Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Prostate Cancer
Volume 2014, Article ID 294575, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/294575
Review Article

CHEK21100delC Mutation and Risk of Prostate Cancer

1Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
2Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, 2730 Herlev, Denmark

Received 29 July 2014; Accepted 12 October 2014; Published 6 November 2014

Academic Editor: Alexandre R. Zlotta

Copyright © 2014 Victoria Hale et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Although the causes of prostate cancer are largely unknown, previous studies support the role of genetic factors in the development of prostate cancer. CHEK2 plays a critical role in DNA replication by responding to double-stranded breaks. In this review, we provide an overview of the current knowledge of the role of a genetic variant, 1100delC, of CHEK2 on prostate cancer risk and discuss the implication for potential translation of this knowledge into clinical practice. Currently, twelve articles that discussed CHEK21100delC and its association with prostate cancer were identified. Of the twelve prostate cancer studies, five studies had independent data to draw conclusive evidence from. The pooled results of OR and 95% CI were 1.98 (1.23–3.18) for unselected cases and 3.39 (1.78–6.47) for familial cases, indicating that CHEK21100delC mutation is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. Screening for CHEK21100delC should be considered in men with a familial history of prostate cancer.

1. Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin malignancy among men worldwide. In the US, an estimated 233,000 new cases and 29,480 deaths are expected in 2014 [1]. Prostate cancer is nevertheless a little understood disease. Unlike other common cancers, environmental risk factors appear to be of minor consequence. The strongest risk factor is for the individual man with a family history of the disease. Indeed, twin studies have suggested that about 42% of the individual’s risk of prostate cancer may be attributed to heritable factors [2]. Further, recent genome wide association studies (GWAS) have identified susceptibility variants [35], providing evidence in support of the role of genetic susceptibility in the development of prostate cancer.

The cell cycle checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) encodes the CHEK2 enzyme, which plays a critical role in ensuring accurate DNA repair in response to double-stranded breaks. Located on chromosome 22q12.1 [6], CHEK2 spans 50 kb [7] and contains 14 exons [6]. CHEK2 kinase is activated by ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) and phosphorylates TP53 and BRCA1, which activates the homologous recombination repair pathway [8, 9]. Because of the role of CHEK2 kinase in activating the repair mechanism of double-stranded DNA breaks, CHEK2 kinase acts as a tumor suppressor promoting genomic stability and thereby preventing tumorigenesis [10, 11]. Therefore, any mutation causing a malfunction of the CHEK2 protein decreases cellular ability to protect the integrity of DNA. Among numerous mutations identified in CHEK2, the best studied mutations in prostate cancer are 1100delC, IVS2+1G>A, I157T, and del5395 [1217]. Three mutations (1100delC, IVS2+1G>A, and del5395) cause CHEK2 protein-truncation. A missense variant I157T affects the forkhead-associated (FHA) domain, where it mediates ATM-dependent CHEK2 phosphorylation and targeting of CHEK2 to bind partners such as BRCA1 [18] and is associated with reduced DNA repair ability and increased risk for various cancers [19].

We decided to focus on the 1100delC mutation as it is a frame-shift mutation that abrogates kinase activity and renders the protein ineffective. In the following, we provide an overview of the current knowledge of the role of a genetic variant, 1100delC, of CHEK2 in prostate cancer risk along with a meta-analysis and discuss the implication for potential translation of this knowledge into clinical practice.

2. Methods

An online search in PubMed was performed in December 2013 using the following keywords: (CHEK21100delC prostate), (CHEK21100delC), (CHEK2 prostate), (CHEK2 cancer), or (susceptibility gene prostate). Respectively, the PubMed provided 9, 36, 98, 326, and 1,590 results. References of the identified studies were scrutinized in order to make sure all possible studies could be included in this review. The titles and abstracts of articles identified by PubMed were reviewed and unmatched articles which did not meet with selection criteria were excluded. We included articles that examined CHEK21100delC heterozygosity and risk of prostate cancer. Overall, we found 12 articles that met this criterion [2031].

In case results from the same individuals were reported in more than one publication, the newest or most informative article was selected [2531]. Among the seven articles published by Cybulski et al. [20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 69, 70], we considered the most recent case/control study [20] as the most informative study. Additionally, three studies from Wu et al. [27], Dong et al. [23], and Zheng et al. [28] seem to contain data from the same cohorts. Therefore, Dong et al. study [23] was taken into consideration for analysis. Thompson et al. reported nonsignificant () risk increase among CHEK2 mutation carriers [29]. However, the population of this study was based on families with breast cancer history and incidence rates of prostate cancer were based on questionnaire. In addition, genotyping analysis was done with only a fraction of study participants (1,324/11,116). Thus, out of 12 articles, five articles contained independent results applicable to be analyzed (Table 1) [2024]. The seven excluded articles for conclusion were listed in Table 2 [2528, 30, 31, 70]. There are a few studies that investigated associations between CHEK2del1100C and prostate cancer risk. However, the investigators combined multiple mutations into a group. Therefore, we could not evaluate a role of CHEK21100delC mutation in these articles [56, 69, 70].

tab1
Table 1: Characteristics and results of 5 prostate cancer studies.
tab2
Table 2: Characteristics and results of 7 excluded prostate cancer studies.

3. Results

The five included studies examined CHEK21100delC heterozygosity and risk of cancer in 6,228 prostate cancer cases including 830 familial cases and 9,258 male controls. Selected characteristics of studies are shown in Table 1 [2024]. Overall, CHEK21100delC was identified in 0.7% (36/5,124) of sporadic prostate cancer cases, 1.2% (13/1084) of familial prostate cancer cases, and 0.36% (33/9,258) of male controls. The pooled results of OR and 95% CI were 1.98 (1.23–3.18) for unselected cases and 3.39 (1.78–6.47) for familial cases, showing that CHEK21100delC heterozygosity is associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.

Cybulski et al. sequenced the coding region of CHEK2 using genomic DNA from 140 Polish prostate patients and investigated a role of three variants, including CHEK21100delC in prostate cancer risk. The numbers of CHEK21100delC carriers were 4, 3, and 1 in 1,921 controls, 690 unselected cases, and 98 familial cases, respectively. The publication concluded that prostate cancer risk was nonsignificantly increased 2.0- and 4.9-fold for unselected and familial cases [30]. This however may have been a question of insufficient statistical power. Gene variants of CHEK2 have been associated with predisposition of multiple cancers. Therefore, Cybulski et al. [31] tested whether CHEK2 is a multisite cancer susceptibility gene using 4,000 controls and 4,008 various cancer cases. For prostate cancer, the CHEK21100delC mutation increased a nonsignificant risk (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.48–6.35) based on 690 prostate cases and 4,000 controls. Later, Cybulski et al. [25, 26] reported a significant risk increase for CHEK21100delC mutation in unselected (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 1.6–7.5) and familial cases (OR = 5.6, 95% CI = 1.6–19.9) as compared with controls. Recently, Cybulski et al. (2013) further investigated that four variants of CHEK2, including 1100delC mutation on risk and progression using expanded 3,750 Polish unselected prostate cancer patients, 412 familial cases, and 3,956 controls. Strong associations were observed for both unselected (OR = 3.2, 95% CI = 1.4–7.5) and familial cases (OR = 5.5, 95% CI = 1.6–19.0) [20].

Mayo investigators [23, 27, 28] analyzed gene mutations of CHEK2. Thirty-three different mutations were identified in CHEK2 from 876 DNA samples from various prostate cancer patients. Most CHEK2 mutations identified in prostate cancer patients were not detected in 423 control men. Frequencies of CHEK21100delC mutation were 0.022 (4/178 prostate tissues), 0.0025 (1/400 cases without familial history), 0.003 (1/298 cases with family history), and 0.0 (0/423 control men). The authors also investigated the functional importance of CHEK21100delC mutation [23]. Western blot analysis of CHEK21100delC mutation in the EBV-transformed cell lines showed a significant reduction of CHEK2 protein, which is involved in the DNA damage pathway. Based on these results, the authors concluded that CHEK2 may contribute to prostate cancer risk because the DNA-damage-signaling pathway probably plays a significant role in prostate cancer development [23].

Seppälä et al. reported that the frequency of CHEK21100delC was elevated in sporadic cases (OR = 3.14; 95% CI = 0.65–15.16) and in 120 prostate cancer patients with family history (OR = 8.24; 95% CI = 1.49–45.5) compared to 480 controls. These data suggest strong association between the 1100delC mutation and prostate cancer risk, especially in individuals with family history. Based on these data, the authors concluded that the CHEK21100delC mutation is a low-penetrance prostate cancer predisposition allele that contributes significantly to familial clustering of prostate cancer at the population level [22].

Weischer et al. reported whether CHEK21100delC mutation affected prostate cancer risk in the Danish general population with a prospective study design. They reported that multifactorially adjusted hazard ratio by CHEK21100delC heterozygosity versus noncarriers was 2.3 (95% CI = 0.6–9.5) for prostate cancer [24].

However, Wagenius et al. could not confirm results from Cybulski study. They assessed the significance of the CHEK21100delC mutation for prostate cancer in the population of Southern Sweden. Frequency of the CHEK21100delC mutation was not different in sporadic cases (1/145, 0.007) and in prostate cancer patients with family history (4/254, 0.016) compared to controls (3/305, 0.01) [21].

Thompson et al. assessed the risk of various cancers in association with CHEK21100delC mutation by using incidence data from 11,116 individuals from 734 non-BRCA1/2 families with breast cancer history. These data were from the United Kingdom (236 families), the Netherlands (233 families), Germany (17 families), and the United States (248 families) [29]. Thompson et al. tested 1,324 individuals from 734 families for CHEK21100delC mutation and identified 115 carriers from 67 families. Based on these data, the authors estimated relative risk to carriers and noncarriers by maximum likelihood via the expectation-maximization algorithm. Seventy-five prostate cancers were observed. Among these patients, six patients were in CHEK21100delC-positive families. The ration of carrier RR (1.42) to the noncarrier RR (0.53) was 2.68 (). This study has a limitation because of the heavy reliance on family members’ reports of cancer in their relatives. Therefore, the extent of the underreporting for male relatives was hindered to obtain meaningful estimates of the risk to male carriers because families were collected for breast cancer research projects.

4. Discussion

We reviewed the current knowledge of the role of a genetic variant, 1100delC, of CHEK2 in prostate cancer risk and found pooled odds ratios of prostate cancer for CHEK21100delC heterozygote of 1.98 (95% CI: 1.23–3.18) for unselected cases and 3.39 (95% CI: 1.78–6.47) for familial cases versus noncarriers, suggesting that screening for CHEK21100delC should be considered in men with a familial history of prostate cancer.

The CHEK21100delC mutation was first identified in patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome in 1999 [71]. This mutation was presented as a cause of breast cancer by Meijers-Heijboer et al. [42] and has emerged as a potential risk factor of prostate cancer by Dong et al. [23]. This association was supported by other studies [2022, 24, 25]. The prevalence rate of CHEK21100delC mutation is about 0.5–1% in Northern and Eastern European population [72]. However, this rate is much less frequent in other European countries. Furthermore, the CHEK21100delC mutation is very rare or absent in Hispanics, Blacks, and Asian populations [35, 39, 45, 52, 73, 74]. Although the prevalence of the CHEK21100delC mutation varies, risk of prostate cancer was found to be doubled for White men of Northern or Eastern European descent with heterozygous genotype for the CHEK21100delC mutation.

Bahassi et al. demonstrated the biological role of CHEK21100delC in vivo. They showed an increased tumor formation in multiple cancer sites, including lung and breast in homozygous CHEK21100delC mutant () and heterozygous mice () as compared with wild-type [75].

4.1. Role of CHEK2 Mutation in Other Cancers

A role of CHEK21100delC was also evaluated in various cancers, including breast [32, 76], colorectal, glioma, melanoma [24, 59, 77], esophageal, ovarian, pancreatic, leukemia, and lung cancers (Table 3). Generally, CHEK21100delC heterozygosity increases the risk for breast, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancers. However, larger studies are needed to evaluate a potential association with CHEK21100delC mutation in other cancers, such as glioma, and pancreas.

tab3
Table 3: Characteristics and results of various cancer studies.

The CHEK21100delC has been most studied in breast cancer. Weischer et al. investigated the association of the CHEK21100delC mutant with risk for breast cancer (OR = 3.01, 95% CI = 2.53–3.58) using a meta-analysis with 22 independent studies containing 25,571 cases and 30,056 controls [32]. Based on these data, they suggested that this mutation should be screened for when testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. Overall, the majority of the studies found some degree of association between breast cancer and the CHEK21100delC mutant.

Xiang et al. [62] reported a significant association between CHEK21100delC and risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a meta-analysis with 6 studies [60]. The CHEK21100delC mutant was associated with sporadic CRC (OR = 2.80, 95% CI = 0.49–4.30), unselected CRC (OR 2.11, 95% CI = 1.41–3.16), and familial CRC (OR 2.80, 95% CI = 1.74–4.51).

Weischer et al. performed an association study on the Danish and German population while also conducting a meta-analysis with four different studies [24, 77]. The odds ratio for malignant melanoma for CHEK21100delC heterozygotes compared with noncarriers was 2.01 (95% CI = 1.03–3.91) in Danes, 1.41 (95% CI = 0.46–4.31) in Germans, and 1.71 (95% CI = 1.02–3.17) in both Danes and Germans. In the meta-analysis with 2,619 cases and the 17,481 controls, the authors found that there was an odds ratio of 1.81 (95% CI = 1.07–3.05) of malignant melanoma for CHEK21100delC heterozygotes in comparison to the noncarriers. The author concluded that CHEK21100delC heterozygotes have a twofold risk of malignant melanoma compared with noncarriers [59].

However, several studies reported inconsistent results. Three small studies were performed to see whether there was an association between CHEK21100delC and risk for glioma [68, 78, 79]. However, independent and combined data suggest that the CHEK2 variant is not associated with glioma risk.

In an esophageal cancer study, Koppert et al. found 1.5% of 551 cases and 1.4% of 644 controls carry the CHEK21100delC mutation [63]. Similarly, there is no patient with CHEK21100delC mutation among 91 German head and neck cancer patients [64]. Therefore, the authors concluded that the CHEK21100delC mutation has no major contribution in carcinogenesis in the esophagus [63] and head and neck [64].

Only one study described CHEK21100delC and its association with ovarian cancer risk. Among 268 randomly recruited Russian ovarian cancer patients, two patients had the CHEK21100delC mutation, while one carrier was found in 821 controls. Thus, the author concluded that there is no significant association between CHEK21100delC and risk for ovarian cancer [65].

Sellick et al. found that there may be a low penetrance effect on risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) based on 973 cases and 1,620 UK controls. But there was no significant association found between CHEK21100delC and familial or sporadic leukemia (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.32–1.7) [67].

In the lung cancer study, Huijts et al. could not confirm an association between CHEK21100delC mutation and lung cancer risk in 457 unrelated lung cancer patients [58].

Results from multiorgan cancer study by Cybulski et al. suggested an increased risk in thyroid and renal cancers although they were not in the significant level [31].

The studies performed in Malaysia [39], France [68], USA [54], Chile [53], Spain [52], Turkey [16], Malaysia [39], Czech [66], and Korea [45] did not find any individual with the CHEK21100delC allele. In many cases, sample sizes were often not large enough to detect a case with CHEK21100delC mutation. Further, as described, there are significant differences of prevalence of the CHEK21100delC mutation among different populations.

We are aware of some limitations of this meta-analysis. First, because of the lack of the individual level data of the reviewed studies, our reports were based on unadjusted published estimates; therefore, we were unable to adjust them by possible confounders such as age and other environmental risk factors. Second, the prevalence of CHEK21100delC was only sufficient in the European population but not in other ethnic groups. Therefore, the role of this mutation in other ethnic groups could not be assessed.

4.2. Future Perspective

The screening for the CHEK21100delC mutation was suggested for cancer prevention, especially for breast cancer [32, 80]. The rationale is that (1) CHEK21100delC was demonstrated numerously as a risk factor for various cancers, (2) the lifetime prostate cancer risk for men with CHEK21100delCmutation is 25–45%, and (3) CHEK21100delC analysis would be a single genotyping test with a low cost.

Because odds ratios were reported for prostate cancer with this mutation range between 2.0 and 3.0, it is reasonable to suggest screening for CHEK2 mutations in men. Men with CHEK2 mutations and family history of prostate cancer show a higher risk of prostate cancer. Therefore, CHEK2 screening would be a useful strategy for prostate cancer among individuals with familial history. Unfortunately, the role of this mutation in survival or response to treatment in prostate cancer is not established yet. However, a recent study reported that breast cancer with CHEK21100delC is associated with a worse survival [81]. Thus, CHEK2 could be a future target of cancer genetic test that could help in the detection and prevention of various cancers [82]. Genotyping for CHEK21100delC should be considered in men of Northern or Eastern European descent with a familial history of prostate cancer.

Conflict of Interests

All authors declare that there are no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgment

The development of this paper was supported in part by R01CA128813 (PI: Park).

References

  1. R. Siegel, J. Ma, Z. Zou, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2014,” CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 9–29, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Lichtenstein, N. V. Holm, P. K. Verkasalo et al., “Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer—analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 343, no. 2, pp. 78–85, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. L. A. Hindorff, E. M. Gillanders, and T. A. Manolio, “Genetic architecture of cancer and other complex diseases: lessons learned and future directions,” Carcinogenesis, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 945–954, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. F. Wiklund, “Prostate cancer genomics: can we distinguish between indolent and fatal disease using genetic markers?” Genome Medicine, vol. 2, no. 7, article 45, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. S. Varghese and D. F. Easton, “Genome-wide association studies in common cancers—what have we learnt?” Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 201–209, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. Y. Pommier, O. Sordet, V. A. Rao, H. Zhang, and K. W. Kohn, “Targeting Chk2 kinase: molecular interaction maps and therapeutic rationale,” Current Pharmaceutical Design, vol. 11, no. 22, pp. 2855–2872, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. J. Bartek, J. Falck, and J. Lukas, “Chk2 kinase—a busy messenger,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 877–886, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. W. Roeb, J. Higgins, and M.-C. King, “Response to DNA damage of CHEK2 missense mutations in familial breast cancer,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 2738–2744, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. N. Tung and D. P. Silver, “Chek2 DNA damage response pathway and inherited breast cancer risk,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 28, pp. 3813–3815, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. Bartek and J. Lukas, “Chk1 and Chk2 kinases in checkpoint control and cancer,” Cancer Cell, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 421–429, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. Zoppoli, S. Solier, W. C. Reinhold et al., “CHEK2 genomic and proteomic analyses reveal genetic inactivation or endogenous activation across the 60 cell lines of the US National Cancer Institute,” Oncogene, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 403–418, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. U. Teodorczyk, C. Cybulski, D. Wokołorczyk et al., “The risk of gastric cancer in carriers of CHEK2 mutations,” Familial Cancer, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 473–478, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Pohlreich, Z. Kleibl, P. Kleiblová et al., “The clinical importance of a genetic analysis of moderate-risk cancer susceptibility genes in breast and other cancer patients from the Czech Republic,” Klinicka Onkologie, vol. 25, pp. S59–S66, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C. Liu, Q.-S. Wang, and Y.-J. Wang, “The CHEK2 I157T variant and colorectal cancer susceptibility: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2051–2055, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. G. Angelova, M. E. Krasteva, Z. I. Gospodinova, and E. I. Georgieva, “CHEK2 gene alterations independently increase the risk of death from breast cancer in Bulgarian patients,” Neoplasma, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 622–630, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. S. Bayram, M. Topaktaş, H. Akkiz, A. Bekar, and E. Akgöllü, “CHEK2 1100delC, IVS2+1G>A and I157T mutations are not present in colorectal cancer cases from Turkish population,” Cancer Epidemiology, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 453–457, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. D. J. Novak, L. Q. Chen, P. Ghadirian et al., “Identification of a novel CHEK2 variant and assessment of its contribution to the risk of breast cancer in French Canadian women,” BMC Cancer, vol. 8, article 239, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. Li, B. L. Williams, L. F. Haire et al., “Structural and functional versatility of the FHA domain in DNA-damage signaling by the tumor suppressor kinase Chk2,” Molecular Cell, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1045–1054, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. F.-F. Han, C.-L. Guo, and L.-H. Liu, “The effect of CHEK2 variant I157T on cancer susceptibility: evidence from a meta-analysis,” DNA and Cell Biology, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 329–335, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. Cybulski, D. Wokołorczyk, W. Kluźniak et al., “An inherited NBN mutation is associated with poor prognosis prostate cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 461–468, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. Wagenius, A. Borg, L. Johansson, A. Giwercman, and O. Bratt, “CHEK21100delC is not an important high-risk gene in families with hereditary prostate cancer in southern Sweden,” Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 23–25, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  22. E. H. Seppälä, T. Ikonen, N. Mononen et al., “CHEK2 variants associate with hereditary prostate cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 89, no. 10, pp. 1966–1970, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. X. Dong, L. Wang, K. Taniguchi et al., “Mutations in CHEK2 associated with prostate cancer risk,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 270–280, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. Weischer, S. E. Bojesen, A. Tybjærg-Hansen, C. K. Axelsson, and B. G. Nordestgaard, “Increased risk of breast cancer associated with CHEK2*1100delC,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 57–63, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. C. Cybulski, D. Wokołorczyrk, T. Huzarski et al., “A large germline deletion in the Chek2 kinase gene is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 863–866, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. C. Cybulski, “Selected aspects of inherited susceptibility to prostate cancer and tumours of different site of origin,” Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 164–179, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. X. Wu, X. Dong, W. Liu, and J. Chen, “Characterization of CHEK2 mutations in prostate cancer,” Human Mutation, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 742–747, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. L. Zheng, F. Wang, C. Qian et al., “Unique substitution of CHEK2 and TP53 mutations implicated in primary prostate tumors and cancer cell lines,” Human Mutation, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 1062–1063, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. D. Thompson, S. Seal, M. Schutte et al., “A multicenter study of cancer incidence in CHEK2 1100delC mutation carriers,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 2542–2545, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. C. Cybulski, T. Huzarski, B. Górski et al., “A novel founder CHEK2 mutation is associated with increased prostate cancer risk,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2677–2679, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. C. Cybulski, B. Górski, T. Huzarski et al., “CHEK2 is a multiorgan cancer susceptibility gene,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 1131–1135, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. Weischer, S. E. Bojesen, C. Ellervik, A. Tybjærg-Hansen, and B. G. Nordestgaard, “CHEK2*1100delC genotyping for clinical assessment of breast cancer risk: meta-analyses of 26,000 patient cases and 27,000 controls,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 542–548, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. O. Fletcher, N. Johnson, I. D. S. Silva et al., “Family history, genetic testing, and clinical risk prediction: pooled analysis of CHEK2*1100delC in 1,828 bilateral breast cancers and 7,030 controls,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 230–234, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. M. A. Dank, M. A. Jonker, I. Kluijt et al., “CHEK2∗1100delC homozygosity is associated with a high breast cancer risk in women,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 860–863, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. S. Zhang, C. M. Phelan, P. Zhang et al., “Frequency of the CHEK2 1100delC mutation among women with breast cancer: an international study,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 2154–2157, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. A. Isinger, M. Bhat, A. Borg, and M. Nilbert, “CHEK2 1100delC in patients with metachronous cancers of the breast and the colorectum,” BMC Cancer, vol. 6, article 64, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. L. Mellemkjær, C. Dahl, J. H. Olsen et al., “Risk for contralateral breast cancer among carriers of the CHEK21100delC mutation in the WECARE Study,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 728–733, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. Wasielewski, M. A. Den Bakker, A. van Den Ouweland et al., “CHEK2 1100delC and male breast cancer in the Netherlands,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 397–400, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. E. Thirthagiri, L. S. Cheong, C. H. Yip, and S.-H. Teo, “CHEK2*1100delC does not contribute to risk to breast cancer among Malay, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia,” Familial Cancer, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 355–358, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. J. Huang, S. M. Domchek, M. S. Brose, T. R. Rebbeck, K. L. Nathanson, and B. L. Weber, “Germline CHEK2*1100delC mutations in breast cancer patients with multiple primary cancers,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 41, no. 11, article e120, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. J. L. Bernstein, S. N. Teraoka, E. M. John et al., “The CHEK21100delC allelic variant and risk of breast cancer: screening results from the breast cancer family registry,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 348–352, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. H. Meijers-Heijboer, A. van den Ouweland, J. Klijn et al., “Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2*1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: The CHEK2-breast cancer consortium,” Nature Genetics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 55–59, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. K. Offit, H. Pierce, T. Kirchhoff et al., “Frequency of CHEK2*1100delC in New York breast cancer cases and controls,” BMC Medical Genetics, vol. 4, article 1, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. D. Easton, “CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1175–1182, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. D. H. Choi, D. Y. Cho, M. H. Lee et al., “The CHEK2 1100delC mutation is not present in Korean patients with breast cancer cases tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 569–573, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. N. M. McInerney, N. Miller, A. Rowan et al., “Evaluation of variants in the CHEK2, BRIP1 and PALB2 genes in an Irish breast cancer cohort,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 203–210, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. K. Schmidt, R. A. E. M. Tollenaar, S. R. De Kemp et al., “Breast cancer survival and tumor characteristics in premenopausal women carrying the CHEK21100delC germline mutation,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 64–69, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. P. Vahteristo, J. Bartkova, H. Eerola et al., “A CHEK2 genetic variant contributing to a substantial fraction of familial breast cancer,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 432–438, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. C. R. Jekimovs, X. Chen, J. Arnold et al., “Low frequency of CHEK2 1100delC allele in Australian multiple-case breast cancer families: functional analysis in heterozygous individuals,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 784–790, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. R. A. Oldenburg, K. Kroeze-Jansema, J. Kraan et al., “The CHEK2*1100delC variant acts as a breast cancer risk modifier in non-BRCA1/BRCA2 multiple-case families,” Cancer Research, vol. 63, no. 23, pp. 8153–8157, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. A. P. Sokolenko, M. E. Rozanov, N. V. Mitiushkina et al., “Founder mutations in early-onset, familial and bilateral breast cancer patients from Russia,” Familial Cancer, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 281–286, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. A. Osorio, R. Rodríguez-López, O. Díez et al., “The breast cancer low-penetrance allele 1100delC in the CHEK2 gene is not present in Spanish familial breast cancer population,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 54–56, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. P. González-Hormazábal, V. G. Castro, R. Blanco et al., “Absence of CHEK2 1100delC mutation in familial breast cancer cases from a South American population,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 543–545, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. M. D. Iniesta, M. A. Gorin, L.-C. Chien et al., “Absence of CHEK2*1100delC mutation in families with hereditary breast cancer in North America,” Cancer Genetics, vol. 202, no. 2, pp. 136–140, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. A. Desrichard, Y. Bidet, N. Uhrhammer, and Y.-J. Bignon, “CHEK2 contribution to hereditary breast cancer in non-BRCA families,” Breast Cancer Research, vol. 13, no. 6, article R119, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. J. Gronwald, C. Cybulski, W. Piesiak et al., “Cancer risks in first-degree relatives of CHEK2 mutation carriers: effects of mutation type and cancer site in proband,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 1508–1512, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. H. Naseem, J. Boylan, D. Speake et al., “Inherited association of breast and colorectal cancer: limited role of CHEK2 compared with high-penetrance genes,” Clinical Genetics, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 388–395, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. P. E. Huijts, A. Hollestelle, B. Balliu et al., “CHEK2*1100delC homozygosity in the Netherlands—prevalence and risk of breast and lung cancer,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 46–51, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. M. Weischer, I. M. Heerfordt, S. E. Bojesen et al., “CHEK2*1100delC and risk of malignant melanoma: Danish and German studies and meta-analysis,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 299–303, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. T. Djureinovic, A. Lindblom, J. Dalén et al., “The CHEK2 1100delC variant in Swedish colorectal cancer,” Anticancer Research, vol. 26, no. 6C, pp. 4885–4888, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. M. Wasielewski, H. Vasen, J. Wijnen et al., “CHEK2 1100delC is a susceptibility allele for HNPCC-related colorectal cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 14, no. 15, pp. 4989–4994, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. H.-P. Xiang, X.-P. Geng, W.-W. Ge, and H. Li, “Meta-analysis of CHEK2 1100delC variant and colorectal cancer susceptibility,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 47, no. 17, pp. 2546–2551, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. L. B. Koppert, M. Schutte, M. Abbou, H. W. Tilanus, and W. N. M. Dinjens, “The CHEK2*1100delC mutation has no major contribution in oesophageal carcinogenesis,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 888–891, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. K. Scheckenbach, G. Papadopoulou, T. K. Hoffmann et al., “The checkpointkinase 2 (CHK2) 1100delC germ line mutation is not associated with the development of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN),” Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, vol. 9, no. 1, article 10, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. N. Y. Krylova, D. N. Ponomariova, N. Y. Sherina et al., “CHEK2 1100delC mutation in Russian ovarian cancer patients,” Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 153–156, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. B. Mohelnikova-Duchonova, O. Havranek, I. Hlavata et al., “CHEK2 gene alterations in the forkhead-associated domain, 1100delC and del5395 do not modify the risk of sporadic pancreatic cancer,” Cancer Epidemiology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 656–658, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. G. S. Sellick, K. Sullivan, D. Catovsky, and R. S. Houlston, “CHEK21100delC and risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia,” Leukemia and Lymphoma, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 2659–2660, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. S. E. Hallani, B. Boisselier, Y. Marie et al., “TP53 mutations but no CHEK2*1100DelC variant in familial gliomas,” Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, vol. 188, no. 2, pp. 126–128, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. C. Cybulski, B. Gliniewicz, A. Sikorski et al., “Epistatic relationship between the cancer susceptibility genes CHEK2 and p27,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 572–576, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. C. Cybulski, D. Wokołorczyk, W. Kluzńiak et al., “A personalised approach to prostate cancer screening based on genotyping of risk founder alleles,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 108, no. 12, pp. 2601–2609, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. D. W. Bell, J. M. Varley, T. E. Szydlo et al., “Heterozygous germ line hCHK2 mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome,” Science, vol. 286, no. 5449, pp. 2528–2531, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. C. Cybulski, D. Wokołorczyk, T. Huzarski et al., “A deletion in CHEK2 of 5,395 bp predisposes to breast cancer in Poland,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 119–122, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. M. A. Caligo, S. Agata, G. Aceto et al., “The CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation plays an irrelevant role in breast cancer predisposition in Italy,” Human Mutation, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 100–101, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. A. S. G. Lee and P. Ang, “CHEK2*1100delC screening of asian women with a family history of breast cancer is unwarranted,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 14, pp. 2419–2420, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. E. M. Bahassi, S. B. Robbins, Y. Moying et al., “Mice with the CHEK2*1100delC SNP are predisposed to cancer with a strong gender bias,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 40, pp. 17111–17116, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. M. Weischer, B. G. Nordestgaard, P. Pharoah et al., “CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity in women with breast cancer associated with early death, breast cancer-specific death, and increased risk of a second breast cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 35, pp. 4308–4316, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  77. T. Dębniak, B. Górski, C. Cybulski et al., “Rarity of germline 1100delC mutation in CHK2 in patients with malignant melanoma of the skin,” Melanoma Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 121–124, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. Y. Ino, D. C. Wahrer, D. W. Bell, D. A. Haber, and D. N. Louis, “Mutation analysis of the hCHK2 gene in primary human malignant gliomas,” Neurogenetics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45–46, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. S.-L. Sallinen, T. Ikonen, H. Haapasalo, and J. Schleutker, “CHEK2 mutations in primary glioblastomas,” Journal of Neuro-Oncology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 93–95, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. S. Gutiérrez-Enríquez, J. Balmaña, M. Baiget, and O. Díez, “Detection of the CHEK2 1100delC mutation by MLPA BRCA1/2 analysis: a worthwhile strategy for its clinical applicability in 1100delC low-frequency populations?” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 455–457, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. M. Kriege, A. Hollestelle, A. Jager et al., “Survival and contralateral breast cancer in CHEK2 1100delC breast cancer patients: impact of adjuvant chemotherapy,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 111, no. 5, pp. 1004–1013, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. S. A. Narod, “Testing for CHEK2 in the cancer genetics clinic: ready for prime time?” Clinical Genetics, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus