BACKGROUNDGenetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility is widely used, but for many genes, evidence of an association with breast cancer is weak, underlying risk estimates are imprecise, and reliable subtype-specific risk estimates are lacking. METHODSWe used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity. RESULTSProtein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants. CONCLUSIONSThe results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.

Purpose We evaluated the performance of the recently extended Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA version 5) in a Dutch prospective cohort, using a polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 313 breast cancer (BC)–associated variants (PRS313) and other, nongenetic risk factors. Methods Since 1989, 6522 women without BC aged 45 or older of European descent have been included in the Rotterdam Study. The PRS313 was calculated per 1 SD in controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate the association between the PRS313 and incident BC risk. Cumulative 10-year risks were calculated with BOADICEA including different sets of variables (age, risk factors and PRS313). C-statistics were used to evaluate discriminative ability. Results In total, 320 women developed BC. The PRS313 was significantly associated with BC (hazard ratio [HR] per SD of 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.40–1.73]). Using 10-year risk estimates including age and the PRS313, other risk factors improved the discriminatory ability of the BOADICEA model marginally, from a C-statistic of 0.636 to 0.653. Conclusions The effect size of the PRS313 is highly reproducible in the Dutch population. Our results validate the BOADICEA v5 model for BC risk assessment in the Dutch general population.

BackgroundThe currently known breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are presently not used to guide clinical management. We explored whether a genetic test that incorporates a SNP-based polygenic risk score (PRS) is clinically meaningful in non-BRCA1/2 high-risk breast cancer families.Methods101 non-BRCA1/2 high-risk breast cancer families were included; 323 cases and 262 unaffected female relatives were genotyped. The 161-SNP PRS was calculated and standardised to 327 population controls (sPRS). Association analysis was performed using a Cox-type random effect regression model adjusted by family history. Updated individualised breast cancer lifetime risk scores were derived by combining the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm breast cancer lifetime risk with the effect of the sPRS.ResultsThe mean sPRS for cases and their unaffected relatives was 0.70 (SD=0.9) and 0.53 (SD=0.9), respectively. A significant association was found between sPRS and breast cancer, HR=1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.28, p=0.026. Addition of the sPRS to risk prediction based on family history alone changed screening recommendations in 11.5%, 14.7% and 19.8 % of the women according to breast screening guidelines from the USA (National Comprehensive Cancer Network), UK (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Netherlands (Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation), respectively.ConclusionOur results support the application of the PRS in risk prediction and clinical management of women from genetically unexplained breast cancer families.

Purpose To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant–based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes. Methods We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk. Results For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06–1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07–1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively. Conclusion The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making.

Background Protein truncating variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with increased breast cancer risk, but risks associated with missense variants in these genes are uncertain. Methods We analyzed data on 59,639 breast cancer cases and 53,165 controls from studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium BRIDGES project. We sampled training (80%) and validation (20%) sets to analyze rare missense variants in ATM (1146 training variants), BRCA1 (644), BRCA2 (1425), CHEK2 (325), and PALB2 (472). We evaluated breast cancer risks according to five in silico prediction-of-deleteriousness algorithms, functional protein domain, and frequency, using logistic regression models and also mixture models in which a subset of variants was assumed to be risk-associated. Results The most predictive in silico algorithms were Helix (BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2) and CADD (ATM). Increased risks appeared restricted to functional protein domains for ATM (FAT and PIK domains) and BRCA1 (RING and BRCT domains). For ATM, BRCA1, and BRCA2, data were compatible with small subsets (approximately 7%, 2%, and 0.6%, respectively) of rare missense variants giving similar risk to those of protein truncating variants in the same gene. For CHEK2, data were more consistent with a large fraction (approximately 60%) of rare missense variants giving a lower risk (OR 1.75, 95% CI (1.47–2.08)) than CHEK2 protein truncating variants. There was little evidence for an association with risk for missense variants in PALB2. The best fitting models were well calibrated in the validation set. Conclusions These results will inform risk prediction models and the selection of candidate variants for functional assays and could contribute to the clinical reporting of gene panel testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

BackgroundCommon low-risk variants are presently not used to guide clinical management of familial breast cancer (BC). We explored the additive impact of a 313-variant-based Polygenic Risk Score (PRS313) relative to standard gene testing in non-BRCA1/2 Dutch BC families.MethodsWe included 3918 BC cases from 3492 Dutch non-BRCA1/2 BC families and 3474 Dutch population controls. The association of the standardised PRS313 with BC was estimated using a logistic regression model, adjusted for pedigree-based family history. Family history of the controls was imputed for this analysis. SEs were corrected to account for relatedness of individuals. Using the BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) V.5 model, lifetime risks were retrospectively calculated with and without individual PRS313. For 2586 cases and 2584 controls, the carrier status of pathogenic variants (PVs) in ATM, CHEK2 and PALB2 was known.ResultsThe family history-adjusted PRS313 was significantly associated with BC (per SD OR=1.97, 95% CI 1.84 to 2.11). Including the PRS313 in BOADICEA family-based risk prediction would have changed screening recommendations in up to 27%, 36% and 34% of cases according to BC screening guidelines from the USA, UK and the Netherlands (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation), respectively. For the population controls, without information on family history, this was up to 39%, 44% and 58%, respectively. Among carriers of PVs in known moderate BC susceptibility genes, the PRS313 had the largest impact for CHEK2 and ATM.ConclusionsOur results support the application of the PRS313 in risk prediction for genetically uninformative BC families and families with a PV in moderate BC risk genes.

Counseling for familial breast cancer focuses on communicating the gene test result (GENE) to counselees, but risk prediction models have become more complex by including non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We examined genetic clinicians' confidence in counseling and counselees' psychosocial outcomes, using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool with different categories of risk factors as input. A prospective observational study in Dutch, French and German genetic clinics was performed including 22 clinicians, and 406 of 460 (88.3%) eligible cancer-unaffected women at high breast cancer risk assessed at pre-test and 350 (76.1%) at post-test. We performed multilevel analyses accounting for the clinician, and counselees' characteristics. Overall, risk estimates category by GENE versus GENE+ NGRF, or GENE+NGRF+PRS differed in 11% and 25% of counselees, respectively. In multilevel analyses, clinicians felt less confident in counseling when

BackgroundFamilial clustering of melanoma suggests a shared genetic predisposition among family members, but only 10%–40% of familial cases carry a pathogenic variant in a known high-risk melanoma susceptibility gene. We investigated whether a melanoma-specific Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) is associated with melanoma risk in patients with genetically unexplained familial melanoma.MethodsDutch familial melanoma cases (n=418) were genotyped for 46 SNPs previously identified as independently associated with melanoma risk. The 46-SNP PRS was calculated and standardised to 3423 healthy controls (sPRS) and the association between PRS and melanoma risk was modelled using logistic regression. Within the case series, possible differences were further explored by investigating the PRS in relation to (1) the number of primary melanomas in a patient and (2) the extent of familial clustering of melanoma.ResultsThe PRS was significantly associated with melanoma risk, with a per-SD OR of 2.12 (95% CI 1.90 to 2.35, p<0.001), corresponding to a 5.70-fold increased risk (95% CI 3.93 to 8.28) when comparing the top 90th to the middle 40–60th PRS percentiles. The mean PRS was significantly higher in cases with multiple primary melanomas than in cases with a single melanoma (sPRS 1.17 vs 0.71, p=0.001). Conversely, cases from high-density melanoma families had a lower (but non-significant) mean PRS than cases from low-density families (sPRS 0.60 vs 0.94, p=0.204).ConclusionOur work underlines the significance of a PRS in determining melanoma susceptibility and encourages further exploration of the diagnostic value of a PRS in genetically unexplained melanoma families.