Breast cancer arising in very young patients may be biologically distinct; however, these tumors have been less well studied. We characterized a group of very young patients (≤ 35 years) for BRCA germline mutation and for somatic mutations in luminal (HER2 negative) breast cancer. Thirteen of 79 unselected very young patients were BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers. Of the non-BRCA tumors, eight with luminal subtype (HER2 negative) were submitted for whole exome sequencing and integrated with 29 luminal samples from the COSMIC database or previous literature for analysis. We identified C to T single nucleotide variants (SNVs) as the most common base-change. A median of six candidate driver genes was mutated by SNVs in each sample and the most frequently mutated genes were PIK3CA, GATA3, TP53 and MAP2K4. Potential cancer drivers affected in the present non-BRCA tumors include GRHL2, PIK3AP1, CACNA1E, SEMA6D, SMURF2, RSBN1 and MTHFD2. Sixteen out of 37 luminal tumors (43%) harbored SNVs in DNA repair genes, such as ATR, BAP1, ERCC6, FANCD2, FANCL, MLH1, MUTYH, PALB2, POLD1, POLE, RAD9A, RAD51 and TP53, and 54% presented pathogenic mutations (frameshift or nonsense) in at least one gene involved in gene transcription. The differential biology of luminal early-age onset breast cancer needs a deeper genomic investigation.

Introduction The contribution of CDH1 germline variants to gastric cancer burden among young adults is unknown in Brazil. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of CDH1 germline variants and the diet/lifestyle habits in early age onset gastric cancer (EOGC, ≤ 55 years old) patients. Methodology From 2013 to 2015, a total of 88 unrelated and consecutive patients diagnosed with EOGC were enrolled. All CDH1 exons and intronic boundaries were sequenced, and large genomic rearrangements were screened by MLPA. CDH1 transcription analysis was performed for variants that could potentially induce an effect on splicing. The diet and lifestyle habits of EOGC patients were compared to Brazilian population diet and lifestyle, obtained from governmental databases. Results Of 88 patients, the mean age at EOGC diagnosis was 39 years and 55% fulfilled the criteria for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. The majority of the tumors were diffuse (74%) and poorly differentiated (80%). In total, 4 novel missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were identified: c.313T>A, c.387G>T, c.1676G>A, and c.1806C>A. The MLPA results revealed no rearrangements and CDH1 transcription analysis for variants of interest were inconclusive. EOGC patients had a higher red (OR:2.6, 95%CI:1.4–4.9) and processed (OR:3.1, 95%CI:1.6–6.0) meat intake and higher fruit consumption (OR:0.4, 95%IC:0.3–0.7) compared to eating habits of the Brazilian population. Conclusions No unequivocal pathogenic germline CDH1 variants were identified in Brazilian EOGC patients. Dietary habits may be associated with the EOGC development. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10120-019-00945-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer (HGSOC) are aggressive malignancies that share similarities; however, different ages of onset may reflect distinct tumor behaviors. Thus, our aim was to compare somatic mutations in potential driver genes in 109 TNBC and 81 HGSOC from young (Y ≤ 40 years) and elderly (E ≥ 75 years) patients. Methods: Open access mutational data (WGS or WES) were collected for TNBC and HGSOC patients. Potential driver genes were those that were present in the Cancer Gene Census—CGC, the Candidate Cancer Gene Database—CCGD, or OncoKB and those that were considered pathogenic in variant effect prediction tools. Results: Mutational signature 3 (homologous repair defects) was the only gene that was represented in all four subgroups. The median number of mutated CGCs per sample was similar in HGSOC (Y:3 vs. E:4), but it was higher in elderly TNBC than it was in young TNBC (Y:3 vs. E:6). At least 90% of the samples from TNBC and HGSOC from Y and E patients presented at least one known affected TSG. Besides TP53, which was mutated in 67–83% of the samples, the affected TSG in TP53 wild-type samples were NF1 (yHGSOC and yTNBC), PHF6 (eHGSOC and yTNBC), PTEN, PIK3R1 and ZHFX3 (yTNBC), KMT2C, ARID1B, TBX3, and ATM (eTNBC). A few samples only presented one affected oncogene (but no TSG): KRAS and TSHR in eHGSOC and RAC1 and PREX2 (a regulator of RAC1) in yTNBC. At least ⅔ of the tumors presented mutated oncogenes associated with tumor suppressor genes; the Ras and/or PIK3CA signaling pathways were altered in 15% HGSOC and 20–35% TNBC (Y vs. E); DNA repair genes were mutated in 19–33% of the HGSOC tumors but were more frequently mutated in E-TNBC (56%). However, in HGSOC, 9.5% and 3.3% of the young and elderly patients, respectively, did not present any tumors with an affected CGC nor did 4.65% and none of the young and elderly TNBC patients. Conclusion: Most HGSOC and TNBC from young and elderly patients present an affected TSG, mainly TP53, as well as mutational signature 3; however, a few tumors only present an affected oncogene or no affected cancer-causing genes.