Skip to main content
Clinics logoLink to Clinics
. 2021 Jul 8;76:e2837. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2021/e2837

Germline and Somatic mutations in postmenopausal breast cancer patients

Tauana Rodrigues Nagy I,#, Simone Maistro I,#, Giselly Encinas I, Maria Lucia Hirata Katayama I, Glaucia Fernanda de Lima Pereira I, Nelson Gaburo-Júnior II, Lucas Augusto Moyses Franco III, Ana Carolina Ribeiro Chaves de Gouvêa I, Maria del Pilar Estevez Diz I, Luiz Antonio Senna Leite I, Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira I,*
PMCID: PMC8266163  PMID: 34287479

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

In breast cancer (BC) patients, the frequency of germline BRCA mutations (gBRCA) may vary according to the ethnic background, age, and family history of cancer. Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) is the second most common somatic mutated gene in BC; however, the association of mutations in both genes with cancer has not been thoroughly investigated. Thus, our aims were to investigate gBRCA mutation frequency in a cohort of postmenopausal Brazilian BC patients and the association of gBRCA1/BRCA2 and PIK3CA somatic mutations.

METHODS:

Forty-nine postmenopausal (>55 years) and forty-one young (≤35 years) BC patients were included in this study. The postmenopausal group included patients who reported a positive family history of cancer. For these patients, gBRCA1/BRCA2 were sequenced using next-generation sequencing (NGS) or Sanger sequencing. Data for gBRCA in young patients were already available from a previous study. DNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors was obtained from 27 postmenopausal and 41 young patients for analyzing exons 9 and 20 of PIK3CA. The association between gBRCA1/BRCA2 and somatic mutations in PIK3CA was investigated.

RESULTS:

The overall frequency of gBRCA1/BRCA2 among the 49 postmenopausal patients was 10.2%. The frequencies of somatic mutations in PIK3CA in the postmenopausal and young patients were 37% and 17%, respectively (ns). The most common PIK3CA mutation was found to be E454A. Nonsense and frameshift mutations, which may counteract the oncogenic potential of PIK3CA were also detected. Regardless of age, 25% of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers , each, had PIK3CA somatic mutations.

CONCLUSIONS:

Data obtained indicate that BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing may be considered for postmenopausal patients with BC who have a family history of cancer. Although some of them are not considered pathogenic, somatic variants of PIK3CA are frequently observed in BC patients, especially in postmenopausal patients.

Keywords: Breast Cancer, Germline Mutation, Somatic Mutation, BRCA1, BRCA2, PIK3CA

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer affects women of all ages; however, the incidence of breast cancer increases with age, and the peak incidence occurs between 45-64 years (1). In addition, breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women aged 30-39 years (2). The main risk factors for breast cancer are a) age, b) positive family history of breast and ovarian cancer, and c) hormone exposure (3).

A positive family history is observed in approximately 10-20% of the breast cancer patients, but mutations in predisposing genes have been identified in <30% of these cases (4). BRCA1/BRCA2—both related to the homologous repair of DNA double-strand breaks—are the major breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Generally, women who harbor BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations are more frequently diagnosed with breast cancer at an early age (≤40 years) or with ovarian cancer at any age. In addition, women who develop breast cancer at an older age and report a strong family history of breast/ovarian cancer mainly in close relatives—first, second, or third degree—may also be BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers (5). However, the majority of breast cancer cases are sporadic, i.e., not related to genetic syndromes. In this case, somatic mutations accumulate over an individual’s lifetime, similar to an ‘evolutionary’ process, a phenomenon that makes age itself a risk factor for cancer (6). In this process, some cells acquire mutations that are advantageous from a tumoral perspective, which allows aberrant proliferation, invasion, and metastasis.

In breast cancer, somatic mutations in the PIK3CA gene are the most frequent, just after TP53 (7). The PIK3CA gene encodes the p110 catalytic subunit of a heterodimeric lipid kinase called PI3K that is activated in response to various extracellular signals that are transduced through receptor tyrosine kinases. After activation, PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PI-4,5-P2), generating phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3), which functions as a second messenger and recruits proteins that harbor pleckstrin homology (PH) domains (e.g., AKT) (8). Mutations in the helical or kinase domain of PIK3CA resulted in the activation of the p110a kinase, with the subsequent downstream activation of mediators that culminates in cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and promotion of metastasis (9,10).

In breast cancer, an association between somatic mutations in PIK3CA and the positive expression of the estrogen receptor (ER) has been reported (11-14). However, the association between the frequency of somatic mutations in PIK3CA and age is unclear (15,16). Moreover, it seems likely that the frequency of somatic mutations in PIK3CA increases in ER-positive tumors in aging patients (7).

Thus, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most common germline mutated genes, while PIK3CA is the second most common somatic mutated gene in breast cancer patients; however, subtle frequency differences may be related to the age of onset of the disease. Carcinogenic mechanisms elicited by BRCA1/BRCA2 loss of function and PIK3CA gain of function may be targeted for therapy. There is evidence that combination therapies targeting tumors harboring BRCA mutations—such as PARP inhibitors—with PI3K pathway inhibition therapies may exhibit synergy in vivo for the treatment of endogenous BRCA1-related breast cancer mouse model (17). However, it has been previously reported that the frequency of PIK3CA mutations may be different in breast cancer patients based on the presence of germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 (in both women and men) (18,19). Thus, our aim was to investigate the frequency of BRCA mutations in a cohort of postmenopausal Brazilian breast cancer patients, for whom scarce information is available. The secondary exploratory aim of this study was to evaluate the association of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations with somatic PIK3CA mutations in a cohort of young and postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients

Patients were recruited at the Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), the cancer treatment branch of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, the largest public hospital complex in Latin America, São Paulo, Brazil. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (Comitê de Ética da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; protocol 397/11). All patients signed informed consent forms.

The inclusion criteria were 1) histopathological diagnosis of invasive breast carcinoma in patients aged <36 years or >54 years; 2) patients aged 55 years or older with at least one relative having first, second, or third degrees and diagnosed with breast, ovarian pancreatic, or prostate cancer; 3) triple-negative tumor and age ≤60 years. The expression of hormone receptor was classified as positive if at least 1% of the malignant cells were stained with antibodies against estrogen or progesterone receptor; HER2 positivity was defined as immunohistochemistry scores of 3(+) or 2(+), the latter, associated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-amplification. HER2 immunohistochemistry and FISH were scored according to the ASCO/CAP guidelines (20). The Ki67 expression cut-off was set at >14% for a high proliferation index. The molecular subtypes were classified using previously established criteria (21).

Personal and familial cancer histories were collected through a structured questionnaire. Patients were also asked about their ancestry to obtain information about the country or continent where their parents and grandparents (at least) were born. A pedigree that reached up to third-degree relatives was designed. Clinical and pathological data were retrieved from hospital files.

In a previous study, 79 very young breast cancer patients (≤35 years) were evaluated for the presence of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, among whom, four harbored BRCA1 mutations (c.66_67insA; c.211A>G; c.3331_3334delCAAG; c.5263_5264insC) and nine harbored BRCA2 mutations (c.483T>A; c.1138_1138delA; c.2808_2811delACAA (n=2); c.3956_3959delATGA; c.6656C>G; c.6990_6994delTACCT; c.9154C>T; c.9382C>T) (22). For detecting PIK3CA mutations, tumor samples were available for 41 patients (among the 79 patients) and were included in the present analysis. Clinical data and tumor subtypes based on ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 expression levels (as described above) are summarized in Table 4 (22). Six of these forty-one patients harbored BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Table 4. Clinical and pathological features of breast cancer patients according to their age.

Features Postmenopausal Young
n=27 n=41 p
Age at diagnosis, median (range), years 61 (55-74) 32 (23-35)
Tumor Subtype
    Luminal A 8 (8) 2 (4.9) 0.04
    Luminal B 14 (51.9) 19 (46.3)
    Luminal 2 (7.4) 4 (9.8)
    HER2+ 1 (3.7) 5 (12.2)
    Triple Negative 2 (7.4) 10 (24.4)
    Not Determined 0 1 (2.4)
Clinical Stage, n (%)
    I/II 19 (73.1) 23 (65.7) 0.539
    III/IV 7 (26.9) 12 (34.3)
BRCA germline status
BRCA1/BRCA2 mut 2 (7.4) 6 (14.6) 0.365
BRCA1/BRCA2 wt 25 (92.6) 35 (85.4)
PIK3CA somatic status
PIK3CA path mut 10 (37) 7(17.1) *
PIK3CA wt 17 (63) 34 (82.9)
Luminal Tumors vs PIK3CA somatic status
    Luminal PIK3CA mut 8 (33.3%) 5 (20%) 0.291
    Luminal PIK3CA wt 16 (66.7%) 20 (80%)

Tumor Subtype based on ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 expression, as described in methods. Missing data were not computed. Pearson's chi-Square. *not tested owing to the small sample size.

DNA Extraction from the Blood and Tumor Tissue

Genomic DNA from peripheral blood samples was extracted using the Illustra Blood Genomic Prep Mini Spin Kit (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), and from cancer cell-enriched areas from the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples using the QIAamp® DNA FFPE Tissue (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA), as per the manufacturer's protocol.

DNA concentration and purity were determined using a NanoDrop 1000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA), and the absorbance260/280 ratio varied from 1.42 to 2.2. DNA concentration from samples analyzed using next-generation sequencing (NGS) was also evaluated using a Qubit® dsDNA BR Assay kit on a Qubit® 3.0 Fluorometer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, California, USA).

Analysis of Germline Mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2

The entire coding regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2, including exon-intron boundaries, were sequenced by NGS using the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM) platform (n=38) or by Sanger sequencing (n=11), to determine the presence of germline mutations.

Next-Generation Sequencing

BRCA1 and BRCA2 were sequenced using the Ion AmpliSeq™ BRCA1 and BRCA2 Panel (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA) consisting of three primer pools, covering the target regions in 167 amplicons that target the entire coding region, including 10-20 bp of non-coding sequences, flanking the 5’ and 3’ ends of each exon, for both genes. Libraries containing the PCR product were sequenced on a 314 v2 Ion Chip, which allows the simultaneous analysis of 12 samples per chip on a PGM sequencer (Ion Torrent™), and the Ion PGM Sequencing 200 Kit version 2 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Data analysis was performed using the Ion Reporter™ Server System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachusetts, USA). Sequence data were also visually evaluated using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV). Amplicons with coverage less than 30x, pathogenic variants, and new variants were confirmed by PCR followed by conventional bidirectional Sanger sequencing. Full details of the methods are provided in the Appendix.

PCR and Sanger Sequencing

All coding regions, including the intron-exon boundaries of BRCA1 (NM_7294.3) and BRCA2 (NM_000059.3) were amplified by PCR. Primers and conditions are described in the Appendix. The amplicons were purified (Illustra™ ExoStar™ 1-Step-GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and were sequenced using the BigDyeTM Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied BiosystemsTM, Foster City, California, USA), as described previously (22). Following purification, samples were analyzed on a 3500 Genetic Analyzer or ABI 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™, Foster City, California, USA) in both forward and reverse directions (Appendix). The results were analyzed using Mutation Surveyor DNA Variant Analysis Software (v3.30, SoftGenetics LLC). All pathogenic mutations were confirmed using Sanger sequencing.

Analysis of Copy Number Variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2

For the analysis of large deletions and duplications—that would have provided comprehensive information regarding germline mutations—patient DNA was subjected to BRCA1 and BRCA2 multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) analysis (BRCA1: SALSA® MLPA® P002 and P087 Probemix; BRCA2: SALSA® MLPA® P045 BRCA2/CHEK2 Probemix; MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), as per the manufacturer's protocols (Appendix), as described previously (22,23).

Mutation Nomenclature and Classification

BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were named according to the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature (24) and were searched in publicly accessible databases, i.e., BRCA Share™, BRCA Exchange, BRCA Mutation Database, and ClinVar. The search was performed in 2020 (between January and June). In silico analyzes were performed using the following prediction tools: Polymorphism Phenotyping (PolyPhen; v2.2.2), Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant (SIFT; v1.0.3), Align-GVGD, Protein Variation Effect Analyzer (Provean; v1.1), and Human Splicing Finder to analyze variants of unknown clinical significance. Minor allele frequency (MAF) was checked on the 1000 Genomes Project database, Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), Global MAF dbSNP, Exome Variant Server, NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (ESP), Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD), Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed), and Brazilian genomic variants (ABraOM). More details are provided in the Appendix.

The variants were then classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, benign, likely benign, and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) based on the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (25). VUS for BRCA was also checked for co-occurrence with known pathogenic mutations in the same patient. For some variants, we considered that consensus information in ≥2 databases was strong enough to classify them as benign or VUS.

Analysis of Somatic Mutations in PIK3CA

Among the 49 postmenopausal patients, 27 FFPE tumor samples were available for analysis. Tumor samples from another 22 patients were not available because they had been operated on at another service. Tumor samples from all 41 young patients were used for further analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The flowchart summarizes the samples used for each analysis.

Figure 1

PIK3CA (NM_006218.2) exons 9 (helical domain) and 20 (kinase domain), which are the regions with the highest mutation frequency (26), were amplified by PCR and were analyzed by Sanger sequencing. Primer sets were designed using software Primer3 (http://bioinfo.ut.ee/primer3/). To avoid non-specific product formation, BLAST (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast) and BLAT (https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgBlat) were performed. Primers and conditions are described in the Appendix.

Statistical Analysis and Sample Size Calculation

To detect the frequency of germline BRCA mutations in postmenopausal breast cancer patients (varying from 2% to 17%), a sample size of 50 was estimated (27,28). For analyzing the frequency of PIK3CA mutations in young and postmenopausal patients; this was a convenient sample size, because only 55% of tumor samples were available for the latter. Assuming that the frequency of PIK3CA mutations in young and postmenopausal patients was 7% and 35%, respectively (7) and the correlation of two postmenopausal patients for every three young patients, the estimated sample size to detect a difference with 0.05 one-sided significance level and 80% power would be 31 young and 21 postmenopausal patients.

Pearson’s chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between variables, and a two-sided significance level of 0.05 was considered.

RESULTS

Patients

Forty-nine elderly women aged ≥55 years who were diagnosed with invasive ductal breast carcinoma were included between May 2014 and May 2015 and evaluated for the presence of germline mutations in BRCA. FFPE tumor samples of 27 patients were analyzed for the presence of somatic mutations in PIK3CA. The median ages at the time of diagnosis and enrollment in the study were 61 years (55-80 years) and 64 years (56-87 years), respectively. The majority of the patients had Nottingham histological grade II tumors (63.3%) and clinical stage I/II tumors (67.4%). With respect to the tumor subtype, most tumors were luminal B (44.9%) or luminal A (22.4%), followed by HER2+ and triple-negative tumors (10.2% each) (Table 1; Additional Table 1). Most patients (95.9%)—except for two patients (one with a triple-negative tumor and age ≤60 years)—reported a positive family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancers. A large proportion of the patients (69.4%) reported at least one affected first-degree family member with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Most women were born in the Southeast (67.3%)—followed by the Northeast (18.4%)—regions of Brazil. With respect to ancestry, 28.6% of the patients reported Brazilian and European ancestries, 26.5% reported only Brazilian ancestry, and 18.4% and 8.4% reported European-only or Asian ancestry, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1. Clinical and pathological features of breast cancer patients according to deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Features BRCA1/BRCA2 mut BRCA1/BRCA2 wt
n=49 n=5 n=44
Age at diagnosis, median (range), years 61 (55-80) 58 (56-80) 62 (55-80)
Age at enrollment, median (range), years 64 (56-87) 60 (58-82) 64.5 (56-87)
Histological grade, n (%)
    I 10 0 10 (100)
    II 31 2 (6.5) 29 (93.5)
    III 7 3 (42.8) 4 (57.8)
    Missing 1 0 1 (100)
Clinical Stage, n (%)
    I 14 0 14 (100)
    II 19 1 (5.3) 18 (94.7)
    III 10 2 (20) 8 (80)
    Missing 6 2 (33.5) 4 (66.5)
Molecular Subtype
    Luminal A 11 0 11 (100)
    Luminal B 22 3 (13.7) 19 (86.4)
    Luminal 6 0 6 (100)
    HER2+ 5 0 5 (100)
    Triple Negative 5 2 (40) 3 (60)
Affected relatives, n (%)
    First Degree 34 4 (11.8) 30 (82.2)
    Second Degree 9 0 9 (100)
    Third Degree 4 1 (25) 3 (75)
    Negative 2 0 2 (100)
Ancestry until second degree, n (%)
    Brazilian only 13 2 (15.4) 11 (84.6)
    European only 9 0 9 (100)
    Asian only 5 1 (20) 4 (80)
    Brazilian and European 14 1 (7.2) 13 (92.8)
    Brazilian and Indigenous 1 0 1 (100)
    Brazilian and Australian 1 1 (100) 0
    Brazilian and South American 1 0 1 (100)
    Brazilian and European and Australian 1 0 1 (100)
    Indigenous and European 1 0 1 (100)
    European and Unknown 1 0 1 (100)
    Indigenous and Unknown 1 0 1 (100)
    Unknown 1 0 1 (100)
Region of origin, n (%)
    Southeast 33 2 (6) 31 (94)
    Northeast 9 2 (22.2) 7 (77.8)
    South 3 0 3 (100)
    Abroad 4 1 (25) 3 (75)

Another 41 young patients, aged ≤35 years, had their tumor samples evaluated for the presence of somatic mutations in PIK3CA. This is a subgroup of patients whose clinical data, as well as germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing results had already been reported in a previous study (22). The cohort of patients now reported comprehends those young patients who had FFPE tumor samples available for PIK3CA analysis. The median age at the time of diagnosis was 32 years (range, 23-35 years). Most patients presented tumors with histological grade II (43.9%) or III (48.8%), and disease clinical stage I/II (65.7%). Luminal B (46.3%) was the most frequent tumor subtype, followed by triple-negative (24.4%) and HER2 (+) (12.2%) tumors (Table 4). Among these patients, 14.6% and 12.2% reported first-or second-degree relatives diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, respectively, while 39% reported a negative family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, and 24.4% were not able to describe their family history. Six out of the forty-one patients harbored pathogenic mutations (14.6%) in BRCA1 or BRCA2, as previously reported (22).

Germline Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Postmenopausal Patients

Among 49 postmenopausal unrelated women, 5 (10.2%) were identified to harbor mutations of clinical significance, 3 in BRCA1 and 2 in BRCA2 (Table 2; Additional Tables 2-3). All five BRCA mutations were identified among 47 patients who reported a positive family history of breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers in close relatives (10.6%), including four mutations detected among 34 patients reporting first-degree relatives affected by these types of cancer (11.76%) (Table 1).

Table 2. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast cancer patients: Clinical aspects and molecular description.

ID HGVS cDNA HGVS protein Type BrCa Age OvCa Age Tumor Subtype HG CS Ancestry FH
BRCA1
    29 c.5074+2T>C - SS 58 - TN 2 ND BRZ Pos
    17 c.5123C>A p.Ala1708Glu M 56 - Lum B 3 III BRZ/AUS Pos
    47 Exon 1-19 deleted - LGR 58 - TN 3 III BRZ/EUR Pos
BRCA2
    44 c.2T>G p.Met1Arg M 56 - Lum B 3 II BRZ Pos
    2 c.5645C>A p.Ser1882Ter NS 80 >70 Lum B 2 ND Asian Pos

ID: Patient identification; SS: Splice site; M: Missense; LGR: Large genomic rearrangement; NS: Nonsense; Lum: Luminal; HG: Histological grade; CS: Clinical stage; AUS: Australian; FH: Family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer; Pos: Positive.

Mutations in BRCA1 comprised one splice-site variant (c.5074+2T>C, in exon 17), one missense mutation (c.5123C>A), and one BRCA1 rearrangement generating a large deletion encompassing exons 1-19. The two pathogenic mutations in BRCA2 included one missense variant (c.2T>G) and one nonsense variant (c.5645C>A) (Table 2). The presence of CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation was investigated in 47 out of the 49 patients; however, no mutations were detected.

Eight VUS were detected, five in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2. Among the VUS, four distinct missense variants were identified, two in each gene (BRCA1: c.3305A>G and c.3752G>A; BRCA2: c.3371A>G and c.8942A>G), among which BRCA2 c.3371A>G was predicted to be deleterious by at least three out of four mutation function prediction models (SIFT, Polyphen-2, Align-GVGD, or Provean) (Table 3). The remaining VUS were located in the intronic regions, at least 36 nucleotides away from the intron-exon boundary.

Table 3. In silico analysis of VUS identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using mutation function prediction models.

Gene HDVS cDNA HGVS protein SIFT PolyPhen Align-GVGD Provean Human Splicing Finder ID
BRCA1 c.3305A>G p.Asn1102Ser Tolerated Benign Class C0 Deleterious Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. 49
c.3752G>A p.Cys1251Tyr Tolerated Benign Class C0 Neutral Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. 48
BRCA2 c.3371A>G p.Gln1124Arg Damaging Probably Damaging Class C35 Deleterious Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Potential alteration of splicing. 24
c.8942A>G p.Glu2981Gly Tolerated Benign Class C65 Neutral ND 12

Presence of Somatic Mutations in PIK3CA in Postmenopausal and Young Patients

Tumor sequencing was performed on samples from 27 elderly patients to identify PIK3CA mutations. Fourteen tumors (51.8%) were found to harbor mutations in exons 9 or 20; however, only ten (37%) harbored meaningful deleterious or possibly deleterious variants (pathogenic in at least one out of four function prediction tests). Recurrent mutations were E545A (observed in four samples) and H1047L (in the other two samples). Among these 27 elderly patients, two were BRCA1 mutation carriers, both of whom harbored somatic pathogenic (E545A) or possibly pathogenic PIK3CA mutations (Additional Table 4).

Another three tumors (11.1%), all luminal A subtypes, harbored synonymous variants (in one case, associated with an intronic variant) (sample 39). In addition, tumors from another six patients harbored multiple PIK3CA variants; however, two tumors harbored (samples 26 and 39) a combination of non-pathogenic variants represented by missense non-pathogenic and nonsense variants (sample 26) or a combination of a deep intronic and two synonymous variants (sample 39). In the third tumor, PIK3CA double mutation (sample 47) (S541P and E1037V) was considered pathogenic in at least three function prediction tests, even though none of them were located in a hotspot. In the fourth and fifth tumors (samples 36 and 46), the contribution of the mutations were difficult to define because the PIK3CA pathogenic missense variant (E545A) was accompanied by a frameshift (FS) mutation (S553FS). If it occurs in cis, FS S553FS might counteract the oncogenic potential of E545A. The sixth tumor (sample 8) harbored a pathogenic hotspot (H1047L) and a synonymous variant (Additional Table 4).

In a cohort of young patients, PIK3CA variants were observed in 12 tumors, including synonymous variants—detected in two tumors (one luminal B, sample 484, and one HER2+ sample 503)—and missense non-pathogenic variants detected in another two samples (samples 455 and 478). In addition, a nonsense variant, W552* was detected in a luminal A tumor (sample 468). Hence, pathogenic or possibly pathogenic PIK3CA mutations were detected in seven out of forty-one young patients (17.1%) (Additional Table 5).

Among the young patients, E545A was the most frequent mutation (detected in three different samples, one luminal B and two triple-negative tumors). In one of these triple-negative tumors, E545A occurred concomitantly with N1068T, another pathogenic variant. The variant P539S, considered pathogenic in the prediction models, was detected in two luminal B samples, in one of these cases, in combination with R555K, which is also a pathogenic variant.

We then compared frequency of pathogenic PIK3CA mutation in tumors from postmenopausal and young patients (37% vs. 17%); however, we could not find a significant difference (Table 4). Using our data with a sample size of 27 postmenopausal and 41 young women and the reported frequency of PIK3CA mutation, the power to detect a difference with a one-sided significance level of 0.05% was 58.51%.

The frequency of PIK3CA is enriched in ER-positive tumors, and in a previous study we detected a trend toward a higher frequency of PIK3CA mutations in ER-positive tumor from elderly women compared to that observed in younger women (7). Upon considering the characteristics of the patients in the present series, we observed differences between the two groups, reflecting a higher proportion of luminal tumors in postmenopausal women. We then analyzed the frequency of PIK3CA mutations in luminal tumors and observed that eight out of the twenty-four samples (33.3%) from postmenopausal patients and five out of the twenty-five samples (20%) from young patients harbored pathogenic PIK3CA mutations (Table 4; p=0.291). A future meta-analysis including more recent data may help to clarify this aspect.

We next considered a total of 68 patients, postmenopausal as well as young, who were tested for the presence of germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 and somatic mutations in PIK3CA. Upon simultaneously considering patients from both age groups, two out of eight germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutant carriers (25%) were also found to harbor somatic mutations in PIK3CA. Among the 60 patients who were BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type, 15 manifested tumors harboring PIK3CA mutations (25%).

DISCUSSION

In this cohort of postmenopausal breast cancer patients, 10.2% harbored pathogenic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 variants; 11.7% of these patients had at least one family member who was affected with breast, ovarian, prostate, or pancreatic cancer.

Age at the onset of breast cancer and a family history of breast and ovarian cancer are important factors associated with the frequency of germline BRCA mutations (29). For elderly patients who were not selected for a family history of cancer, the frequency of BRCA mutations tended to be relatively low. Accordingly, a recent nested case-control study conducted in the USA revealed that only 1.18% of the unselected postmenopausal breast cancer patients were BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers (27). In a large cohort comprising 1554 Brazilian breast cancer patients referred for genetic testing at a single clinical diagnostic laboratory in Brazil, 9.84% were found to be BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers independent of age (30). Higher BRCA mutation frequencies (varying from 15% to 22%) have been reported among young Brazilian breast cancer patients with ages up to 35 years (22,31,30). However, specifically for postmenopausal Brazilian patients with breast cancer, little data are available. Our study indicates that 10.6% of the breast cancer patients with at least one close relative affected by the disease (until third degree) harbor germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. A previous study evaluated 39 breast cancer patients aged more than 50 years, among whom 17.9% were BRCA mutation carriers (32). These latter patients reported a strong family history based on the early age of cancer onset or multiple relatives with breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer at any age, which may explain the higher BRCA mutation frequency.

An important issue to take into consideration is the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic program for germline mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2 genes and preventative strategies for relatives of patients diagnosed with the mutation. In the scenario of Brazilian ovarian cancer patients, for whom BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation frequency is 20%, performing genetic testing and adopting prophylactic measures for family members was considered a cost-effective measure (33). In a more inclusive model, BRCA testing may be offered to women of the general population to avoid missing mutation carriers, owing to test indications based on clinical criteria and family history. In this context, population-based BRCA testing was estimated to be cost-effective for the Brazilian population and to prevent a large number of breast and ovarian cancer cases (34). Although direct studies for postmenopausal Brazilian breast cancer patients are necessary, the previous two studies might suggest that genetic testing may be valuable for these women in the context of a positive family history.

The variants detected in the present study were not among the most frequent mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Brazilian patients with breast cancer. Variants BRCA1 c.5074+2T>C, BRCA1 c.5123C>A, and BRCA2 c.2T>G respectively represent 2.2%, 0.5%, and 1.2% of the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations previously reported (28).

The other two BRCA mutations, BRCA1 large rearrangement (del exons 1-19) and BRCA2 c.5645C>A, have not been previously reported in the Brazilian population. The variant, BRCA2 c.5645C>A has been reported in breast cancer patients from Japan, China, and the Czech Republic (35,36,37), and in prostate cancer patients (38). Interestingly, our patient who harbored this variant was also born in Japan.

Somatic mutations in PIK3CA gene are the second most common mutations in breast cancer, just after TP53 (7). The PIK3CA mutation hotspots were clustered in exon 9 in nucleotides corresponding to codons E542K and E545K (helical domain) and in exon 20 in nucleotides corresponding to codon H1047R (kinase domain) (39,40).

In the present series, the most frequent mutation in PIK3CA in tumors from both postmenopausal and young patients was E545A, a variant with intermediate oncogenic potency, located in the helical domain (39). In agreement with our data, studies on breast cancer patients from Singapore and Peru have also found E545A to be the most frequent PIK3CA variant in tumor samples (41,42). Nevertheless, a method was developed to specifically enhance the detection of E454A (43). In contrast, data from another cohort of Brazilian patients with sporadic breast cancer have reported that the most frequent PIK3CA hotspot mutations were E542K, E545K, and H1047R (13).

The second most commonly found mutations in elderly patients were H1047L and S553FS. H1047L is located in the kinase domain and is associated with high oncogenic potential (39). Further, the frameshift mutation S553FS might counteract the proto-oncogene potential of PIK3CA. In addition, nonsense mutations were detected in tumors from both elderly and young patients, which might also neutralize the proto-oncogenic activity of PIK3CA. However, another study has specified that nonsense mutations in PIK3CA are not frequently encountered (44).

Six tumors were found to harbor double or triple PIK3CA variants (four from elderly patients and two from young patients). It has been previously shown that approximately 13% of all the PIK3CA mutations correspond to multiple variants occurring in the same tumor. It has also been reported that most double mutations occur in cis and induce the activation of the downstream PI3K pathway (compared to single-hotspot mutants) (40). However, in the present study, among the four tumors in elderly patients harboring double or triple variants, only one might be deleterious, involving a combination of S541P and E1037V. In the other three tumors, concomitant variants included nonsense, frameshift, synonymous, and intronic variants, in addition to missense variants with pathogenic or non-pathogenic potential. The determination of whether these variants were in cis might have helped to determine the oncogenic potential of the combinations because if a driver mutation occurred in trans, the effect of the driver mutation might have prevailed.

In the present cohort of patients, somatic mutations in PIK3CA were detected in 25% of the patients harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (two of the eight postmenopausal patients were analyzed for the presence of both gene mutations). This finding may be attributed to the small sample size. In other studies, the frequency of the combination of both mutations appeared to be less than that of individual mutations. In Chinese breast cancer patients, PIK3CA somatic mutations were detected in 14% and 43% of the patients harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (vs. wild type carriers), respectively (18). PIK3CA somatic mutations were not detected in male patients with breast cancer who harbored BRCA2 mutations (19).

Although we were not able to identify any associations between the germline BRCA and somatic PIK3CA mutations because of the small number of patients involved in this study, this is an intriguing situation involving two genes that are treatment targets; therefore, this information may be aggregated in future studies.

The limitations of our study are the small sample size and the sequencing of hotspots (but not all exons of PIK3CA), which may have resulted in the underestimation of the mutation frequency. The strengths of this study are the combined analysis of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 and somatic PIK3CA mutations in a group of postmenopausal and young patients with breast cancer.

In conclusion, the present data indicate that BRCA1/BRCA2 sequencing may be considered for postmenopausal breast cancer patients having a family history of cancer. In addition, although the frequency of PIK3CA variants in exons 9 and 20 is high in both elderly and young patients, some of these variants may not be pathogenic in the context of breast cancer.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Nagy TR conceived the study, enrolled patients, collected clinical data, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, analyzed and interpreted the mutational data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Maistro S conceived the study, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, analyzed the mutational data, interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Encinas G conceived the study, performed the experiments, analyzed the mutational data, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Katayama MLH performed the experiments, analyzed the data, analyzed the mutational data, interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Pereira GFL analyzed and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Gaburo-Júnior N and Franco LAM performed the experiments and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Gouvêa ACRC, Leite LAS and Diz MPE enrolled the patients, collected the clinical data, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. Folgueira MAAK conceived the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript, and revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the helpful assistance of Dr. Rossana Veronica Mendoza Lopez for the statistical analysis. The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant #2012/12306-4) supported this work. Simone Maistro received a postdoctoral scholarship from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, PVE #029/2012), and received a PhD scholarship grant from the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, #2011/09572-1). Tauana Rodrigues Nagy and Gláucia Fernanda de Lima Pereira received a scholarship grant from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Maria Aparecida Azevedo Koike Folgueira received a research grant from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil (CNPq-308876/2017-2).

APPENDIX.

ADDITIONAL METHODS

NGS

BRCA1 and BRCA2 were analyzed for mutations using the Ion AmpliSeq™ BRCA1 and BRCA2 panels (Thermo Fisher Scientific). This panel consists of three primer pools (167 amplicons) covering the entire coding region, including 10-20 bp of non-coding sequences flanking the 5’ and 3’ ends of each exon. Library preparation was performed using the Ion AmpliSeq™ Library Kit 2.0 and Ion Xpress™ Barcode Adapter 1-96 kit. DNA amplification was performed using 30 ng of DNA with three primer pools and 5x Ion AmpliSeq™ HiFi Master Mix. The PCR cycle included the following: 2 min at 99°C, followed by 19 cycles of 99°C for 15s and 60°C for 4 min, ending with a hold step at 10°C on a Veriti Thermal Cycler (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Next, the three PCR amplicons were mixed (30 µL), and 20 µL was treated with 2 µL FuPa Reagent to partially digest the primer sequences and phosphorylate the amplicons at 50°C for 10 min, followed by 55°C for 10 min, then 60°C for 20 min, and then held at 10°C. Next, sequencing adaptors (A: conjugated to biotin and P1) and barcodes (consisting of short stretches of index sequences that enable sample multiplexing) were ligated to the amplicons using the Ion Xpress™ Barcode Adapters kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) for 30 min at 22°C, 5 min at 68°C, and 5 min at 72°C, ending with a hold at 10°C. The adaptor-ligated amplicon (libraries) were purified with 45 μL of the Agencourt® AMPure® XP Reagents (Beckman Coulter) and incubated for 5 min at room temperature(22-25°C). The tube was placed in a magnetic rack such that it was incubated for 2 min or until the solution became clear. After the supernatant was removed carefully and discarded without disturbing the pellet, freshly prepared 70% ethanol (150 μL) was added, and the tube was moved side‐to‐side of the magnet to wash the beads, and then the supernatant was discarded (two rounds of purification were repeated). The tube was placed on the magnet, and the beads were air-dried at room temperature for 5 min. The library was subjected to a second round of amplification using 50 μL of Platinum® PCR SuperMix HiFi and 2 μL of Equalizer™ Primers (added to each bead-pellet); the PCR cycles included 98°C for 2 min, followed by 9 cycles of 98°C for 15s and 64°C for 1 min, ending with a hold at 10°C. Then, 10 μL of Equalizer™ Capture was added to each amplified library, mixed by pipetting, and incubated at room temperature for 5 min. Next, 6 μL of washed Equalizer™ beads was added to each tube containing the captured library, mixed, and incubated at room temperature for 5 min. The tube was then placed in the magnet and incubated for 2 min or until the solution became clear. After the supernatant was removed carefully without disturbing the pellet, the Equalizer™ Wash Buffer (150 μL) was added to each reaction, to wash the beads, the tube was moved side‐to‐side of the magnet, and then the supernatant was removed and discarded (two rounds of purification were repeated). Next, the tube was removed from the magnet and 100 μL of Equalizer™ Elution Buffer was added to each pellet, mixed, and incubated at 32°C in a thermal cycler for 5 min. The tube was placed in the magnet and incubated at room temperature for 5 min or until the solution became clear. The supernatant contained the equalized library at ∼100 pM, and the same amount of the 12 libraries was pooled to perform the emulsion PCR. Next, emulsion PCR was performed using the Ion OneTouch™ System and Ion OneTouch™ 200 Template Kit v2 (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Template-positive Ion Sphere™ Particles (ISPs) were enriched using Dynabeads MyOne™ Streptavidin C1 beads (Invitrogen) and were washed with Ion OneTouch Wash Solution. This process was performed on an Ion OneTouch™ ES System (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The quality of the ISPs was evaluated using a Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Invitrogen). The enriched ISPs were sequenced on a 314 v2 Ion Chip (12 samples per chip) using an Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM) sequencer system (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using the Ion PGM Sequencing 200 Kit version 2 (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Sequencing was performed using 500 flow runs, which generated approximately 200 bp. The PGM sequencing run outputs were directly loaded to the Torrent Server and stored as ‘.dat’ files. Data analysis comprising annotation of single-nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, and splice-site alterations was performed using the Ion Reporter™ Server System (Life Technologies). Sequence data were also visually examined and verified using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV). Sequencing generated an average of 302,346 reads per patient, and 96.14% of these regions were mapped to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 loci. Amplicons with coverage less than 30x on the Ion Torrent™ platform, as well as pathogenic variants, and new variants were reanalyzed by Sanger sequencing.

PCR amplification and Sanger sequencing

The complete coding regions of BRCA1 (NM_7294.3) and BRCA2 (NM_000059.3), including 50-100 base pairs (bp) of non-coding sequences flanking the 5’ and 3’ ends of each exon, were amplified by PCR using 33 pairs of primers (for BRCA1) (1-2) (Table 1), and 48 pairs of primers (for BRCA2) (3) (Table 2). Exons 9 (helical domain) and 20 (kinase domain) of PIK3CA (NM_006218.2) were amplified by PCR (Table 3). The PCR products were analyzed by Sanger sequencing in both the forward and reverse directions.

The reaction mixture (total volume, 20 μL) contained AmpliTaq Gold enzyme 250 U (final concentration, 0.04 U/μL) (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), 1× AmpliTaq Gold buffer, 1.5-3.0 mM AmpliTaq Gold magnesium chloride, 0.16 mM deoxynucleotides (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA-AM8200), primers (0.4 μM each pair), and 50 ng DNA. PCR was performed on a Veriti® 96-well Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems™). The PCR cycle consisted of 1 cycle at 95°C for 10 min, 40 cycles at 94°C for 50 s, 54-66°C for 50s, 72°C for 50s, and 1 cycle at 72°C for 7 min. The BRCA2 exon 11 fragments were amplified by touchdown PCR, with annealing temperatures decreasing from 63°C to 56°C for fragments corresponding to the beginning of this exon to nucleotide 4526, and annealing temperatures from 68°C to 61°C for fragments corresponding to the end of the exon. PCR products were loaded onto a 1.5% agarose gel, stained with GelRed Nucleic Acid Stain (Biotium, Hayward, CA, USA), and evaluated. PCR products were treated with Illustra™ ExoStar™ 1-Step (GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) and incubated at 37°C for 15 min, followed by incubation at 80°C for 15 min. All PCR products were sequenced in both forward and reverse directions using BigDye® Terminator v3.1 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA-4337456), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The final product was sequenced on a 3500 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™) or ABI 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™). Sequences obtained were analyzed using Mutation Surveyor DNA Variant Analysis Software (v3.30, SoftGenetics LLC, State College, PA, USA). All pathogenic mutations were confirmed by Sanger sequencing.

MLPA

All patients were investigated for large rearrangements, specifically deletions and duplications, using the MLPA commercial kits, SALSA® MLPA® P002 BRCA1 probemix (P002-100R) and SALSA® MLPA® P045 BRCA2/CHEK2 probemix (P045-100R) (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). At first, 80 ng of genomic DNA resuspended in 2.5 μL ultrapure water was denatured for 10 min at 98°C after which 1.5 μL of the probemix mixture was added (0.75 μL of MLPA probe and 0.75 μL of MLPA buffer). The sample DNA and probemix mixture were heated at 95°C for 1 min and then incubated overnight at 60°C (17h). Afterward, ligation was performed using 1.5 μL of ligase buffer A, 1.5 μL of ligase buffer B, 0.5 μL of Ligase-65, and 12.5 μL of water and the reaction was incubated at 54°C for 15 min. The ligase was then inactivated by incubating the reaction at 98°C for 5 min. Amplification was performed by adding 5 μL of Polymerase mix (1 μL of SALSA PCR primers, 0.25 μL of SALSA polymerase, and 3.75 μL of water) and heated at 95°C for 1 min. PCR was carried out for 35 cycles (30s at 95°C, 30s at 60°C, and 60s at 72°C), followed by 20 min at 72°C on a GeneAmp 9700 Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems). Then, 1 μL of the PCR product was diluted 1:10 in water, mixed with 0.075 μL GeneScan™ 600 LIZ® dye Size Standard v2.0 (Applied Biosystems-4408399) and 9 μL Hi-Di Formamide (Applied Biosystems-4440753), and incubated at 80°C for 2 min on a GeneAmp 9700 Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems). The fragments were analyzed on an Applied Biosystems 3500 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™) or ABI 3730 DNA Analyzer (Applied Biosystems™), and analysis was performed using Coffalyser.Net MLPA Analysis Software (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands). To normalize the data, at least three genomic DNA samples obtained from the peripheral blood cells of healthy donors were used as controls in each analysis. Normal values were considered when the ratio was between 0.8 and 1.2.

Nomenclature and classification of mutations

Variants were named according to the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature (4). BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were searched in publicly accessible databases, i.e., BRCA Share™ (5,6), BRCA Exchange (7), BRCA Mutation Database (8), and ClinVar (9); this search was performed between January and June 2020. Gene variants were evaluated using the following in silico prediction models: Polymorphism Phenotyping (PolyPhen; v2.2.2) (10), Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant (SIFT; v1.0.3) (11), Align-GVGD (12,13), Protein Variation Effect Analyzer (Provean; v1.1) (14), and Human Splicing Finder (15) to identify variants of unknown clinical significance. Minor allele frequency (MAF) was checked using the 1000 Genomes Project database (16), the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) (17,18), Global MAF dbSNP (19), Exome Variant Server, NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (ESP) (20), Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) (21), Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) (22), and Brazilian genomic variants (ABraOM) (23).

The variants were then classified according to the recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics in pathogenic, likely pathogenic, benign, likely benign, and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (24). VUS for BRCA was also checked for co-occurrence with known pathogenic mutations in the same patient. For some variants, we considered that consensus information in ≥2 databases was strong enough to classify them as benign or VUS.

Additional Table 1. Clinical and pathological characteristics of breast cancer patients, BRCA sequencing, and the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) results.

ID Age Years HT HG ER (%) PR (%) HER2 Ki67 (%) Molecular Subtype CS FH BRCA MLPA
1 71 IDC 2 100 80 Neg. 25 Luminal B III Yes wt wt
2 80 IDC 2 80 80 Neg. 30 Luminal B ND Yes BRCA2 wt
3 66 IDC 1 95 80 Neg. 15 Luminal B II Yes wt ND
4 61 IDC 2 95 Neg. Neg. 20 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
5 61 IDC 2 100 100 Neg. 12 Luminal A II Yes wt wt
6 74 IDC 1 100 100 Neg. 10 Luminal A I Yes wt wt
7 66 IDC 2 60 66 Neg. 30 Luminal B I Yes wt wt
8 61 IDC 2 Pos. Pos. Neg. 30 Luminal B III Yes wt wt
9 73 IDC 2 100 100 Neg. 10 Luminal A I Yes wt wt
10 57 IDC ND 90 70 Neg. 10 Luminal A I Yes wt wt
11 73 IDC 2 95 Neg. Neg. 15 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
12 73 IDC 3 100 5 Neg. ND Luminal I Yes wt wt
13 59 IDC 1 Neg. Neg. Pos. 18 HER 2 III Yes wt wt
14 62 IDC 2 90 70 Neg. ND Luminal II Yes wt wt
16 60 IDC 1 90 100 Neg. 8 Luminal A II Yes wt wt
17 56 IDC 3 Pos. Pos. Neg. 80 Luminal B III Yes BRCA1 wt
18 56 IDC 3 Neg. Neg. Neg. 30 TN I Yes wt wt
19 63 IDC 2 10 Neg. Neg. 20 Luminal B I Yes wt wt
20 65 IDC 2 50 Neg. Neg. 30 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
21 67 IDC 1 100 100 Neg. 30 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
22 56 IDC 2 66 1 Neg. 30 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
23 62 IDC 2 95 1 Neg. 18 Luminal B I Yes wt wt
24 76 IDC 3 Neg. Neg. Pos. 40 HER2 III Yes wt wt
25 60 IDC 2 Neg. Neg. Neg. 65 TN ND Yes wt wt
26 60 IDC 2 Pos. Neg. Neg. 30 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
27 56 IDC 2 Pos. Pos. Neg. 30 Luminal B ND Yes wt wt
28 63 IDC 2 66 66 Neg. 30 Luminal B ND Yes wt wt
29 58 IDC 2 Neg. Neg. Neg. 33 TN ND Yes BRCA1 wt
30 62 IDC 1 100 Neg. Neg. 5 Luminal A III Yes wt wt
31 60 IDC 2 66 66 Neg. 30 Luminal B ND Yes wt wt
32 56 IDC 1 90 70 Neg. 10 Luminal A I No wt wt
33 55 IDC 1 Neg. Neg. Neg. ND TN I No wt wt
34 61 IDC 2 95 15 Neg. 20 Luminal B II Yes wt wt
35 68 IDC 2 66 66 Neg. 10 Luminal A II Yes wt wt
36 63 IDC 1 90 80 Neg. 10 Luminal A I Yes wt wt
37 62 IDC 2 95 0,1 Pos. 40 Luminal B I Yes wt wt
38 59 IDC 2 40 75 Neg. 20 Luminal B I Yes wt wt
39 63 IDC 2 100 100 Neg. 13 Luminal A II Yes wt wt
40 63 IDC 2 100 30 Pos. 20 Luminal B III Yes wt wt
41 62 IDC 2 Pos. Pos. Pos. ND Luminal II Yes wt wt
42 77 IDC 3 Neg. Neg. Pos. 70 HER2 III Yes wt wt
43 65 IDC 2 >50 >50 Neg. 5-30 Luminal II Yes wt wt
44 56 IDC 3 90 Neg. Neg. 30-40 Luminal B II Yes BRCA2 wt
45 64 IDC 2 Pos. Pos. Neg. ND Luminal II Yes wt wt
46 55 IDC 2 Neg. Neg. Pos. 10 HER2 III Yes wt wt
47 58 IDC 3 Neg. Neg. Neg. 70 TN III Yes wt BRCA1
48 75 IDC 1 >66 >66 Neg. <15 Luminal A I Yes wt ND
49 79 IDC 2 Neg. Neg. Pos. 40 HER2 II Yes wt wt
50 80 IDC 2 Pos. Pos. Neg. ND Luminal II Yes wt wt

ID: Patient identification; HT: Histological type; HG: Histological grade; ER: Estrogen receptor; PR: Progesterone receptor; CS: Clinical stage; FH: Family history for breast and/or ovarian cancer; ND: Not determined; wt: Wild type; MLPA: Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification.

Additional Table 2. BRCA1 variants.

Exon HGVS Nucleotide HGVS Protein Protein Other names Type Localization (GRCh37) NCBI 1000 Genomes Browser Global MAF dbSNP Allele Frequency ExAC Global MAF 1000 genomes ESP gnomAD TOPMed ABraOM SIFT PolyPhen Provean Align-GVGD (Pufferfish) Human Splicing Finder BRCA Exchange BRCA Mutation Database BRCA Share™ ClinVar Interpretation n
1 c.-19-115T>C - - IVS1-115T>C 5'UTR 17: 41276247 rs3765640 0.35363 (G) - 0,35363 - 0,31688 0,30248 0.304260 - - - - Mutant type not implemented in HSF yet Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND ND Benign Benign 9
2 c.81-14C>T - - IVS2-14C>T IVS 17: 41267810 rs80358006 - - - 0.00069 - 0,00052 0.001642 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign/Likely Benign Benign/Likely Benign 1
3 c.134+111C>T - - IVS3+111C>T IVS 17: 41267632 rs8176100 0.00379 (A) - 0,00379 - 0,00227 0.00128 - - - - - Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
6 c.301+43A>G - - IVS6+43A>G IVS 17: 41256841 - - - - - - - - - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. ND ND ND ND Uncertain Significance 1
7 c.441+36_441+49delCTTTTCTTTTTTTT - - IVS7+36del14 IVS 17: 41256090_41256103 rs373413425 - - - - - - 0.295230 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 23
7 c.441+36C>T - - IVS7+36C>T IVS 17: 41256103 rs45569832 - - - - 0,00009 - - - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND 3-UV Uncertain significance? Uncertain Significance 2
7 c.441+41C>T - - IVS7+41C>T IVS 17: 41256098 rs45489593 - 0,00024 - - 0,00104 - - - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND 1-Neutral Uncertain significance? Uncertain Significance 1
7 c.442-34C>T - - IVS7-34C>T IVS 17: 41251931 rs799923 0.09864 (A) 0,17379 0,09864 0,17569 0,17303 0,14802 0.200328 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 15
9 c.548-58delT - - c.IVS8-58delT IVS 17: 41249364 rs8176144 0.33486 (AAAAAA) - - 0,27833 0.3005 0,28382 - - - - - Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. ND ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
9 c.591C>T p.Cys197= C197= 710C>T Syn 17: 41249263 rs1799965 0.00040 (A) 0,00147 0.00040 0,00123 0,00178 0,00076 - - - Neutral - Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.1067A>G p.Gln356Arg Q356R 1186A>G M 17: 41246481 rs1799950 0.02177 (C ) 0,04407 0,02177 0,0459 0,05196 0,04129 0.049261 Deleterious (0.01) Probably Damaging (0.988) Deleterious Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 6
11 c.1971A>G p.Gln657= Q657= 2090 A>G Syn 17: 41245577 rs28897679 0.00639 (C) 0,00217 0,00639 0,00869 0,00605 0,00741 0.005747 - - Neutral - Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.2077G>A p.Asp693Asn D693N 2196G>A M 17: 41245471 rs4986850 0.03355 (T) 0.05681 0,03355 0,05429 0.05451 0.05336 0.056650 Tolerated (0.08) Benign (0.01) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 9
11 c.2082C>T p.Ser694= S694= 2201C>T Syn 17: 41245466 rs1799949 0.33646 (A) 0,34827 0,33646 0,29568 0,31633 0,30145 0.302956 - - Neutral - Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 22
11 c.2311T>C p.Leu771= L771L 2430T>C Syn 17: 41245237 rs16940 0.33526 (G) 0,34196 0,33526 0,27764 0,30018 0,28384 0.282430 - - Neutral - Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 22
11 c.2596C>T p.Arg866Cys R866C 2715C>T M 17: 41244952 rs41286300 - 0,0001 - - 0,00016 0,00017 - Deleterious (0) Probably Damaging (1) Deleterious Class C65 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.2612C>T p.Pro871Leu P871L 2731C>T M 17: 41244936 rs799917 0.45607 (G) 0,41005 0,54393 0,49316 - 0,4893 0.450739 Tolerated (1) Benign (0) Neutral Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 26
11 c.3113A>G p.Glu1038Gly E1038G 3232A>G M 17: 41244435 rs16941 0.33566 (C) 0,34287 0,33566 0,27903 0,30081 0,28456 0.282430 Tolerated (0.16) Possibly Damaging (0.606) Deleterious Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 22
11 c.3119G>A p.Ser1040Asn S1040N 3238G>A M 17: 41244429 rs4986852 0.00978 (T) 0.00978 (T) 0,00978 - 0,01109 0,01571 0.035304 Tolerated (0.21) Possibly Damaging (0.831) Neutral Class C0 No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 5
11 c.3305A>G p.Asn1102Ser N1102S - M 17: 41244243 rs80356900 - 0,00002 - 0,00008 0,00001 0,00001 - Tolerated (0.17) Benign (0.156) Deleterious Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Not Yet Reviewed 2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance 3-UV Uncertain significance? Uncertain Significance 1
11 c.3548A>G p.Lys1183Arg K1183R 3667A>G M 17: 41244000 rs16942 0.35264 (C) 0,34901 0,35264 0,29525 0,31548 0,30133 0.299672 Tolerated (1) Benign (0) Neutral Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 22
11 c.3752G>A p.Cys1251Tyr C1251Y - M 17: 41243796 rs879254079 - - - - - - - Tolerated (1) Benign (0.001) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND ND Uncertain significance? Uncertain Significance 1
11 c.4039A>G p.Arg1347Gly R1347G 4158A>G M 17: 41243509 rs28897689 0.00060 (C) 0.00398 0,0006 0,00484 0,00423 0,00481 0.005747 Tolerated (0.09) Benign (0.071) Neutral Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
12 c.4113G>A p.Gly1371= G1371= - Syn 17: 41243033 rs147448807 0.00160 (T) 0.00050 0,0016 0,00123 0,00156 - - - - Neutral - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Likely benign ND 2-Likely Neutral Likely Benign Likely Benign 1
13 c.4308T>C p.Ser1436= S1436= 4427T>C Syn 17: 41234470 rs1060915 0.33626 (G) 0,3431 0,33626 0,27956 0,30142 0,28489 0.283251 - - Neutral - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 22
15 c.4485-63C>G - - IVS 14-63C>G IVS 17: 41226601 rs273900734 0.35344 (C) - 0,35344 - 0,31645 0,30211 0.300493 - - - - - Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND ND Benign Benign 2
16 c.4837A>G p.Ser1613Gly S1613G 4956A>G M 17: 41223094 rs1799966 0.35583 (C) - 0,35583 0,29817 - 0,30333 0.300987 Tolerated (0.11) Benign (0.038) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 22
16 c.4987-92A>G - - IVS16-92A>G IVS 17: 41219804 rs8176233 0.35463 (C) - 0,35463 - 0,31276 0,30294 0.300493 - - - - Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing.- Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 3
16 c.4987-68A>G - - VS16-68A>G IVS 17: 41219780 rs8176234 0.35463 (C) - 0,35463 - 0,31483 0,30295 0.301314 - - - - Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 3
17 c.5074+2T>C - - IVS17+2T>C SS 17: 41219623 rs80358089 - - - - - - - - - - - Alteration of the WT donor site, most probably affecting splicing Pathogenic 5-Definitely pathogenic ND Pathogenic? Pathogenic 1
17 c.5075-53C>T - - IVS17-53C>T IVS 17: 41216021 rs8176258 0.01098 (A) - 0,01098 0,01708 0,01825 0,01721 0.018062 - - - - Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
18 c.5123C>A p.Ala1708Glu A1708E 5242C>A M 17: 41215920 rs28897696 - 0,02487 - 0.00023 (T) - - - Deleterious (0) Possibly Damaging (0.633) Neutral Class C65 Activation of an exonic cryptic acceptor site, with presence of one or more cryptic branch point(s). Creation of an exonic ESS site. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Pathogenic 5-Definitely pathogenic 5-Causal Pathogenic? Pathogenic? 1
18 c.5152+66G>A - - IVS18+66G>A IVS 17: 41215825 rs3092994 0.34245 (T) - 0,34245 - 0,31394 0,29599 0.291461 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 3
21 c.5304C>T p.Cys1768= C1769C - M 17: 41203108 rs138493864 0.00060 (A) 0.00002 0,0006 0,00015 0,00013 0,00009 - - - Neutral - Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Likely benign ND ND Likely Benign Likely Benign 1

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; MAF: Minor allele frequency; ESP: NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project Exome Variant Server; gnomAD: The Genome Aggregation Database; TOPMed: Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine; ABraOM: Brazilian genomic variants; SIFT: Sorting intolerant from tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; IVS: Intervening sequence; M: Missense; SS: splice site; ND, Not determined; n: Number of patients harboring the variant

Additional Table 3. BRCA2 variants.

Exon HGVS Nucleotide HGVS Protein Protein Abbrev Other names Type Localization (GRCh37) NCBI 1000 Genomes Browser Global MAF dbSNP Allele Frequency ExAC Global MAF 1000 genomes ESP gnomAD TOPMed ABraOM SIFT PolyPhen Provean Align-GVGD (Pufferfish) Human Splicing Finder BRCA Exchange BRCA Mutation Database BRCA Share™ ClinVar Interpretation n
2 c.-26G>A - - 203G>A 5'UTR 13: 32890572 rs1799943 0.20927 (A) 0,24652 0,20927 0,20883 0,22032 0,21567 0.217570 - - - - ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND ND Benign Benign 21
2 c.-15A>C - - 214A>C 5'UTR 13: 32890583 rs138705202 0.00080 (C) 0.00022 0,0008 0,00038 0,00064 0,00076 0.002463 - - - - ND Not Yet Reviewed ND ND Benign/ Likely Benign Likely benign 1
2 c.-11C>T - - 218C>T 5'UTR 13: 32890587 rs76874770 0.00439 (T) 0,00163 0,00439 0,00584 0,0051 0,00546 0.007389 - - - - ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND ND Benign Benign 2
2 c.2T>G p.Met1Arg M1R - M 13: 32890599 rs80358547 - 0,00001 - - 0,00001 - - Damaging (0.00) Probably Damaging (0.998) Deleterious Class C65 ND Not Yet Reviewed 5-Definitely pathogenic 5-Causal Pathogenic? Pathogenic 1
3 c.125A>G p.Tyr42Cys Y42C 353A>G M 13: 32893271 rs4987046 0.00080 (G) 0,0017 0,0008 0,00246 0,00162 0,00158 0.001642 Tolerate (0.12) Benign (0.090) Neutral Class C0 Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
4 c.425+33A>G - - IVS4+33A>C IVS 13: 32899354 rs200065709 0.00060 (G) 0,00052 0,0006 0,00031 0.00010 0,00029 0.000821 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND 2-Likely Neutral Benign/ Likely Benign Likely benign 1
4 c.425+67A>C - - IVS4+67A>C IVS 13: 32899388 rs11571610 0.07428 (C) - 0,07428 - 0,03064 0,03973 0.045156 - - - - Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 6
6 c.517-19C>T - - IVS6-19C>T IVS 13: 32900617 rs11571623 0.00819 (T) 0,00219 0,00819 0,00738 0,00586 0,007 0.003284 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
8 c.681+56C>T - - IVS8+56C>T IVS 13: 32903685 rs2126042 0.18590 (T) - 0,1859 - 0,21627 0,20076 0.184729 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 17
10 c.865A>C p.Asn289His N289H 1093A>C M 13: 32906480 rs766173 0.07368 (C) - 0,07368 0,03055 0,03055 0,03968 0.045156 Damaging (0.003) Benign (0.278) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 7
10 c.1114A>C p.His372Asn H372N 1342 A>C M 13: 32906729 rs144848 0.24940 (C) 0,27793 0,2494 - 0,22303 0,23657 0.259442 Tolerated (0.35) Benign (0.00) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 19
10 c.1365A>G p.Ser455= S455= 1593A>G Syn 13: 32906980 rs1801439 0.07368 (G) 0,05178 7368 0,03101 0,03048 0,03968 0.045156 - - Neutral - Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing ND ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 7
10 c.1514T>C p.Ile505Thr I505T M 13: 32907129 rs28897708 0.00040 (C) 0,00072 0,0004 0,00077 0,00083 0,00065 0.000821 Tolerated (0.1) Possibly Damaging (0.651) Neutral Class C0 No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
10 c.1909+92_1909+96del - - IVS10+92del5 IVS 13: 32907615-32907620 rs144549870 0.01577 (TAT) - - - - - 0.006568 - - - - - ND ND ND Benign Benign 2
10 c.1910-74T>C - - IVS10-74T>C IVS 13: 32910328 rs2320236 0.17452 (C) - 0,17452 - 0,20561 0,20561 rs2320236 - - - - Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 14
10 c.1910-51G>T - - IVS10-51G>T IVS 13: 32910351 rs11571651 0.07348 (T) 0,04934 0,07348 0,03056 0,03041 0,03968 0.045977 - - - - Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 6
11 c.2229T>C p.His743= H743= 2457T>C Syn 13: 32910721 rs1801499 0.07348 (C) 0,05158 0.07348 0,03129 0,03065 0,03972 0.045156 - - Neutral - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 7
11 c.2350A>G p.Met784Val M784V 2578A>G M 13: 32910842 rs11571653 0.00359 (G) 0,00031 0,00359 - 0,00023 0,00022 0.002463 Tolerated (1.00) Benign (0.00) Neutral Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 3-Uncertain 3-UV Benign Benign 1
11 c.2971A>G p.Asn991Asp N991D 3199A>G M 13: 32911463 rs1799944 0.08007 (G) 0,05341 0,08007 0,03725 0,03723 0,0461 0.046798 Tolerated (1.00) Benign (0.00) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 7
11 c.3264T>C p.Pro1088= P1088= 3492T>C Syn 13: 32911756 rs36060526 0.00679 (C) 0.00238 0,00679 0,00756 0,00762 0,00756 0.006568 - - Neutral - ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.3371A>G p.Gln1124Arg Q1124R M 13: 32911863 rs1555283204 - - - - - - - Damaging (0.01) Probably Damaging (1.00) Deleterious Class C35 Activation of an exonic cryptic donor site. Potential alteration of splicing. Not Yet Reviewed ND ND Uncertain significance Uncertain significance 1
11 c.3396A>G p.Lys1132= L1132= 3624A>G Syn 13: 32911888 rs1801406 0.26677 (G) 0,29449 0,26677 0,27984 0,29762 0,28221 0.283251 - - Neutral - Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 23
11 c.3807T>C p.Val1269= V1269= 4035T>C Syn 13: 32912299 rs543304 0.16813 (C) 0,18985 0,16813 0,19111 0,18144 0,18622 0.187192 - - Neutral - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 23
11 c.4068G>A p.Leu1356= L1356= 4296G>A Syn 13: 32912560 rs28897724 0.00040 (A) 0,00305 0,0004 0,00315 0.00245 0,00312 0.002463 - - Neutral - ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.4090A>C p.Ile1364Leu I1364L 4318A>C M 13: 32912582 rs56248502 0.00439 (C) 0,00172 0,00439 0,00631 0,00577 0.006568 Tolerated (0.76) Benign (0.001) Neutral Class C0 No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
11 c.4258G>T p.Asp1420Tyr D1420Y 4486G>T M 13: 32912750 rs28897727 0.00399 (T) 0,0068 0,00399 0,00396 0,00794 0,00425 0.001642 Damaging (0.01) Benign (0.030) Deleterious Class C15 ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.5418A>G p.Glu1806= E1806= 5646A>G Syn 13: 32913910 rs34351119 0.00679 (G) 0,00233 0,00679 0,0083 0,00764 0,00785 0.006568 - - Neutral - ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
11 c.5640T>G p.Asn1880Lys N1880K 5868T>G M 13: 32914132 rs11571657 0.00220 (G) 0,00076 0,0022 0,00315 0,00264 0,00294 0.000821 Damaging (0.05) Benign (0.167) Neutral Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance 2-Likely Neutral Benign/Likely Benign Likely benign 1
11 c.5645C>A p.Ser1882Ter S1882X 5873C>A N 13: 32914137 rs80358785 - 0,00002 - - 0,00002 0,00002 - - - - - Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Pathogenic 5-Definitely pathogenic 5-Causal Pathogenic Pathogenic 1
11 c.5744C>T p.Thr1915Met T1915M 5972C>T M 13: 32914236 rs4987117 0.00859 (T) 0,02114 0,02114 0,02114 0.00859 (T) 0,01744 0.017241 Tolerated (0.13) Benign (0.000) Neutral Class C0 Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
11 c.5768A>C p.Asp1923Ala D1923A 5996A>C M 13: 32914260 rs45491005 0.00020 (C) - 0,0002 0,0002 0.00054 0.00105 - Tolerated (0.29) Benign (0.144) Deleterious Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance 2-Likely Neutral Benign Likely benign 1
11 c.6841+53delTATTCAGTAG - - - IVS 13: 32915384-32915394 - - - - - - - - - - - - Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. ND ND ND ND Uncertain Significance 1
11 c.6841+80delTTAA - - IVS11+80delTTAA IVS 13: 32915411-32915414 rs11571661 0.26578 (AA) - - - - - 0.279605 - - - - Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 7
14 c.7017G>C p.Lys2339Asn K2339N 7245 G>C M 13: 32929007 rs45574331 0.00679 (C) 0,00228 0,00679 0,00808 0,00764 0,00786 0.006568 Damaging (0.01) Benign (0.105) Neutral Class C0 No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 2-Likely Neutral Benign Benign 1
14 c.7242A>G p.Ser2414= S2114= 7470A>G Syn 13: 32929232 rs1799955 0.23263 (G) - 0,23263 0,21136 - 0,22464 0.238095 - - Neutral - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 19
14 c.7319A>G p.His2440Arg H2440R 7547A>G M 13: 32929309 rs4986860 0.01038 (G) 0,00304 0,01038 0,01054 0,00946 0,00967 0.007389 Tolerated (0.55) Benign (0.002) Neutral Class C0 ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
14 c.7397T>C p.Ala2466Val A2466V - M 13: 32929387 rs169547 0.02416 (T) 0,99372 0.97584 0,9777 0,97881 0,98191 0.983580 Tolerated (0.98) Possibly Damaging (0.793) Neutral Class C0 ND ND ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 50
14 c.7435+53C>T - - IVS14+53C>T IVS 13: 32929478 rs11147489 0.07248 (T) - 0,07248 - 0,0301 0,03924 - - - - - Creation of an intronic ESE site. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
15 c.7469T>C p.Ile2490Thr I2490T 7697T>C M 13: 32930598 rs11571707 0.01597 (C) 0,01436 0.01597 0,00161 0,0035 0,00913 0.021346 Tolerated (1.00) Benign (0.010) Neutral Class C45 No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
17 c.7806-14T>C - - IVS16-14T>C IVS 13: 32936646 rs9534262 0.46845 (T) 0,52083 0,53155 0,52015 0,54679 0,53151 0.523810 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 3-UV Benign Likely benign 36
19 c.8460A>C p.Val2820= V2820= 8688A>C Syn 13: 32944667 rs9590940 0.01438 (C) 0,00368 0,01438 0,01299 0,01105 0,01219 0.006568 - - Neutral - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
19 c.8487+47C>T - - IVS19+47C>T IVS 13: 32944741 rs11571744 0.01617 (T) - 0,01617 0,01523 - 0,01481 0.006568 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 3-UV Benign Benign 3
20 c.8632+132dup - - c.IVS20+132insC IVS 13: 32945368-32945369 rs201392123 0.00899 (CC) - 0.00899 - 0,00619 0,00754 0.002627 - - - - ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 2
21 c.8755-66T>C - - IVS21-66T>C IVS 13: 32953388 rs4942486 0.48842 (T) - 0,51158 - 0,52569 0,51037 0.508210 - - - - Alteration of an intronic ESS site. Probably no impact on splicing. Creation of an intronic ESE site. Probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 38
22 c.8851G>A p.Ala2951Thr A2951T 9079G>A M 13: 32953550 rs11571769 0.00998 (A) 0,00785 0.00998 0,00438 0,00363 0,00721 0.013136 Damaging (0.00) Probably Damaging (1.00) Neutral Class C55 No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
22 c.8942A>G p.Glu2981Gly E2981G 9170A>G M 13: 32953641 rs398122716 - 0,00001 - - 0,00002 0,00001 - Tolerated (0.16) Benign (0.030) Neutral Class C65 ND ND ND 3-UV Conflicting interpretations of pathogenicity? Likely benign(1);Uncertain significance(3) Uncertain significance 1
23 c.9038C>T p.Thr3013Ile T3013I - M 13: 32953971 rs28897755 - 0,00023 - 0,00046 0,00019 0,0002 - Tolerated (0.24) Probably Damaging (0.875) Neutral Class C0 ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance 1-Not pathogenic or of no clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
24 c.9257-83G>A - - IVS24-83G>A IVS 13: 32968743 rs9595456 0.05052 (A) - 0,05052 - 0,04116 0.04575 0.022989 - - - - Creation of an intronic ESE site. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 4
24 c.9257-16T>C - - IVS24-16T>C IVS 13: 32968810 rs11571818 0.00439 (C) 0,00439 0,00765 0,00592 0,00548 0,00548 0.004926 - - - - No significant splicing motif alteration detected. This mutation has probably no impact on splicing. ND ND 3-UV Benign Likely benign 1
27 c.9730G>A p.Val3244Ile V3244I 9958 G>A M 13: 32972380 rs11571831 0.00679 (A) - - 0,0083 0,00767 0,00787 - Tolerated (0.49) Benign (0.000) Neutral Class C0 ND Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 2-Likely Neutral Benign Benign 1
27 c.9976A>T p.Lys3326Ter K3326X 10204A>T N 13: 32972626 rs11571833 0.00439 (T) 0,00702 0,00439 0.00646 0,00544 0,00547 0.004926 - - - - Creation of an exonic ESS site. Potential alteration of splicing. Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance 2-Likely not pathogenic or of little clinical significance 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
27 c.10110G>A p.Arg3370= R3370= - Syn 13: 32972760 rs28897762 0.00080 (A) 0,00147 0,0008 0,00215 0,0014 0,00131 0.000821 - - Neutral - Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 1
27 c.10234A>G p.Ile3412Val I3412V 10462 A>G M 13: 32972884 rs1801426 0.04493 (G) 0,02266 0,04493 0,03729 0,0369 0,04054 0.021346 Tolerrated (0.34) Benign (0.002) Neutral Class C0 Alteration of an exonic ESE site. Potential alteration of splicing. Benign / Little Clinical Significance ND 1-Neutral Benign Benign 4

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; MAF: Minor allele frequency; EXAC: Exome Aggregation Consortium; ESP: NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project Exome Variant Server; gnomAD: The Genome Aggregation Database; TOPMed: Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine; ABraOM: Brazilian genomic variants; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; IVS: Intervening sequence; M: Missense; SS: Splice site; ND: Not determined; n: Number of patients bearing the variant

Additional Table 4. In silico analysis of the alterations in exons 9 and 20 of PIK3CA in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

Sample ID Age at diagnosis Molecular Subtype Exon Cdna Protein Protein Mutation Type ID COSMIC Polyphen SIFT Provean Align-GVGD
1 71 Luminal B 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
3 66 Luminal B 9 c.1639G>C p.Glu547Gln E547Q M - Probably Damaging Damaging Neutral Class C25
8 61 Luminal B 20 c.3075C>T p.Thr1025= T1025T Syn COSM21451 - Tolerated Neutral -
c.3140A>T p.His1047Leu H1047L M COSM776 Benign Damaging Neutral Class C65
9 73 Luminal A 9 c.1629C>T p.Ile543= I543I Syn COSM5020257 - Tolerated Neutral -
10 57 Luminal A 9 c.1549C>T p.Leu517= L517L Syn - - Tolerated Neutral -
17* 56 Luminal B 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
21 67 Luminal B 9 c.1550T>C p.Leu517Pro L517P M - Benign Damaging Neutral Class C65
23 62 Luminal B 20 c.3140A>T p.His1047Leu H1047L M COSM776 Benign Damaging Neutral Class C65
26 60 Luminal B 9 c.1547G>A p.Arg516Lys R516K M COSM3724545 Benign Tolerated Neutral Class C25
20 c.3170G>A p.Trp1057* W1057X N COSM6475611 - - - -
32 56 Luminal A 20 c.3098A>G Gln1033Arg Q1033R M COSM303947 Possible Damaging Damaging Neutral Class C35
36 63 Luminal A 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
c.1658_1659delGTinsC p.Ser553Thrfs*7 S553fs F - - - - -
39 63 Luminal A 9 c.1638G>A p.Gln546= Q546Q Syn COSM5622324 - Toleratd Neutral -
c.1664+46G>A - - IVS - - - - -
20 c.3102G>A p.Glu1034= E1034E Syn - - Tolerated Neutral -
46 55 HER2 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
c.1651C>T p.Leu551= L551L Syn COSM308546 - Tolerated Neutral -
c.1658_1659delGTinsC p.Ser553Thrfs*7 S553fs F - - - - -
47* 58 TN 9 c.1622C>T p.Ser541Phe S541F M COSM6438100 Possible Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
20 c.3110A>T p.Glu1037Val E1037V M - Benign Damaging Deleterious Class C65

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; IVS: Intervening Sequence; M: Missense; N: Nonsense. *Patients also harboring pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1.

Additional Table 5. In silico analysis of the alterations in exons 9 and 20 of PIK3CAin young patients with breast cancer.

Sample ID Age at diagnosis Molecular Subtype Exon cDNA Protein p.Asn1044Asp Mutation Type ID COSMIC Polyphen SIFT Provean Align-GVGD
452 34 Luminal B 20 c.3130A>G p.Asn1044Asp N1044D M COSM27134 Probably Damaging Tolerated Neutral Class C15
454 34 Luminal 20 c.3146G>A p.Gly1049Asp G1049D M COSM308548 Probably Damaging Tolerated Neutral Class C65
455 28 Luminal B 9 c.1558G>A p.Asp520Asn D520N M COSM29096 Benign Tolerated Neutral Class C15
457 33 Luminal B 9 c.1615C>T p.Pro539Ser P539S M COSM249880 Probably Damaging Tolerated Deleterious Class C65
c.1664G>A p.Arg555Lys R555K M COSM1716158 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C25
468 33 Luminal A 9 c.1656G>A p.Trp552* W552X N COSM37025 - - - -
477 27 TN 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
478 29 HER2 20 c.3165G>A p.Met1055Ile M1055I M COSM9146166 Benign Tolerated Neutral Class C0
c.3201G>A p. Leu1067= L1067L Syn - - Tolerated Neutral -
480 31 TN 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
20 c.3203A>C p.Asn1068Thr N1068T M - Probably Damaging Damaging Neutral Class C55
483 35 Luminal B 9 c.1634A>C p.Glu545Ala E545A M COSM12458 Probably Damaging Damaging Deleterious Class C65
484 35 Luminal B 9 c.1593C>A p.Leu531= L531L Syn - - Tolerated Neutral -
503 35 HER2 20 c.3150C>T p.Gly1050= G1050G Syn - - Tolerated Neutral -
518 31 Luminal B 9 c.1615C>T p.Pro539Ser P539S M COSM249880 Probably Damaging Tolerated Deleterious Class C65

HGVS: Human Genome Variation Society; SIFT: Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant; PolyPhen: Polymorphism Phenotyping; Provean: Protein Variation Effect Analyzer; Align-GVGD: Class C0 (less probable to interfere with protein function), C15, C25, C35, C45, C55, C65 (more probable to interfere with protein function); Syn: Synonymous; M: Missense; N: Nonsense.

REFERENCES FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

  • 1.Arnold N, Gross E, Schwarz-Boeger U, Pfisterer J, Jonat W, Kiechle M. A highly sensitive, fast, and economical technique for mutation analysis in hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Hum Mutat. 1999;14(4):333–9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1004(199910)14:4&#x0003c;333::AID-HUMU9&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Friedman LS, Ostermeyer EA, Szabo CI, Dowd P, Lynch ED, Rowell SE, et al. Confirmation of BRCA1 by analysis of germline mutations linked to breast and ovarian cancer in ten families. Nat Genet. 1994;8(4):399–404. doi: 10.1038/ng1294-399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wagner TM, Hirtenlehner K, Shen P, Moeslinger R, Muhr D, Fleischmann E, et al. Global sequence diversity of BRCA2: analysis of 71 breast cancer families and 95 control individuals of worldwide populations. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8(3):413–23. doi: 10.1093/hmg/8.3.413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.den Dunnen JT, Dalgleish R, Maglott DR, Hart RK, Greenblatt MS, McGowan-Jordan J, et al. HGVS Recommendations for the Description of Sequence Variants: 2016 Update. Hum Mutat. 2016;37(6):564–9. doi: 10.1002/humu.22981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Béroud C, Collod-Béroud G, Boileau C, Soussi T, Junien C. UMD (Universal mutation database): a generic software to build and analyze locus-specific databases. Hum Mutat. 2000;15(1):86–94. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1004(200001)15:1&#x0003c;86::AID-HUMU16&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Caputo S, Benboudjema L, Sinilnikova O, Rouleau E, Béroud C, Lidereau R, et al. Description and analysis of genetic variants in French hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families recorded in the UMD-BRCA1/BRCA2 databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D992–1002. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.BRCA Exchange Available from: https://brcaexchange.org/ [Accessed June 28th, 2020]
  • 8.Arup Laboratories Available from: https://arup.utah.edu/database/BRCA/Home/BRCA1_landing.php [Accessed June 28th, 2020]
  • 9.Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Riley GR, Jang W, Rubinstein WS, Church DM, et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D980–5. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Adzhubei IA, Schmidt S, Peshkin L, Ramensky VE, Gerasimova A, Bork P, et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods. 2010;7(4):248–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth0410-248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ng PC, Henikoff S. Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions. Genome Res. 2001;11(5):863–74. doi: 10.1101/gr.176601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tavtigian SV, Deffenbaugh AM, Yin L, Judkins T, Scholl T, Samollow PB, et al. Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral. J Med Genet. 2006;43(4):295–305. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2005.033878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mathe E, Olivier M, Kato S, Ishioka C, Hainaut P, Tavtigian SV. Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(5):1317–25. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Choi Y, Sims GE, Murphy S, Miller JR, Chan AP. Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Desmet FO, Hamroun D, Lalande M, Collod-Béroud G, Claustres M, Béroud C. Human Splicing Finder: an online bioinformatics tool to predict splicing signals. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(9):e67. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.1000 Genomes Project Consortium. Abecasis GR, Auton A, Brooks LD, DePristo MA, Durbin RM, et al. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature. 2012;491(7422):56–65. doi: 10.1038/nature11632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. http://exac.broadinstitute.org/variant/9-139413097-T-G [Accessed June 28th, 2020]
  • 18.Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, Samocha KE, Banks E, Fennell T, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536(7616):285–91. doi: 10.1038/nature19057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
  • 20. http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/
  • 21.Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) Availabel from: https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/
  • 22.Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine(TOPMed) [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Naslavsky MS, Yamamoto GL, de Almeida TF, Ezquina SAM, Sunaga DY, Pho N, et al. Exomic variants of an elderly cohort of Brazilians in the ABraOM database. Hum Mutat. 2017;38(7):751–63. doi: 10.1002/humu.23220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405–24. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Footnotes

No potential conflict of interest was reported.

REFERENCES

  • 1.DeSantis CE, Ma J, Goding Sauer A, Newman LA, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2017, racial disparity in mortality by state. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):439–48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ward EM, Sherman RL, Henley SJ, Jemal A, Siegel DA, Feuer EJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Featuring Cancer in Men and Women Age 20-49 Years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(12):1279–97. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sun YS, Zhao Z, Yang ZN, Xu F, Lu HJ, Zhu ZY, et al. Risk Factors and Preventions of Breast Cancer. Int J Biol Sci. 2017;13(11):1387–97. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.21635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wooster R, Weber BL. Breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(23):2339–47. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra012284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Malone KE, Daling JR, Doody DR, Hsu L, Bernstein L, Coates RJ, et al. Prevalence and predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based study of breast cancer in white and black American women ages 35 to 64 years. Cancer Res. 2006;66(16):8297–308. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA. The cancer genome. Nature. 2009;458(7239):719–24. doi: 10.1038/nature07943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Encinas G, Maistro S, Pasini FS, Katayama ML, Brentani MM, Bock GH, et al. Somatic mutations in breast and serous ovarian cancer young patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2015;61(5):474–83. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.61.05.474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lien EC, Dibble CC, Toker A. PI3K signaling in cancer: beyond AKT. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2017;45:62–71. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2017.02.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ikenoue T, Kanai F, Hikiba Y, Obata T, Tanaka Y, Imamura J, et al. Functional analysis of PIK3CA gene mutations in human colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65(11):4562–7. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-4114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Isakoff SJ, Engelman JA, Irie HY, Luo J, Brachmann SM, Pearline RV, et al. Breast cancer-associated PIK3CA mutations are oncogenic in mammary epithelial cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65(23):10992–1000. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Maruyama N, Miyoshi Y, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Monden M, Noguchi S. Clinicopathologic analysis of breast cancers with PIK3CA mutations in Japanese women. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(2 Pt 1):408–14. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cizkova M, Susini A, Vacher S, Cizeron-Clairac G, Andrieu C, Driouch K, et al. PIK3CA mutation impact on survival in breast cancer patients and in ERα, PR and ERBB2-based subgroups. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(1):R28. doi: 10.1186/bcr3113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mangone FR, Bobrovnitchaia IG, Salaorni S, Manuli E, Nagai MA. PIK3CA exon 20 mutations are associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012;67(11):1285–90. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(11)11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Liedtke C, Cardone L, Tordai A, Yan K, Gomez HL, Figureoa LJ, et al. PIK3CA-activating mutations and chemotherapy sensitivity in stage II-III breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(2):R27. doi: 10.1186/bcr1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kalinsky K, Jacks LM, Heguy A, Patil S, Drobnjak M, Bhanot UK, et al. PIK3CA mutation associates with improved outcome in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(16):5049–59. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Loi S, Michiels S, Lambrechts D, Fumagalli D, Claes B, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL, et al. Somatic mutation profiling and associations with prognosis and trastuzumab benefit in early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(13):960–7. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Juvekar A, Burga LN, Hu H, Lunsford EP, Ibrahim YH, Balmaãè J, et al. Combining a PI3K inhibitor with a PARP inhibitor provides an effective therapy for BRCA1-related breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(11):1048–63. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chen B, Zhang G, Li X, Ren C, Wang Y, Li K, et al. Comparison of BRCA versus non-BRCA germline mutations and associated somatic mutation profiles in patients with unselected breast cancer. Aging (Albany NY) 2020;12(4):3140–55. doi: 10.18632/aging.102783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Deb S, Do H, Byrne D, Jene N, kConFab Investigators, Dobrovic A, et al. PIK3CA mutations are frequently observed in BRCAX but not BRCA2-associated male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(4):R69. doi: 10.1186/bcr3463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):3997–4013. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Azim HA, Jr, Michiels S, Bedard PL, Singhal SK, Criscitiello C, Ignatiadis M, et al. Elucidating prognosis and biology of breast cancer arising in young women using gene expression profiling. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(5):1341–51. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Encinas G, Sabelnykova VY, de Lyra EC, Hirata Katayama ML, Maistro S, de Vasconcellos Valle PWM, et al. Somatic mutations in early onset luminal breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9(32):22460–79. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.25123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Maistro S, Teixeira N, Encinas G, Katayama ML, Niewiadonski VD, Cabral LG, et al. Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in epithelial ovarian cancer patients in Brazil. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):934. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2966-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.den Dunnen JT, Dalgleish R, Maglott DR, Hart RK, Greenblatt MS, McGowan-Jordan J, et al. HGVS Recommendations for the Description of Sequence Variants: 2016 Update. Hum Mutat. 2016;37(6):564–9. doi: 10.1002/humu.22981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405–24. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dirican E, Akkiprik M, Özer A. Mutation distributions and clinical correlations of PIK3CA gene mutations in breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 2016;37(6):7033–45. doi: 10.1007/s13277-016-4924-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kurian AW, Bernhisel R, Larson K, Caswell-Jin JL, Shadyab AH, Ochs-Balcom H, et al. Prevalence of Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Susceptibility Genes Among Women With Postmenopausal Breast Cancer. JAMA. 2020;323(10):995–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Palmero EI, Carraro DM, Alemar B, Moreira MAM, Ribeiro-Dos-Santos Â, Abe-Sandes K, et al. The germline mutational landscape of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Brazil. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9188. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27315-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Frank TS, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE, Hulick M, Ward BE, Lingenfelter B, et al. Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(6):1480–90. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.6.1480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Guindalini RSC, Viana D, Kitajima JP, Valim A, Schlesinger D, Kok F, et al. Detection of inherited mutations in Brazilian breast cancer patients using multi-gene panel testing. In: 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, 2018, Chicago. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15_suppl):e13610. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.e13610. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Carraro DM, Koike Folgueira MA, Garcia Lisboa BC, Ribeiro Olivieri EH, Vitorino Krepischi AC, de Carvalho AF, et al. Comprehensive analysis of BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 germline mutation and tumor characterization: a portrait of early-onset breast cancer in Brazil. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Fernandes GC, Michelli RA, Galvão HC, Paula AE, Pereira R, Andrade CE, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in a Brazilian population sample at-risk for hereditary breast cancer and characterization of its genetic ancestry. Oncotarget. 2016;7(49):80465–81. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ramos MCA, Folgueira MAAK, Maistro S, Campolina AG, Soárez PC, Bock GH, et al. Cost effectiveness of the cancer prevention program for carriers of the BRCA1/2 mutation. Rev Saude Publica. 2018;52:94. doi: 10.11606/S1518-8787.2018052000643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Manchanda R, Sun L, Patel S, Evans O, Wilschut J, De Freitas Lopes AC, et al. Economic Evaluation of Population-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Testing across Multiple Countries and Health Systems. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12(7):1929. doi: 10.3390/cancers12071929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Momozawa Y, Iwasaki Y, Parsons MT, Kamatani Y, Takahashi A, Tamura C, et al. Germline pathogenic variants of 11 breast cancer genes in 7,051 Japanese patients and 11,241 controls. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):4083. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06581-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sun J, Meng H, Yao L, Lv M, Bai J, Zhang J, et al. Germline Mutations in Cancer Susceptibility Genes in a Large Series of Unselected Breast Cancer Patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(20):6113–9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rebbeck TR, Friebel TM, Friedman E, Hamann U, Huo D, Kwong A, et al. Mutational spectrum in a worldwide study of 29,700 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Hum Mutat. 2018;39(5):593–620. doi: 10.1002/humu.23406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pritchard CC, Mateo J, Walsh MF, De Sarkar N, Abida W, Beltran H, et al. Inherited DNA-Repair Gene Mutations in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(5):443–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gymnopoulos M, Elsliger MA, Vogt PK. Rare cancer-specific mutations in PIK3CA show gain of function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(13):5569–74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701005104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vasan N, Razavi P, Johnson JL, Shao H, Shah H, Antoine A, et al. Double PIK3CA mutations in cis increase oncogenicity and sensitivity to PI3Kα inhibitors. Science. 2019;366(6466):714–23. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Liang X, Lau QC, Salto-Tellez M, Putti TC, Loh M, Sukumar S. Mutational hotspot in exon 20 of PIK3CA in breast cancer among Singapore Chinese. Cancer Biol Ther. 2006;5(5):544–8. doi: 10.4161/cbt.5.5.2656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Castaneda CA, Lopez-Ilasaca M, Pinto JA, Chirinos-Arias M, Doimi F, Neciosup SP, et al. PIK3CA mutations in Peruvian patients with HER2-amplified and triple negative non-metastatic breast cancers. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2014;7(4):142–8. doi: 10.1016/j.hemonc.2014.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Desriani, Al-Ahwani F. The sensitivity and efficacy method of PIK3CA exon 9 E545A as a high diagnostic accuracy in breast cancer. J Genet Eng Biotechnol. 2018;16(1):71–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jgeb.2017.10.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Samuels Y, Velculescu VE. Oncogenic mutations of PIK3CA in human cancers. Cell Cycle. 2004;3(10):1221–4. doi: 10.4161/cc.3.10.1164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinics are provided here courtesy of Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo

RESOURCES