Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genetik des familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebses: Paneldiagnostik – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen

Genetic aspects of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: options and limits

  • Schwerpunktthema: Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs
  • Published:
medizinische genetik

Zusammenfassung

Aktuelle Untersuchungen belegen, dass das hereditäre Mamma- und Ovarialkarzinom eine extreme genetische Heterogenität aufweist. Aktuell sind neben BRCA1 und BRCA2 bereits mehr als 20 Risikogene bekannt, die etwa ein Drittel aller familiären Fälle erklären können. Zusätzlich werden ständig neue polygene Komponenten identifiziert, die derzeit 16 % der gesamten genetischen Last bedingen. Das bedeutet, diese Varianten befinden sich zusätzlich zu hoch- oder moderat penetranten Mutationen in den Familien und modulieren die Penetranz.Gegenwärtig wird eine erweiterte BRCA-Diagnostik bereits in mehreren Ländern angeboten. Das Deutsche Konsortium Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs (GC-HBOC) hat z. B. für die Multigenanalyse das TruRisk™-Genpanel konsentiert, welches neben den 10 sog. „core genes“ (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, TP53) derzeit weitere noch zu validierende 24 Kandidatengene umfasst. Innerhalb des GC-HBOC wurde festgelegt, dass zunächst nur die Untersuchung der 10 core genes verpflichtend ist. Neben dem TruRisk™-Genpanel existieren zahlreiche kommerzielle Genpanels, wie beispielsweise das TruSight Cancer Panel (Fa. Illumina), welches 94 Gene abdeckt, oder die jeweils 26 Gene umfassenden BRCA Hereditary Cancer MASTRTM Plus (Fa. Multiplicom) und Myriad myRiskTM (Myriad Genetics) Panels. Der Einsatz der Paneldiagnostik ermöglicht, im Rahmen der molekulargenetischen Diagnostik bei Tumorprädispositionserkrankungen, die flexible Untersuchung der relevanten erblichen Risikofaktoren. Das heißt aber, dass die Panels ständig neuen Erkenntnissen angepasst werden, die zwangsläufig einerseits aus den laufenden klinischen Validierungsstudien und andererseits aus den initiierten „exom“- oder „whole-genome“ Sequenzierungen resultieren.

Abstract

Recent studies have documented the genetic heterogeneity of familial breast and ovarian cancer. In addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2, more than 20 risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, explaining about one third of familial cases, have been identified so far. Additionally, polygenic factors have been discovered that may explain about 16 % of the genetic burden of BRCA1/2-negative cases. Today, routine diagnostics using gene panels in addition to BRCA1/2 testing is already offered in many countries, but sufficient information is available for only a few of the genes analyzed. Therefore, the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) compiled the TruRisk™ 34-gene panel, which contains 10 so-called “core genes” (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, TP53) in addition to 24 candidate genes. For members of the GC-HBOC, the analysis of the 10 core genes is obligatory. In addition to the TruRisk™ panel, several other gene panels are commercially available, e.g., the TruSight Cancer Panel (Illumina), which covers 94 genes, or the BRCA Hereditary Cancer MASTRTM Plus (Multiplicom) and Myriad MyRiskTM (Myriad Genetics), which comprise 26 genes each. All these gene panels include the core genes and are also applied in Germany.The use of panel diagnostics in the setting of molecular genetic testing for tumor predisposition disorders allows a reliable and flexible analysis of relevant risk factors. In contrast, exome or even whole genome sequencing is a powerful method of identifying further candidates quickly and cheaply. However, the determination of clinical consequences for mutations in novel genes requires comprehensive national and international validation studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Das Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) vereint 65 nationale Studiengruppen und überschaut mehr als 100.000 (meist sporadische) Mammakarzinomfälle und mehr als 100.000 Kontrollprobanden.

  2. Das Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA) vereint 30 internationale Studiengruppen und überschaut derzeit über 36.000 Mutationsträgerinnen, davon sind mehr als 23.000 BRCA1- und mehr als 13.000 BRCA2-positiv.

Literatur

  1. Antoniou AC, Casadei S, Heikkinen T et al (2014) Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med 371:497–506

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J et al (2008) The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 98:1457–1466

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bogdanova N, Feshchenko S, Schurmann P et al (2008) The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Int J Cancer 122:802–806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R et al (2014) Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147:401–405

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Castera L, Krieger S, Rousselin A et al (2014) Next-generation sequencing for the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture targeting multiple candidate genes. Eur J Human Genet 22:1305–1313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chong HK, Wang T, Lu HM et al (2014) The validation and clinical implementation of BRCAplus: a comprehensive high-risk breast cancer diagnostic assay. PLoS One 9:e97408

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Couch FJ, Hart SN, Sharma P et al (2015) Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:304–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Coulet F, Fajac A, Colas C et al (2013) Germline RAD51C mutations in ovarian cancer susceptibility. Clin Genet 83:332–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cybulski C, Lubinski J, Wokolorczyk D et al (2014) Mutations predisposing to breast cancer in 12 candidate genes in breast cancer patients from Poland. Clin Genet, doi:10.1111/cge.12524. [Epub ahead of print]

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cybulski C, Carrot-Zhang J, Kluzniak W et al (2015) Germline RECQL mutations are associated with breast cancer susceptibility. Nat Genet 47:643–646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Damiola F, Pertesi M, Oliver J et al (2014) Rare key functional domain missense substitutions in MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN contribute to breast cancer susceptibility: results from a Breast Cancer Family Registry case-control mutation-screening study. Breast Cancer Res 16:R58

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Easton DE, Pharoah P, Antoniou A et al (2015) Gene panel sequencing and breast- cancer risk. N Engl J Med 372:2243–2257

  13. Engel C et al (2015) Familiärer Brustkrebs – empirische Erkrankungsrisiken und Risikoberechnungsmodelle. medgen (in press) doi:10.1007/s1182501500426

  14. Ferrarini A, Auteri-Kaczmarek A, Pica A et al (2011) Early occurrence of lung adenocarcinoma and breast cancer after radiotherapy of a chest wall sarcoma in a patient with a de novo germline mutation in TP53. Fam Cancer 10:187–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fostira F, Konstantopoulou I, Mavroudis D et al (2015) Genetic evaluation based on family history and Her2 status correctly identifies TP53 mutations in very early onset breast cancer cases. Clin Genet 87:383–387

  16. Gao P, Ma N, Li M et al (2013) Functional variants in NBS1 and cancer risk: evidence from a meta-analysis of 60 publications with 111 individual studies. Mutagenesis 28:683–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hauke J (2015) Klassifizierung von „„variants of unknown significance“ (VUS) beim familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebs. medgen (in press) doi:10.007/s118250150049z

  18. Henry E, Villalobos V, Million L et al (2012) Chest wall leiomyosarcoma after breast-conservative therapy for early-stage breast cancer in a young woman with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 10:939–942

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilbers FS, Wijnen JT, Hoogerbrugge N et al (2012) Rare variants in XRCC2 as breast cancer susceptibility alleles. J Med Genet 49:618–620

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones S, Hruban RH, Kamiyama M et al (2009) Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. Science 324:217

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB et al (2003) Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302:643–646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Knappskog S, Chrisanthar R, Lokkevik E et al (2012) Low expression levels of ATM may substitute for CHEK2/TP53 mutations predicting resistance towards anthracycline and mitomycin chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 14:R47

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kuchenbaecker KB, Ramus SJ, Tyrer J et al (2015) Identification of six new susceptibility loci for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 47:164–171

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kurian AW, Hare EE, Mills MA et al (2014) Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment. J Clin Oncol 32:2001–2009

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Loveday C, Turnbull C, Ramsay E et al (2011) Germline mutations in RAD51D confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat.Genet 43:879–882

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C et al (2010) Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 42:410–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meindl A et al (2015) Genetik des familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebses: Paneldiagnostik – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. medgen (in press) doi:10.1007/s1182501500480

  28. Michailidou K, Beesley J, Lindstrom S et al (2015) Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet 14:373–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Oliveira C, Pinheiro H, Figueiredo J et al (2013) E-cadherin alterations in hereditary disorders with emphasis on hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 116:337–359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Osorio A, Endt D, Fernandez F et al (2012) Predominance of pathogenic missense variants in the RAD51C gene occurring in breast and ovarian cancer families. Hum Mol Genet 21:2889–2898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI et al (2014) Germline and somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 20:764–775

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ruark E, Snape K, Humburg P et al (2013) Mosaic PPM1D mutations are associated with predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Nature 493:406–410

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Salmon A, Amikam D, Sodha N et al (2007) Rapid development of post-radiotherapy sarcoma and breast cancer in a patient with a novel germline ‚de-novo‘ TP53 mutation. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 19:490–493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schrader KA, Masciari S, Boyd N et al (2011) Germline mutations in CDH1 are infrequent in women with early-onset or familial lobular breast cancers. J Med Genet 48:64–68

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Slater EP, Langer P, Niemczyk E et al (2010) PALB2 mutations in European familial pancreatic cancer families. Clin Genet 78:490–494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Speiser P, Gharehbaghi-Schnell E, Eder S et al (1996) A constitutional de novo mutation in exon 8 of the p53 gene in a patient with multiple primary malignancies. Br J Cancer 74:269–273

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sun J, Wang Y, Xia Y et al (2015) Mutations in RECQL gene are associated with predisposition to breast cancer. PLoS Genet 11(5):e1005228

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Thompson ER, Doyle MA, Ryland GL et al (2012) Exome sequencing identifies rare deleterious mutations in DNA repair genes FANCC and BLM as potential breast cancer susceptibility alleles. PLoS Genet 8:e1002894

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tischkowitz MD, Sabbaghian N, Hamel N et al (2009) Analysis of the gene coding for the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 in familial and sporadic pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 137:1183–1186

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tung N, Battelli C, Allen B et al (2015) Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel. Cancer 121:25–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tutt A, Robson M, Garber JE et al (2010) Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 376:235–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Walsh T, Casadei S, Lee MK et al (2011) Mutations in 12 genes for inherited ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma identified by massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:18032–18037

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wickramanayake A, Bernier G, Pennil C et al (2012) Loss of function germline mutations in RAD51D in women with ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 127:552–555

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung Gyn. Tumorgenetik, Klinikum rechts der Isar an der TU, Frauenklinik, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland

    Alfons Meindl & Juliane Ramser

  2. Zentrum Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Köln, Deutschland

    Jan Hauke & Eric Hahnen

  3. Centrum für Integrierte Onkologie (CIO) Köln Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland

    Jan Hauke & Eric Hahnen

Authors
  1. Alfons Meindl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliane Ramser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Hauke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Hahnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfons Meindl.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Meindl, E. Hahnen weisen auf folgende Beziehungen hin: A. Meindl hat als Sachverständiger an Lynparza-Therapiestudien der Firma AstraZeneca teilgenommen und als Mitglied von Advisory Boards von AstraZeneca Honorare erhalten. E. Hahnen fungierte ebenfalls im Advisory Board von AstraZeneca. J. Ramser und J. Hauke geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Alle beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethik-Kommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Von allen Patienten liegt eine Einverständniserklärung vor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meindl, A., Ramser, J., Hauke, J. et al. Genetik des familiären Brust- und Eierstockkrebses: Paneldiagnostik – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. medgen 27, 202–210 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11825-015-0048-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11825-015-0048-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation