Background:Truncating variants in desmoplakin (DSPtv) are an important cause of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy; however the genetic architecture and genotype-specific risk factors are incompletely... Show moreBackground:Truncating variants in desmoplakin (DSPtv) are an important cause of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy; however the genetic architecture and genotype-specific risk factors are incompletely understood. We evaluated phenotype, risk factors for ventricular arrhythmias, and underlying genetics of DSPtv cardiomyopathy. Methods:Individuals with DSPtv and any cardiac phenotype, and their gene-positive family members were included from multiple international centers. Clinical data and family history information were collected. Event-free survival from ventricular arrhythmia was assessed. Variant location was compared between cases and controls, and literature review of reported DSPtv performed. Results:There were 98 probands and 72 family members (mean age at diagnosis 43 +/- 8 years, 59% women) with a DSPtv, of which 146 were considered clinically affected. Ventricular arrhythmia (sudden cardiac arrest, sustained ventricular tachycardia, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy) occurred in 56 (33%) individuals. DSPtv location and proband status were independent risk factors for ventricular arrhythmia. Further, gene region was important with variants in cases (cohort n=98; Clinvar n=167) more likely to occur in the regions resulting in nonsense mediated decay of both major DSP isoforms, compared with n=124 genome aggregation database control variants (148 [83.6%] versus 29 [16.4%]; P<0.0001). Conclusions:In the largest series of individuals with DSPtv, we demonstrate that variant location is a novel risk factor for ventricular arrhythmia, can inform variant interpretation, and provide critical insights to allow for precision-based clinical management. Show less
Mehra, N.; Kloots, I.; Vlaming, M.; Aluwini, S.; Dewulf, E.; Oprea-Lager, D.E.; ... ; Ausems, M. 2023
Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are... Show moreBackground: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined.Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa.Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if >75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hered-itary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveil-lance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germ -line pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as fol-lows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline.Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa.Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Page, E.C.; Bancroft, E.K.; Brook, M.N.; Assel, M.; Battat, M.H. al; Thomas, S.; ... ; IMPACT Study Collaborators 2019
Background: Mutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in... Show moreBackground: Mutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations.Objective: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.Design, setting, and participants: Men aged 40-69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/ 2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA> 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.Results and limitations: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p = 0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p= 0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).Conclusions: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.Patient summary: We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
Verhagen, J.M.A.; Veldman, J.H.; Zwaag, P.A. van der; Thusen, J.H. von der; Brosens, E.; Christiaans, M.; ... ; Laar, I.M.B.H. van de 2018
To establish whether existing mutation prediction models can identify which male breast cancer (MBC) patients should be offered BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic DNA screening, we compared the performance... Show moreTo establish whether existing mutation prediction models can identify which male breast cancer (MBC) patients should be offered BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic DNA screening, we compared the performance of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO and the Myriad prevalence table ('Myriad'). These models were evaluated using the family data of 307 Dutch MBC probands tested for BRCA1/2, 58 (19%) of whom were carriers. We compared the numbers of observed versus predicted carriers and assessed the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for each model. BOADICEA predicted the total number of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers quite accurately (observed/predicted ratio: 0.94). When a cut-off of 10% and 20% prior probability was used, BRCAPRO showed a non-significant better performance (observed/predicted ratio BOADICEA: 0.81, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): (0.60-1.09) and 0.79, 95% CI: (0.57-1.09), vs. BRCAPRO: 1.02, 95% CI: (0.75-1.38) and 0.94, 95% CI: (0.68-1.31), respectively). Myriad underestimated the number of carriers in up to 69% of the cases. BRCAPRO showed a non-significant, higher AUC than BOADICEA (0.798 vs 0.776). Myriad showed a significantly lower AUC (0.671). BRCAPRO and BOADICEA can efficiently identify MBC patients as BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Besides their general applicability, these tools will be of particular value in countries with limited healthcare resources. Show less
This thesis describes the search for new high-risk breast cancer susceptibility genes by linkage analysis. To date 20-25% of familial breast cancer is explained by mutations in the high-risk BRCA1... Show moreThis thesis describes the search for new high-risk breast cancer susceptibility genes by linkage analysis. To date 20-25% of familial breast cancer is explained by mutations in the high-risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer susceptibility genes. For the remaining families the genetic etiology is unknown. It is still possible that other high-penetrant genes play a role. Although a polygenic model with multiple low-penetrant genes acting additive or multiplicative will probable explain most of the BRCA1/2 negative families. Linkage in an international set of 150 high-risk breast cancer families couldn__t identify high-risk genes. However when limiting the linkage analysis to Dutch families only, we identified 9q21-22 as a putative breast cancer susceptibility locus Show less
