The contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to inherited breast cancer was assessed by linkage and mutation analysis in 237 families, each with at least four cases of breast cancer, collected by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Families were included without regard to the occurrence of ovarian or other cancers. Overall, disease was linked to BRCA1 in an estimated 52% of families, to BRCA2 in 32% of families, and to neither gene in 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-28%), suggesting other predisposition genes. The majority (81%) of the breast-ovarian cancer families were due to BRCA1, with most others (14%) due to BRCA2. Conversely, the majority of families with male and female breast cancer were due to BRCA2 (76%). The largest proportion (67%) of families due to other genes was found in families with four or five cases of female breast cancer only. These estimates were not substantially affected either by changing the assumed penetrance model for BRCA1 or by including or excluding BRCA1 mutation data. Among those families with disease due to BRCA1 that were tested by one of the standard screening methods, mutations were detected in the coding sequence or splice sites in an estimated 63% (95% CI 51%-77%). The estimated sensitivity was identical for direct sequencing and other techniques. The penetrance of BRCA2 was estimated by maximizing the LOD score in BRCA2-mutation families, over all possible penetrance functions. The estimated cumulative risk of breast cancer reached 28% (95% CI 9%-44%) by age 50 years and 84% (95% CI 43%-95%) by age 70 years. The corresponding ovarian cancer risks were 0.4% (95% CI 0%-1%) by age 50 years and 27% (95% CI 0%-47%) by age 70 years. The lifetime risk of breast cancer appears similar to the risk in BRCA1 carriers, but there was some suggestion of a lower risk in BRCA2 carriers <50 years of age.

Purpose:To investigate the proportion of breast cancers arising in patients with germ line BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations expressing basal markers and developing predictive tests for identification of high-risk patients. Experimental Design: Histopathologic material from182 tumors in BRCA1mutation carriers, 63 BRCA2 carriers, and 109 controls, collected as part of the international Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium were immunohistochemically stained for CK14, CK5/6, CK17, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and osteonectin. Results: All five basal markers were commoner in BRCA1 tumors than in control tumors (CK14: 61% versus 12%; CK5/6: 58% versus 7%; CK17: 53% versus 10%; osteonectin: 43% versus 19%; EGFR: 67% versus 21%; P < 0.0001 in each case). In a multivariate analysis, CK14, CK5/6, and estrogen receptor (ER) remained significant predictors of BRCA1 carrier status. In contrast, the frequency of basal markers in BRCA2 tumors did not differ significant from controls. Conclusion: The use of cytokeratin staining in combination with ER and morphology provides a more accurate predictor of BRCA1 mutation status than previously available, that may be useful in selecting patients for BRCA1 mutation testing. The high percentage of BRCA1 cases positive for EGFR suggests that specific anti-tyrosine kinase therapy may be of potential benefit in these patients.

Our study has identified key features of the histologic phenotypes of breast cancers in carriers of mutant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This information may improve the classification of breast cancers in individuals with a family history of the disease and may ultimately aid in the clinical management of patients.

Communication about genetic risk in families is an important issue for genetic counsellors. The objective of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators in family communication about genetic risk. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with patients in the Northeast of Scotland who had attended genetic counselling for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Huntington's disease, and with some spouses/partners. The interviews confirmed that the issue of disclosure was a problem for some, and that there were generic communication issues common to both groups. Telling family members about genetic risk was generally seen as a family responsibility and family structures, dynamics and 'rules' influenced disclosure decisions. A sense of responsibility towards younger generations was also important. The level of certainty felt by a person in relation to his or her own risk estimate also influenced what he or she could tell other family members. Communication within a family about genetic risk is a complex issue and is influenced by both pre-existing familial and cultural factors and individuals' responses to risk information. If genetic counsellors understood how these factors operate in individual families they might be able to identify effective strategies to promote considered decisions and prevent unnecessary emotional distress.

We report the spectrum of 59 ATM mutations observed in ataxia-telangiectasia (A-T) patients in the British Isles. Of 51 ATM mutations identified in families native to the British Isles, 11 were founder mutations, and 2 of these 11 conferred a milder clinical phenotype with respect to both cerebellar degeneration and cellular features. We report, in two A-T families, an ATM mutation (7271T-->G) that may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in both homozygotes and heterozygotes (relative risk 12.7; P=. 0025), although there is a less severe A-T phenotype in terms of the degree of cerebellar degeneration. This mutation (7271T-->G) also allows expression of full-length ATM protein at a level comparable with that in unaffected individuals. In addition, we have studied 18 A-T patients, in 15 families, who developed leukemia, lymphoma, preleukemic T-cell proliferation, or Hodgkin lymphoma, mostly in childhood. A wide variety of ATM mutation types, including missense mutations and in-frame deletions, were seen in these patients. We also show that 25% of all A-T patients carried in-frame deletions or missense mutations, many of which were also associated with expression of mutant ATM protein.