[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  Frequency of Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Across 14 Cancer Types and Controls
Frequency of Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Across 14 Cancer Types and Controls

Because sex differences in the contribution of pathogenic variants to breast cancer are well known, carrier frequencies in female and male patients were separately described.

Figure 2.  Estimated Absolute Risk of the 4 Known Associated Cancer Types
Estimated Absolute Risk of the 4 Known Associated Cancer Types

The cumulative risks of each cancer to age 85 years were estimated for carriers and noncarriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Only cancer type gene associations with P < 1 × 10−4 were described. BRCA1+ indicates BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers; BRCA2+, BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers; BRCA1/2, individuals without a BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Figure 3.  Estimated Absolute Risk of the 3 Newly Associated Cancer Types
Estimated Absolute Risk of the 3 Newly Associated Cancer Types

The cumulative risks of each cancer to age 85 years were estimated for carriers and noncarriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Only cancer type gene associations with P < 1 × 10−4 were described. BRCA1+ indicates BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers; BRCA2+, BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers; BRCA1/2, individuals without a BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Table 1.  Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Participants
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Participants
Table 2.  Associations Between Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and Risk of the 14 Cancer Types
Associations Between Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and Risk of the 14 Cancer Types
1.
Armstrong  K, Weiner  J, Weber  B, Asch  DA.  Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why.   Genet Med. 2003;5(2):92-98. doi:10.1097/01.GIM.0000056829.76915.2APubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Curtin  NJ, Szabo  C.  Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition: past, present and future.   Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19(10):711-736. doi:10.1038/s41573-020-0076-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Oh  M, Alkhushaym  N, Fallatah  S,  et al.  The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: a meta-analysis.   Prostate. 2019;79(8):880-895. doi:10.1002/pros.23795PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Hu  C, Hart  SN, Polley  EC,  et al.  Association between inherited germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes and risk of pancreatic cancer.   JAMA. 2018;319(23):2401-2409. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.6228PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
de Bono  J, Mateo  J, Fizazi  K,  et al.  Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2020;382(22):2091-2102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911440PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Golan  T, Hammel  P, Reni  M,  et al.  Maintenance plaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317-327. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903387PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Breast Cancer Linkage  C; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.  Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(15):1310-1316. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.15.1310PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Johannsson  O, Loman  N, Möller  T, Kristoffersson  U, Borg  A, Olsson  H.  Incidence of malignant tumours in relatives of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers.   Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(8):1248-1257. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00135-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Thompson  D, Easton  DF; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.  Cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(18):1358-1365. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.18.1358PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Ko  JM, Ning  L, Zhao  XK,  et al.  BRCA2 loss-of-function germline mutations are associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma risk in Chinese.   Int J Cancer. 2020;146(4):1042-1051. doi:10.1002/ijc.32619PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Moran  A, O’Hara  C, Khan  S,  et al.  Risk of cancer other than breast or ovarian in individuals with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.   Fam Cancer. 2012;11(2):235-242. doi:10.1007/s10689-011-9506-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Ichikawa  H, Wakai  T, Nagahashi  M,  et al.  Pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations and familial predisposition to gastric cancer.   JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Jakubowska  A, Nej  K, Huzarski  T, Scott  RJ, Lubiński  J.  BRCA2 gene mutations in families with aggregations of breast and stomach cancers.   Br J Cancer. 2002;87(8):888-891. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600562PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hirata  M, Kamatani  Y, Nagai  A,  et al; BioBank Japan Cooperative Hospital Group.  Cross-sectional analysis of BioBank Japan clinical data: a large cohort of 200,000 patients with 47 common diseases.   J Epidemiol. 2017;27(3S):S9-S21. doi:10.1016/j.je.2016.12.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Nagai  A, Hirata  M, Kamatani  Y,  et al; BioBank Japan Cooperative Hospital Group.  Overview of the BioBank Japan Project: study design and profile.   J Epidemiol. 2017;27(3S):S2-S8. doi:10.1016/j.je.2016.12.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Momozawa  Y, Iwasaki  Y, Parsons  MT,  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/s41467-018-06581-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Fujita  M, Liu  X, Iwasaki  Y,  et al.  Population-based screening for hereditary colorectal cancer variants in Japan.   Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.S1542-3565(20)31664-5. in press. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.12.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Mizukami  K, Iwasaki  Y, Kawakami  E,  et al.  Genetic characterization of pancreatic cancer patients and prediction of carrier status of germline pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposing genes.   EBioMedicine. 2020;60:103033. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Momozawa  Y, Iwasaki  Y, Hirata  M,  et al.  Germline pathogenic variants in 7636 Japanese patients with prostate cancer and 12 366 controls.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(4):369-376. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz124PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Pujar  S, O’Leary  NA, Farrell  CM,  et al.  Consensus coding sequence (CCDS) database: a standardized set of human and mouse protein-coding regions supported by expert curation.   Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D221-D228. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Momozawa  Y, Akiyama  M, Kamatani  Y,  et al.  Low-frequency coding variants in CETP and CFB are associated with susceptibility of exudative age-related macular degeneration in the Japanese population.   Hum Mol Genet. 2016;25(22):5027-5034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
DePristo  MA, Banks  E, Poplin  R,  et al.  A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data.   Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):491-498. doi:10.1038/ng.806PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Cingolani  P, Platts  A, Wang  L,  et al.  A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3.   Fly (Austin). 2012;6(2):80-92. doi:10.4161/fly.19695PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Spurdle  AB, Healey  S, Devereau  A,  et al; ENIGMA.  ENIGMA–evidence-based network for the interpretation of germline mutant alleles: an international initiative to evaluate risk and clinical significance associated with sequence variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.   Hum Mutat. 2012;33(1):2-7. doi:10.1002/humu.21628PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles. ENIGMA BRCA1/2 gene variant classification criteria. Accessed March 17, 2022. https://variansci.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/enigma-brca12-gene-variant-classification-criteria_v2-5-1.pdf
26.
Giordano  SH.  Breast cancer in men.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2311-2320. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1707939PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Easton  DF, Peto  J, Babiker  AG.  Floating absolute risk: an alternative to relative risk in survival and case-control analysis avoiding an arbitrary reference group.   Stat Med. 1991;10(7):1025-1035. doi:10.1002/sim.4780100703PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Koyanagi  YN, Ito  H, Oze  I,  et al.  Development of a prediction model and estimation of cumulative risk for upper aerodigestive tract cancer on the basis of the aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 genotype and alcohol consumption in a Japanese population.   Eur J Cancer Prev. 2017;26(1):38-47. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000222PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Crispo  A, Brennan  P, Jöckel  KH,  et al.  The cumulative risk of lung cancer among current, ex- and never-smokers in European men.   Br J Cancer. 2004;91(7):1280-1286. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602078PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Peto  R, Darby  S, Deo  H, Silcocks  P, Whitley  E, Doll  R.  Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies.   BMJ. 2000;321(7257):323-329. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7257.323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Easton  DF, Pharoah  PD, Antoniou  AC,  et al.  Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk.   N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2243-2257. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1501341PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Higgins  JP, Thompson  SG, Deeks  JJ, Altman  DG.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.   BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Lakhani  SR, Manek  S, Penault-Llorca  F,  et al.  Pathology of ovarian cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.   Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(7):2473-2481. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-1029-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Nguyen  L, W M Martens  J, Van Hoeck  A, Cuppen  E.  Pan-cancer landscape of homologous recombination deficiency.   Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5584. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19406-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Sung  H, Ferlay  J, Siegel  RL,  et al.  Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.   CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Kuchenbaecker  KB, Hopper  JL, Barnes  DR,  et al; BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.  Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.   JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402-2416. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7112PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Nyberg  T, Frost  D, Barrowdale  D,  et al.  Prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study.   Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):24-35. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Daly  MB, Pilarski  R, Yurgelun  MB,  et al.  NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 1.2020.   J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(4):380-391. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.0017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Karczewski  KJ, Francioli  LC, Tiao  G,  et al; Genome Aggregation Database Consortium.  The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans.   Nature. 2020;581(7809):434-443. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2308-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Valdez  R, Yoon  PW, Qureshi  N, Green  RF, Khoury  MJ.  Family history in public health practice: a genomic tool for disease prevention and health promotion.   Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:69-87, 1, 87. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103621PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Judkins  T, Rosenthal  E, Arnell  C,  et al.  Clinical significance of large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2.   Cancer. 2012;118(21):5210-5216. doi:10.1002/cncr.27556PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Nakamura  S, Takahashi  M, Tozaki  M,  et al.  Prevalence and differentiation of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in Japan.   Breast Cancer. 2015;22(5):462-468. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0503-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Reshef  DN, Reshef  YA, Finucane  HK,  et al.  Detecting novel associations in large data sets.   Science. 2011;334(6062):1518-1524. doi:10.1126/science.1205438PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    A couple of considerations
    Saeed Taheri, M.D. | NLMJ; Lahijan
    Very important study was conducted, yet a couple of considerations exist. Authors declared in the limitations that they analyzed only single-nucleotide variants and small indels, nevertheless, all the pathogenic mutations reported are either nonsense mutation, splice site mutation or frameshift mutations (etable 1). No missense mutations or potential mutations in the regulatory elements or deep-intronic ones have also not been reported.
    For a person who already is a BRCA1/2 carrier it is extremely important to know at any age (e.g. 30, 40, ...), what is the chance of having cancer of any type?
    Variants found to be from founder effect
    or familial accumulation provide an exceptional opportunity to investigate potential associations between specific mutation variants and the profile of cancer types occurrence, age at the diagnosis, histopathological features, cancer behavior and so on (as what reported for patients with versus without any gene mutations in etables 4&5). For example familial co-occurrence of pancreatic cancers with ovarian cancers in patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome might be due to specific gene variants in BRCA1 implicating risk to both cancer types.
    etable 1 provides invaluable data on the mutation regions. I was wondering whether accumulation of specific mutations in particular regions of the genes implicate clinical significance (For example if variants accumulating in specific gene architecture might implicate vulnerability to specific cancer types or other associations mentioned above?
    I was obsessed with a potential cooccurence of mutations in both BRCA1&2 and clinical relevance (It is especially more probable to be found in the cancer types in which there was no significant heterogeneity of p values between the two genes mutations' analyses (table 2);
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    April 14, 2022

    Expansion of Cancer Risk Profile for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Laboratory for Genotyping Development, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan
    • 2Division of Cancer Information and Control, Department of Preventive Medicine, Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya, Japan
    • 3Department of Hematology, Oncology and Respiratory Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceuticals Sciences, Okayama, Japan
    • 4Division of Genome Biology, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan
    • 5Division of Genetics and Population Health, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    • 6Department of Urology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan
    • 7Department of Genetic Medicine and Services, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
    • 8Institute of Medical Science, Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
    • 9Laboratory of Complex Trait Genomics, Department of Computational Biology and Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
    • 10Division of Descriptive Cancer Epidemiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
    • 11Laboratory of Clinical Genome Sequencing, Department of Computational Biology and Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
    • 12Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
    • 13Department of Genetic Medicine, Kyoundo Hospital, Sasaki Foundation, Tokyo, Japan
    • 14Laboratory for Cancer Genomics, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan
    • 15Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Department of Preventive Medicine, Aichi Cancer Center, Nagoya, Japan
    • 16Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan
    • 17RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan
    JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(6):871-878. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0476
    Key Points

    Question  Which cancer types and their clinical characteristics are associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in addition to breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers?

    Findings  In this case-control study of 63 828 patients with 14 common cancer types and 37 086 controls, pathogenic variants in BRCA1 were associated with biliary tract cancer, in BRCA2 with esophageal cancer, and in BRCA1/2 with gastric cancer.

    Meaning  The study results suggest that the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is broader than that determined from previous analyses, potentially indicating the broader clinical relevance of BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

    Abstract

    Importance  The clinical importance of genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers is widely recognized. However, there is insufficient evidence to include other cancer types that are potentially associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in clinical management guidelines.

    Objective  To evaluate the association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with additional cancer types and their clinical characteristics in 100 914 individuals across 14 cancer types.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This case-control analysis to identify cancer types and clinical characteristics associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 included DNA samples and clinical information from 63 828 patients with 14 common cancer types and 37 086 controls that were sourced from a multi-institutional hospital-based registry, BioBank Japan, between April 2003 and March 2018. The data were analyzed between August 2019 and October 2021.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Germline pathogenic variants in coding regions and 2 bp flanking intronic sequences in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were identified by a multiplex polymerase chain reaction–based target sequence method. Associations of (likely) pathogenic variants with each cancer type were assessed by comparing pathogenic variant carrier frequency between patients in each cancer type and controls.

    Results  A total of 65 108 patients (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 64.1 [11.6] years; 27 531 [42.3%] female) and 38 153 controls (mean [SD] age at registration, 61.8 [14.6] years; 17 911 [46.9%] female) were included in this study. A total of 315 unique pathogenic variants were identified. Pathogenic variants were associated with P < 1 × 10−4 with an odds ratio (OR) of greater than 4.0 in biliary tract cancer (OR, 17.4; 95% CI, 5.8-51.9) in BRCA1, esophageal cancer (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 2.9-11.0) in BRCA2, and gastric cancer (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.6-10.5) in BRCA1, and (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.1-7.1) in BRCA2 in addition to the 4 established cancer types. We also observed an association with 2 and 4 other cancer types in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Biliary tract, female breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers showed enrichment of carrier patients according to the increased number of reported cancer types in relatives.

    Conclusions and Relevance  The results of this large-scale registry-based case-control study suggest that pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with the risk of 7 cancer types. These results indicate broader clinical relevance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing.

    Introduction

    BRCA1 and BRCA2 were identified in the 1990s as the causative genes underlying hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.1 Genetic testing began during the same decade for treatment of patients and their relatives. In addition, polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors were developed based on the mechanism of the homologous recombination repair defects associated with pathogenic variants in these genes.2 The target BRCA1 and BRCA2 cancer types have expanded to prostate3 and pancreatic cancers4 because pathogenic variants were enriched in these patients, and the therapeutic efficacy of PARP inhibitors in these cancers has also been shown.5,6

    Risk for additional cancer types, such as biliary tract cancer,7 cervical cancer,8,9 colorectal cancer,9 endometrial cancer,9 esophageal cancer,10,11 and stomach cancer,7,8,11-13 has been reported by analyzing family members for the presence of pathogenic variants and performing case-control analyses. However, the evidence for an association with these cancer types has not been considered sufficient to be adopted into clinical management guidelines, probably because of the small sample size for each cancer type, weak statistical evidence, or a singular focus on family members with pathogenic variants. In addition, evidence to date for different cancer types has been derived from various studies of different design. Robust evidence for additional cancer types in a single population is necessary to design and implement clinical trials that assess efficacy of PARP inhibitors.

    We performed a large-scale sequencing study across 14 common cancer types in 63 828 patients and 37 086 controls whose data were drawn from a Japanese nationwide biobank. We used these data to estimate the risk of each cancer type and clinical characteristics associated with pathogenic variant carrier status. These data provide a broad view of cancer risks associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

    Methods
    Participants

    An overall procedure is shown in eFigure 1 in the Supplement. We obtained samples from 65 108 patients with 14 cancer different types (biliary tract, breast, cervical, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, liver, lung, lymphoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, and kidney) from BioBank Japan, a multi-institutional, hospital-based registry that collected DNA and clinical information from across Japan between April 2003 and March 2018.14,15 Family history of cancer refers to reported cancer in first-degree and/or second-degree relatives. Among them, 4128 patients (6.3%) had 2 to 5 cancer types. We also enrolled 38 153 controls 20 years or older with no history or family history of cancers. Compared with our previous publications for breast,16 colorectal,17 pancreatic,18 and prostate19 cancers, the analyses presented included 14 448 additional controls and 8247 additional cancer cases (2984 breast [36.2%], 3722 colorectal [45.1%], 1535 pancreatic [18.6%], and 6 prostate [0.1%]).

    All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethical committees of the Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Tokyo, and RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences.

    Sequencing and Bioinformatics

    For germline sequencing, we analyzed all coding regions and 2 bp flanking intronic sequences (16 111 bp) of all transcripts of BRCA1 (CCDS11453-6, 9) and BRCA2 (CCDS9344) that were registered in the Consensus CDS, release 15,20 by a multiplex polymerase chain reaction–based target sequence method.21 After sequencing the pooled DNA libraries using 2 × 150-bp paired-end reads on a HiSeq2500 (Illumina), the genetic variants were identified using the GATK (version 3.7-0; Broad Institute).22 We deposited custom scripts at https://github.com/Laboratory-for-Genotyping-Development/TargetSequence.git.

    We determined the association of genetic variants with the amino acid sequence using the SnpEff, version 4.3t.23 Protein position was reported according to CCDS11456 (the longest one) for BRCA1 and CCDS9344 for BRCA2. We assigned clinical significance for all variants using BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classification criteria that were developed by members of the Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles Consortium.24,25 Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were collectively referred to as pathogenic variants.

    Statistical Analysis

    Because sex differences in the contribution of pathogenic variants to breast cancer are well known,26 we analyzed females and males separately for breast cancer. We conducted 2 separate association analyses. A logistic regression analysis under a dominant model with age at diagnosis for cases and age at registration for controls as a covariate was used. We eliminated samples without age at diagnosis or registration from this calculation. The first analysis examined all patients and controls for each cancer type. Including the control participants without family history would improve the power to detect association but lead to biased risk estimates. Therefore, we reported the results of association testing without risk estimates. For the second analysis, we calculated cancer risk using selected patients with cancer without a family history for comparison with controls without a family history to minimize overestimation of odds ratios (ORs). The cumulative risk and its 95% CIs of each cancer to age 85 years were estimated for carriers and noncarriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the method described by previous studies27-30 (eAppendix in the Supplement).

    We also investigated how family history is useful in detecting patients with pathogenic variants. Family history of a given cancer type was denoted if at least 1 relative reported that cancer type. In each of 7 associated cancer types identified in this study, we calculated the proportion of patients with pathogenic variants according to reported family history of the 7 associated cancer types.

    Statistics methods are described where results are shown. All statistical tests were 2-sided, and statistical significance was set at P < .05. The Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. We set the threshold of significance to 1 × 10−4 for the burden test based on the justified recommendation from a review article that focused on clinical validity of gene panel sequence tests.31 Analyses were performed using R, version 3.5.2 (R Foundation), or Stata, version 16.0 (StataCorp).

    Results
    Participant Characteristics

    Table 1 shows the characteristics of 65 108 patients with cancer (representing 69 550 case diagnoses) and 38 153 controls. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis varied between cancer types from 49.7 (13.2) years for cervical cancer to 70.2 (7.3) years for prostate cancer. The proportion of cases reporting a family history of the same cancer type was lowest for endometrial cancer (46 [2.4%]) and highest for gastric cancer (3010 [28.1%]).

    Pathogenic Variants

    After quality control, 63 828 patients (68 219 case diagnoses) and 37 086 controls were included, with 99.85% of the target region covered by at least 20 sequence reads. We applied 1810 genetic variants to the interpretation of clinical significance. After standardized review, 315 variants (17.4%) were assigned as pathogenic (eTable 1 in the Supplement). eFigure 2 in the Supplement shows the distribution of pathogenic variants found in patients. Three BRCA1 and 8 BRCA2 pathogenic variants were observed in 10 or more patients.

    The proportion of pathogenic variants in cases differed significantly across the 7 regions serviced by hospitals in Japan by χ2 test (eFigure 3 in the Supplement). There was a 5.8-fold difference in BRCA1 between 0.15% in Tokai-Hokuriku and 0.85% in Tohoku. BRCA2 showed a 5.0-fold difference between 0.28% in Okinawa and 1.37% in Kinki. These differences could be largely explained by the different proportion of founder pathogenic variants (eFigure 3 in the Supplement). After excluding these founder pathogenic variants, there was no difference in frequency of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants across the 7 regions.

    Carrier Frequency and Disease Risk of Each Cancer Type

    Figure 1 shows the patient carrier frequency for each of the 14 cancer types. Male patients with breast cancer had a very high carrier frequency of pathogenic variants26 in BRCA2 (18.9%), but not BRCA1 (1.89%). Patients with ovarian cancer showed the next highest proportion (BRCA1: 4.86%; BRCA2: 3.42%). Frequency exceeding 1% was seen for several other cancer types (2 cancer types for BRCA1, 4 cancer types for BRCA2). Carrier frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 was 0.44% in 1 cancer type, 0.85% in 2 cancer types, and 0.69% in 3 cancer types. They were 0.97%, 1.40%, and 1.74% in BRCA2 (eFigure 4 in the Supplement). Carrier frequency for females and males in each cancer type was significantly correlated for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (eFigure 5 in the Supplement).

    We performed association analyses with all patients and controls for each cancer type (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Among the 30 analyses, 17 yielded statistically significant results. To provide a more conservative estimate that accounted for control selection criteria, we calculated the disease risk for each cancer type (Table 2); association analyses were not possible for some cancer types because of limited numbers of cases in those subsets. Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 were significantly associated with increased risk of 5 cancer types: ovarian, female breast, biliary tract, gastric, and pancreatic cancers. Pathogenic variants in BRCA2 were associated with increased risk of 7 cancer types: female breast, gastric, ovarian, male breast, pancreatic, prostate, and esophageal cancers. These associations were more strongly observed in the analysis with all patients (eTable 2 in the Supplement). We conducted 2 sensitivity analyses in breast cancer. We performed a logistic regression analysis with 7 regions of Japan as a categorical covariate to assess the possibility that population stratification might skew risk estimation. Results for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (eTable 3 in the Supplement) were comparable with estimates from the main analysis shown in Table 2. We also performed an association analysis with patients with breast cancer only because of a potential bias caused by the presence of more than 1 cancer type. The results for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (eTable 3 in the Supplement) were comparable with those from the main analysis. Heterogeneity of ORs between BRCA1 and BRCA2 were shown in ovarian (I2, 90.9%) and prostate cancer (I2, 77.4%) (Table 2).32 We also observed an association with lymphoma and lung cancer for BRCA1 and endometrial, cervical, kidney, and liver cancers for BRCA2 (Table 2).

    Lifetime Cumulative Risk of Each Cancer Type

    The cumulative risk of cancer to age 85 years was estimated for carriers and noncarriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 for the 7 significantly associated cancer types (Figures 2 and 3). In BRCA1, breast cancer showed the highest cumulative risk at 72.5% (95% CI, 20.4%-90.5%) followed by ovarian cancer at 65.6% (95% CI, 12.8%-86.4%), gastric cancer at 21.3% (95% CI, 6.9%-33.4%), pancreatic cancer at 16.0% (95% CI, −3.9% to 32.1%), and biliary tract cancer at 11.2% (95% CI, −1.1% to 22.1%). In BRCA2, the highest cumulative risk was also breast cancer at 58.3% (95% CI, 38.3%-71.9%), followed by prostate cancer at 24.5% (95% CI, 6.9%-38.8%), gastric cancer at 19.3% (95% CI, 11.9%-26.0%), ovarian cancer at 14.8% (95% CI, 4.6%-23.9%), pancreatic cancer at 13.7% (95% CI, 3.7%-22.8%), and esophageal cancer at 5.2% (95% CI, 1.7%-8.5%).

    Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Carriers in the 7 Cancer Types

    We investigated the association between carrier status and age at diagnosis for the 7 associated cancers. eTable 4 in the Supplement suggests that pathogenic variants in BRCA1 were associated with earlier age at diagnosis of female breast cancer (−5.7 years). Meanwhile, those with BRCA2 were associated with earlier age at diagnosis of female breast cancer (−5.7 years) and prostate cancer (−2.2 years). Carriers with BRCA2 pathogenic variants showed a later diagnosis of ovarian cancer (4.1 years). The proportion of pathogenic variants according to diagnosis age (by 10-year age group) is shown in eFigure 6 in the Supplement.

    eFigure 7 in the Supplement describes associations between the carrier status in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for cases with a diagnosis of the 7 associated cancers and reported family history of each of these cancer types. For BRCA1, family history of ovarian cancer was strongly enriched in female breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. However, for BRCA2, family history of breast cancer was broadly enriched in 5 cancer types.

    We also investigated whether carrier patients had specific histological subtypes. We observed a different distribution of histological subtypes only for breast and ovarian cancer, which is largely consistent with previous reports33 (eTable 5 in the Supplement).

    Reported Family History According to Pathogenic Variant Status

    We investigated the extent to which carriers with pathogenic variants were enriched for reported family history (none, 1, or 2 or more of these 7 cancer types) with the Cochran-Armitage test. Biliary tract, female breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers showed increasing enrichment of carrier patients according to the increased number of reported cancer types in relatives (eFigure 8 in the Supplement).

    Discussion

    This large-scale registry-based case-control study analyzed BRCA1 and BRCA2 in 63 828 patients with 14 cancer types and 37 086 controls. The proportion of pathogenic variants varied across different regions in Japan, mainly because of differences in the proportion of founder pathogenic variants. We observed that biliary tract, esophageal, and gastric cancer were significantly associated with BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant status in addition to the 4 established cancer types. Six other cancer types showed an association. Patients with pathogenic variants were more likely to report a family history of the 7 associated cancer types.

    The results of this large-scale registry-based study suggest that pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 are associated with increased risk of biliary tract, gastric, and esophageal cancers. Further studies are needed to reveal the mechanisms linking pathogenic variants and these cancer types for the potential efficacy of PARP inhibitors because homologous recombination repair defects were observed in some patients with biliary and esophageal cancers.34 These cancers are known to have a higher incidence rate in East Asian countries.35 The estimated lifetime cumulative risks of breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are broadly consistent with the previous estimation36; the present study could not detect that the cumulative risks of ovarian cancer were low up to age 40 years for BRCA1 carriers and age 50 years for BRCA2 carriers because we could not calculate age-specific estimated ORs. Cumulative risk of prostate cancer for BRCA2 carriers was lower than that estimated in the UK and Ireland,37 probably because prostate cancer incidence rate is higher in European countries.35 Conversely, cumulative risk of gastric cancer was estimated at around 20% for both genes, which is likely higher than for European populations because of the higher incidence rate in East Asia countries.35 Taken together, the cumulative risk for each cancer type would be associated with the different incidence rate in each country. We also observed associations with risk of 6 additional cancer types. The results suggest that the range of cancer types associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is likely broader than that determined from previous analysis of largely European ancestry cohorts.

    We observed a large difference in the carrier frequency between the 7 regions. This could be largely explained by the distribution of founder pathogenic variants. Founder pathogenic variants are known to be associated with carrier frequency in a population, which could change the best strategy for genetic tests38; regional differences should also be considered when designing a suitable strategy among genetic tests for selected patients, all patients, or all unaffected individuals. It also suggests that population-matched and region-matched controls would be indispensable for precise risk estimation of cancer predisposition genes rather than ExAC and gnomAD.39 Taken together, more detailed information that accounts for populations and regions would improve precision medicine with genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

    These risk association findings, together with our analysis of an association with family history of cancer and clinical phenotypes, are relevant for developing and adapting guidelines about genetic testing, treatment options, and treatability with PARP inhibitors for each cancer type. Depending on the cancer type, different guidelines exist to prioritize patients for receiving germline gene testing. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines38 recommend that all patients with pancreatic cancer should be tested. Meanwhile, patients with breast or ovarian cancer are selected based on several criteria. This study suggests that the family history of the 7 associated cancer types efficiently identified patients with pathogenic variants. Therefore, this information would be useful to expand indications for genetic testing of individuals with family history of these cancer types.

    Limitations

    This study has several limitations. We selected controls without family history of cancer because we intended to improve the statistical power for association analysis and limit the effect of family history, including shared genetic and environmental effects.40 This would affect the generalizability of the study results. However, the estimated cumulative risks were comparable with those based on prospective cohorts, suggesting that the study design did not greatly affect the results. We analyzed only single-nucleotide variants and small indels, but structural variants are known to be associated with hereditary breast cancer.41 However, the proportion of pathogenic variants due to structural changes is reported to be very low for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Japanese populations.42 Lastly, we tested for a linear association in several statistical analyses; however, we had the potential to miss other patterns of association.43 In particular, biliary tract cancer in BRCA2 (eFigure 6 in the Supplement) showed an unusual pattern that should be investigated in further studies.

    Conclusions

    This large-scale registry-based case-control study of 63 828 patients across 14 cancer types and 37 086 population-matched and region-matched controls provided a broad view of carrier frequency, disease risk, family history, and clinical characteristics of pathogenic variant carriers. This information can potentially improve genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 for various cancer types for Asian countries and encourage similar research in other countries.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: February 3, 2022.

    Published Online: April 14, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0476

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Momozawa Y et al. JAMA Oncology.

    Corresponding Author: Yukihide Momozawa, DVM, PhD, RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences (IMS), 1-7-22 Suehiro-cho, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa 230-0045, Japan (momozawa@riken.jp).

    Author Contributions: Dr Momozawa had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Momozawa, Shiraishi, Kamatani, Kohno, Yoshida, Murakami, Kubo.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Momozawa, Sasai, Usui, Iwasaki, Taniyama, Parsons, Mizukami, Sekine, Hirata, Endo, Inai, Takata, Ito, Matsuda, Nakamura, Sugano, Yoshida, Nakagawa, Matsuo, Spurdle, Kubo.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Momozawa, Sasai, Usui, Shiraishi, Iwasaki, Endo, Takata, Matsuo, Spurdle.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Momozawa, Usui, Taniyama, Parsons, Mizukami, Sekine, Hirata, Kamatani, Inai, Ito, Kohno, Matsuda, Nakamura, Sugano, Yoshida, Nakagawa, Matsuo, Murakami, Spurdle, Kubo.

    Statistical analysis: Momozawa, Sasai, Usui, Iwasaki, Matsuo.

    Obtained funding: Momozawa, Shiraishi, Kubo.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Momozawa, Shiraishi, Mizukami, Hirata, Kamatani, Endo, Inai, Takata, Ito, Matsuda, Matsuo, Murakami, Kubo.

    Supervision: Momozawa, Usui, Kamatani, Endo, Takata, Sugano, Yoshida, Nakagawa, Kubo.

    Other - variant classification: Spurdle.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Momozawa reported grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Ono and personal fees from LabCorp Japan, GK, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr Kamatani reported grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and AMED outside the submitted work as well as honoraria from Astellas, Chugai, Sandoz, Taisho, and Illumina Japan. Dr Kohno reported grants from AMED during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Sysmex and Chugai and personal fees from Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. Dr Murakami reported grants from the Social Cooperation Research Program outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This work was supported by AMED through grants JP19kk0305010, JP20ck0106402, JP19cm0106605, and 20ck0106553. Dr Spurdle and Mr Parsons are supported by Australian National Health and Medical Research funding (grant ID177524).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Contributions: We thank the individuals who participated in this study. We acknowledge the staff of the Laboratory for Genotyping Development in RIKEN, the RIKEN-IMS Genome Platform, and the BioBank Japan project. None of these individuals were compensated for their contributions.

    References
    1.
    Armstrong  K, Weiner  J, Weber  B, Asch  DA.  Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why.   Genet Med. 2003;5(2):92-98. doi:10.1097/01.GIM.0000056829.76915.2APubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Curtin  NJ, Szabo  C.  Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition: past, present and future.   Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19(10):711-736. doi:10.1038/s41573-020-0076-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Oh  M, Alkhushaym  N, Fallatah  S,  et al.  The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with prostate cancer risk, frequency, and mortality: a meta-analysis.   Prostate. 2019;79(8):880-895. doi:10.1002/pros.23795PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Hu  C, Hart  SN, Polley  EC,  et al.  Association between inherited germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes and risk of pancreatic cancer.   JAMA. 2018;319(23):2401-2409. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.6228PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    de Bono  J, Mateo  J, Fizazi  K,  et al.  Olaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2020;382(22):2091-2102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1911440PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Golan  T, Hammel  P, Reni  M,  et al.  Maintenance plaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317-327. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903387PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Breast Cancer Linkage  C; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.  Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91(15):1310-1316. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.15.1310PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Johannsson  O, Loman  N, Möller  T, Kristoffersson  U, Borg  A, Olsson  H.  Incidence of malignant tumours in relatives of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers.   Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(8):1248-1257. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00135-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Thompson  D, Easton  DF; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.  Cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(18):1358-1365. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.18.1358PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Ko  JM, Ning  L, Zhao  XK,  et al.  BRCA2 loss-of-function germline mutations are associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma risk in Chinese.   Int J Cancer. 2020;146(4):1042-1051. doi:10.1002/ijc.32619PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Moran  A, O’Hara  C, Khan  S,  et al.  Risk of cancer other than breast or ovarian in individuals with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.   Fam Cancer. 2012;11(2):235-242. doi:10.1007/s10689-011-9506-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Ichikawa  H, Wakai  T, Nagahashi  M,  et al.  Pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations and familial predisposition to gastric cancer.   JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2:2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    13.
    Jakubowska  A, Nej  K, Huzarski  T, Scott  RJ, Lubiński  J.  BRCA2 gene mutations in families with aggregations of breast and stomach cancers.   Br J Cancer. 2002;87(8):888-891. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600562PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Hirata  M, Kamatani  Y, Nagai  A,  et al; BioBank Japan Cooperative Hospital Group.  Cross-sectional analysis of BioBank Japan clinical data: a large cohort of 200,000 patients with 47 common diseases.   J Epidemiol. 2017;27(3S):S9-S21. doi:10.1016/j.je.2016.12.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Nagai  A, Hirata  M, Kamatani  Y,  et al; BioBank Japan Cooperative Hospital Group.  Overview of the BioBank Japan Project: study design and profile.   J Epidemiol. 2017;27(3S):S2-S8. doi:10.1016/j.je.2016.12.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Momozawa  Y, Iwasaki  Y, Parsons  MT,  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/s41467-018-06581-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Fujita  M, Liu  X, Iwasaki  Y,  et al.  Population-based screening for hereditary colorectal cancer variants in Japan.   Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.S1542-3565(20)31664-5. in press. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.12.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Mizukami  K, Iwasaki  Y, Kawakami  E,  et al.  Genetic characterization of pancreatic cancer patients and prediction of carrier status of germline pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposing genes.   EBioMedicine. 2020;60:103033. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.103033PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Momozawa  Y, Iwasaki  Y, Hirata  M,  et al.  Germline pathogenic variants in 7636 Japanese patients with prostate cancer and 12 366 controls.   J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(4):369-376. doi:10.1093/jnci/djz124PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Pujar  S, O’Leary  NA, Farrell  CM,  et al.  Consensus coding sequence (CCDS) database: a standardized set of human and mouse protein-coding regions supported by expert curation.   Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D221-D228. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1031PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Momozawa  Y, Akiyama  M, Kamatani  Y,  et al.  Low-frequency coding variants in CETP and CFB are associated with susceptibility of exudative age-related macular degeneration in the Japanese population.   Hum Mol Genet. 2016;25(22):5027-5034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    22.
    DePristo  MA, Banks  E, Poplin  R,  et al.  A framework for variation discovery and genotyping using next-generation DNA sequencing data.   Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):491-498. doi:10.1038/ng.806PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Cingolani  P, Platts  A, Wang  L,  et al.  A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3.   Fly (Austin). 2012;6(2):80-92. doi:10.4161/fly.19695PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Spurdle  AB, Healey  S, Devereau  A,  et al; ENIGMA.  ENIGMA–evidence-based network for the interpretation of germline mutant alleles: an international initiative to evaluate risk and clinical significance associated with sequence variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.   Hum Mutat. 2012;33(1):2-7. doi:10.1002/humu.21628PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles. ENIGMA BRCA1/2 gene variant classification criteria. Accessed March 17, 2022. https://variansci.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/enigma-brca12-gene-variant-classification-criteria_v2-5-1.pdf
    26.
    Giordano  SH.  Breast cancer in men.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2311-2320. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1707939PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Easton  DF, Peto  J, Babiker  AG.  Floating absolute risk: an alternative to relative risk in survival and case-control analysis avoiding an arbitrary reference group.   Stat Med. 1991;10(7):1025-1035. doi:10.1002/sim.4780100703PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Koyanagi  YN, Ito  H, Oze  I,  et al.  Development of a prediction model and estimation of cumulative risk for upper aerodigestive tract cancer on the basis of the aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 genotype and alcohol consumption in a Japanese population.   Eur J Cancer Prev. 2017;26(1):38-47. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000222PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Crispo  A, Brennan  P, Jöckel  KH,  et al.  The cumulative risk of lung cancer among current, ex- and never-smokers in European men.   Br J Cancer. 2004;91(7):1280-1286. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602078PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Peto  R, Darby  S, Deo  H, Silcocks  P, Whitley  E, Doll  R.  Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies.   BMJ. 2000;321(7257):323-329. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7257.323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Easton  DF, Pharoah  PD, Antoniou  AC,  et al.  Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk.   N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2243-2257. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1501341PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Higgins  JP, Thompson  SG, Deeks  JJ, Altman  DG.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.   BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Lakhani  SR, Manek  S, Penault-Llorca  F,  et al.  Pathology of ovarian cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.   Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(7):2473-2481. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-1029-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Nguyen  L, W M Martens  J, Van Hoeck  A, Cuppen  E.  Pan-cancer landscape of homologous recombination deficiency.   Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5584. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19406-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Sung  H, Ferlay  J, Siegel  RL,  et al.  Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.   CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Kuchenbaecker  KB, Hopper  JL, Barnes  DR,  et al; BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.  Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.   JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402-2416. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7112PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Nyberg  T, Frost  D, Barrowdale  D,  et al.  Prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study.   Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):24-35. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Daly  MB, Pilarski  R, Yurgelun  MB,  et al.  NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 1.2020.   J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18(4):380-391. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2020.0017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Karczewski  KJ, Francioli  LC, Tiao  G,  et al; Genome Aggregation Database Consortium.  The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans.   Nature. 2020;581(7809):434-443. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2308-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Valdez  R, Yoon  PW, Qureshi  N, Green  RF, Khoury  MJ.  Family history in public health practice: a genomic tool for disease prevention and health promotion.   Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:69-87, 1, 87. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103621PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Judkins  T, Rosenthal  E, Arnell  C,  et al.  Clinical significance of large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2.   Cancer. 2012;118(21):5210-5216. doi:10.1002/cncr.27556PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Nakamura  S, Takahashi  M, Tozaki  M,  et al.  Prevalence and differentiation of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in Japan.   Breast Cancer. 2015;22(5):462-468. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0503-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Reshef  DN, Reshef  YA, Finucane  HK,  et al.  Detecting novel associations in large data sets.   Science. 2011;334(6062):1518-1524. doi:10.1126/science.1205438PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×