Background: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation... Show moreBackground: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation with polygenic risk score (PRS) and non-genetic risk factor (NGRFs) data affects individual intensified breast surveillance (IBS) recommendations according to European guidelines.Methods: For 425 cancer-free women with cancer FH (mean age 40.6 years, range 21-74), recruited in France, Germany and the Netherlands, germline PV status, NGRFs, and a 306 variant-based PRS (PRS306) were assessed to calculate estimated lifetime risks (eLTR) and estimated 10-year risks (e10YR) using CanRisk. The proportions of women changing country-specific European risk categories for IBS recommendations, i.e. >= 20 % and >= 30 % eLTR, or >= 5 % e10YR were determined.Findings: Of the women with non-informative PV status, including PRS306 and NGRFs changed clinical recommendations for 31.0 %, (57/184, 20 % eLTR), 15.8 % (29/184, 30 % eLTR) and 22.4 % (41/183, 5 % e10YR), respectively whereas of the women tested negative for a PV observed in their family, clinical recommendations changed for 16.7 % (25/150), 1.3 % (2/150) and 9.5 % (14/147). No change was observed for 82 women with PVs in high-risk genes (BRCA1/2 , PALB2). Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs identified BRCA1/2 PV carriers benefitting from IBS <30 years, and women tested non-informative/negative for whom IBS may be postponed. Interpretation: For women who tested non-informative/negative, PRS and NGRFs have a considerable impact on IBS recommendations. Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs allows personalizing IBS starting age.Funding: Horizon 2020, German Cancer Aid, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Koln Fortune. Show less
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... Show moreBackground: 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. Show less
Background: Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and... Show moreBackground: Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action. Summary: Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept. Show less
