Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Evaluation of a 1021-Gene Panel in FFPE and Liquid Biopsy for Analytical and Clinical Use
Previous Article in Journal
The Involvement of the Endocannabinoid, Glutamatergic, and GABAergic Systems in PTSD
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Expanding the Genomic Landscape of HBOC and Cancer Risk Among Mutation Carriers

1
Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, S. Andrea delle Dame, Via L. De Crecchio, 7, 80138 Napoli, Italy
2
Unit of Clinical and Molecular Pathology, AOU University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, S. Andrea delle Dame, Via L. De Crecchio, 7, 80138 Napoli, Italy
3
Oncology Unit, Vallo Della Lucania-Agropoli Hospital, ASL Salerno, Via F Cammarota, 84078 Vallo Della Lucania, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(13), 5928; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26135928
Submission received: 16 May 2025 / Revised: 15 June 2025 / Accepted: 17 June 2025 / Published: 20 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Molecular Genetics and Genomics)

Abstract

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is primarily associated with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, but increasing evidence links it to other malignancies, including male breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Advances in genetic testing have led to the use of multigene panels, revealing that additional genes contribute to HBOC risk. We tested 280 patients with suspected HBOC using a multigene panel including BRCA1, BRCA2, and other genes involved in homologous recombination (HR) and additional DNA repair mechanisms. Variants were classified as pathogenic variants (PVs), variants of uncertain significance (VUS), or novel. In silico tools were used to predict the clinical relevance of VUS and novel variants. The clinical phenotype of families carrying a PV was evaluated. PVs were identified in 19.3% of patients: 8.9% in BRCA1/2 and 10.4% in other genes, mainly CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, and BRIP1. An additional 1.8% of cases harbored likely pathogenic VUS or novel variants according to bioinformatic prediction. Breast and ovarian cancer were the most frequent malignancies in our population, both in the BRCA group and in those with PVs in other susceptibility genes. Broad genetic testing beyond BRCA improves HBOC diagnostics, supports identification of at-risk families, and enables more personalized surveillance and treatment.

1. Background

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are causative of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), a hereditary syndrome associated with increased lifetime risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) [1]. Individuals suffering from HBOC are also at risk of developing male BC [2], prostate cancer [3], pancreatic cancer [4,5], colorectal cancer CRC [6,7], and melanoma [8]. The precise mechanism through which mutations in BRCA genes lead to HBOC has been partially explained thanks to PARP inhibitors (PARPis), a group of anticancer molecules able to induce synthetic lethality in BRCA-mutated cells and hence in HBOC patients with BC and/or OC. PARP inhibition works well in hereditary BC/OC due to the deficit of the homologous recombination (HR) pathway observed in these patients as a result of their BRCA mutation [9]. Variants in genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2, though still integral to the homologous recombination (HR) repair pathway, have also been found in the HBOC syndrome. However, the clinical features of the condition, such as the type of cancer, age of onset, and lifetime risk, vary significantly depending on the specific gene affected.
For instance, PVs in PALB2 are linked to an increased risk of BC, though the magnitude of risk is slightly lower than that conferred by BRCA1/2 (lifetime risk approximately 35–53% versus 45–72% for BRCA). In addition to BC, PALB2 mutations may also confer a modestly increased risk of ovarian, pancreatic, and possibly male BC [10]. Conversely, mutations in ATM and CHEK2 are generally associated with moderate penetrance, with a lifetime BC risk of about 25–33% for ATM and 28–37% for CHEK2. CHEK2 has also been linked to an increased risk of contralateral BC and, in some studies, CRC, and prostate cancer, while ATM mutations may confer a slightly increased risk of pancreatic and possibly OC [11,12,13].
This gene-specific variability influences not only risk assessment but also clinical decision-making, including screening intervals, risk-reducing strategies, and eligibility for targeted therapies. The advent of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) and the widespread use of multigene panels are rapidly expanding the spectrum of genes implicated in HBOC. This technological progress is reshaping our understanding of the syndrome and raising important questions about the most appropriate surveillance and management protocols. As the clinical significance of each gene becomes better defined, there is a growing movement toward personalized risk stratification, where surveillance and prevention strategies are increasingly tailored to the individual’s genetic profile.
Furthermore, in patients with advanced-stage cancer, the identification of a germline variant in an HR-related gene may indicate sensitivity to PARP inhibition, and promising data have already been published [14]. This not only broadens the spectrum of available treatment options but also highlights the clinical relevance of comprehensive genetic testing in both preventive and therapeutic decision-making.
However, while panel testing enables access to a broader range of genomic data, it has also led to a substantial increase in the number of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) identified in routine diagnostics. Interpreting the clinical significance of these VUS remains one of the most critical challenges for oncologists and genetics professionals.
This study focuses on HBOC syndrome caused by variants in genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2, describing the most frequently affected genes as well as the clinical features observed in patients and their families.
We also identified several VUS and novel variants in cancer susceptibility genes. These variants were analyzed using bioinformatic prediction tools to perform in silico assessments aimed at evaluating their potential clinical significance.

2. Results

2.1. Mutation Rate and Affected Genes

We evaluated 280 individuals with suspected HBOC syndrome; the median patient age at the time of the test was 57 years old (range 21–89). We found that 19.3% of them (54/280) had a PV in cancer susceptibility genes and 20% (56/280) carried a VUS (Figure 1a).
Among the patients with a PV, 8.9% (25/280) had a BRCA mutation and 10.4% (29/280) had a PV in other genes included in the panel.
Specifically, 3.93% (11/280) harbored a PV in BRCA1, 5% (14/280) in BRCA2, 2.50% (7/280) harbored a PV in CHEK2, 2.14% (6/280) in ATM, 1.43% (4/280) in BRIP1, 1.43% (4/280) in PALB2, 1.07% (3/280) in TP53, 0.36% (1/280) in RAD51C, 0.71% (2/280) in BARD1, and 0.7% (2/280) in CDH1. We did not find any PV in STK11, PTEN, or in RAD51D (Figure 1b).
Among the 56 probands carrying a VUS, 6.43% (18/280) involved ATM, 3.21% (9/280) BRCA2, 2.50% (7/280) CHEK2, 1.43% (4/280) BRCA1, 1.07% (3/280) BRIP1, 1.07% (3/280) STK11, 1.07% (3/280) BARD 1, 1.07% (3/280) CDH1, 0.71% (2/280) TP53, 0.71% (2/280) NBN, 0.71% (2/280) RAD51C, 0.36% (1/280) PALB2; we did not find any VUS in PTEN and in RAD51D (Figure 1c).
Notably, we identified for the first time the CDH1 novel mutation c.1678_1688del (p.Thr560Profs*24). This variant involves the deletion of 10 nucleotides at positions 1678 to 1688, leading to a frameshift starting at amino acid threonine 560. The frameshift alters the amino acid sequence, resulting in the insertion of a proline and the creation of a premature stop codon (Ter) 24 amino acids downstream.
Besides, we found 28 novel variants, not reported in any database, in 32 patients out of 280 (11.4%). 1.8% (5/280) carried a novel variant in ATM, 1.8% (5/280) in CHEK2, 1.8% (5/280) in BARD1, 1.4% (4/280) in PTEN, 0.7% (2/280) in TP53, 0.7% (2/280) in PALB2, 0.7% (2/280) in BRCA1, 0.3% (1/280) in BRCA2, 0.3% (1/280) in RAD51C, and 0.3% (1/280) in BRIP1.

2.2. In Silico Analysis

The results of the in silico analysis of the VUS are described in Supplementary Table S1 (available in the Supplementary Material). Out of 46 VUS found in 56 patients, 6 VUS were classified as likely pathogenic (LP) class II; 11 remained of uncertain significance, class III; 7 were classified as likely benign, class IV; and 22 benign, class V.
The findings of the in silico analysis of the novel variants are detailed in Supplementary Table S2 (available in the Supplementary Material). At the bioinformatic analysis, 27 novel variants out of 28 resulted in benign, class V; 1 novel variant in BARD1, c.21889A>G (p.Glu730Pro), resulted of uncertain significance.
Therefore, 1.8% (5/280—one patient harbored 2 LP variants) of patients carried an LP variant, based on the results of the prediction tools.

2.3. Clinical Features of Patients and Families

The clinical features observed in patients with a BRCA mutation and in their families are summarized in Table 1: 17 patients had BC, 2 had OC, 2 has prostate cancer, 2 had gastric cancer, 1 had lung cancer, 1 had laryngeal cancer, and 1 had CRC.
The clinical phenotype noted in patients harboring a PV in the other genes and in their families is shown in Table 2: 16 patients had BC, 4 OC, 1 bilateral BC, 2 BC and OC, 1 prostate cancer, 1 pancreatic cancer, and 1 melanoma. Moreover, 1 patient was diagnosed with CRC, 1 with lung cancer, and 1 with gastric cancer.
Genetic testing of patients’ family members using sanger sequencing was performed in 39 out of 54 cases with PVs, resulting in the analysis of 71 additional individuals, 22 of whom were found to carry the proband’s variant.
The different types of cancer observed in patients carrying a PV in cancer susceptibility genes and in their families are shown in Figure 2: we observed a high prevalence of BC and OC. CRC often recurs, particularly in patients with CHEK2 mutations, while gastric cancer was found to be frequent in individuals with CDH1 mutations.

3. Discussion

Our data indicate that multigene panel testing identifies a PV in a cancer susceptibility gene in 19.3% of cases. Including variants classified as ‘likely pathogenic’ through in silico analysis increases this proportion by an additional 1.8%, resulting in a total of 21.1% of patients with a detectable deleterious variant associated with the disease. The percentage of patients in whom a causative mutation was identified is consistent with, and even higher than, that reported in previous studies, which documented mutation rates in similar populations ranging from 16.1% to 20.7% [16,17].
The multigene panel we used includes genes directly involved in the homologous recombination (HR) pathway, such as BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, BRIP1, and BARD1; others, such as CHEK2 and NBN, part of broader DNA damage response pathways (e.g., checkpoint signaling), which support genomic stability but are not strictly HR genes; and finally, genes such as TP53 (Li-Fraumeni syndrome), PTEN (Cowden syndrome), STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers syndrome), and CDH1 (hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome) that are associated with hereditary cancer syndromes that confer an elevated risk of BC, along with predisposition to other tumor types.
In recent years, the use of multigene panels for HBOC diagnosis has revealed that CHEK2 and ATM are among the most frequently mutated genes after BRCA1 and BRCA2 [17,18,19,20]. In our cohort, we also observed an equal number of PVs in PALB2 (which emerges as one of the most commonly altered genes) and in BRIP1.
The clinical features seen in our patients confirm a high prevalence of BC and OC in individuals with PVs in BRCA1/2, ATM, BRIP1, PALB2, and RAD51C, which are genes closely involved in the HR pathway and already largely associated with HBOC [21,22,23].
Besides, in our cohort, we observed a relatively high number of lung and gastric cancer cases.
Lung cancer is not typically associated with the HBOC syndrome, as highlighted in a recent meta-analysis [1]. Environmental factors such as smoking or other genetic predispositions may account for this finding, although a potential association with specific BRCA2 variants has been reported [24,25].
With regard to gastric cancer, most cases in our cohort were observed in families carrying PVs in BRCA2 and CDH1. Over the years, growing evidence has supported an increased gastric cancer risk associated with BRCA2 PVs [26]. The predisposition is even stronger in carriers of CDH1 PVs, as this gene is linked to the Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC) syndrome, an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by a lifetime risk of advanced gastric cancer of approximately 10.3% in males and 6.5% in females. Notably, germline CDH1 PVs also cause increased risk of BC, estimated as a lifetime risk of 36.8% in the recent study from Ryan et al. [27].
With reference to CHEK2, following the large study by Mundt et al. [13], which reported no increased risk of CRC in individuals with germline CHEK2 pathogenic variants, the NCCN guidelines [28] have withdrawn the recommendation for colonoscopy screening in these patients, unless there is a significant family history of CRC. However, in our series, including 7 patients with CHEK2 PVs and 1 patient with an LP variant in CHEK2, we found 3 cases of CRC. It is noteworthy that one of these patients carried the CHEK2 variant I157T (patient 13 in Table 2, variant indicated as “c.470T>C (p.lle157Thr)”), which has been traditionally associated with CRC risk [29].
Interestingly, we also identified pancreatic and lung cancer in two patients carrying PVs in BARD1. Germline PVs in BARD1 have been implicated in increased risk for early-onset BC, especially triple negative, neuroblastoma, and mesothelioma [30,31,32]. There appears to be no established association between BARD1 and ovarian, pancreatic, or lung cancer; however, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
According to current evidence, the NCCN guidelines recommend considering risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) not only for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers but also for individuals with germline mutations in TP53, PTEN, CDH1, STK11, and selectively for PALB2, CHEK2, and BARD1. For TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11 mutation carriers, the markedly increased lifetime risk of BC supports the discussion of preventive mastectomy. In carriers of PALB2, CHEK2, and BARD1, RRM is not routinely recommended but may be considered on an individualized basis, particularly in the presence of a personal or family history of BC.
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is recommended for carriers of RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, and STK11, in addition to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, generally between the ages of 45 and 50 years, depending on the specific gene and individual risk assessment. For carriers of ATM, CHEK2, and BARD1 mutations, enhanced breast surveillance (including annual breast MRI and mammography) is preferred. Preventive surgery is not routinely indicated but may be discussed in the context of significant family history or patient preference. No RRSO is currently recommended for ATM, CHEK2, or BARD1 mutation carriers. For PALB2 and ATM carriers, pancreatic cancer screening can be considered starting at age 50 or earlier if there is a relevant family history. In contrast, no additional surveillance beyond breast and ovarian screening is currently recommended for BARD1 and BRIP1 mutation carriers [28].
These guidelines represent only a starting point and are expected to be revised repeatedly as the use of multigene panels for the diagnosis of hereditary cancer becomes increasingly widespread.
In addition to its impact on screening and surveillance strategies, the broader use of multigene panel testing also carries important therapeutic implications for precision oncology. PARP inhibitors represent a class of drugs routinely used in clinical practice for the treatment of BC and OC harboring germline or somatic BRCA mutations. Moreover, they have demonstrated clinical efficacy in ovarian cancers without BRCA mutations but characterized by HRD profile, as identified by a specific biomolecular assay [33].
Recent studies have expanded our understanding of the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in tumors harboring mutations beyond BRCA1/2, including PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, and BARD1. Among these, PALB2 mutations have shown the most promising clinical responses to PARP inhibition [34,35,36], while the clinical benefit appears more limited for ATM [37,38] and CHEK2 variants [39]. Data on BRIP1 and BARD1 are even more exiguous and restricted to individual case reports or small exploratory studies [40,41].
Our study confirms that the application of multigene panels in the diagnostic assessment of hereditary cancer syndromes enhances the detection of causative mutations. This improvement is partly due to the identification of LP variants, which, based on in silico analyses, appeared potentially associated with the syndrome in 1.8% of cases. These findings underscore the need for regular reclassification of VUS by laboratories engaged in genetic testing, given the evolving nature of the genomic landscape.
In hereditary cancer patients, the use of comprehensive multigene panels, alongside the continuous re-evaluation of VUS and a well-defined genotype–phenotype correlation, supports accurate diagnosis and facilitates the adoption of effective cancer prevention strategies for both affected individuals and their at-risk relatives.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Patients

This study was carried out at the U.O.C. of Clinical and Molecular Pathology—heredofamilial Cancer, A.O.U. University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” in accordance with the World Medical Association Helsinki Declaration (1964). Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects, and the study was approved and conducted according to the ethical guidelines of the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” (n.25455-07/09/2021).
We analyzed a cohort of 280 cancer patients who were referred to our clinic for suspected HBOC from June 2024 to March 2025. According to the recommendations provided by the Italian Society of Human Genetics (SIGU) [42] and the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) [43], we selected patients based on specific clinical and familial criteria indicative of a potential HBOC syndrome. The selection criteria included individuals with a personal history of BC diagnosed before the age of 50; those with triple-negative BC diagnosed before the age of 60; patients with OC regardless of age; individuals with bilateral BC; and males with BC. In addition, patients affected by other tumor types (melanoma, CRC, lung cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, gastric cancer) were included when the family history suggested a possible underlying HBOC syndrome (family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, or metastatic prostate cancer, especially when occurring in first- or second-degree relatives and at a young age).
The probands, 50 males and 230 females, received genetic counseling, and a pedigree was generated.

4.2. Genetic Testing

DNA from blood samples was extracted using the QIAmp® DNA Blood Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) (250) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
For mutational analysis, we used a Smart Seq Sequencing Cancer Panel on a MiSeq platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) which enables the detection of both single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs) through next-generation sequencing (NGS). The following genes were evaluated: BRCA1 (NM_007295), BRCA2 (NM_000059), PALB2 (NM_024675), ATM (NM_000051.4), BARD1 (NM_000465.4), BRIP1 (NM_001003694.2), CDH1 (NM_004360), CHEK2 (NM_007194), NBN (NM_002485), PTEN (NM_000314.8), RAD51C (NM_058216), RAD51D (NM_002878.3), STK11 (NM_000455.5), and TP53 (NM_000546).
The results have been interpreted from the Mutation Surveyor® software, version 3.24 (Softgenetics, State College, PA, USA); ClinVar and LOVD databases were used for the identification and classification of genetic variants [44].
Sanger sequencing, as previously described [45], was used to extend genetic testing to patients’ relatives in order to assess the presence of the variant identified in the proband when feasible.
In one of the patients, we found a novel mutation in CDH1. To confirm the finding and ensure accuracy, we performed an additional sequencing run on a separate aliquot of the patient’s DNA. The mutation was identified as new by referring to the ClinVar database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar, accessed on 10 June 2025) and Leiden Open Variation Database, LOVD (https://www.lovd.nl, accessed on 10 June 2025). The sequence variant and mutation were named and referred in the text according to the nomenclature used by the Human Genome Variation Society, HGVS (https://hgvs-nomenclature.org, accessed on 10 June 2025).

4.3. In Silico Analysis

For VUS and novel variants, we performed in silico analysis.
For the missense variants, we used Rare Exome Variant Ensemble Learner (REVEL) and BayesDEL thr ough Ensembl VEP (https://www.ensembl.org/Tools/VEP, accessed on 10 June 2025); for the intronic and the 3′UTR variants, we used Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD) (https://cadd.gs.washington.edu/, accessed on 6 May 2025) and SpliceAI (https://spliceailookup.broadinstitute.org/, accessed on 6 May 2025). These tools have been largely validated in previous studies [46,47,48].
REVEL is an ensemble predictor that integrates the results of several algorithms along with evolutionary data, generating a continuous score ranging from 0 to 1. Scores closer to 1 indicate a higher probability that the variant is pathogenic, while lower values suggest a benign effect. Similarly, BayesDel uses a Bayesian model to combine functional, phylogenetic, and allele frequency data. In this case as well, the score ranges from 0 to 1, with empirically defined thresholds: scores >0.3 are generally associated with potentially pathogenic variants, while values <0.2 suggest benignity [46]. Both tools are recommended by ClinGen and the Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group for applying the PP3/BP4 criteria within the ACMG/AMP classification framework.
CADD calculates the score by combining different parameters derived from surrounding sequence context, gene model annotations, evolutionary constraint, epigenetic measurements, and functional predictions. For any given variant, all of these annotations are integrated into a single CADD score that ranges from 1 to 99, higher values indicating more deleterious cases [47].
SpliceAI generates four Δ scores: acceptor gain (AG), acceptor loss (AL), donor gain (DG), and donor loss (DL). These scores measure the impact of the variant on the splicing site. The Δ score ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating a greater probability that the variant affects splicing. Variants with a Δ score below 0.20 are generally considered unlikely to have a significant impact on splicing, while those with Δ scores above 0.80 are typically associated with a strong impact on splicing [48].
We classified the variants according to ACMG/VCEP (https://clinicalgenome.org) into five risk categories based on the results of the bioinformatic analyses performed with the four tools described above. In particular, class I: pathogenic; class II: likely pathogenic; class III: uncertain significance; class IV: likely benign; and class V: benign. [49].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms26135928/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.V.; data curation, G.C.; formal analysis, A.M., L.A. and M.Z.; investigation, C.D.P., G.C., A.M., L.A., M.Z. and M.S.; software, A.M. and M.Z.; supervision, M.T.V. and A.M.M.; validation, C.D.P. and G.C.; writing—original draft, C.D.P. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, M.T.V. and A.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was carried out at the U.O.C. of Clinical and Molecular Pathology—heredofamilial Cancer, A.O.U. University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” in accordance with the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration (1964), and it was approved and conducted according to the ethical guidelines of the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” (n.25455-07/09/2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects, and the study was approved and conducted according to the ethical guidelines of the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” (n.25455-07/09/2021).

Data Availability Statement

All the data generated with this research have been included in the main manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lee, Y.C.; Lee, Y.L.; Li, C.Y. BRCA Genes and Related Cancers: A Meta-Analysis from Epidemiological Cohort Studies. Medicina 2021, 57, 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  2. Vietri, M.T.; Caliendo, G.; D’Elia, G.; Resse, M.; Casamassimi, A.; Minucci, P.B.; Dello Ioio, C.; Cioffi, M.; Molinari, A.M. Five Italian Families with Two Mutations in BRCA Genes. Genes 2020, 11, 1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  3. Nyberg, T.; Frost, D.; Barrowdale, D.; Evans, D.G.; Bancroft, E.; Adlard, J.; Ahmed, M.; Barwell, J.; Brady, A.F.; Brewer, C.; et al. Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Prospective Cohort Study. Eur. Urol. 2020, 77, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  4. Katona, B.W.; Lubinski, J.; Pal, T.; Huzarski, T.; Foulkes, W.D.; Moller, P.; Eisen, A.; Randall Armel, S.; Neuhausen, S.L.; Raj, R.; et al. The incidence of pancreatic cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Cancer 2025, 131, e35666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  5. Vietri, M.T.; D’Elia, G.; Caliendo, G.; Albanese, L.; Signoriello, G.; Napoli, C.; Molinari, A.M. Pancreatic Cancer with Mutation in BRCA1/2, MLH1, and APC Genes: Phenotype Correlation and Detection of a Novel Germline BRCA2 Mutation. Genes 2022, 13, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  6. Thompson, D.; Easton, D.F.; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Cancer Incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2002, 94, 1358–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kadouri, L.; Hubert, A.; Rotenberg, Y.; Hamburger, T.; Sagi, M.; Nechushtan, C.; Abeliovich, D.; Peretz, T. Cancer risks in carriers of the BRCA1/2 Ashkenazi founder mutations. J. Med. Genet. 2007, 44, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  8. Navsaria, L.J.; Haas, A.M.; Corredor, J.L.; Arun, B.K.; Giordano, S.H.; Nead, K.T.; Wehner, M.R. Skin cancer risk in patients with BRCA mutations. JAAD Int. 2024, 17, 175–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  9. Zheng, F.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, S.; Weng, X.; Rao, Y.; Fang, H. Mechanism and current progress of Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 123, 109661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Antoniou, A.C.; Casadei, S.; Heikkinen, T.; Barrowdale, D.; Pylkäs, K.; Roberts, J.; Lee, A.; Subramanian, D.; De Leeneer, K.; Fostira, F.; et al. Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  11. Seca, M.; Narod, S.A. Breast cancer and ATM mutations: Treatment implications. Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract. 2024, 22, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  12. Abdel-Razeq, H. Surgical options for patients with early-stage breast cancer and pathogenic germline variants: An oncologist perspectives. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1265197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  13. Mundt, E.; Mabey, B.; Rainville, I.; Ricker, C.; Singh, N.; Gardiner, A.; Manley, S.; Slavin, T., Jr. Breast and colorectal cancer risks among over 6,000 CHEK2 pathogenic variant carriers: A comparison of missense versus truncating variants. Cancer Genet. 2023, 278–279, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Tung, N.M.; Robson, M.E.; Ventz, S.; Santa-Maria, C.A.; Nanda, R.; Marcom, P.K.; Shah, P.D.; Ballinger, T.J.; Yang, E.S.; Vinayak, S.; et al. TBCRC 048: Phase II Study of Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer and Mutations in Homologous Recombination-Related Genes. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 4274–4282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Amirifar, P.; Ranjouri, M.R.; Pashangzadeh, S.; Lavin, M.; Yazdani, R.; Moeini Shad, T.; Mehrmohamadi, M.; Salami, F.; Delavari, S.; Moamer, S.; et al. The spectrum of ATM gene mutations in Iranian patients with ataxia-telangiectasia. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2021, 32, 1316–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Vietri, M.T.; Caliendo, G.; Schiano, C.; Casamassimi, A.; Molinari, A.M.; Napoli, C.; Cioffi, M. Analysis of PALB2 in a cohort of Italian breast cancer patients: Identification of a novel PALB2 truncating mutation. Fam. Cancer 2015, 14, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Anaclerio, F.; Pilenzi, L.; Dell’Elice, A.; Ferrante, R.; Grossi, S.; Ferlito, L.M.; Marinelli, C.; Gildetti, S.; Calabrese, G.; Stuppia, L.; et al. Clinical usefulness of NGS multi-gene panel testing in hereditary cancer analysis. Front. Genet. 2023, 14, 1060504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  18. Nagy, P.; Papp, J.; Grolmusz, V.K.; Bozsik, A.; Pócza, T.; Oláh, E.; Patócs, A.; Butz, H. Comprehensive Clinical Genetics, Molecular and Pathological Evaluation Efficiently Assist Diagnostics and Therapy Selection in Breast Cancer Patients with Hereditary Genetic Background. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 12546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  19. Rolfes, M.; Borde, J.; Möllenhoff, K.; Kayali, M.; Ernst, C.; Gehrig, A.; Sutter, C.; Ramser, J.; Niederacher, D.; Horváth, J.; et al. Prevalence of Cancer Predisposition Germline Variants in Male Breast Cancer Patients: Results of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 3292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  20. Cruellas, M.; Papakonstantinou, A.; López-Fernández, A.; Castillo, E.; Matito, J.; Gómez, M.; Rezqallah, A.; Vega, S.; Navarro, V.; Torres, M.; et al. Identifying germline pathogenic variants in breast cancer using tumor sequencing. Breast 2025, 81, 104439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  21. Hanson, H.; Kulkarni, A.; Loong, L.; Kavanaugh, G.; Torr, B.; Allen, S.; Ahmed, M.; Antoniou, A.C.; Cleaver, R.; Dabir, T.; et al. UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2. J. Med. Genet. 2022, 60, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  22. Hall, M.J.; Bernhisel, R.; Hughes, E.; Larson, K.; Rosenthal, E.T.; Singh, N.A.; Lancaster, J.M.; Kurian, A.W. Germline Pathogenic Variants in the Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) Gene are Associated with High and Moderate Risks for Multiple Cancers. Cancer Prev. Res. 2021, 14, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  23. Laitman, Y.; Nielsen, S.M.; Bernstein-Molho, R.; Heald, B.; Hatchell, K.E.; Esplin, E.D.; Friedman, E. Cancer risks associated with heterozygous ATM loss of function and missense pathogenic variants based on multigene panel analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2022, 196, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rafnar, T.; Sigurjonsdottir, G.R.; Stacey, S.N.; Halldorsson, G.; Sulem, P.; Pardo, L.M.; Helgason, H.; Sigurdsson, S.T.; Gudjonsson, T.; Tryggvadottir, L.; et al. Association of BRCA2 K3326* with Small Cell Lung Cancer and Squamous Cell Cancer of the Skin. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2018, 110, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Higgs, J.E.; Harkness, E.F.; Bowers, N.L.; Howard, E.; Wallace, A.J.; Lalloo, F.; Newman, W.G.; Evans, D.G. The BRCA2 polymorphic stop codon: Stuff or nonsense? J. Med. Genet. 2015, 52, 642–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Buckley, K.H.; Niccum, B.A.; Maxwell, K.N.; Katona, B.W. Gastric Cancer Risk and Pathogenesis in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carriers. Cancers 2022, 14, 5953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  27. Ryan, C.E.; Fasaye, G.A.; Gallanis, A.F.; Gamble, L.A.; McClelland, P.H.; Duemler, A.; Samaranayake, S.G.; Blakely, A.M.; Drogan, C.M.; Kingham, K.; et al. Germline CDH1 Variants and Lifetime Cancer Risk. JAMA 2024, 332, 722–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  28. Hodan, R.; Gupta, S.; Weiss, J.M.; Axell, L.; Burke, C.A.; Chen, L.M.; Chung, D.C.; Clayback, K.M.; Felder, S.; Foda, Z.; et al. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2024, 22, 695–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Liu, C.; Wang, Q.S.; Wang, Y.J. The CHEK2 I157T variant and colorectal cancer susceptibility: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2012, 13, 2051–2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Randall, M.P.; Egolf, L.E.; Vaksman, Z.; Samanta, M.; Tsang, M.; Groff, D.; Evans, J.P.; Rokita, J.L.; Layeghifard, M.; Shlien, A.; et al. BARD1 germline variants induce haploinsufficiency and DNA repair defects in neuroblastoma. bioRxiv 2023. Reprinted in: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2024, 116, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  31. Weber-Lassalle, N.; Borde, J.; Weber-Lassalle, K.; Horváth, J.; Niederacher, D.; Arnold, N.; Kaulfuß, S.; Ernst, C.; Paul, V.G.; Honisch, E.; et al. Germline loss-of-function variants in the BARD1 gene are associated with early-onset familial breast cancer but not ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2019, 21, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  32. Novelli, F.; Yoshikawa, Y.; Vitto, V.A.M.; Modesti, L.; Minaai, M.; Pastorino, S.; Emi, M.; Kim, J.H.; Kricek, F.; Bai, F.; et al. Germline BARD1 variants predispose to mesothelioma by impairing DNA repair and calcium signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2405231121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  33. Zeng, Y.; Arisa, O.; Peer, C.J.; Fojo, A.; Figg, W.D. PARP inhibitors: A review of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacogenetics. Semin. Oncol. 2024, 51, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  34. Gruber, J.J.; Afghahi, A.; Timms, K.; DeWees, A.; Gross, W.; Aushev, V.N.; Wu, H.T.; Balcioglu, M.; Sethi, H.; Scott, D.; et al. A phase II study of talazoparib monotherapy in patients with wild-type BRCA1 and BRCA2 with a mutation in other homologous recombination genes. Nat. Cancer 2022, 3, 1181–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  35. de Bono, J.S.; Mehra, N.; Scagliotti, G.V.; Castro, E.; Dorff, T.; Stirling, A.; Stenzl, A.; Fleming, M.T.; Higano, C.S.; Saad, F.; et al. Talazoparib monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair alterations (TALAPRO-1): An open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 1250–1264, Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, e207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00207-8.Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, e249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Miao, R.; Blue, K.; Sommerer, K.; Shah, A.; Bottiglieri, S.; Del Cueto, A.; Berry, D.K.; Ho, T.T.; Hicks, J.K.; Kim, D.W. PARP Inhibitors in Pancreatic Cancer with Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Mutations: A Single-Institution Experience. Cancers 2024, 16, 3447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  37. Mateo, J.; de Bono, J.S.; Fizazi, K.; Saad, F.; Shore, N.; Sandhu, S.; Chi, K.N.; Agarwal, N.; Olmos, D.; Thiery-Vuillemin, A.; et al. Olaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Alterations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 in the PROfound Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024, 42, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Smith, M.R.; Scher, H.I.; Sandhu, S.; Efstathiou, E.; Lara, P.N., Jr.; Yu, E.Y.; George, D.J.; Chi, K.N.; Saad, F.; Ståhl, O.; et al. Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  39. Joris, S.; Denys, H.; Collignon, J.; Rasschaert, M.; T’Kint de Roodenbeke, D.; Duhoux, F.P.; Canon, J.L.; Tejpar, S.; Mebis, J.; Decoster, L.; et al. Efficacy of olaparib in advanced cancers with germline or somatic mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and ATM, a Belgian Precision tumor-agnostic phase II study. ESMO Open 2023, 8, 102041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  40. Nakamura, K.; Aimono, E.; Tanishima, S.; Imai, M.; Nagatsuma, A.K.; Hayashi, H.; Yoshimura, Y.; Nakayama, K.; Kyo, S.; Nishihara, H. Olaparib Monotherapy for BRIP1-Mutated High-Grade Serous Endometrial Cancer. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2020, 4, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  41. Khalid, A.B.; Fountzilas, C.; Burney, H.N.; Mamdani, H.; Schneider, B.P.; Fausel, C.; Perkins, S.M.; Jalal, S. A phase II study evaluating safety and efficacy of niraparib in patients with previously treated homologous recombination defective metastatic esophageal/gastroesophageal junction/proximal gastric adenocarcinoma. Front. Oncol. 2024, 14, 1435056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  42. Italian Society of Human Genetic. Linee di Indirizzo Sull’analisi dei Geni BRCA1 e BRCA2 in Ambito Clinico: Criteri di Accesso al Test, Aggiornamento Sulle Piattaforme Diagnostiche e Interpretazione del Test Somatico; Italian Society of Human Genetic: Candiolo, Italy, 30 March 2021; Available online: https://sigu.net/categoria-documenti/linee-guida/page/3/ (accessed on 6 May 2025).
  43. Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica. Raccomandazioni per L’implementazione del Test BRCA Predittivo E Preventivo nei Tumori Della Mammella, Dell’ovaio, Del Pancreas e Della Prostata; Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica: Milan, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.aiom.it/linee-guida-aiom/ (accessed on 6 May 2025).
  44. Plon, S.E.; Eccles, D.M.; Easton, D.; Foulkes, W.D.; Genuardi, M.; Greenblatt, M.S.; Hogervorst, F.B.; Hoogerbrugge, N.; Spurdle, A.B.; Tavtigian, S.V.; et al. Sequence variant classification and reporting: Recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29, 1282–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  45. Vietri, M.T.; D’Elia, G.; Caliendo, G.; Casamassimi, A.; Federico, A.; Passariello, L.; Cioffi, M.; Molinari, A.M. Prevalence of mutations in BRCA and MMR genes in patients affected with hereditary endometrial cancer. Med Oncol. 2021, 38, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  46. Tian, Y.; Pesaran, T.; Chamberlin, A.; Fenwick, R.B.; Li, S.; Gau, C.L.; Chao, E.C.; Lu, H.M.; Black, M.H.; Qian, D. REVEL and BayesDel outperform other in silico meta-predictors for clinical variant classification. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  47. Rentzsch, P.; Witten, D.; Cooper, G.M.; Shendure, J.; Kircher, M. CADD: Predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D886–D894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  48. Jaganathan, K.; Kyriazopoulou Panagiotopoulou, S.; McRae, J.F.; Darbandi, S.F.; Knowles, D.; Li, Y.I.; Kosmicki, J.A.; Arbelaez, J.; Cui, W.; Schwartz, G.B.; et al. Predicting Splicing from Primary Sequence with Deep Learning. Cell 2019, 176, 535–548.e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Richards, S.; Aziz, N.; Bale, S.; Bick, D.; Das, S.; Gastier-Foster, J.; Grody, W.W.; Hegde, M.; Lyon, E.; Spector, E.; 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, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Figure 1. (a) Prevalence of PVs and VUS among cancer susceptibility genes; (b) distribution of PVs; (c) distribution of VUS. Legend: PVs, pathogenic variants; VUS, variants of uncertain significance; WT, wild type.
Figure 1. (a) Prevalence of PVs and VUS among cancer susceptibility genes; (b) distribution of PVs; (c) distribution of VUS. Legend: PVs, pathogenic variants; VUS, variants of uncertain significance; WT, wild type.
Ijms 26 05928 g001
Figure 2. Cancer types among patients with PVs and their families. The numbers indicate the percentage of patients diagnosed with the specific tumor type among the patients harboring a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 or in other cancer susceptibility genes and their families. Abbreviations: BC, breast cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; LC, lung cancer; RCC, renal cell cancer; GC, gastric cancer; PC, prostate cancer; PaC, pancreatic cancer.
Figure 2. Cancer types among patients with PVs and their families. The numbers indicate the percentage of patients diagnosed with the specific tumor type among the patients harboring a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 or in other cancer susceptibility genes and their families. Abbreviations: BC, breast cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; LC, lung cancer; RCC, renal cell cancer; GC, gastric cancer; PC, prostate cancer; PaC, pancreatic cancer.
Ijms 26 05928 g002
Table 1. Clinical features and cancer family history of patients with PVs in BRCA1/2.
Table 1. Clinical features and cancer family history of patients with PVs in BRCA1/2.
IDSex
(M/F)
Age at TestingClinical Phenotype and Age at DiagnosisMutation Type
Gene/Name and dbSNP ID
Mutation in Other GenesFamily HistoryNumber of Family Members Tested
Patient 1F44OC 44BRCA1: c.116G>A
(p.Cys39Tyr)
rs80357498
-Mother with PaC (42)-
Patient 2F74BC 73BRCA1: c.547+2T>A
rs80358047
-Mother with OC (49) and sister with LC (65)4
Patient 3F55BC (54) and Melanoma (50)BRCA1: c.4964_4982del (p.Ser1655Tyrfs*16)
rs80359876
MUTYH: c.1103G>A (p.Gly368Asp)
rs36053993
Two sisters with BC (35–46)2
Patient 4F63CRC 61BRCA1: c.3756_3759del (p.Ser1253Argfs*10)
rs80359876
-Sisters with BC (45–46) and CRC (67), brother with CRC (71), and mother with BC (84) and OC (63)1
Patient 5F19BC 42BRCA1: c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74)
rs80357906
-Mother with BC (60) and maternal grandmother with OC (62) and BC (63)3
Patient 6 F65BC 65BRCA1: c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74)
rs80357906
-Father with PC (55)1
Patient 7F49BC 49BRCA1: c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74)
rs80357906
-Mother with CRC (65), sister with BC (42), and niece with BC (35)3
Patient 8F18LC 18BRCA1: c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74)
rs80357906
-Mother with LC (48) and maternal grandmother with BC (65)1
Patient 9F50BC 46BRCA1: c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74)
rs80357906
-Paternal aunt with CRC (69) and cousin with BC (46)1
Patient 10F54BC 54BRCA1: c.5266dup (p.Gln1756Profs*74)
rs80357906
-Maternal cousin with BC (58)1
Patient 11F48BC 47BRCA1: c.5319dup (p.Asn1774Glnfs*56)
rs80357823
-Maternal aunts with BC (57–67)1
Patient 12F53OC 52BRCA2: c.7558C>T (p.Arg2520*)
rs80357823
-Sister with BC (50) and maternal grandmother with CRC (70)-
Patient 13M40PC 40BRCA2: c.8168A>G (p.Asp2723Gly)
rs41293513
-Father with PC (65)3
Patient 14F39BC 37BRCA2: c.6037A>T
(p.Lys2013*)
rs80358840
-Father with CRC (61) and paternal aunts with BC (66) and LC (60)1
Patient 15F64BC 64BRCA2: c.67+1G>A
rs81002796
-Father with LC (84) and paternal aunts with BC (75-35-30)-
Patient 16 M59BC 59BRCA2: c.67+1G>A
rs81002796
-Father with lymphoma (74) and sister with BC (42)-
Patient 17F58BC 58BRCA2: c.67+1G>A
rs81002796
-Mother with BBC (80)4
Patient 18M65GC 63BRCA2: c.6486_6489del (p.Lys2162Argfs*5)
rs80359598
-Mother with melanoma (68) and brother with GC (62)2
Patient 19F53BC 53BRCA2: c.6486_6489del (p.Lys2162Argfs*5)
rs80359598
-Mother with BC (50) and OC (66)-
Patient 20M54BC 47BRCA2: c.6486_6489del (p.Lys2162Argfs*5)
rs80359598
-Father with RCC (75) and sister with BC (47)5
Patient 21M63GC 63BRCA2: c.6468_6469del (p.Gln2157Argfs*18)
rs80359596
-Mother with BC (70) and CRC (91)-
Patient 22F51BC 49BRCA2: c.6468_6469del (p.Gln2157Argfs*18)
rs80359596
-Mother with BC (58) and maternal aunt with BC (69)1
Patient 23F43BC 39BRCA2: c.6405_6409del (p.Asn2135Lysfs*3)
rs80359584
-Father with PC (63) and paternal uncles with PC (80) and CRC (81)2
Patient 24F48PC 48BRCA2: c.5073dup (p.Trp1692fs*3)
rs80359479
-Maternal uncles with PC (70–78) and brothers with PaC (52) and PC (55)1
Patient 25F89BC 87BRCA2: c.3458dup (p.Thr1154Aspfs*4)
rs80359386
-Mother with BC (70) 3
BC, breast cancer; LC, lung cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; PaC, pancreatic cancer; GC, gastric cancer; PC, prostate cancer; RCC, renal cell cancer; CRC, colorectal cancer.
Table 2. Clinical features and cancer family history of patients with PVs in other cancer susceptibility genes.
Table 2. Clinical features and cancer family history of patients with PVs in other cancer susceptibility genes.
IDSex
(M/F)
Age at TestingClinical Phenotype and Age at DiagnosisMutation Type
Gene/Name and dbSNP ID
Mutation in Other GenesFamily HistoryNumber of Family Members Tested
Patient 1F49BC 49ATM: c.3802del (p.Glu1267_Val1268ins*)
rs587779834
-Father with PC (66) and paternal aunts with PC (78) and CRC (36–85)2
Patient 2F60OC 60ATM: c.3802del (p.Glu1267_Val1268ins*)
rs587779834
-Maternal aunt with BC (76) and
sisters with BC (25–51), OC (37) and GC (47)
1
Patient 3F46BC 46ATM: c.2548G>T (p.Glu850*)
rs587782280
-Mother with BBC (50) and maternal aunts with BC (35–50) and PaC (57)-
Patient 4F54BC 53ATM: c.8833_8834del (p.Leu2945Valfs*10)
rs786203030
-Mother with BC (82) and maternal aunts with BC (65-47-64)2
Patient 5F53OC 52ATM: c.2250G>A (p.Lys750=)
rs1137887
-Maternal aunts with BC (80), LC (72) and sisters with LC (49) and BC (40)1
Patient 6F45BC 44ATM: delEX62_EX63
(Amirifar et al., 2021) [15]
-Paternal aunts with RCC (79), BC (65), and GC (65–67)-
Patient 7F51BC 47, TC 47, OC 45CHEK2: c.920dup (p.Glu308Argfs*4)
rs786203053
-Maternal grandmother with BC (75) and sister with BC (47)-
Patient 8F67Melanoma 67CHEK2: c.1427C>T (p.Thr476Met)
rs142763740
-Brother with CRC (47) and son with RCC (42)2
Patient 9F30BC 30CHEK2: c.1427C>T (p.Thr476Met)
rs142763740
-Mother with BC (63), maternal grandmother with BC (65), and maternal grandfather with PC (79)-
Patient 10F54BC 54CHEK2: c.1100del (p.Thr367fs*15)
rs555607708
-Maternal aunts with LC (70–75), CRC (85–88), TC (77), and PaC (77) 3
Patient 11M78CRC 77CHEK2: c.688G>A (p.Ala230Thr)
rs748636216
-Maternal cousin with BC (60) and daughter with OC (42)1
Patient 12F52BBC 47CHEK2: c.470T>C (p.Ile157Thr)
rs17879961
MUTYH: c.536A>G
(p.Tyr179Cys)
rs34612342
Mother with PaC (68)1
Patient 13M59CRC 57CHEK2: c.470T>C (p.Ile157Thr)
rs17879961
-Father with GC (80) and paternal aunts with PC (78) and LC (66)-
Patient 14M81BC 81BRIP1: c.478del (p.Arg160Glufs*5)
rs1555616150
-Paternal aunts with BC (50-54-60) 3
Patient 15F73OC 72BRIP1: c.440dup (p.Tyr147*)
rs786203521
-Maternal cousin with BC (50)1
Patient 16F49BC 37BRIP1: c.55dup (p.Tyr19Leufs*2)
rs1567878148
-Mother with OC (70), maternal grandmother with CRC (72), and daughter with BC (49)1
Patient 17F55BC 55BRIP1: c.55dup (p.Tyr19Leufs*2)
rs1567878148
MUTYH: c.1187G>A (p.Gly396Asp)
rs36053993
Father with LC (63) and paternal cousin with BC (38)2
Patient 18F34BC 30PALB2: c.1919C>A (p.S640*)
rs760094988
-Maternal grandmother with BC (81)-
Patient 19F39BC 29PALB2: c.1285_1286delAinsTC (p.I429SfsX12)
(Vietri et al., 2015) [16]
-Father with BC (70) and sisters with BC (32–40)-
Patient 20F67BC 43PALB2: c.2257C>T (p.Arg753*)
rs180177110
-Mother with BC (60) and sister with lymphoma (39)2
Patient 21F57OC (43), BC (50), TC (50), LC (51)PALB2: c.2161_2186dup (p.Ile730fs*11)
rs1567217908
-Maternal aunt OC (60)1
Patient 22F46OC 46RAD51C: c.414G>C (p.Leu138Phe)
rs267606999
-Mother with OC (52) and maternal aunt with GC (72)1
Patient 23F61PaC 61BARD1: c.539_540del (p.Tyr180*)
rs779427628
-Mother with PaC (69) and maternal aunt with GC (82)3
Patient 24M76LC 63BARD1: c.1216C>T (p.Arg406*)
rs377153250
-Sister with BC (50) and maternal aunts with PaC (78)-
Patient 25F69BC 52*CDH1: c.1678_1688del (p.Thr560Profs*24)
novel
-Father with GC (39) and sister with BC (73) and TC (50)1
Patient 26M44GC 70CDH1: c.2295+1G>C
rs1596971108
-Maternal aunt with RCC (55) and one aunt with unspecified neoplasm2
Patient 27F25BC 25TP53: c.1009C>T (p.Arg337Cys)
rs138398778
-Mother with BBC (30), maternal grandmother with BBC (30), and maternal grandfather with LC (76)-
Patient 28M35PC 35TP53: c.844C>T (p.Arg282Trp)
rs28934574
-Mother with BC (46)2
Patient 29F40BC 37TP53: c.817C>T (p.Arg273Cys)
rs121913343
-Maternal grandmother with BC (48)1
BC, breast cancer; BBC, bilateral breast cancer; LC, lung cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; PaC, pancreatic cancer; PC, prostate cancer; TC, thyroid cancer; RCC, renal cell cancer; GC, gastric cancer; CRC, colorectal cancer; EC. Amirifar P et al., 2021 [15]; Vietri MT et al. [16], *CDH1: c.1678_1688del (p.Thr560Profs*24): new mutation identified for the first time in our laboratory.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vietri, M.T.; Della Pepa, C.; Caliendo, G.; Mignano, A.; Albanese, L.; Zitiello, M.; Stilo, M.; Molinari, A.M. Expanding the Genomic Landscape of HBOC and Cancer Risk Among Mutation Carriers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 5928. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26135928

AMA Style

Vietri MT, Della Pepa C, Caliendo G, Mignano A, Albanese L, Zitiello M, Stilo M, Molinari AM. Expanding the Genomic Landscape of HBOC and Cancer Risk Among Mutation Carriers. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025; 26(13):5928. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26135928

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vietri, Maria Teresa, Chiara Della Pepa, Gemma Caliendo, Alessia Mignano, Luisa Albanese, Marialaura Zitiello, Marianna Stilo, and Anna Maria Molinari. 2025. "Expanding the Genomic Landscape of HBOC and Cancer Risk Among Mutation Carriers" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26, no. 13: 5928. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26135928

APA Style

Vietri, M. T., Della Pepa, C., Caliendo, G., Mignano, A., Albanese, L., Zitiello, M., Stilo, M., & Molinari, A. M. (2025). Expanding the Genomic Landscape of HBOC and Cancer Risk Among Mutation Carriers. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(13), 5928. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26135928

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop