Ready to clone: CNV detection and breakpoint fine-mapping in breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes by high-resolution array CGH

2016 ◽  
Vol 159 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Hackmann ◽  
Franziska Kuhlee ◽  
Elitza Betcheva-Krajcir ◽  
Anne-Karin Kahlert ◽  
Luisa Mackenroth ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-134
Author(s):  
Archana Sharma-Oates ◽  
Abeer M Shaaban ◽  
Ian Tomlinson ◽  
Luke Wynne ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Cazier ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Archana Sharma-Oates ◽  
Abeer M Shaaban ◽  
Ian Tomlinson ◽  
Luke Wynne ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Cazier ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 2701-2712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Berry ◽  
Edwin S. Iversen ◽  
Daniel F. Gudbjartsson ◽  
Elaine H. Hiller ◽  
Judy E. Garber ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: To compare genetic test results for deleterious mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with estimated probabilities of carrying such mutations; to assess sensitivity of genetic testing; and to assess the relevance of other susceptibility genes in familial breast and ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data analyzed were from six high-risk genetic counseling clinics and concern individuals from families for which at least one member was tested for mutations at BRCA1 and BRCA2. Predictions of genetic predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer for 301 individuals were made using BRCAPRO, a statistical model and software using Mendelian genetics and Bayesian updating. Model predictions were compared with the results of genetic testing. RESULTS: Among the test individuals, 126 were Ashkenazi Jewish, three were male subjects, 243 had breast cancer, 49 had ovarian cancer, 34 were unaffected, and 139 tested positive for BRCA1 mutations and 29 for BRCA2 mutations. BRCAPRO performed well: for the 150 probands with the smallest BRCAPRO carrier probabilities (average, 29.0%), the proportion testing positive was 32.7%; for the 151 probands with the largest carrier probabilities (average, 95.2%), 78.8% tested positive. Genetic testing sensitivity was estimated to be at least 85%, with false-negatives including mutations of susceptibility genes heretofore unknown. CONCLUSION: BRCAPRO is an accurate counseling tool for determining the probability of carrying mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is highly sensitive, missing an estimated 15% of mutations. In the populations studied, breast cancer susceptibility genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 either do not exist, are rare, or are associated with low disease penetrance.


2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1019-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
HIROSHI KOBAYASHI ◽  
SUMIRE OHNO ◽  
YOSHIKAZU SASAKI ◽  
MIYUKI MATSUURA

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1524-1524
Author(s):  
Fergus Couch ◽  
Hermela Shimelis ◽  
Jill S. Dolinsky ◽  
Eric Polley ◽  
Carolyn Horton ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1582-1582
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Meshoulam Nikolaeva ◽  
Raul Terés ◽  
Daniela Camacho ◽  
Aida Bujosa ◽  
Maria Borrell ◽  
...  

1582 Background: Despite the use of clinical eligibility criteria and mutation predictive models, a great proportion of families are negative for germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. Traditionally, risk assessment of inconclusive results included the recommendation of high-risk surveillance protocol, the update of incident cancer cases in the family and the consideration of additional testing to rule out the possibility of phenocopy. More recently, next generation sequencing multigene panels have become a standard practice in cancer genetics clinics worldwide. We addressed the value of multigene panel retesting of BRCA1/2 negative HBOC families in our institution. Methods: After genetic counseling session and informed consent, a total of 137 individuals (119 probands and 18 extra cancer-affected relatives) from distinct BRCA1/2 negative families were retested using a panel containing 11 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes ( BRCA1/2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, PTEN, TP53, STK11, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D). Results: According to the BOADICEA model, the remaining probability of mutation in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 genes in our cohort was 5.5% (0.1-61). The reasons for considering retesting were the addition of any incident cancer diagnosis in 33 cases (24%), a prior study with a low sensitivity screening technique (dHPLC) in 6 families (5%) and the expansion of the study to other putative breast and ovarian susceptibility genes in 98 families (71%). Overall, 3 pathogenic (2 BRCA2, 1 CHEK2) and 8 likely pathogenic variants (1 BRCA2, 4 CHEK2 and 3 ATM) were found. The prevalence was 8%. The detection rate among 19 families with a > 10% remaining probability of mutation in BRCA1/2 and PALB2 genes was 26%. The 3 clinically significant variants in BRCA2 were detected in 2 families and 1 updated cancer family history (BOADICEA remaining probability of 59, 61 and 12%, respectively). Cascade testing was subsequently done in 15 relatives resulting 8 in mutation carriers and 9 true negatives. Conclusions: Our results support the value of updating cancer incident cases and considering expanded panels in selected families.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document