Next Article in Journal
CrossMP: Enabling Cross-Modality Translation between Single-Cell RNA-Seq and Single-Cell ATAC-Seq through Web-Based Portal
Previous Article in Journal
Ubiquitination-Related Gene Signature, Nomogram and Immune Features for Prognostic Prediction in Patients with Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/genes15070881
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparing Cancer Risk Management between Females with Truncating CHEK2 1100delC versus Missense CHEK2 I157T Variants

by
Diego Garmendia
1,
Anne Weidner
1,
Lindsay Venton
1 and
Tuya Pal
1,2,*
1
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1500 21st Ave. So., Suite 2810, Nashville, TN 37212, USA
2
Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, 2220 Pierce Ave, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2024, 15(7), 881; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15070881
Submission received: 9 May 2024 / Revised: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 2 July 2024 / Published: 5 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Human Genomics and Genetic Diseases)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) risks imparted by CHEK2 c.1100delC (“1100delC”) germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (GPV) are 20–30%, compared to CHEK2 c.470T>C (“I157T”) GPV with <20%, leading to different breast screening recommendations through MRI. We compared cancer risk management (CRM) across these two GPVs. Study participants were adult females with an 1100delC or I157T GPV drawn from the Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE) across the United States. Cancer history, clinical characteristics, and CRM were compared using chi-squared tests, t-tests, and logistic regression. Of 150 CHEK2 carriers, 40.7% had BC, with a mean age of 50. Comparing 1100delC and I157T GPVs, there were no differences in rates of (1) breast MRI among those with (65.2% versus 55.6% of 23 and 9; p = 0.612) and without (44.0% versus 44.8% of 50 and 29; p = 0.943) BC; (2) risk-reducing mastectomy among those with (50% versus 38.9% of 46 and 15; p = 0.501) and without (13.8% versus 6.5% of 58 and 31; p = 0.296) BC; and (3) risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among those with (24.2% versus 22.2% of 45 and 18; p = 0.852) and without (17.5% versus 16.7% of 57 and 30; p = 0.918) BC. The results suggest over-screening with breast MRI among CHEK2 I157T GPV carriers and possible overuse of risk-reducing surgeries among CHEK2 carriers.

1. Introduction

Germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (GPVs) in CHEK2 are typically associated with a moderately increased risk of breast cancer in females [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], generally in the range of 20–30% lifetime risk of breast cancer and a relative risk (RR) of >2 [4,7,8,9]. Given that cancer risk management guidelines for breast cancer are anchored to the level of risk, a lifetime breast cancer risk of 20% or greater among females meets the threshold for an annual breast MRI in the United States [10]. Thus, the identification of CHEK2 is important, given its impact on cancer risk management [11]. Specifically for CHEK2, MRI screening is initiated annually starting between ages 30–35, with annual mammograms added starting at age 40 per the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines [12]. Risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy are generally not recommended for CHEK2 GPVs [10].
The original study to demonstrate that CHEK2 was associated with increased female breast cancer risk was based on the truncating European founder GPV, c.1100del (p.Thr367fs), herein referred to as “1100delC”, showing the risk to be around two-fold [13], with subsequent studies confirming this original estimate [7,14]. In contrast to the typical moderate risks attributed to CHEK2 GPVs, primarily based on this truncating CHEK2 1100delC founder GPV, there is another common European founder missense GPV, c.470T>C (p.Ile157Thr), herein referred to as “I157T” [15], which imparts a breast cancer risk of less than 20% and RR ~ 1.3 [14,16]. Consequently, females with a CHEK2 I157T GPV do not reach the threshold for high-risk breast cancer screening solely based on the presence of this GPV.
Given the ongoing refinement of genotype/phenotype associations within genes in the context of a clinician workforce with limited proficiency in genetics and rising rates of bilateral mastectomies in the United States, we believe that efforts such as ours are needed to evaluate the nuances of implementation of gene-based care for inherited cancers. This is especially important given the rising rates of genetic testing and the rapidly evolving practice guidelines. The current study sought to compare cancer risk management for breast cancer among females with CHEK2 1100delC and CHEK2 I157T GPVs.

2. Materials and Methods

Participants in the present study were drawn from the Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE) [17], a research registry approved through the Vanderbilt University Institutional Review Board. Through ICARE enrollment, participants are consented and asked to complete a baseline questionnaire, which includes demographic, clinical, and risk factor information, and an authorization for release of medical records to obtain relevant genetics and medical records (i.e., genetic test reports, pedigrees, pathology reports). Participants are also sent a follow-up questionnaire every two years. Consent forms and questionnaires may be completed either online or on paper. Consented participants had genetic testing through a variety of commercial genetic testing laboratories at the discretion of their treating healthcare provider. Criteria for testing were determined by their treating healthcare provider and not dictated by ICARE protocol. ICARE participants are recruited through various means, including (1) referrals from healthcare providers who have partnered with ICARE at various clinical centers across the United States and internationally and (2) directly online through the registry website (http://inheritedcancer.net accessed on 20 March 2024) [17]. Over 6000 participants are currently enrolled in ICARE, of which almost two-thirds have a GPV in an inherited cancer-predisposing gene.
Individuals enrolled in ICARE with a confirmed CHEK2 1100delC or CHEK2 I157T GPV were included in this study. Excluded individuals included those with GPVs other than CHEK2 1100delC or CHEK2 I157T, individuals with an additional GPV in another established inherited breast cancer gene, and individuals with both CHEK2 1100delC and CHEK2 I157 GPVs. The years of enrollment into ICARE covered July 2011 to May 2023. Figure 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study.
Demographic and clinical information were summarized and compared between CHEK2 1100delC and CHEK2 I157T carriers using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Pearson’s chi-squared tests were used to compare personal breast cancer history, family history of breast cancer, personal history of other cancer, breast cancer receptor status, breast cancer staging information, and cancer risk management between the two groups. The two CHEK2 GPV groups (1100delC and I157T) were further categorized into those with and without a personal history of breast cancer, as this variable presents an additional risk factor. The cancer risk management modalities used in this analysis in females with and without a prior breast cancer diagnosis included breast MRIs (in those with remaining breast tissue), prophylactic mastectomy, and prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. Breast MRI and risk-reducing surgery were assessed as binary variables (“yes” or “no”) following receipt of genetic test results. Data to assess ongoing compliance with breast MRIs were not available and beyond the scope of the current study. There was no specific time limit to receive the care. The development of breast cancer post-prophylactic mastectomy was also monitored through the use of follow-up questionnaires.
Logistic regression models were used to identify any significant variables (CHEK2 GPV carrier status, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer) that predict the personal history of breast cancer and uptake of breast MRI, risk-reducing mastectomy, and bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy.

3. Results

Of 150 total females, 104 had the 1100delC variant, and 46 had the I157T variant. Most carriers were non-Hispanic White (95.3%), married or cohabitating (78.0%), college graduates (61.3%), privately insured (73.3%), employed (59.3%), and had an annual income greater than USD 50,000 (66.7%). A summary of the participant demographic information is shown in Table 1.
Overall, 40.7% had a personal history of breast cancer, with a mean age at diagnosis of 50. Personal history of breast cancer was present in 44.2% of 1100delC carriers with a mean age at diagnosis of 49, compared to 32.6% of I157T carriers with a mean age at diagnosis of 55. A summary of additional clinical characteristics across the two groups of GPVs is included in Table 2. No significant differences were found across any clinical variables (all p > 0.05).
Rates of uptake of cancer risk management in females with 1100delC compared to I157T were as follows: (1) For breast MRI (among those with at-risk breast tissue), there was 65.2% versus 55.6% (0.612) for those with a personal history of unilateral breast cancer and 44.0% versus 44.8% (p = 0.943) without a personal history of breast cancer, respectively; (2) for risk-reducing mastectomy, there was 50.0% versus 38.9% (p = 0.501) for those with a personal history of unilateral breast cancer and 13.8% versus 6.5% (p = 0.296) for those without a personal history of breast cancer; and (3) for risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, there was 24.4% versus 22.2% (p = 0.852) for those with a personal history of unilateral breast cancer and 17.5% versus 16.7% (p = 0.918) for those without a personal history of breast cancer. A summary of the cancer risk management practices is also included in Table 2.
The predictability of breast cancer by CHEK2 GPV carrier status (either 1100delC or I157T) and family history of breast cancer was determined using a logistic regression model. Logistic regression analyses were also utilized to examine different variables that may influence the uptake of breast MRI, bilateral mastectomy, and bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. These variables were CHEK2 GPV carrier status, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer. The logistic regression models showed that only a personal history of breast cancer was a significant predictor of uptake of breast MRI and bilateral mastectomy. There were no significant predictors of breast cancer or the uptake of a bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. Given that CHEK2 GPV carrier status was not a significant predictor of these cancer risk management practices indicates that uptake of these treatments does not significantly differ between the 1100delC and I157T groups. Table 3 summarizes these results.
CHEK2 GPV carrier status and family history of breast cancer were also examined as predictors of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in participants without a personal history of breast cancer. Neither were significant predictors of either risk-reducing surgery. Table 4 describes these data.
Of the 29 participants with a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (23 1100delC and 6 I157T), none developed breast cancer (mean follow-up time of 5.69 years). Of the 10 participants with a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (8 1100delC and 2 I157T), none developed breast cancer (mean follow-up time of 5.75 years).

4. Discussion

Findings from our study showed that females with the CHEK2 I157T GPV have similar cancer risk management practices as those with the CHEK2 1100delC GPV despite lower breast cancer risks that do not reach the threshold for high-risk breast cancer screening. Furthermore, the presence of risk-reducing mastectomy and similar rates of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may represent over-treatment among CHEK2 carriers.
Overall, these findings suggest that females with the CHEK2 1100delC GPV and the CHEK2 I157T GPV are provided with similar cancer risk management recommendations, despite the I157T GPV having a breast cancer risk of less than 20%, which does not meet the threshold at which high-risk breast screening is recommended [14,16]. Thus, despite the difference in guideline recommendations, our findings indicate that females with one of these two GPVs have similar rates of high-risk screening through breast MRI among those with at-risk breast tissue. These findings were seen when comparing females with the two GPVs in subgroups with and without breast cancer through both frequencies and our logistic regression model, suggesting that those with the I157T GPV may receive screening beyond that recommended in current guidelines. Moreover, rates of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy were similar for females with an 1100delC and I157T GPV, both with and without a breast cancer diagnosis, suggesting possible over-treatment among CHEK2 carriers. No differences in rates of risk-reducing mastectomy in both participants with and without a prior history of breast cancer among the 1100delC group and the I157T group were observed in the logistic regression model. Ultimately, the presence of risk-reducing mastectomy is not recommended solely based on CHEK2 GPV carrier status, suggesting possible over-treatment among CHEK2 carriers. Furthermore, only a personal history of breast cancer was a significant predictor for the uptake of bilateral mastectomy, while a family history of breast cancer was not. These findings suggest that the presence of a CHEK2 GPV influenced the receipt of risk-reducing surgery, thus supporting the possibility of over-treatment in these individuals. Findings through the current study are consistent with prior studies from us and others, through which possible overtreatment has been suggested, particularly among females with moderate penetrance genes [18,19,20]. A study of over 20,000 women with breast cancer identified care beyond guidelines through high rates of risk-reducing surgery, specifically bilateral mastectomy, in women with GPVs in breast cancer-associated genes other than BRCA1/2 (95% CI, 37.7−48.5%) [18]. This result was further supported by two of our own studies that found high rates of risk-reducing mastectomies (52% [19] and 43% [20]) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies (37%) among females with moderate penetrance genes, including CHEK2 [18]. Our findings, in conjunction with prior studies, suggest there is an opportunity to better educate healthcare providers to promote risk-informed care.
While CHEK2 is generally categorized as a “moderate penetrance gene” for breast cancer, our study highlights the importance of considering cancer risk on a continuum based on the allele (GPV) rather than binary based on the gene. Currently, cancer penetrance estimates are anchored to the “typical” cancer risks attributed to a specific gene. Yet, given the variations in risk based on specific GPVs, such as the established differences in breast cancer risks for the CHEK2 1100delC GPV compared to the CHEK2 I157T GPV genotypes, it is important to account for these differences when estimating risks. Beyond CHEK2 GPVs, multiple factors are used to estimate breast cancer risk using programs such as CanRisk, including family history, hormonal and lifestyle factors, breast density, and polygenic risk scores [21]. Yet genotype-based risks for GPVs that deviate from the “typical” cancer risks attributed to a specific gene, such as the CHEK2 I157T GPV, cannot be used in these risk models, which poses challenges to translation and incorporation of this information in clinic to generate risk estimates for patients. Consequently, there remains an unmet need to develop tools to estimate inherited cancer gene risks as a continuous rather than categorical variable. There remains a need to refine cancer risks by incorporating polygenic risk scores among those with inherited cancer GPVs, which may serve to either increase or decrease existing risks. Ultimately, refining risks could further refine cancer risk management. Interestingly, the CHEK2 I157T variant is not reported on standard germline inherited cancer panels in most countries outside of the United States, specifically because it does not reach the risk threshold to independently guide care [22]. Ultimately, anchoring guidance for cancer risk management to the level of individual risk rather than to a gene may enhance risk-informed care.
The truncating 1100delC and missense I157T CHEK2 GPVs are the most common GPVs identified in the CHEK2 gene among European ancestry populations, with population frequencies of 1.5% and 5%, respectively [5,23,24,25]. Consequently, the high carrier frequency has enabled GPV-specific breast cancer risks to be estimated for these specific variants, recognizing that this approach is not possible for most CHEK2 GPVs due to the limited sample size of individuals with specific GPVs. Another CHEK2 missense GPV, c.1283C>T (p.Ser428Phe), herein referred to as “S428F”, is established to also confer lower breast cancer risks, with a previously reported odds ratio of 1.26 (95% CI 0.76–2.12; p = 0.37) [14], consistent with estimates from other studies [10,12]. Yet the lower risks of breast cancer observed for the missense CHEK2 I157T and S438F variants cannot be presumed for other missense variants. In fact, in a study of over 6000 CHEK2 carriers (excluding the CHEK2 I157T and S428F GPVs, which were analyzed separately), there were no differences in breast cancer risk between missense and truncating CHEK2 GPVs [3]. Moreover, estimates of breast cancer risk specifically for CHEK2 I157T and S428F GPVs spanned from none to minimal for these variants, based on risks for invasive versus in situ breast cancers. In contrast, the common missense variant c.349A>G (p.Arg117Gly), herein referred to as “R117G”, was reported to be associated with breast cancer risks similar to truncating variants, with an odds ratio for breast cancer exceeding 2 in multiple studies [7,26], demonstrating that some missense variants are associated with clinically relevant breast cancer risk. For the less common missense variants, it remains a challenge to determine which variants are associated with clinically relevant cancer risk and which are not. It is possible that functional assays may guide clarification of risks in the future, as suggested by a recently published quantitative functional assay for CHEK2 missense variants, which suggested that variants demonstrating a similar functional impact to the R117G variant may confer the same level of cancer risk [27].
The current study has several strengths, including recruitment across diverse settings and providers, with a relatively large sample size of females with CHEK2 GPVs, alongside a rigorous collection of genetic test results and self-reported cancer risk management and treatment data verified where possible through medical records. Despite these strengths, there remain some limitations of our work, including limited participant diversity, a lack of information to definitively determine whether surgeries to remove breasts and/or ovaries were based on CHEK2 status versus part of the medical treatment for breast cancer, and a lack of data to determine if compliance with annual breast MRIs was met.
Overall, findings from our study suggest that females with the CHEK2 I157T GPV may be receiving care beyond that needed based on breast cancer risks and that recommended by current guidelines. Both females with CHEK2 1100delC and I157T CHEK2 GPVs may be receiving risk-reducing surgeries to prevent both breast and ovarian cancer, which may again be care beyond that currently recommended. Consequently, our results suggest that some treating healthcare providers may manage these two CHEK2 variants similarly, identifying an opportunity for education to improve adherence to risk-informed care.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W. and T.P.; methodology, D.G., A.W., L.V. and T.P.; formal analysis, D.G. and A.W.; investigation, D.G., A.W. and L.V.; resources, T.P.; data curation, D.G., A.W. and L.V.; writing—original draft preparation, D.G. and T.P.; writing—review and editing, A.W., L.V. and T.P.; visualization, D.G. and T.P.; supervision, A.W. and T.P.; project administration, A.W., L.V. and T.P.; funding acquisition, T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Vanderbilt University (IRB# 170201, original date of approval: 27 February 2017, latest continuing review date of approval: 22 February 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Weischer, M.; Bojesen, S.E.; Tybjærg-Hansen, A.; Axelsson, C.K.; Nordestgaard, B.G. Increased Risk of Breast Cancer Associated with CHEK2 * 1100delC. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Weischer, M.; Bojesen, S.E.; Ellervik, C.; Tybjærg-Hansen, A.; Nordestgaard, B.G. CHEK2 *1100delC Genotyping for Clinical Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk: Meta-Analyses of 26,000 Patient Cases and 27,000 Controls. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mundt, E.; Mabey, B.; Rainville, I.; Ricker, C.; Singh, N.; Gardiner, A.; Manley, S.; Slavin, T. Breast and Colorectal Cancer Risks among over 6000 CHEK2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers: A Comparison of Missense versus Truncating Variants. Cancer Genet. 2023, 278–279, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Breast Cancer Association Consortium; Mavaddat, N.; Dorling, L.; Carvalho, S.; Allen, J.; González-Neira, A.; Keeman, R.; Bolla, M.K.; Dennis, J.; Wang, Q.; et al. Pathology of Tumors Associated With Pathogenic Germline Variants in 9 Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes. JAMA Oncol. 2022, 8, e216744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cybulski, C.; Górski, B.; Huzarski, T.; Masojć, B.; Mierzejewski, M.; Dębniak, T.; Teodorczyk, U.; Byrski, T.; Gronwald, J.; Matyjasik, J.; et al. CHEK2 Is a Multiorgan Cancer Susceptibility Gene. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2004, 75, 1131–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Sutcliffe, E.G.; Stettner, A.R.; Miller, S.A.; Solomon, S.R.; Marshall, M.L.; Roberts, M.E.; Susswein, L.R.; Arvai, K.J.; Klein, R.T.; Murphy, P.D.; et al. Differences in Cancer Prevalence among CHEK2 Carriers Identified via Multi-Gene Panel Testing. Cancer Genet. 2020, 246–247, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Breast Cancer Risk Genes—Association Analysis in More than 113,000 Women. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lowry, K.P.; Geuzinge, H.A.; Stout, N.K.; Alagoz, O.; Hampton, J.; Kerlikowske, K.; De Koning, H.J.; Miglioretti, D.L.; Van Ravesteyn, N.T.; Schechter, C.; et al. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women With ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: A Comparative Modeling Analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2022, 8, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cybulski, C.; Wokołorczyk, D.; Jakubowska, A.; Huzarski, T.; Byrski, T.; Gronwald, J.; Masojć, B.; Dębniak, T.; Górski, B.; Blecharz, P.; et al. Risk of Breast Cancer in Women With a CHEK2 Mutation With and Without a Family History of Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 3747–3752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saslow, D.; Boetes, C.; Burke, W.; Harms, S.; Leach, M.O.; Lehman, C.D.; Morris, E.; Pisano, E.; Schnall, M.; Sener, S.; et al. American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2007, 57, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Turchiano, A.; Piglionica, M.; Martino, S.; Bagnulo, R.; Garganese, A.; De Luisi, A.; Chirulli, S.; Iacoviello, M.; Stasi, M.; Tabaku, O.; et al. Impact of High-to-Moderate Penetrance Genes on Genetic Testing: Looking over Breast Cancer. Genes 2023, 14, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic (Version 3.2024). National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Available online: https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=2&id=1503 (accessed on 20 March 2024).
  13. The CHEK2-Breast Cancer Consortium. Low-Penetrance Susceptibility to Breast Cancer Due to CHEK2*1100delC in Noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations. Nat. Genet. 2002, 31, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hu, C.; Hart, S.N.; Gnanaolivu, R.; Huang, H.; Lee, K.Y.; Na, J.; Gao, C.; Lilyquist, J.; Yadav, S.; Boddicker, N.J.; et al. A Population-Based Study of Genes Previously Implicated in Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 440–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kaufman, B.; Laitman, Y.; Gronwald, J.; Winqvist, R.; Irmejs, A.; Lubinski, J.; Pylkäs, K.; Gardovskis, J.; Miklasevics, E.; Friedman, E. Haplotypes of the I157T CHEK2 Germline Mutation in Ethnically Diverse Populations. Fam. Cancer 2009, 8, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Q.-S.; Wang, Y.-J. The CHEK2 I157T Variant and Breast Cancer Susceptibility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2012, 13, 1355–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Pal, T.; Radford, C.; Weidner, A.; Tezak, A.L.; Cragun, D.; Wiesner, G.L. The Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE) Initiative: An Academic-Community Partnership for Patients and Providers. Oncol. Issues 2018, 33, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kurian, A.W.; Ward, K.C.; Abrahamse, P.; Hamilton, A.S.; Deapen, D.; Morrow, M.; Jagsi, R.; Katz, S.J. Association of Germline Genetic Testing Results With Locoregional and Systemic Therapy in Patients With Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020, 6, e196400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cragun, D.; Weidner, A.; Tezak, A.; Clouse, K.; Pal, T. Cancer Risk Management among Female BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM Carriers. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2020, 182, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Reid, S.; Roberson, M.L.; Koehler, K.; Shah, T.; Weidner, A.; Whisenant, J.G.; Pal, T. Receipt of Bilateral Mastectomy Among Women With Hereditary Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2023, 9, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Carver, T.; Hartley, S.; Lee, A.; Cunningham, A.P.; Archer, S.; Babb De Villiers, C.; Roberts, J.; Ruston, R.; Walter, F.M.; Tischkowitz, M.; et al. CanRisk Tool—A Web Interface for the Prediction of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk and the Likelihood of Carrying Genetic Pathogenic Variants. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2021, 30, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hanson, H.; Astiazaran-Symonds, E.; Amendola, L.M.; Balmaña, J.; Foulkes, W.D.; James, P.; Klugman, S.; Ngeow, J.; Schmutzler, R.; Voian, N.; et al. Management of Individuals with Germline Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic Variants in CHEK2: A Clinical Practice Resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 2023, 25, 100870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Huijts, P.E.; Hollestelle, A.; Balliu, B.; Houwing-Duistermaat, J.J.; Meijers, C.M.; Blom, J.C.; Ozturk, B.; Krol-Warmerdam, E.M.; Wijnen, J.; Berns, E.M.; et al. CHEK2*1100delC Homozygosity in the Netherlands—Prevalence and Risk of Breast and Lung Cancer. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2014, 22, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kilpivaara, O. CHEK2 I157T Associates with Familial and Sporadic Colorectal Cancer. J. Med. Genet. 2005, 43, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kilpivaara, O.; Vahteristo, P.; Falck, J.; Syrjäkoski, K.; Eerola, H.; Easton, D.; Bartkova, J.; Lukas, J.; Heikkilä, P.; Aittomäki, K.; et al. CHEK2 Variant I157T May Be Associated with Increased Breast Cancer Risk. Int. J. Cancer 2004, 111, 543–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Southey, M.C.; Goldgar, D.E.; Winqvist, R.; Pylkäs, K.; Couch, F.; Tischkowitz, M.; Foulkes, W.D.; Dennis, J.; Michailidou, K.; Van Rensburg, E.J.; et al. PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM Rare Variants and Cancer Risk: Data from COGS. J. Med. Genet. 2016, 53, 800–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boonen, R.A.C.M.; Wiegant, W.W.; Celosse, N.; Vroling, B.; Heijl, S.; Kote-Jarai, Z.; Mijuskovic, M.; Cristea, S.; Solleveld-Westerink, N.; Van Wezel, T.; et al. Functional Analysis Identifies Damaging CHEK2 Missense Variants Associated with Increased Cancer Risk. Cancer Res. 2022, 82, 615–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Genes 15 00881 g001
Figure 1. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
Figure 1. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
Genes 15 00881 g001
Table 1. Participant Demographic Information.
Table 1. Participant Demographic Information.
Overall N = 150
n%
Non-Hispanic White14395.3%
Married or Cohabitating11778.0%
College Graduate9261.3%
Private Insurance11073.3%
Employed Full Time8959.3%
Annual Income > USD 50,00010066.7%
Table 2. Differences in Breast Cancer History and Cancer Risk Management Practices Across Females with Truncating CHEK2 c.1100delC (p.Thr367fs) and Missense CHEK2 c.470T>C (p.Ile157T) Variants.
Table 2. Differences in Breast Cancer History and Cancer Risk Management Practices Across Females with Truncating CHEK2 c.1100delC (p.Thr367fs) and Missense CHEK2 c.470T>C (p.Ile157T) Variants.
CHEK2 c.1100delC (p.Thr367fs) N = 104CHEK2 c.470T>C (p.Ile157T) N = 46p-Value
n% n%
Mean Age of Breast Cancer Diagnosis 49550.093
Mean Age at Genetic Testing51490.557
Personal History of Breast Cancer 4644.2%1532.6%0.181
Family History of Breast Cancer7067.3%3167.4%0.992
Personal History of Other Cancer2726.0%715.2%0.147
HR+ (i.e., ER+ and/or PR+) Receptor Status 13882.6%1280.0%0.819
Stage 1 -
Stage 0817.4%16.7%
Stage 11226.1%533.3%
Stage 2 1430.4%640.0%
Stage 312.2%213.3%
Stage 436.5%--
Unknown817.4%16.7%
Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy 12350.0%638.9%0.501
Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy 2813.8%26.5%0.296
Breast MRI with Breast Cancer 31565.2%555.6%0.612
Breast MRI without Breast Cancer 42244.0%1344.8%0.943
Bilateral Salpingo-oophorectomy 51124.4%422.2%0.852
Prophylactic Bilateral Salpingo-oophorectomy 61017.5%516.7%0.918
1 Out of those with a history of unilateral breast cancer (1100delC N = 46; I157T N = 15). 2 Out of those without a history of breast cancer (1100delC N = 58; I157T N = 31). 3 Out of those with a history of unilateral breast cancer who have not had a bilateral mastectomy (1100delC N = 23; I157T N = 9). 4 Out of those without a history of breast cancer who have not had a bilateral mastectomy (1100delC N = 50; I157T N = 29). 5 Out of those with a history of breast cancer, but not ovarian cancer (1100delC N = 45; I157T N = 18). 6 Out of those without a history of breast or ovarian cancer (1100delC N = 57; I157T N = 30).
Table 3. Logistic Regression Model Predicting Breast Cancer.
Table 3. Logistic Regression Model Predicting Breast Cancer.
Predictor VariablesEstimateSEtStatP
Breast CancerGPV (1100delC or I157T) 10.510.371.350.18
Family History of Breast Cancer 2−0.290.37−0.790.43
Breast MRIGPV (1100delC or I157T) 10.030.370.090.93
Personal History of Breast Cancer 20.860.352.460.01
Family History of Breast Cancer 20.330.370.890.38
Bilateral MastectomyGPV (1100delC or I157T) 11.930.481.200.23
Personal History of Breast Cancer 20.580.434.545.71 × 10−6
Family History of Breast Cancer 20.030.450.070.94
Bilateral Salpingo-oophorectomyGPV (1100delC or I157T) 10.030.450.060.95
Personal History of Breast Cancer 20.660.411.620.11
Family History of Breast Cancer 2−0.180.43−0.410.68
1 The data presented are that of the GPV (Germline Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic Variant) 1100delC. 2 The data presented are that of “Yes”.
Table 4. Logistic Regression Model Predicting Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy and Prophylactic Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy.
Table 4. Logistic Regression Model Predicting Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy and Prophylactic Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy.
PredictorEstimateSEtStatP
Bilateral Prophylactic MastectomyGPV (1100delC or I157T) 10.820.830.990.32
Family History of Breast Cancer 20.540.840.650.52
Bilateral Prophylactic Salpingo-OophorectomyGPV (1100delC or I157T) 1−0.020.61−0.030.97
Family History of Breast Cancer 2−0.680.59−1.140.26
1 The data presented are that of the GPV (Germline Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic Variant) 1100delC. 2 The data presented are that of “Yes”.
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

Garmendia, D.; Weidner, A.; Venton, L.; Pal, T. Comparing Cancer Risk Management between Females with Truncating CHEK2 1100delC versus Missense CHEK2 I157T Variants. Genes 2024, 15, 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15070881

AMA Style

Garmendia D, Weidner A, Venton L, Pal T. Comparing Cancer Risk Management between Females with Truncating CHEK2 1100delC versus Missense CHEK2 I157T Variants. Genes. 2024; 15(7):881. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15070881

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garmendia, Diego, Anne Weidner, Lindsay Venton, and Tuya Pal. 2024. "Comparing Cancer Risk Management between Females with Truncating CHEK2 1100delC versus Missense CHEK2 I157T Variants" Genes 15, no. 7: 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15070881

APA Style

Garmendia, D., Weidner, A., Venton, L., & Pal, T. (2024). Comparing Cancer Risk Management between Females with Truncating CHEK2 1100delC versus Missense CHEK2 I157T Variants. Genes, 15(7), 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15070881

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