Breast cancer susceptibility variants alter risk in familial ovarian cancer.
McBurney, H J
Roberts, Stephen A
Evans, D Gareth R
Newman, W G
AffiliationGenetic Medicine, Manchester Academic Heath Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, St Mary's Hospital, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractRecent candidate gene and genome wide association studies have revealed novel loci associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. We evaluated the effect of these breast cancer associated variants on ovarian cancer risk in individuals with familial ovarian cancer both with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. A total of 158 unrelated white British women (54 BRCA1/2 mutation positive and 104 BRCA1/2 mutation negative) with familial ovarian cancer were genotyped for FGFR2, TNRC9/TOX3 and CASP8 variants. The p.Asp302His CASP8 variant was associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk in the familial BRCA1/2 mutation negative ovarian cancer cases (P = 0.016). The synonymous TNRC9/TOX3 (Ser51) variant was present at a significantly lower frequency than in patients with familial BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer (P = 0.0002). Our results indicate that variants in CASP8 and TNRC9/TOX3 alter the risk of disease in individuals affected with familial ovarian cancer.
CitationBreast cancer susceptibility variants alter risk in familial ovarian cancer. 2010, 9 (4):503-6 Fam Cancer
- Breast cancer susceptibility variants alter risks in familial disease.
- Authors: Latif A, Hadfield KD, Roberts SA, Shenton A, Lalloo F, Black GC, Howell A, Evans DG, Newman WG
- Issue date: 2010 Feb
- Common breast cancer susceptibility alleles and the risk of breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: implications for risk prediction.
- Authors: Antoniou AC, Beesley J, McGuffog L, Sinilnikova OM, Healey S, Neuhausen SL, Ding YC, Rebbeck TR, Weitzel JN, Lynch HT, Isaacs C, Ganz PA, Tomlinson G, Olopade OI, Couch FJ, Wang X, Lindor NM, Pankratz VS, Radice P, Manoukian S, Peissel B, Zaffaroni D, Barile M, Viel A, Allavena A, Dall'Olio V, Peterlongo P, Szabo CI, Zikan M, Claes K, Poppe B, Foretova L, Mai PL, Greene MH, Rennert G, Lejbkowicz F, Glendon G, Ozcelik H, Andrulis IL, Ontario Cancer Genetics Network., Thomassen M, Gerdes AM, Sunde L, Cruger D, Birk Jensen U, Caligo M, Friedman E, Kaufman B, Laitman Y, Milgrom R, Dubrovsky M, Cohen S, Borg A, Jernström H, Lindblom A, Rantala J, Stenmark-Askmalm M, Melin B, SWE-BRCA., Nathanson K, Domchek S, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Huzarski T, Osorio A, Lasa A, Durán M, Tejada MI, Godino J, Benitez J, Hamann U, Kriege M, Hoogerbrugge N, van der Luijt RB, van Asperen CJ, Devilee P, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Blok MJ, Aalfs CM, Hogervorst F, Rookus M, HEBON., Cook M, Oliver C, Frost D, Conroy D, Evans DG, Lalloo F, Pichert G, Davidson R, Cole T, Cook J, Paterson J, Hodgson S, Morrison PJ, Porteous ME, Walker L, Kennedy MJ, Dorkins H, Peock S, EMBRACE., Godwin AK, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, de Pauw A, Mazoyer S, Bonadona V, Lasset C, Dreyfus H, Leroux D, Hardouin A, Berthet P, Faivre L, GEMO., Loustalot C, Noguchi T, Sobol H, Rouleau E, Nogues C, Frénay M, Vénat-Bouvet L, GEMO., Hopper JL, Daly MB, Terry MB, John EM, Buys SS, Yassin Y, Miron A, Goldgar D, Breast Cancer Family Registry., Singer CF, Dressler AC, Gschwantler-Kaulich D, Pfeiler G, Hansen TV, Jønson L, Agnarsson BA, Kirchhoff T, Offit K, Devlin V, Dutra-Clarke A, Piedmonte M, Rodriguez GC, Wakeley K, Boggess JF, Basil J, Schwartz PE, Blank SV, Toland AE, Montagna M, Casella C, Imyanitov E, Tihomirova L, Blanco I, Lazaro C, Ramus SJ, Sucheston L, Karlan BY, Gross J, Schmutzler R, Wappenschmidt B, Engel C, Meindl A, Lochmann M, Arnold N, Heidemann S, Varon-Mateeva R, Niederacher D, Sutter C, Deissler H, Gadzicki D, Preisler-Adams S, Kast K, Schönbuchner I, Caldes T, de la Hoya M, Aittomäki K, Nevanlinna H, Simard J, Spurdle AB, Holland H, Chen X, kConFab., Platte R, Chenevix-Trench G, Easton DF, CIMBA.
- Issue date: 2010 Dec 1
- Common variants at the 19p13.1 and ZNF365 loci are associated with ER subtypes of breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
- Authors: Couch FJ, Gaudet MM, Antoniou AC, Ramus SJ, Kuchenbaecker KB, Soucy P, Beesley J, Chen X, Wang X, Kirchhoff T, McGuffog L, Barrowdale D, Lee A, Healey S, Sinilnikova OM, Andrulis IL, OCGN., Ozcelik H, Mulligan AM, Thomassen M, Gerdes AM, Jensen UB, Skytte AB, Kruse TA, Caligo MA, von Wachenfeldt A, Barbany-Bustinza G, Loman N, Soller M, Ehrencrona H, Karlsson P, SWE-BRCA., Nathanson KL, Rebbeck TR, Domchek SM, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Jaworska K, Durda K, Zlowocka E, Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, Cybulski C, Górski B, Osorio A, Durán M, Tejada MI, Benitez J, Hamann U, Hogervorst FB, HEBON., van Os TA, van Leeuwen FE, Meijers-Heijboer HE, Wijnen J, Blok MJ, Kets M, Hooning MJ, Oldenburg RA, Ausems MG, Peock S, Frost D, Ellis SD, Platte R, Fineberg E, Evans DG, Jacobs C, Eeles RA, Adlard J, Davidson R, Eccles DM, Cole T, Cook J, Paterson J, Brewer C, Douglas F, Hodgson SV, Morrison PJ, Walker L, Porteous ME, Kennedy MJ, Side LE, EMBRACE., Bove B, Godwin AK, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, GEMO Study Collaborators., Fassy-Colcombet M, Castera L, Cornelis F, Mazoyer S, Léoné M, Boutry-Kryza N, Bressac-de Paillerets B, Caron O, Pujol P, Coupier I, Delnatte C, Akloul L, Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Buys SS, Daly MB, Terry M, Chung WK, John EM, Miron A, Southey MC, Hopper JL, Goldgar DE, Singer CF, Rappaport C, Tea MK, Fink-Retter A, Hansen TV, Nielsen FC, Arason A, Vijai J, Shah S, Sarrel K, Robson ME, Piedmonte M, Phillips K, Basil J, Rubinstein WS, Boggess J, Wakeley K, Ewart-Toland A, Montagna M, Agata S, Imyanitov EN, Isaacs C, Janavicius R, Lazaro C, Blanco I, Feliubadalo L, Brunet J, Gayther SA, Pharoah PP, Odunsi KO, Karlan BY, Walsh CS, Olah E, Teo SH, Ganz PA, Beattie MS, van Rensburg EJ, Dorfling CM, Diez O, Kwong A, Schmutzler RK, Wappenschmidt B, Engel C, Meindl A, Ditsch N, Arnold N, Heidemann S, Niederacher D, Preisler-Adams S, Gadzicki D, Varon-Mateeva R, Deissler H, Gehrig A, Sutter C, Kast K, Fiebig B, Heinritz W, Caldes T, de la Hoya M, Muranen TA, Nevanlinna H, Tischkowitz MD, Spurdle AB, Neuhausen SL, Ding YC, Lindor NM, Fredericksen Z, Pankratz VS, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Peissel B, Zaffaroni D, Barile M, Bernard L, Viel A, Giannini G, Varesco L, Radice P, Greene MH, Mai PL, Easton DF, Chenevix-Trench G, kConFab investigators., Offit K, Simard J, Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.
- Issue date: 2012 Apr
- Novel germline mutations and unclassified variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Chinese women with familial breast/ovarian cancer.
- Authors: Cao WM, Gao Y, Yang HJ, Xie SN, Ding XW, Pan ZW, Ye WW, Wang XJ
- Issue date: 2016 Feb 6
- Spectrum and characterisation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deleterious mutations in high-risk Czech patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer.
- Authors: Machackova E, Foretova L, Lukesova M, Vasickova P, Navratilova M, Coene I, Pavlu H, Kosinova V, Kuklova J, Claes K
- Issue date: 2008 May 20
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Ovarian cancer among 8,005 women from a breast cancer family history clinic: no increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2.Ingham, S; Warwick, J; Buchan, I; Sahin, S; O'Hara, Catherine; Moran, Anthony; Howell, Anthony; Evans, D; Centre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. (2013-06)Mutations in BRCA1/2 genes confer ovarian, alongside breast, cancer risk. We examined the risk of developing ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2-positive families and if this risk is extended to BRCA negative families.
Equivalence of three or four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy and of a 3- or 5-day schedule in good-prognosis germ cell cancer: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council.De Wit, Ronald; Roberts, J Trevor; Wilkinson, Peter M; De Mulder, Pieter H M; Mead, Graham M; Fosså, S D; Cook, P; De Prijck, Linda; Stenning, S; Collette, L; Rotterdam Cancer Institute and University Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. email@example.com (2001-03-15)PURPOSE: To test the equivalence of three versus four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) and of the 5-day schedule versus 3 days per cycle in good-prognosis germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a 2 x 2 factorial trial. The aim was to rule out a 5% decrease in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The study included the assessment of patient quality of life. A cycle of BEP consisted of etoposide 500 mg/m(2), administered at either 100 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 165 mg/m(2) days 1 through 3, cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), administered at either 20 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 50 mg/m(2) days 1 and 2. Bleomycin 30 mg was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 during cycles 1 through 3. The randomization procedure allowed some investigators to participate only in the comparison of three versus four cycles. RESULTS: From March 1995 until April 1998, 812 patients were randomly assigned to receive three or four cycles: of these, 681 were also randomly assigned to the 5-day or the 3-day schedule. Histology, marker values, and disease extent are well balanced in the treatment arms of the two comparisons. The projected 2-year PFS is 90.4% on three cycles and 89.4% on four cycles. The difference in PFS between three and four cycles is -1.0% (80% confidence limit [CL], -3.8%, +1.8%). Equivalence for three versus four cycles is claimed because both the upper and lower bounds of the 80% CL are less than 5%. In the 5- versus 3-day comparison, the projected 2-year PFS is 88.8% and 89.7%, respectively (difference, -0.9%, (80% CL, -4.1%, +2.2%). Hence, equivalence is claimed in this comparison also. Frequencies of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were essentially similar. Quality of life was maintained better in patients receiving three cycles; no differences were detected between 3 and 5 days of treatment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that three cycles of BEP, with etoposide at 500 mg/m(2), is sufficient therapy in good-prognosis germ cell cancer and that the administration of the chemotherapy in 3 days has no detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the BEP regimen.
Penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a Clinical Cancer Genetics service setting: risks of breast/ovarian cancer quoted should reflect the cancer burden in the family.Evans, D Gareth R; Shenton, Andrew; Woodward, Emma; Lalloo, Fiona; Howell, Anthony; Maher, Eamonn R; Academic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St Mary's Hospital Manchester M13 0JH, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org (2008)BACKGROUND: The identification of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at risk relatives. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the cancer risks in women who test positive for the family mutation. METHODS: We reviewed 385 unrelated families (223 with BRCA1 and 162 with BRCA2 mutations) ascertained through two regional cancer genetics services. We estimated the penetrance for both breast and ovarian cancer in female mutation carriers (904 proven mutation carriers - 1442 females in total assumed to carry the mutation) and also assessed the effect on penetrance of mutation position and birth cohort. RESULTS: Breast cancer penetrance to 70 and to 80 years was 68% (95%CI 64.7-71.3%) and 79.5% (95%CI 75.5-83.5%) respectively for BRCA1 and 75% (95%CI 71.7-78.3%) and 88% (95%CI 85.3-91.7%) for BRCA2. Ovarian cancer risk to 70 and to 80 years was 60% (95%CI 65-71%) and 65% (95%CI 75-84%) for BRCA1 and 30% (95%CI 25.5-34.5%) and 37% (95%CI 31.5-42.5%) for BRCA2. These risks were borne out by a prospective study of cancer in the families and genetic testing of unaffected relatives. We also found evidence of a strong cohort effect with women born after 1940 having a cumulative risk of 22% for breast cancer by 40 years of age compared to 8% in women born before 1930 (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk families, selected in a genetics service setting, women who test positive for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation are likely to have cumulative breast cancer risks in keeping with the estimates obtained originally from large families. This is particularly true for women born after 1940.