4.5 Article

Germline deleterious mutations in genes other than BRCA2 are infrequent in male breast cancer

Journal

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume 169, Issue 1, Pages 105-113

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-4661-x

Keywords

Male breast cancer; BRCA1; BRCA2; NGS; Hereditary cancer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare cancer entity, with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes accounting for similar to 10% of patients. Multiple-gene sequencing has already entered clinical practice for female breast cancer, whereas the performance of panel testing in MBC has not been studied extensively. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of panel testing for MBC, by the largest gene panel used so far, through investigation of patients deriving from a population with known founder effects. Genomic DNA from one hundred and two Greek MBC patients, unselected for age and family history, was used to prepare libraries which capture the entire coding regions of 94 cancer genes. Loss-of-function (LoF) mutations were found in 12.7% of the cases, distributed in six genes: BRCA2, ATM, BRCA1, CHEK2, PMS2, and FANCL. BRCA2 mutations were the most frequent, followed by ATM mutations, accounting for 6.9 and 2%, respectively, while mutations in other genes were detected in single cases. Age at diagnosis or family history was not predictive of mutation status. Beyond mutations in established breast cancer predisposing genes, LoF mutations in PMS2 and FANCL among MBC patients are reported here for the first time. Our findings, using the largest gene panel for MBC patients so far, indicate that BRCA testing should be the primary concern for MBC patients. Until sufficient evidence arises from larger studies, multiple-gene panels may be of limited benefit for MBC and their families, at least for MBC patients of specific descent.

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