Skip to main content

Molecular profiling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Turkish patients with early-onset breast cancer



Early-onset breast cancer (EOBC) is a specific condition that affects women under the age of 45. BRCA pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants have been demonstrated to be harbored in a subgroup of EOBC individuals, and BRCA-positive genetic result offers an option to ensure more specified therapeutic implications. Establishing comprehensive BRCA1/2 genetic testing, including both the detection of small-scale mutations and large genomic rearrangements (LGRs), is needed for risk assessment and clinical management. In this study, we described a Turkish EOBC cohort along with their clinico-pathological characteristics and BRCA1/2 mutational profiles. A total of 67 unrelated patients were enrolled. Both next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based gene panel and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) were performed for BRCA1/2 variant identification. Patients' family medical history and hormone receptor status of the tumors were also recorded.


14 (20.90%) patients were found to carry BRCA P/LP germline variants. (Nine were BRCA2-positive, and five were BRCA1-positive.) Two novel BRCA2 variants were detected. No significant differences were found between BRCA-positive vs. BRCA-negative or BRCA1-positive vs. BRCA2-positive for hormonal status and family history.


BRCA1/2 genes represent a predominant part of the genetic landscape of EOBC. Our results expand the spectrum of BRCA1/2 variants and provide knowledge of the BRCA1/2 variant prevalence in our cohort.


Early-onset breast cancer (EOBC) represents a distinct clinical and biological entity affecting women aged 18–45 years, regardless of family history [1]. Defining the threshold age that is considered "early-onset" for getting breast cancer fairly differs in different scientific studies, guidelines, or protocols [2, 3]. Although breast cancer (BC) occurs commonly in elders (50 years old or older) and only 12% of the new diagnoses of breast cancer in the United States are found in females younger than 45 years [4], EOBC has recently been undertaken as a research priority because of several objectives: BC in young women is more likely to be heritable than in older women and is usually more aggressive, harder to treat, and associated with a poor clinical outcome. Furthermore, EOBC patients inevitably experience certain long-term survivorship issues, such as contraception, management of perimenopause and menopause symptoms, and reproductive options (e.g., fertility preservation) [1]. Current evidence indicates that breast cancer is the top cancer-related cause of death in women aged < 45 years [5].

EOBC may be an independent predictor for "Hereditary Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) Syndrome" and fulfills the criteria for genetic testing of hereditary cancer-related genes (i.e., BRCA1/2) [6]. The probability of detecting a disease-causing variant in HBOC-related genes is maximized in an EOBC patient with a family history of multiple affected individuals on the same side [7, 8]. While the likelihood of identifying HBOC is about 80% when four or more BC patients diagnosed under age 60 are present in the same family [9], it is about 20% when a BC patient has only one more affected relative [10, 11].

BRCA1 and BRCA2 P/LP variants have been demonstrated to be related to an actionable genetic predisposition to BC. Thus, genetic testing of BRCA1/2 has got to be taken into consideration in order to ensure personalized breast cancer surveillance, appropriate risk reduction options, and therapeutic indications [12, 13]. In this study, we aim to present the BRCA1/2 mutational landscape of a Turkish cohort with EOBC and compare the hormonal profiles between BRCA P/LP variant carriers and the others.



From June 2020 to May 2022, unrelated subjects with EOBC who had applied to the department of medical genetics at Isparta or Eskişehir City Hospitals for genetic testing were recruited. All included individuals were also subjected to a detailed examination, including medical and family history and laboratory assessments, including the hormone receptor status of their tumors.

Genetic analysis

Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood using the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini QIAcube Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the standard procedures. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology was used to screen for disease-causing variants in BRCA1/2 genes. For NGS analysis, all coding exons and exon–intron junctions of BRCA1/2 were sequenced on the MGISEQ-200 platform (BGI, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) using a custom-designed NGS panel (Twist Biosciences, San Francisco, CA, USA). All detected disease-causing variants were also confirmed by Sanger sequencing.

Patients found to be negative for BRCA P/LP variants were further tested for the detection of large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) in BRCA genes by the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) method. SALSA® MLPA Probemixes (P002 for the BRCA1 gene, P045 and P090 for the BRCA2 gene) were used for this purpose following the manufacturer's recommendations (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands).

Variant interpretation

Each variant was annotated according to the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature. NM_007300.4 (for BRCA1) and NM_000059.4 (for BRCA2) were used as the reference sequences.

To predict the effects of novel variants, in silico tools (PolyPhen2 [], SIFT [], MutationTaster [], CADD [], and MCAP []) and population databases (1000G [] and gnomAD []) were employed, and all identified variants were classified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria [14].

Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed using IBM® SPSS Statistics version (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). We used median, minimum and maximum values, mean, and standard deviation (SD) as descriptive statistics. Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U tests were utilized to compare differences between categorical variables. A P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


Variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes

Totally, 67 unrelated individuals with EOBC were included in this study, of whom 53 (79.10%) patients were BRCA-negative and 14 (20.90%) patients had BRCA P/LP variants. Among the BRCA-positive group, nine (64.28%) were BRCA2-positive and five (35.72%) were BRCA1-positive (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

BRCA1/2 P/LP variant status of all included patients

All variants detected in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are described in Table 1. Six BRCA1 variants were detected, all of which had been previously identified. Two novel BRCA2 variants, including a missense variant of uncertain significance (VUS) and a large genomic rearrangement (LGR), were identified (Fig. 2), together with 12 variants previously reported.

Table 1 All detected variants in this study
Fig. 2
figure 2

Images of the novel variants identified in our study. Arrows indicate the site of mutation. a BRCA2(NM_000059.4): c.6664 T > G (p.Tyr2222Asp) variant in a heterozygous state is demonstrated by the IGV image. b Exon 6 heterozygous deletion of BRCA2 is illustrated by the Coffalyser.Net™ software

Clinico-pathological features and mutational profiles

Table 2 summarizes the clinico-pathological findings of all cases. The median age at diagnosis for BRCA2 P/LP variant carriers was moderately higher than for BRCA1 P/LP variant carriers (40 vs. 37), although not statistically significant. Patient age groups were similar in BRCA1-positive vs. BRCA2-positive and BRCA-positive vs. BRCA-negative (P = 0.405 and P = 0.418, respectively).

Table 2 Baseline characteristics and clinico-pathological data of the cohort

There was no statistically significant difference observed between BRCA-positive vs. BRCA-negative or BRCA1-positive vs. BRCA2-positive for the family history status (P = 0.075 and P = 0.648, respectively).

The percentages of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and progesterone receptor (PR)-positive patients were 69% (45/65) and 60% (39/65), respectively. Conversely, our cohort was more likely to have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumors (62% [36/58]). We did not observe any statistically significant association between hormone receptor status (ER, PR, and HER2), either between BRCA-positive vs. BRCA-negative or BRCA1-positive vs. BRCA2-positive. Of 61 subjects with an available hormonal status of breast cancer, 15% (9/61) were triple-negative (TN), and among them, only three patients were found to be BRCA P/LP variant carriers.


In this study, we identified a Turkish cohort composed of 67 unrelated patients with EOBC, and their clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics are listed in Additional file 1: Table S1.

The identification of clinically actionable P/LP variants in EOBC patients is especially pivotal given the risk of second primary malignancies, the need for proper surveillance, potential reproductive decision-making, and segregation testing of at-risk relatives that provides early diagnosis and prevention of the disease by determining pre-symptomatic variant carriers. Additionally, uncovering the mutational landscape of breast cancer in this age group may help to optimize therapeutic management; for example, knowledge of BRCA1/2 status may play a central role in both surgical decision-making and systemic treatment decisions [15].

We observed in our study group that about 21% of EOBC patients have P/LP variants in BRCA genes. The diagnostic yield of BRCA1/2 genetic testing deviates from other similar studies because many other independent factors, such as the size of the study groups, inclusion criteria, or referral/ascertainment bias, influence the results automatically. For example, while Akdeniz Odemis et al. [16] detected a 16.3% diagnostic yield in a total of 1202 EOBC patients, Biancolella et al. [17] calculated their diagnostic yield as 23.52% in a cohort of 51 EOBC women with or without a positive family history from Burkina Faso [16, 17]. Another study from Turkey found that BRCA1/2 genetic testing provided a diagnostic yield of 17.54% in 171 individuals with EOBC [18].

Out of the 20 variants observed in our study, two (10%) were novel. Missense alterations have been the most detected type of variant in BRCA2, and the majority of them are classified as VUS. As of September 2022, 6.188 BRCA2 VUS variants had been cataloged in ClinVar (, of which 5.539 (89.51%) were listed as missense variants. Moreover, of the total 6.559 BRCA2 missense variants, 5.539 (84.44%) were VUS. While vigorous scientific efforts to validate the functional significance of VUS are being made [19,20,21,22,23,24], a large number of BRCA2 variants remain unclassified. The rate of receiving a VUS report has also been significantly associated with ethnic origin [25, 26]. Thus, the identification of VUS variants in BRCA genes is a significant clinical challenge in terms of risk assessment.

According to the NCCN® Guideline for Breast, Ovarian, and/or Pancreatic Cancer Genetic Assessment (Version 1.2024), VUS variants should not be used to revise the patient's medical management. In this instance, screening and risk reduction strategies should be recommended on the basis of personal and family history. Additionally, testing relatives for a VUS should not be done for clinical reasons unless there are conflicting interpretations of the data.

Specific recurrent variants in BRCA1/2 genes have been delineated in certain populations, such as the Ashkenazi-Jewish, French-Canadian, Brazilian, Italian, Icelandic, and Polish populations [27,28,29,30]. For Turkey, several studies reported that the c.5329dup (also known as c.5266dup in alternate nomenclature) variant in BRCA1 is the most common detected variant, which is possibly attributed to a founder effect [31,32,33,34,35]. In our study, we also detected the c.5329dup variant in an EOBC patient with a positive family history.

While the majority of germline disease-causing variants in BRCA1/2 are small-scale, LGRs are also defined in a notable proportion of patients originating from distinct populations [36,37,38,39,40]. A small number of studies from Turkey report different LGRs in BRCA genes with a variable frequency [31, 35, 41]. Although the prevalence of rearrangement in the BRCA1 gene is found to be higher [42,43,44,45], we herein reported two LGRs in BRCA2, one of which is novel (deletion of exon 6) detected in a 32-year-old affected individual. It is evident that LGRs in BRCA genes comprise a significant proportion of the Turkish population. For this reason, a targeted and affordable genetic testing strategy that also includes the analysis of LGRs should be developed in Turkey for the molecular characterization of high-risk individuals.


In conclusion, enhanced knowledge about the mutational spectrum of druggable genes can aid clinicians in the management of EOBC patients. This study contributes to existing literature by extending the molecular basis of BRCA1/2 genes.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its Additional files].



Early-onset breast cancer


Pathogenic/Likely pathogenic


Next-generation sequencing


Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification


Large genomic rearrangement


Breast cancer


Hereditary Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer


Variant of uncertain significance




Estrogen receptor


Progesterone receptor


Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2


  1. Chelmow D, Pearlman MD, Young A, Bozzuto L, Dayaratna S, Jeudy M et al (2020) Executive summary of the early-onset breast cancer evidence review conference. Obstet Gynecol 135(6):1457–1478

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Reyna C, Lee MC (2014) Breast cancer in young women: special considerations in multidisciplinary care. J Multidiscip Healthc 7:419–429

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Marmolejo DH, Wong MY, Bajalica-Lagercrantz S, Tischkowitz M, Balmaña J, Patócs AB, Chappuis P, Colas C, Genuardi M, Haanpää M, Vetti HH (2021) Overview of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) guidelines across Europe. Eur J Med Genet 64(12):104350

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Trogdon JG, Ekwueme DU, Chamiec-Case L, Guy GP Jr (2016) Breast cancer in young women: health state utility impacts by race/ethnicity. Am J Prev Med 50(2):262–269

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Anastasiadi Z, Lianos GD, Ignatiadou E, Harissis HV, Mitsis M (2017) Breast cancer in young women: an overview. Updates Surg 69(3):313–317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenberg SM, Ruddy KJ, Tamimi RM, Gelber S, Schapira L, Come S et al (2016) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in young women with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 2(6):730–736

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kast K, Rhiem K, Wappenschmidt B, Hahnen E, Hauke J, Bluemcke B et al (2016) Prevalence of BRCA1/2 germline mutations in 21 401 families with breast and ovarian cancer. J Med Genet 53(7):465–471

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beck AC, Yuan H, Liao J, Imperiale P, Shipley K, Erdahl LM et al (2020) Rate of BRCA mutation in patients tested under NCCN genetic testing criteria. Am J Surg 219(1):145–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American society of clinical oncology (ASCO) Knowledge conquers cancer (Cancer.Net®). (approved by the Cancer.Net Editorial Board, 11/2020). Accessed 20 Aug 2022

  10. Cobain EF, Milliron KJ, Merajver SD (2016) Updates on breast cancer genetics: clinical implications of detecting syndromes of inherited increased susceptibility to breast cancer. Semin Oncol 43(5):528–535

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wendt C, Margolin S (2019) Identifying breast cancer susceptibility genes–a review of the genetic background in familial breast cancer. Acta Oncol 58(2):135–146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Campeau PM, Foulkes WD, Tischkowitz MD (2008) Hereditary breast cancer: new genetic developments, new therapeutic avenues. Hum Genet 124(1):31–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pashayan N, Antoniou AC, Ivanus U, Esserman LJ, Easton DF, French D et al (2020) Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 17(11):687–705

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint con- sensus recommendation of the American college of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular pathology. Genet Med 17(5):405–424

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Peshkin BN, Alabek ML, Isaacs C (2010) BRCA1/2 mutations and triple negative breast cancers. Breast Dis 32(1–2):25–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Akdeniz Odemis D, Celik B, Kilic Erciyas S, Sukruoglu Erdogan O, Tuncer S, Kurt Gultaslar B et al (2022) Evaluation of BRCA1/2 gene mutations in patients with high-risk breast and/or ovarian cancer in Turkey. Turk J Biochem 47(5):588–594

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Biancolella M, Ouédraogo NLM, Zongo N, Zohoncon TM, Testa B, Rizzacasa B et al (2021) Breast cancer in West Africa: molecular analysis of BRCA genes in early-onset breast cancer patients in Burkina Faso. Hum Genomics 15(1):65

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Yildiz Tacar S, Bozgeyik E, Seber ES, Yetisyigit T, Tozkir H, Avci O et al (2020) Next generation sequencing analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 identifies novel variations in breast cancer. Life Sci 261:118334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Guidugli L, Shimelis H, Masica DL, Pankratz VS, Lipton GB, Singh N et al (2018) Assessment of the clinical relevance of BRCA2 missense variants by functional and computational approaches. Am J Hum Genet 102(2):233–248

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Richardson ME, Hu C, Lee KY, LaDuca H, Fulk K, Durda KM et al (2021) Strong functional data for pathogenicity or neutrality classify BRCA2 DNA-binding-domain variants of uncertain significance. Am J Hum Genet 108:458–468

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mesman RLS, Calléja F, Hendriks G, Morolli B, Misovic B, Devilee P et al (2019) The functional impact of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA2. Genet Med 21(2):293–302

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ikegami M, Kohsaka S, Ueno T, Momozawa Y, Inoue S, Tamura K et al (2020) High-throughput functional evaluation of BRCA2 variants of unknown significance. Nat Commun 11(1):2573

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Biswas K, Lipton GB, Stauffer S, Sullivan T, Cleveland L, Southon E et al (2020) A computational model for classification of BRCA2 variants using mouse embryonic stem cell-based functional assays. NPJ Genom Med 5(1):52

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu C, Susswein LR, Roberts ME, Yang H, Marshall ML, Hiraki S et al (2022) Classification of BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance (VUS) using an ACMG/AMP model incorporating a homology-directed repair (HDR) functional assay. Clin Cancer Res 28(17):3742–3751

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Frank TS, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE, Hulick M, Ward BE, Lingenfelter B et al (2002) Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. J Clin Oncol 20(6):1480–1490

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eggington JM, Bowles KR, Moyes K, Manley S, Esterling L, Sizemore S et al (2014) A comprehensive laboratory-based program for classification of variants of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer genes. Clin Genet 86(3):229–237

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferla R, Calò V, Cascio S, Rinaldi G, Badalamenti G, Carreca I et al (2007) Founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Ann Oncol 18(Suppl. 6):vi93-98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Janavičius R (2010) Founder BRCA1/2 mutations in the Europe: implications for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer prevention and control. EPMA J 1(3):397–412

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Møller P, Heimdal K, Apold J, Fredriksen A, Borg A, Hovig E et al (2001) Genetic epidemiology of BRCA1 mutations in Norway. Eur J Cancer 37(18):2428–2434

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB (2003) Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302(5645):643–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bahsi T, Erdem HB (2019) Spectrum of BRCA1/BRCA2 variants in 1419 Turkish breast and ovarian cancer patients: a single center study. Turk J Biochem 45(1):83–90

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gezdirici A, Gökpınar İli E, Değirmenci B, Gümüş AA, Özdemir G, Erman NA, et al (2021) Hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and BRCA1/BRCA2 variants: a single center experience. Acta Oncol Tur 54(3):264–272

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cecener G, Takanlou LB, Takanlou MS, Egeli U, Eskiler GG, Aksoy S et al (2020) Clinicopathologic features and genetic characteristics of the BRCA1/2 mutation in Turkish breast cancer patients. Cancer Genet 240:23–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yazici H, Bitisik O, Akisik E, Cabioglu N, Saip P, Muslumanoglu M et al (2000) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Turkish breast/ovarian families and young breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 83(6):737–742

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Demir S, Tozkir H, Gurkan H, Atli EI, Yalcintepe S, Atli E et al (2020) Genetic screening results of individuals with high risk BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer in Trakya region of Turkey. J BUON 25(3):1337–1347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hogervorst FB, Nederlof PM, Gille JJ, McElgunn CJ, Grippeling M, Pruntel R et al (2003) Large genomic deletions and duplications in the BRCA1 gene identified by a novel quantitative method. Cancer Res 63(7):1449–1453

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Montagna M, Dalla Palma M, Menin C, Agata S, De Nicolo A, Chieco-Bianchi L et al (2003) Genomic rearrangements account for more than one-third of the BRCA1 mutations in northern Italian breast/ovarian cancer families. Hum Mol Genet 12(9):1055–1061

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hansen T, Jønson L, Albrechtsen A, Andersen MK, Ejlertsen B, Nielsen FC (2009) Large BRCA1 and BRCA2 genomic rearrangements in Danish high risk breast-ovarian cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 115(2):315–323

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Machado PM, Brandão RD, Cavaco BM, Eugénio J, Bento S, Nave M et al (2007) Screening for a BRCA2 rearrangement in high-risk breast/ovarian cancer families: evidence for a founder effect and analysis of the associated phenotypes. J Clin Oncol 25(15):2027–2034

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Woodward AM, Davis TA, Silva AG, Kirk JA, Leary JA, kConFab Investigators, (2005) Large genomic rearrangements of both BRCA2 and BRCA1 are a feature of the inherited breast/ ovarian cancer phenotype in selected families. J Med Genet 42(5):e31

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Yazıcı H, Kılıç S, Akdeniz D, Şükrüoğlu Ö, Tuncer ŞB, Avşar M et al (2018) Frequency of rearrangements versus small indels mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Turkish patients with high risk breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Breast Health 14(2):93–99

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ewald IP, Ribeiro PL, Palmero EI, Cossio SL, Giugliani R, Ashton-Prolla P (2009) Genomic rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2: A literature review. Genet Mol Biol 32(3):437–446

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Walsh T, Casadei S, Coats KH, Swisher E, Stray SM, Higgins J et al (2006) Spectrum of mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in families at high risk of breast cancer. JAMA 295(12):1379–1388

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hendrickson BC, Judkins T, Ward BD, Eliason K, Deffenbaugh AE, Burbidge LA et al (2005) Prevalence of five previously reported and recurrent BRCA1 genetic rearrangement mutations in 20,000 patients from hereditary breast/ovarian cancer families. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 43(3):309–313

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sluiter MD, van Rensburg EJ (2011) Large genomic rearrangements of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes: review of the literature and report of a novel BRCA1 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125(2):325–349

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references




There was no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



We declare that we contributed significantly toward the research study; TK designed the study. TK and AK analyzed and interpreted the patients’ data. TK was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. TK and AK revised the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taner Karakaya.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from each subject, after approval of the experimental protocol by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Süleyman Demirel University (20/276).

Consent for publication

As participants were completely anonymized, consent for publication is not necessary/applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Table S1. Turkish cohort composed of 67 unrelated patients with EOBC, and their clinical, pathological, and genetic characteristics.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karakaya, T., Kocaaga, A. Molecular profiling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Turkish patients with early-onset breast cancer. Egypt J Med Hum Genet 24, 60 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: