Patients with unilateral breast cancer (UBC) have an increased risk of developing bilateral breast cancer (BBC). The annual risk of contralateral BC is about 0.5%, but increases by up to 3% in BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers. Our study was aimed to evaluate whether all BBC patients should be offered multi-gene panel testing, regardless their cancer family history and age at diagnosis. We retrospectively collected all clinical information of 139 BBC patients genetically tested for germline PVs in different cancer susceptibility genes by NGS-based multi-gene panel testing. Our investigation revealed that 52 (37.4%) out of 139 BBC patients harbored germline PVs in high- and intermediate-penetrance breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes including BRCA1, BRCA2, PTEN, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C. Nineteen out of 53 positively tested patients harbored a PV in a known BC susceptibility gene (no-BRCA). Interestingly, in the absence of an analysis performed via multi-gene panel, a significant proportion (14.4%) of PVs would have been lost. Therefore, offering a NGS-based multi-gene panel testing to all BBC patients may significantly increase the detection rates of germline PVs in other cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2, avoiding underestimation of the number of individuals affected by a hereditary tumor syndrome.

No abstract

Background Hereditary breast cancer (BC), ovarian cancer (OC), and pancreatic cancer (PC) are the major BRCA -associated tumours. However, some BRCA1/2 -wild-type (wt) patients with a strong personal and/or family history of cancer need a further genetic testing through a multi-gene panel containing other high- and moderate-risk susceptibility genes. Patients and methods Our study was aimed to assess if some BC, OC, or PC patients should be offered multi-gene panel testing, based on well-defined criteria concerning their personal and/or family history of cancer, such as earliness of cancer onset, occurrence of multiple tumours, or presence of at least two or more affected first-degree relatives. For this purpose, 205 out of 915 BC, OC, or PC patients, resulted negative for BRCA1/2 and with significant personal and/or family history of cancer, were genetically tested for germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs/LPVs) in genes different from BRCA1/2 . Results Our investigation revealed that 31 (15.1%) out of 205 patients harboured germline PVs/LPVs in no- BRCA genes, including PALB2 , CHEK2 , ATM , MUTYH , MSH2 , and RAD51C . Interestingly, in the absence of an analysis conducted through multi-gene panel, a considerable percentage (15.1%) of PVs/LPVs would have been lost. Conclusions Providing a multi-gene panel testing to BRCA1/2 -wt BC/OC/PC patients with a strong personal and/or family history of cancer could significantly increase the detection rates of germline PVs/LPVs in other cancer predisposition genes beyond BRCA1/2. The use of a multi-gene panel testing could improve the inherited cancer risk estimation and clinical management of patients and unaffected family members.

Background: Several available data suggest the association between specific molecular subtypes and BRCA1/2 mutational status. Previous investigations showed the association between BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in specific genomic regions and phenotypic variations of cancer relative risk, while the role of PV type and location in determining the breast cancer (BC) phenotypic features remains still unclear. The aim of this research was to describe the germline BRCA1/2 PVs in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) versus luminal-like BC and their potential leverage on BC phenotype. Patients & methods: We retrospectively collected and analyzed all clinical information of 531 patients with BC genetically tested for germline BRCA1/2 PVs by Next-Generation Sequencing analysis at University Hospital Policlinico “P. Giaccone” of Palermo (Sicily) from January 2016 to February 2020. Results: Our results corroborate the evidence that BRCA1-related tumors often have a profile which resembles the TNBC subtype, whereas BRCA2-associated tumors have a profile that resembles luminal-like BC, especially the Luminal B subtype. Interestingly, our findings suggest that the PVs identified in TNBC were not largely overlapping with those in luminal-like tumors. Differences in the frequency of two PVs potentially associated with different molecular tumor subtypes were observed. BRCA1-633delC was detected with relatively higher prevalence in patients with TNBC, whereas BRCA2-1466delT was found mainly in Luminal B tumors, but in no TNBC patient. Conclusion: Future studies examining the type and location of BRCA1/2 PVs within different molecular subtypes are required to verify our hypothesis and could provide an interesting insight into the complex topic of genotype–phenotype correlations. Additionally, a more in-depth understanding of the potential correlations between BRCA PVs and clinical and phenotypic features of hereditary BC syndrome patients could be the key to develop better strategies of prevention and surveillance in BRCA-positive carriers without disease.

No abstract