Top

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Published in:

01-01-2008 | Preclinical Study/Clinical Trial/Epidmiology/Invited Commentary

Screening for ATM sequence alterations in African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer

Authors: Ariel E. Hirsch, David P. Atencio, Barry S. Rosenstein

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2008

Abstract

Background

Women who are heterozygous for variants in the ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene, ATM carriers, have been reported to be at increased risk for breast cancer compared with women who do not posses an alteration in this gene. Aside from BRCA1 and BRCA2, there are few data on breast cancer susceptibility genes in African-American women. The goal of this study was to determine whether there is evidence that ATM is a breast cancer susceptibility gene in African-American women.

Methods

One hundred thirty two African-American women were screened for ATM sequence alterations. Thirty-seven (28%) were women with a histological diagnosis of breast cancer (cases). These women were not selected on the basis of a breast cancer family history. Ninety-five (72%) were age-matched women who had not been diagnosed with breast cancer (controls). Genetic variants were identified using denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC).

Results

Twenty-three of the 37 (62%) cases possessed at least one ATM variant. Fifty-eight of the 95 (61%) (P = 0.54) age-matched controls harbored at least one ATM variant. For subjects specifically possessing missense variants, 46% of cases and 48% of controls had these types of sequence variants. In addition, 19% of cases and 34% of controls possessed multiple ATM sequence variants (P = 0.07). The most common polymorphisms were the 378 T→A which was seen in 19% of cases and 27% of controls (P = 0.22), 5557 G→A identified in 22% of cases and 18% of controls (p = 0.40), 2685 A→G which was detected in 11% of cases and 6% of controls (P = 0.22), and 1254 A→G which was found in 3% of cases and 9% of controls (P = 0.36). Hence, there were no significant differences in any of the genetic variants detected between the case and control subjects.

Conclusion

We found no statistically significant differences in the overall frequency of ATM variants, nor any specific variant type or group, between African-American women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer compared with an age-matched cohort of African-American women who did not have breast cancer. ATM, therefore, does not appear to represent a breast cancer susceptibility gene in the general African-American population.

Phillips K-A, Glendon G, Knight J (1999) Putting the risk of breast cancer in perspective. N Engl J Med 340:141–144PubMedCrossRef

Thull DL, Vogel VG (2004) Recognition and management of hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Oncologist 9:13–24PubMedCrossRef

Walsh T, Casadei S, Coats KH et al (2006) Spectrum of mutations in BRCA1. BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in families at high risk of breast cancer. JAMA 295:1379–1388PubMedCrossRef

King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB (2003) Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302:643–646PubMedCrossRef

Malone KE, Daling JR, Neal C et al (2000) Frequency of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in a population-based sample of young breast carcinoma cases. Cancer 88:1393–1402PubMedCrossRef

Nelen MR Padberg GW, Peeters EA et al (1996) Localization of the gene for Cowden disease to chromosome 10q22–23. Nat Genet 13:114–116CrossRef

Nelen MR, Padberg GW, Peeters EA et al (2004) CHEK2*1100 delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies. Am J Hum Genet 74:1175–1182CrossRef

Meijers-Heijboer H, van den Ouweland A, Klijn J et al (2002) Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2(*)1100 delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet 31:55–59PubMedCrossRef

McKinnon PJ (2004) ATM and ataxia telangiectasia. EMBO Rep, 5:772–776PubMedCrossRef

10.

Lavin MF (2005) How important is ATM? Radiat Res 163:704PubMed

11.

Morrell D Cromartie E Swift M (1986) Mortality and cancer incidence in 263 patients with ataxia-telangiectasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 77:89–92

12.

Swift M, Morrell D, Massey PB, Chase CL (1991) Incidence of cancer in 161 families affected by ataxia-telangiectasia. N Engl J Med 325:1831–1836PubMedCrossRef

13.

Shiloh Y (2003) ATM and related protein kinases: safeguarding genome integrity. Nat Rev Cancer 3:155–168PubMedCrossRef

14.

De Jong MM, Nolte IM, te Meerman GJ et al (2002) Genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2 involved in breast cancer susceptibility. J Med Genet 39:225–242PubMedCrossRef

15.

Inskip HM, Kinlen LJ, Taylor AM, Woods CG, Arlett CF (1999) Risk of breast cancer and other cancers in heterozygotes for ataxia-telangiectasia. Br J Cancer 79:1304–1307PubMedCrossRef

16.

Geoffroy-Perez B, Janin N, Ossian V et al (2001) Cancer risk in heterozygotes for ataxia-telangiectasia. Int J Cancer 93:288–293PubMedCrossRef

17.

Olsen JH, Hahnemann JM, Borresen-Dale AL et al (2001) Cancer in patients with ataxia-telangiectasia and in their relatives in the nordic countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:121–127PubMedCrossRef

18.

Renwick A, Thompson D, Seal S et al (2006) ATM mutations that cause ataxia-telangiectasia are breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nat Genet 38:873–875PubMedCrossRef

19.

Angele S, Romestaing P, Moullan N et al (2003) ATM haplotypes and cellular response to DNA damage: association with breast cancer risk and clinical radiosensitivity. Cancer Res 63:8717–8725PubMed

20.

Szabo CI, Schutte M, Broeks A et al (2004) Are ATM mutations 7271T→G and IVS10-6T→G really high-risk breast cancer-susceptibility alleles? Cancer Res 64:840–843PubMedCrossRef

21.

Thompson D, Duedal S, Kirner J et al (2005) Cancer risks and mortality in heterozygous ATM mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:813–822PubMedCrossRef

22.

Stredrick DL, Garcia-Closas M, Pineda MA et al (2006) The ATM missense mutation p.Ser49Cys (c.146C > G) and the risk of breast cancer. Hum Mutat 27:538–544PubMedCrossRef

23.

Heikkinen K, Rapakko K, Karppinen SM et al (2005) Association of common ATM polymorphism with bilateral breast cancer. Int J Cancer 116:69–72PubMedCrossRef

24.

Langholz B, Bernstein JL, Bernstein L et al (2006) On the proposed association of the ATM variants 5557G > A and IVS38–8T > C and bilateral breast cancer. Int J Cancer 119:724–725PubMedCrossRef

25.

Koren M, Kimmel G, Ben-Asher E et al (2006) ATM haplotypes and breast cancer risk in Jewish high-risk women. Br J Cancer 94:1537–1543PubMedCrossRef

26.

Bernstein JL, Bernstein L, Thompson WD et al (2003) ATM variants 7271T > G and IVS10-6T > G among women with unilateral and bilateral breast cancer. Br J Cancer 89:1513–1516PubMedCrossRef

27.

Lindeman GJ, Hiew M, Visvader JE et al (2004) Frequency of the ATM IVS10-6T→G variant in Australian multiple-case breast cancer families. Breast Cancer Res 6:R401–R407PubMedCrossRef

28.

Sommer SS, Buzin CH, Jung M et al (2002) Elevated frequency of ATM gene missense mutations in breast cancer relative to ethnically matched controls. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 134:25–32PubMedCrossRef

29.

Sommer SS, Jiang Z, Feng J et al (2003) ATM missense mutations are frequent in patients with breast cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 145:115–120PubMedCrossRef

30.

Bretsky P, Haiman CA, Gilad S et al (2003) The relationship between twenty missense ATM variants and breast cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12:733–738PubMed

31.

Feng J, Yan J, Chen J et al (2003) Absence of somatic ATM missense mutations in 58 mammary carcinomas. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 145:179–182PubMedCrossRef

32.

Thorstenson YR, Roxas A, Kroiss R et al (2003) Contributions of ATM mutations to familial breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 63:3325–3333PubMed

33.

Chenevix-Trench G, Spurdle AB, Gatei M et al (2002) Dominant negative ATM mutations in breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:205–215PubMed

34.

Campbell C, Mitui M, Eng L et al (2003) ATM mutations on distinct SNP and STR haplotypes in ataxia-telangiectasia patients of differing ethnicities reveal ancestral founder effects. Hum Mutat 21:80–85PubMedCrossRef

35.

Thompson D, Antoniou AC, Jenkins M et al (2005) Two ATM variants and breast cancer risk. Hum Mutat 25:594–595PubMedCrossRef

36.

Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA (2000) Cancer statistics 2000, CA. Cancer J Clin 50:7–33

37.

Johnson ET (2002) Breast cancer racial differences before age 40–implications for screening. J Natl Med Assoc 94:149–156PubMed

38.

Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Holtje T, Sutphen R (2004) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a study of African American breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13:1794–1799PubMed

39.

Elmore JG, Moceri VM, Carter D, Larson EB (1998) Breast carcinoma tumor characteristics in black and white women. Cancer 83:2509–2515PubMedCrossRef

40.

Mountain JL, Risch N (2004) Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ groups. Nat Genet 36:S48–S53PubMedCrossRef

41.

Royal CD, Dunston GM (2004) Changing the paradigm from ‘race’ to human genome variation. Nat Genet 36:S5–S7PubMedCrossRef

42.

Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M (2005) Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Jama 293:1729–1736PubMedCrossRef

43.

Olopade OI, Artioli G (2004) Efficacy of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations. Breast J 10(1):S5–S9PubMedCrossRef

44.

Bernstein JL, Langholz B, Haile RW et al (2004) Study design: evaluating gene-environment interactions in the etiology of breast cancer - the WECARE study. Breast Cancer Res 6:R199–R214PubMedCrossRef

45.

Iannuzzi CM, Atencio DP, Green S, Stock RG, Rosenstein BS (2002) ATM mutations in female breast cancer patients predict for an increase in radiation-induced late effects. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52:606–613PubMedCrossRef

Title: Screening for ATM sequence alterations in African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer
Authors: Ariel E. Hirsch
David P. Atencio
Barry S. Rosenstein
Publication date: 01-01-2008
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9531-x

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

Farnesol, a mevalonate pathway intermediate, stimulates MCF-7 breast cancer cell growth through farnesoid-X-receptor-mediated estrogen receptor activation

Activation of protein kinase A (PKA) signaling mitigates the antiproliferative and antiinvasive effects of α-difluoromethylornithine in breast cancer cells

Intake of fruits, and vegetables in relation to breast cancer risk by hormone receptor status

Tumor susceptibility and prognosis of breast cancer associated with the G870A polymorphism of CCND1

MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature

Analysis of telomere damage by fluorescence in situ hybridisation on micronuclei in lymphocytes of breast carcinoma patients after radiotherapy

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer