scholarly journals Identification of Novel BRCA1 Germline Deleterious Variant Among a Tunisian Family

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Hela Sassi ◽  
Hela Sassi ◽  
Rym Meddeb ◽  
Mediha Trabelsi ◽  
Samia Hannachi ◽  
...  

Inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer are most frequently due to germline mutations in the main genes BRCA1 (OMIM# 113705) and BRCA2 (OMIM# 600185). These inactivating mutations, essentially frameshift and nonsense variation, occurs mainly across conserved regions. The aim of the present study is to report a novel germline BRCA1 mutation identified in a Tunisian family case with early onset of breast and ovarian cancer and to evaluate the genotype phenotype correlation. The proband had high-grade tumors, invasive unilateral ductal carcinoma developed at the age of 38 and a serous ovarian adenocarcinoma after a gap of twelve years. The molecular analysis revealed a novel heterozygous nonsense BRCA1 mutation NM_007294.4: c.915T>A p.(C305*) in the proband and her daughter. This mutation leads to a truncated protein which pathogenicity was validated by bioinformatics tools. This variant is subject to nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. We also underlined the immunohistochemistry usefulness by lack of expression of BRCA1 protein in paraffin embedded breast tumor contrasting with normal tissue. Clinical and pathological data tend to be homogeneous and led to the conclusion that there is a genotype phenotype correlation in BRCA1, an element that must be taken into account in genetic counselling. Conclusively, we are the first to report this novel BRCA1 germline likely deleterious variant extending the molecular and clinical spectrum of BRCA1 pathogenic point mutations. Further in vitro functional experiments needs to be established. High-risk individuals carrying this BRCA1 mutation benefit from preventive measures to reduce morbidity.

1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon A. Gayther ◽  
William Warren ◽  
Sylvie Mazoyer ◽  
Paul A. Russell ◽  
Patricia A. Harrington ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
O T Jóhannsson ◽  
J Ranstam ◽  
A Borg ◽  
H Olsson

PURPOSE Recent studies indicate that BRCA1 breast and ovarian tumors may have an advantageous survival. In this population-based study, the survival of carriers of a mutated BRCA1 gene was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS The survival of 71 BRCA1-associated cancer patients (33 breast cancer, seven breast and ovarian cancer, and 31 ovarian cancer patients from 21 families with BRCA1 germline mutations) diagnosed after 1958 was compared with that of a population-based comparison group that consisted of all other invasive breast (n = 28,281) and ovarian (n = 7,011) cancers diagnosed during 1958 to 1995, as well as an age- and stage-matched control group. RESULTS No apparent survival advantage was found for BRCA1-associated breast cancers upon direct comparison. After adjustment for age and calendar year of diagnosis, survival was equal to or worse than that of the comparison group (hazards ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.4). In comparison with an age- and stage-matched control group, survival again appeared equal or worse (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.7). For BRCA1-associated ovarian cancers, an initial survival advantage was noted that disappeared with time. Due to this time dependency, multivariate analyses cannot adequately be analyzed. Compared with the age- and stage-matched control group, survival again appeared equal or worse (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.8). CONCLUSION The results suggest that survival for carriers of a BRCA1 mutation may be similar, or worse than, that for breast and ovarian cancer in general. This finding is in accordance with the adverse histopathologic features observed in BRCA1 tumors and underlines the need for surveillance in families that carry a BRCA1 mutation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A17
Author(s):  
Magdalena Muszyńska ◽  
Grzegorz Sukiennicki ◽  
Tomasz Huzarski ◽  
Jacek Gronwald ◽  
Cezary Cybulski ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 725-727
Author(s):  
JOSEFA SALGADO ◽  
MARTA SANTISTEBAN ◽  
CRISTINA GUTIÉRREZ ◽  
CARMEN GIL ◽  
MAITANE ROBLES ◽  
...  

The Breast ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 286-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.C. Schofied ◽  
S. Payne ◽  
V.G. Ross ◽  
I.D. Miller ◽  
S.D. Heys ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 2092-2100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariëlle S. van Roosmalen ◽  
Lia C.G. Verhoef ◽  
Peep F.M. Stalmeier ◽  
Nicoline Hoogerbrugge ◽  
Willem A.J. van Daal

PURPOSE: BRCA1 mutation carriers have a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Carriers may opt for prophylactic surgery and screening. Recent data suggesting that prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer risk have been incorporated in a decision analysis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare LE and QALE following four strategies: (1) prophylactic mastectomy and prophylactic oophorectomy (PMPO), (2) screening for breast cancer and prophylactic oophorectomy (BSPO), (3) prophylactic mastectomy and screening for ovarian cancer (PMOS), and (4) screening for breast and ovarian cancer (BSOS). The analysis was performed for a high (85% breast cancer, 63% ovarian cancer) and medium (56% breast cancer, 16% ovarian cancer) risk level. Utilities for the health states after prophylactic surgery were obtained from mutation carriers. Other model parameter values were obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: When compared with BSOS, the average gain in LE for 30-year-old carriers in the high (medium) risk group was 11.7 (6.6) years for PMPO, 9.5 (5.3) years for BSPO, and 4.9 (4.4) years for PMOS. For 30-year-old carriers, BSPO had a QALE advantage when PO was performed before age 40. In the medium-risk group, there was a stronger advantage for BSPO when QALE was considered. CONCLUSION: PMPO is the most effective strategy to prolong life. However, if patient preferences were taken into account, BSPO tends to be a better strategy in most women at medium risk or in young women at high risk when PO was performed before age 40.


1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 98-98
Author(s):  
A. Hadjisavvas ◽  
A. Adamou ◽  
K. C. Kyriacou ◽  
C. Christodoulou

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document