ABSTRACT
The identification of germline copy number variants (CNVs) by targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) frequently relies on in silico CNV prediction tools with unknown sensitivities. We investigated the performances of four in silico CNV prediction tools, including one commercial (Sophia Genetics DDM) and three non-commercial tools (ExomeDepth, GATK gCNV, panelcn.MOPS) in 17 cancer predisposition genes in 4208 female index patients with familial breast and/or ovarian cancer (BC/OC). CNV predictions were verified via multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. We identified 77 CNVs in 76 out of 4208 patients (1.81%); 33 CNVs were identified in genes other than BRCA1/2, mostly in ATM, CHEK2, and RAD51C and less frequently in BARD1, MLH1, MSH2, PALB2, PMS2, RAD51D, and TP53. The Sophia Genetics DDM software showed the highest sensitivity; six CNVs were missed by at least one of the non-commercial tools. The positive predictive values ranged from 5.9% (74/1249) for panelcn.MOPS to 79.1% (72/91) for ExomeDepth. Verification of in silico predicted CNVs is required due to high frequencies of false positive predictions, particularly affecting target regions at the extremes of the GC content or target length distributions. CNV detection should not be restricted to BRCA1/2 due to the relevant proportion of CNVs in further BC/OC predisposition genes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The role of the BARD1 gene in breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) predisposition remains elusive, as published case-control investigations have revealed controversial results. We aimed to assess the role of deleterious BARD1 germline variants in BC/OC predisposition in a sample of 4920 BRCA1/2-negative female BC/OC index patients of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). METHODS: A total of 4469 female index patients with BC, 451 index patients with OC, and 2767 geographically matched female control individuals were screened for loss-of-function (LoF) mutations and potentially damaging rare missense variants in BARD1. All patients met the inclusion criteria of the GC-HBOC for germline testing and reported at least one relative with BC or OC. Additional control datasets (Exome Aggregation Consortium, ExAC; Fabulous Ladies Over Seventy, FLOSSIES) were included for the calculation of odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: We identified LoF variants in 23 of 4469 BC index patients (0.51%) and in 36 of 37,265 control individuals (0.10%), resulting in an OR of 5.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.17-9.04; P < 0.00001). BARD1-mutated BC index patients showed a significantly younger mean age at first diagnosis (AAD; 42.3 years, range 24-60 years) compared with the overall study sample (48.6 years, range 17-92 years; P = 0.00347). In the subgroup of BC index patients with an AAD < 40 years, an OR of 12.04 (95% CI = 5.78-25.08; P < 0.00001) was observed. An OR of 7.43 (95% CI = 4.26-12.98; P < 0.00001) was observed when stratified for an AAD < 50 years. LoF variants in BARD1 were not significantly associated with BC in the subgroup of index patients with an AAD ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.29; 95% CI = 0.82-6.45; P = 0.11217). Overall, rare and predicted damaging BARD1 missense variants were significantly more prevalent in BC index patients compared with control individuals (OR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.26-3.67; P = 0.00723). Neither LoF variants nor predicted damaging rare missense variants in BARD1 were identified in 451 familial index patients with OC. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the significant association of germline LoF variants in BARD1 with early-onset BC, we suggest that intensified BC surveillance programs should be offered to women carrying pathogenic BARD1 gene variants.
