Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents approximately 10-20% of all breast cancer cases and is frequently associated with BRCA1 mutations. Numerous studies from Western populations have investigated the prevalence of germline BRCA mutations in individuals with TNBC; however, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in TNBC patients varies widely between countries and from study to study. Evidence from Asian populations, particularly Vietnamese patients, remains limited. In this study, we determined the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations among unselected Vietnamese patients with TNBC and analyzed the clinicopathological features.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective study of 68 women diagnosed with TNBC at the Vietnam National Cancer Hospital. Germline BRCA1/2 testing was performed by next-generation sequencing.

Results

Overall, 19 Vietnamese patients (27.9%) had BRCA1/2 mutations, with 14 (20.6%) in BRCA1 and 5 (7.4%) in BRCA2. Three patients (4.4%) had variants of uncertain significance (2 BRCA1 mutations and 1 BRCA2 mutation). Thirteen distinct pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (8 BRCA1 and 5 BRCA2) were found. Among patients diagnosed at ≤60 years, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations was 32.0%. The average age at diagnosis for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was notably lower than that observed in non-carriers (43.1 vs 51.7 years, P = .021). BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were also more frequently premenopausal (78.6% vs 43.9%, P = .025).

Conclusions

There is a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations among TNBC patients in Vietnam. Women with TNBC in Vietnam should be screened for mutations in BRCA1/2.

Keywords

mutation germline breast cancer triple-negative breast cancer

Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subtype of breast cancer (BC) defined by the lack of expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). TNBC accounts for approximately 10-20% of all breast cancer cases and is more commonly diagnosed in younger patients. This subtype is frequently associated with germline mutations in the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2.¹ Accumulating evidence from Western countries indicates that over 10% of TNBC patients diagnosed before age 60 carry BRCA1/2 mutations, regardless of their family history (FHx) of BC and/or ovarian cancer (OC).^2,3 Patients with metastatic breast cancer who carry BRCA1/2 mutations may benefit from therapies involving poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors alone⁴ or in combination with cisplatin.⁵ Therefore, genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 genetic testing are essential components of managing hereditary breast cancer. Specifically, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing for BRCA1/2 in TNBC patients with an initial diagnosis age of ≤60 years, regardless of FHx.⁶

BRCA1/2 genetic testing is not widely accessible in Vietnam, and services for assessing hereditary cancer risk are rarely offered. Significant barriers to the implementation of genetic counseling and testing for Vietnamese women include the high cost of testing and the absence of public insurance coverage for genetic services. Healthcare providers often have limited awareness about the benefits of genetic risk assessment, and few clinicians possess expertise in genetic counseling. Currently, BRCA1/2 testing in Vietnam is primarily available only at certain major public hospitals and select private healthcare laboratories.

Consequently, there is currently no available data regarding the incidence of BRCA1/2 mutations, the proportion of pathogenic variant carriers, or the specific mutation profiles of germline BRCA1/2 mutations among Vietnamese patients diagnosed with TNBC. This data gap further contributes to limited awareness among the public and healthcare providers about the significance of genetic testing and effective risk management strategies for individuals who carry mutations.

In this study, we used next-generation sequencing (NGS) to determine the prevalence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations among unselected Vietnamese patients with TNBC and analyzed clinicopathological characteristics according to BRCA1/2 mutation status.

Methods

Our retrospective study included consecutively selected patients with TNBC who underwent germline BRCA1/2 testing using NGS at the Vietnam National Cancer Hospital between October 2021 and December 2023, based on predefined institutional clinical criteria, rather than through random or universal testing of all TNBC cases. The reporting of this study conforms to the STROBE guidelines.⁷ The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (1) Patients with primary BC who were diagnosed with TNBC by immunohistochemistry on biopsy or surgical specimens and had not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; (2) Patients who had undergone germline BRCA1/2 testing using NGS; (3) Complete clinical records. The exclusion criteria were: (1) Specimens of insufficient quality for histopathological or immunohistochemical evaluation; (2) Extracted DNA that was inadequate for BRCA1/2 mutation analysis by NGS.

Data Collection

We collected the following variables: genetic data (BRCA1/2 genetic test results, age at diagnosis, FHx of BC and/or OC, number of relatives with BC and/or OC within third-degree relatives), clinicopathological data (sex, menopause status, bilateral BC, tumor size, lymph node involvement, pN and pT stages), and personal cancer history of OC. Histopathologic features, including histologic types (according to WHO criteria), histologic grade (as determined by the Nottingham histologic score), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), necrosis, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs), were assessed for each case by reviewing the archival hematoxylin and eosin stained slides.

ER and PR status were assessed through immunohistochemistry (IHC), with positivity defined as staining in at least 1% of tumor cells.⁸ For HER2 evaluation, only the intensity and pattern of membrane staining were considered, following the guidelines outlined in the 2023 recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists.⁹ Evaluation of HER2 expression status on IHC with the HER2-low group, including IHC 1+ or IHC 2+ and negative in situ hybridization (ISH) results (IHC 2+/ISH−), was performed. Based on immunohistochemical evaluation, TNBC was identified by negative ER/PR expression and the absence of HER2 overexpression.

BRCA1/2 Mutation Analysis

Peripheral blood samples were collected from the patient, and genomic DNA was extracted from the blood using the QIAamp® DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions. We used BRCAaccuTest ™Plus (CE-IVD, NgenneBio, Seoul, Republic of Korea) for DNA fragmentation and library preparation. The final library was normalized to a concentration of 4 nM and prepared for sequencing using the Illumina MiSeqDx platform with MiseqDx Reagent Kit v3 (300-cycles) (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions to generate paired-end reads. Sequenced reads of each sample were aligned to the reference sequence hg19 using NgeneAnalySys™ (CE-IVD, NgenneBio, Seoul, Republic of Korea).

The sequencing results were compared with the BRCA1 (NC_000017.9, NM_007294.3) and BRCA2 (NC_000013.9, NM_000059.3) reference sequences for variant detection. Variant annotation and classification were conducted according to the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature guidelines.¹⁰ Variants were interpreted following the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology standards and guidelines for sequence variant interpretation, supported by multiple curated databases including ClinVar, BRCA Exchange, NCBI, and ENIGMA. Based on these criteria, variants were classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign, or benign.¹¹

This study divided TNBC patients who had been tested for BRCA1/2 gene variants into two groups: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants, and non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (likely benign and benign variants). Clinicopathological features were tabulated and compared between groups.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and R, Version 4.2.2 (R Core Team, https://www.r-project.org/). Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (range), and categorical variables as n (%). Differences in continuous variables were assessed using the independent-samples t-test, while categorical variables were compared using the χ² test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. All tests were two-sided, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethical Consideration

All methods were carried out following relevant guidelines and regulations. Our study was approved by the Hanoi Medical University Ethics Committee, number 804/GCN-HĐĐĐNCYSH-ĐHYHN, March 3, 2023. Peripheral patient blood samples were acquired with informed consent following the local institutional review and the Declaration of Helsinki. All patient details were fully de-identified to protect patient confidentiality before data processing and analysis.

Results

Baseline Clinicopathological Features and BRCA1/2 Mutations

Among 280 TNBC patients who were treated at Vietnam National Cancer Hospital between October 2021 and December 2023, 68 patients were tested for BRCA1/2 mutations by NGS. All patients were female and Vietnamese. The median age was 49.3 (range 28-89 years). Fifty-two patients (76.5%) were 60 years old or younger. Nine patients (13.2%) had a FHx of at least one relative with BC or OC within their third-degree relatives. Of these, 6 cases had a FHx of BC (8.8%); 1 case had a FHx of OC (1.5%); 2 cases had a FHx of both BC and OC (2.9%).

We observed 19 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (27.9%) and 19 BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in the 68 TNBC patients. Of the mutation carriers, 73.7% (14 patients) and 26.3% (5 patients) showed a mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Three patients (4.4%) have a VUS (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Schematic diagram of patient selection. TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; NGS, next-generation sequencing; +, patients carrying pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants; −, patients carrying benign or likely benign variants; VUS, variant of uncertain significance

The mean age was significantly younger with BRCA1/2 mutation (43.1 years; P = .021) and BRCA1 mutation (40.5 years; P = .007) relative to BRCA1/2 non-carriers (51.7 years). The mean age of BRCA2 carriers (50.4 years, P = .845) was not significantly different from that of non-carriers (Table 1).

Table 1.

Baseline Clinicopathological Features and BRCA1/2 Mutations in Patients With TNBC (n = 65^a)

	BRCA1, n (%)	BRCA2, n (%)	Total (BRCA1/2), n (%)	Non-BRCA1/2, n (%)	P-value^b
Number, %	14 (21.5%)	5 (7.7%)	19 (29.2%)	46 (70.8%)
Mean age, ±SD	40.5 (±9.5)	50.4 (±13.7)	43.1 (±11.3)	51.7 (±14.0)	.021
Age					.397
≤40	7 (50.0)	2 (40.0)	9 (47.4)	14 (30.4)
41-60	6 (42.9)	1 (20.0)	7 (36.8)	20 (43.5)
≥61	1 (7.1)	2 (40.0)	3 (15.8)	12 (26.1)
Menopausal status					.025
Premenopause	9 (90.0)	2 (50.0)	11 (78.6)	18 (43.9)
Postmenopause	1 (10.0)	2 (50.0)	3 (21.4)	23 (56.1)
Unknown (n = 10)
FHx of BC and/or OC					.108
Yes	2 (14.3)	3 (60.0)	5 (26.3)	4 (8.7)
No	12 (85.7)	2 (40.0)	14 (73.7)	42 (91.3)
Tumor site					.952
Right	7 (50.0)	1 (20.0)	8 (42.1)	19 (41.3)
Left	7 (50.0)	4 (80.0)	11 (57.9)	27 (58.7)
LVI					.150
Yes	3 (21.4)	0 (0.0)	3 (15.8)	2 (4.4)
No	11 (78.6)	5 (100.0)	16 (84.2)	43 (95.6)
Unknown (n = 1)
Histopathology					.420
Carcinoma invasive NST	14 (100.0)	4 (80.0)	18 (94.7)	39 (84.8)
Metaplastic carcinoma	0 (0.0)	1 (20.0)	1 (5.3)	7 (15.2)
Tumor size					.716
pT1	6 (75.0)	3 (75.0)	9 (75.0)	18 (64.3)
pT2 & pT3	2 (25.0)	1 (25.0)	3 (25.0)	10 (35.7)
Unknown (n = 25)
Tumor grade (Nottingham)					.289
2	4 (28.6)	3 (60.0)	7 (36.8)	11 (23.9)
3	10 (71.4)	2 (40.0)	12 (63.2)	35 (76.1)
Lymph node status					.808
Negative	6 (54.5)	4 (80.0)	10 (62.5)	23 (59.0)
Positive	5 (45.5)	1 (20.0)	6 (37.5)	16 (41.0)
Unknown (n = 10)
DCIS					.586
No	9 (64.3)	1 (20.0)	10 (52.6)	27 (60.0)
Yes	5 (35.7)	4 (80.0)	9 (47.4)	18 (40.0)
Unknown (n = 1)
Necrosis					.189
No	7 (50.0)	4 (80.0)	11 (57.9)	18 (40.0)
Yes	7 (50.0)	1 (20.0)	8 (42.1)	27 (60.0)
Unknown (n = 1)
sTILs					.258
<50%	13 (92.9)	5 (100.0)	18 (94.7)	36 (80.0)
≥50%	1 (7.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (5.3)	9 (20.0)
Unknown (n = 1)
Ki67					1.000
<20%	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (2.2)
≥20%	14 (100.0)	5 (100.0)	19 (100.0)	45 (97.8)
HER2					1.000
HER2-zero	10 (76.9)	4 (80.0)	14 (77.8)	33 (73.3)
HER2-low	3 (23.1)	1 (20.0)	4 (22.2)	12 (26.7)
Unknown (n = 2)

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; FHx, family history; BC, breast cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; LVI, lymphovascular invasion; NST, no special type; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; sTILs, stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.

P < .05 for statistically significant differences are in bold.

^aThree cases with variants of uncertain significance were excluded; only BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers were compared.

^bDifferences between BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers were assessed using the independent samples t-test for continuous variables and the χ² test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate, for categorical variables.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were more frequently premenopausal (78.6% vs 43.9%, P = .025 < .05). FHx of BC and/or OC, tumor site, LVI, histopathology, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node status, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), necrosis, sTILs, Ki67, and HER2 were not significantly different in those with or without BRCA1/2 mutation (Table 1).

Spectrum of BRCA1/2 Mutations

All BRCA1/2 variants were identified using NGS. The spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is summarized in Tables 2 –4. Overall, 13 distinct pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variants (8 BRCA1 and 5 BRCA2) were found in 19 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We looked at frameshift, stop_gained, and frameshift&stop_gained P or LP variants and found 7, 6, and 1, respectively, in BRCA1 patients and 1, 4, and 0 in BRCA2 patients. The frequent P or LP variants in BRCA1 were c.5251C>T (p.R1751Ter) and c.66dup (p.E23RfsTer18) (5 (35.7%) and 3 (21.4%) times, respectively). There were 5 P or LP variants in BRCA2 in the study sample, with equal occurrence rates, each variant one time. There were 3 VUS (2 BRCA1 and 1 BRCA2 variants), all of which were missense variants.

Table 2.

The Spectrum of BRCA1 Mutations (n = 14)

Exon (BIC)	HGVS nomenclature-cDNA level	HGVS nomenclature-protein change	Effect	Number
2	c.66dup	p.E23RfsTer18	frameshift_variant	3
11	c.4088C>G	p.Ser1363Ter	stop_gained	1
11	c.1673_1674delAA	p.K558fs	frameshift_variant	1
11	c.3181del	p.I1061Ter	frameshift_variant	1
11	c.1953dup	p.K652EfsTer21	frameshift_variant	1
11	c.1016delA	p.K339fs	frameshift_variant	1
17	c.4997dup	p.Tyr1666Ter	frameshift_variant&stop_gained	1
20	c.5251C>T	p.R1751Ter	stop_gained	5

Abbreviations: BIC, breast cancer information core; HGVS, human genome variation society.

Table 3.

The Spectrum of BRCA2 Mutations (n = 5)

Exon (BIC)	HGVS nomenclature-cDNA level	HGVS nomenclature-protein change	Effect	Number
11	c.5453C>A	p.Ser1818Ter	stop_gained	1
11	c.2590C>T	p.Gln864Ter	stop_gained	1
11	c.4867C>T	p.Gln1623Ter	stop_gained	1
11	c.4478_4481delAAAG	p.E1493fs	frameshift_variant	1
15	c.7558C>T	p.Arg2520Ter	stop_gained	1

Abbreviations: BIC, breast cancer information core; HGVS, human genome variation society.

Table 4.

The Spectrum of BRCA1/2 Variant of Uncertain Significance (n = 3)

Gennes	Exon (BIC)	HGVS nomenclature-cDNA level	HGVS nomenclature-protein change	Effect	Number
BRCA1	8	c.446A>C	p.Glu149Ala	missense_variant	1
BRCA1	13	c.4237G>A	p.Glu1413Lys	missense_variant	1
BRCA2	11	c.3445A>G	p.M1149V	missense_variant	1

Abbreviations: BIC, breast cancer information core; HGVS, human genome variation society.

In this cohort, P and LP variants in the BRCA1 gene were most frequently identified in exon 11 and exon 20 (5 cases each, 35.7%). For the BRCA2 gene, the majority of P/LP variants were detected in exon 11 (4 cases, 80%).

BRCA1/2 Prevalence According to Age

The distribution of age at diagnosis is shown in Table 5. The overall prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations was 29.2%. When stratified by age, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations was 32.0% among patients ≤60 years and 20.0% among those >60 years (n = 65; 3 VUS cases excluded from analysis).

Table 5.

BRCA1/2 Mutation Rates Across Age Groups (n = 65^a)

Age group	BRCA1 mutation, n	BRCA2 mutation, n	BRCA1/2 mutation, n	Non-BRCA1/2 mutation, n	Total, n	BRCA1/2 mutation rate (%)	Cumulative BRCA1/2 mutation rate (%)
20-30	1	0	1	1	2	50.0	50.0
31-35	5	1	6	4	10	60.0	58.3
36-40	1	1	2	9	11	18.2	39.2
41-45	3	0	3	5	8	37.5	38.7
46-50	2	0	2	2	4	50.0	40.0
51-55	1	1	2	5	7	28.6	38.1
56-60	0	0	0	8	8	0.0	32.0
>60	1	2	3	12	15	20.0	29.2
Total	14	5	19	46	65	29.2	29.2

^aThree cases with variants of uncertain significance were excluded.

Age at Diagnosis of Breast Cancer and Family History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer

Overall, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutation was 55.6% among 9 patients with familial BC and/or OC, and 25.0% among 56 patients without familial BC or OC. The difference in mean age between familial and non-familial BC patients among the BRCA1/2 mutation and BRCA1/2 non-carriers was not statistically significant (P = .249 and .877, respectively) (Table 6).

Table 6.

The Relation Between Age and Family History

	FHx. of breast and/or ovarian cancer (+)		FHx. of breast and/or ovarian cancer (−)		p-value^a
	Number (%)	Mean age (±SD)	Number (%)	Mean age (±SD)	p-value^a
	n = 9 (13.8)	44.6 (±11.1)	n = 56 (86.2)	49.9 (±14.1)	.280
BRCA1/2 (+)	5 (55.6)	38.0 (±9.2)	14 (25.0)	44.9 (±11.7)	.249
BRCA1	2 (22.2)	32.0 (±1.4)	12 (21.4)	41.9 (±9.5)
BRCA2	3 (33.3)	42.0 (±10.4)	2 (3.6)	63.0 (±1.4)
BRCA1/2 (−)	4 (44.4)	52.8 (±7.4)	42 (75.0)	51.6 (±14.5)	.877

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; FHx, family history.

^aP-value from independent samples t-test.

Discussion

In Vietnam, research on BRCA1/2 mutations in breast cancer has historically been limited by the lack of advanced molecular biology techniques. A study by Ginsburg OM et al reported a very low prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations (0.8%) among unselected breast cancer cases; however, only 17 founder mutations previously identified in other Asian populations were tested, without comprehensive sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2.¹² In the past 5 years, NGS has become available and has been applied to BRCA1/2 testing in Vietnam. Nevertheless, existing studies using NGS have primarily focused on patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, ovarian cancer, or isolated case reports.^13–15 To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first report on the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutation among unselected TNBC patients in Vietnam. BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 19 of 68 (27.9%) unselected Vietnamese patients with TNBC in our cohort. Among patients diagnosed at age ≤60 years, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations was 32.0%, whereas it was 20.0% among those diagnosed at age >60 years (n = 65; 3 cases with VUS were excluded from the analysis).

Numerous studies from Western countries have examined the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations among unselected TNBC patients, with reported rates ranging from 9.4% to 18.2%.¹⁶ Wong-Brown et al reported that in both Poland and Australia, approximately 10% of patients with TNBC harbored a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.¹⁷ However, data from Asia remains limited. In China, Zhong et al reported a prevalence of 20.3% for germline BRCA1/2 mutations (11 BRCA1 and 3 BRCA2) among 69 unselected TNBC patients.¹⁸ Similarly, Fujisawa et al observed a prevalence of 20.0% in a cohort of 65 Japanese patients with TNBC.¹⁹ In Korea, Jai Min Ryu et al reported a prevalence of 13.1%, identifying 97 BRCA1 and 35 BRCA2 mutations among 999 unselected TNBC patients.²⁰ Taken together, our findings indicate a higher prevalence compared with reports from Western populations and from several Asian cohorts. Several factors may account for the higher prevalence observed in our study. Genetic background and ethnic differences could partially explain the variation in BRCA1/2 mutation rates between populations. In addition, the relatively young age at diagnosis and the high proportion of patients diagnosed at ≤60 years (76.5% of cases) in our cohort may have contributed to the elevated prevalence. Differences in study design, sample size, and genetic testing methods may also influence the reported rates across studies.

Among patients with BRCA1/2 mutations in our cohort, the majority had BRCA1 mutations (73.7%), whereas BRCA2 mutations were less frequent (26.3%). We reaffirm the previously reported predominance of BRCA1 mutations among TNBC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. Our findings align with those of Jai Min Ryu et al, who observed BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation rates of 73.5% and 26.5%, respectively, in this population.²⁰ Similarly, our results are in concordance with the study by Gonzalez-Angulo et al, which demonstrated a higher frequency of BRCA1 mutations (12 out of 15 cases, 80.0%) compared to BRCA2 mutations (20.0%).²¹

Our cohort data demonstrate that individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations are generally diagnosed with BC at a younger age than those without these mutations. This tendency is especially pronounced in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whose mean age at diagnosis was significantly lower than that of non-carriers. In contrast, the age of onset among BRCA2 mutation carriers closely resembled that of non-carriers, consistent with findings from prior studies.^17,20

In our cohort, P/LP variants in the BRCA1 gene were most frequently detected in exons 11 and 20, whereas in the BRCA2 gene, the majority of variants were clustered in exon 11. Our findings are consistent with those of Ryu et al, who reported that most BRCA1 variants (51 of 97 cases, 52.6%) and BRCA2 variants (13 of 35 cases, 37.1%) were located in exon 11.²⁰ Exon 11 represents the largest coding region of both BRCA1 and BRCA2, encoding domains essential for DNA repair, which may explain why it is a mutational hotspot across diverse populations.^22,23

A total of 5 patients (35.7% of the BRCA1 mutation group) were identified as carrying the same BRCA1 mutation. This recurrent variant (c.5251C>T, p.Arg1751Ter) has previously been reported in 3 Vietnamese patients in a cohort of 200 Asian-origin BC cases residing in the United States.²⁴ More recently, Hoang Anh Vu et al reported 4 Vietnamese OC patients (50% of the mutation-positive group) harboring the same BRCA1:c.5251C>T variant.¹⁴ Whether this is a founder mutation predisposing breast and ovarian cancer in the Vietnamese cohort, this needs to be further studied with a larger patient sample size.

This study had a few limitations. First, the sample size in our study was limited because NGS testing is a newly implemented test in Vietnam, the testing cost is still high and not covered by health insurance, so not many TNBC patients can access this test. On the other hand, this study was performed by retrospective review of clinical information, and there was a possibility of incomplete information for FHx and recall bias. Despite these limitations, this study’s results are valuable because this is the first report on the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations among unselected TNBC in a relatively large and homogeneous Vietnamese population. In the future, predictive models for BRCA1/2 mutations should be developed that incorporate age, FHx, and additional risk factors associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndromes.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations among Vietnamese TNBC in our cohort was 27.9%, which is higher than that reported in studies from Asia, Europe, or North America with large cohorts. We demonstrated that the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in unselected TNBC patients aged ≤60 years is 32.0%. Our findings support the recommendation of BRCA1/2 genetic testing for Vietnamese women with TNBC.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Genetic testing for BRCA1/2 was provided free of charge to patients under a sponsorship program supported by AstraZeneca. The sponsor had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

ORCID iD

Tran Trung Toan

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Hanoi Medical University Ethics Committee, number 804/GCN-HĐĐĐNCYSH-ĐHYHN, March 3, 2023.

Consent to Participate

Peripheral patient blood samples were acquired with informed consent following the local institutional review and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author Contributions

Clinicopathological and genetic testing analysis, Tran Trung Toan and Ta Van To; Follow up data collection, Tran Trung Toan, Truong Thi Hoang Lan, Nguyen Van Thinh, and Duong Thi Ngoc Anh; Statistical analysis, Tran Trung Toan and Ta Van To; Writing-original draft, Tran Trung Toan and Ta Van To; Writing-review and editing, Tran Trung Toan, Ta Van To, and Bui Thi My Hanh; Study design, Tran Trung Toan and Ta Van To. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this study’s findings are included in the article and can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

Appendix

References

Foulkes

Smith

Reis-Filho

. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938-1948.

Engel

Rhiem

Hahnen

, et al. Prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 germline mutations among 802 women with unilateral triple-negative breast cancer without family cancer history. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):265.

Couch

Hart

Sharma

, et al. Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(4):304-311.

Robson

Tung

Conte

, et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(4):558-566.

Rodler

Sharma

Barlow

, et al. Cisplatin with veliparib or placebo in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and/or BRCA mutation-associated breast cancer (S1416): a randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(2):162-174.

Daly

Pal

Berry

, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw JNCCN. 2021;19(1):77-102.

von

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):573-577.

Hammond

MEH

Hayes

Dowsett

, et al. American society of clinical oncology/College of American pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(6):907-922.

Allison

Hammond

MEH

Dowsett

, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: ASCO–College of American pathologists guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(15):2765-2782.

10.

den Dunnen

Dalgleish

Maglott

, et al. HGVS recommendations for the description of sequence variants: 2016 update. Hum Mutat. 2016;37(6):564-569.

11.

Richards

Aziz

Bale

, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American college of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular pathology. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2015;17(5):405-424.

12.

Ginsburg

Dinh

, et al. Family history, BRCA mutations and breast cancer in Vietnamese women. Clin Genet. 2011;80(1):89-92.

13.

TNN

Tran

Nguyen

, et al. BRCA1/2 mutations in Vietnamese patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Genes. 2022;13(2):268.

14.

Phu

Khuong

, et al. Recurrent BRCA1 mutation, but no BRCA2 mutation, in Vietnamese patients with ovarian carcinoma detected with next generation sequencing. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev APJCP. 2020;21(8):2331-2335.

15.

Van Thuan

Van Chu

Khoa

, et al. A novel BRCA1 gene mutation detected with breast cancer in a Vietnamese family by targeted next-generation sequencing: a case report. Breast Cancer Basic Clin Res. 2020;14:1178223420901555.

16.

Hahnen

Hauke

Engel

Neidhardt

Rhiem

Schmutzler

. Germline mutations in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Care. 2017;12(1):15-19.

17.

Wong-Brown

Meldrum

Carpenter

, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150(1):71-80.

18.

Zhong

Dong

, et al. Prevalence and prognostic role of BRCA1/2 variants in unselected Chinese breast cancer patients. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156789.

19.

Fujisawa

Tamaki

Inoue

, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Japanese patients with triple-negative breast cancer: a single institute retrospective study. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;14(5):96.

20.

Ryu

Choi

Kim

, et al. Prevalence and oncologic outcomes of BRCA 1/2 mutations in unselected triple-negative breast cancer patients in Korea. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(2):385-395.

21.

Gonzalez-Angulo

Timms

Liu

, et al. Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2011;17(5):1082-1089.

22.

Castilla

Couch

Erdos

, et al. Mutations in the BRCA1 gene in families with early-onset breast and ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 1994;8(4):387-391.

23.

Wooster

Bignell

Lancaster

, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature. 1995;378(6559):789-792.

24.

Kurian

Gong

Chun

, et al. Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in Asian Americans. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(29):4752-4758.

Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Germline Mutations in Vietnamese Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Data Collection

BRCA1/2 Mutation Analysis

Statistical Analysis

Ethical Consideration

Results

Baseline Clinicopathological Features and BRCA1/2 Mutations

Spectrum of BRCA1/2 Mutations

BRCA1/2 Prevalence According to Age

Age at Diagnosis of Breast Cancer and Family History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Appendix

References