), respectively, a non-BRCA1/2 PV (p=0.004). Increasing MS was associated with increased likelihood of BRCA1/2 PV in both DCIS and G1BC, although the 10% threshold was not predictive for G1GB. 13/32 (40.6%) DCIS and 0/17 with G1BC <40 years had a non-BRCA1/2 PV (p<0.001). 0/16 DCIS G1 had a PV. For G2 and G3 DCIS, PV rates were 10/98 (BRCA1/2) and 9/90 (non-BRCA1/2), and 8/47 (BRCA1/2) and 8/45 (non-BRCA1/2), respectively. 6/9 BRCA1 and 3/26 BRCA2-associated DCIS were oestrogen receptor negative-(p=0.003). G1BC population testing showed no increased PV rate (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.80). ConclusionDCIS is more likely to be associated with both BRCA1/2 and non-BRCA1/2 PVs than G1BC. Extended panel testing ought to be offered in young-onset DCIS where PV detection rates are highest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available