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.
AffiliationAcademic Unit of Medical Genetics and Regional Genetics Service, St Mary's Hospital Manchester M13 0JH, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBACKGROUND: 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.
CitationPenetrance 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. 2008, 8:155 BMC Cancer
- Intra-abdominal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy in women of hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome kindreds associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.
- Authors: Casey MJ, Synder C, Bewtra C, Narod SA, Watson P, Lynch HT
- Issue date: 2005 May
- The average cumulative risks of breast and ovarian cancer for carriers of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 attending genetic counseling units in Spain.
- Authors: Milne RL, Osorio A, Cajal TR, Vega A, Llort G, de la Hoya M, Díez O, Alonso MC, Lazaro C, Blanco I, Sánchez-de-Abajo A, Caldés T, Blanco A, Graña B, Durán M, Velasco E, Chirivella I, Cardeñosa EE, Tejada MI, Beristain E, Miramar MD, Calvo MT, Martínez E, Guillén C, Salazar R, San Román C, Antoniou AC, Urioste M, Benítez J
- Issue date: 2008 May 1
- Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.
- Authors: Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, Jervis S, van Leeuwen FE, Milne RL, Andrieu N, Goldgar DE, Terry MB, Rookus MA, Easton DF, Antoniou AC, BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium., McGuffog L, Evans DG, Barrowdale D, Frost D, Adlard J, Ong KR, Izatt L, Tischkowitz M, Eeles R, Davidson R, Hodgson S, Ellis S, Nogues C, Lasset C, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Fricker JP, Faivre L, Berthet P, Hooning MJ, van der Kolk LE, Kets CM, Adank MA, John EM, Chung WK, Andrulis IL, Southey M, Daly MB, Buys SS, Osorio A, Engel C, Kast K, Schmutzler RK, Caldes T, Jakubowska A, Simard J, Friedlander ML, McLachlan SA, Machackova E, Foretova L, Tan YY, Singer CF, Olah E, Gerdes AM, Arver B, Olsson H
- Issue date: 2017 Jun 20
- Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies.
- Authors: Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg A, Pasini B, Radice P, Manoukian S, Eccles DM, Tang N, Olah E, Anton-Culver H, Warner E, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Gorski B, Tulinius H, Thorlacius S, Eerola H, Nevanlinna H, Syrjäkoski K, Kallioniemi OP, Thompson D, Evans C, Peto J, Lalloo F, Evans DG, Easton DF
- Issue date: 2003 May
- Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large United States sample.
- Authors: Chen S, Iversen ES, Friebel T, Finkelstein D, Weber BL, Eisen A, Peterson LE, Schildkraut JM, Isaacs C, Peshkin BN, Corio C, Leondaridis L, Tomlinson G, Dutson D, Kerber R, Amos CI, Strong LC, Berry DA, Euhus DM, Parmigiani G
- Issue date: 2006 Feb 20
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
AZD8186 study 1: phase I study to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and preliminary anti-tumour activity of AZD8186 in patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), squamous non-small cell lung cancer, triple negative breast cancer and with PTEN-deficient/mutated or PIK3CB mutated/amplified malignancies, as monotherapy and in combination with vistusertib (AZD2014) or abiraterone acetate.Lillian, S; De Bono, J; Higano, C; Shapiro, G; Brugger, W; Mitchell, P; Colebrook, S; Klinowska, T; Barry, S; Dean, Emma J; et al. (2016-12)
Mitochondrial oxidative stress in cancer-associated fibroblasts drives lactate production, promoting breast cancer tumor growth: understanding the aging and cancer connection.Balliet, R M; Capparelli, C; Guido, C; Pestell, T G; Martinez-Outschoorn, U E; Lin, Z; Whitaker-Menezes, D; Chiavarina, B; Pestell, R G; Howell, Anthony; et al. (2011-12-01)Increasing chronological age is the most significant risk factor for cancer. Recently, we proposed a new paradigm for understanding the role of the aging and the tumor microenvironment in cancer onset. In this model, cancer cells induce oxidative stress in adjacent stromal fibroblasts. This, in turn, causes several changes in the phenotype of the fibroblast including mitochondrial dysfunction, hydrogen peroxide production, and aerobic glycolysis, resulting in high levels of L-lactate production. L-lactate is then transferred from these glycolytic fibroblasts to adjacent epithelial cancer cells and used as "fuel" for oxidative mitochondrial metabolism. Here, we created a new pre-clinical model system to directly test this hypothesis experimentally. To synthetically generate glycolytic fibroblasts, we genetically-induced mitochondrial dysfunction by knocking down TFAM using an sh-RNA approach. TFAM is mitochondrial transcription factor A, which is important in functionally maintaining the mitochondrial respiratory chain. Interestingly, TFAM-deficient fibroblasts showed evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress, with the loss of certain mitochondrial respiratory chain components, and the over-production of hydrogen peroxide and L-lactate. Thus, TFAM-deficient fibroblasts underwent metabolic reprogramming towards aerobic glycolysis. Most importantly, TFAM-deficient fibroblasts significantly promoted tumor growth, as assayed using a human breast cancer (MDA-MB-231) xenograft model. These increases in glycolytic fibroblast driven tumor growth were independent of tumor angiogenesis. Mechanistically, TFAM-deficient fibroblasts increased the mitochondrial activity of adjacent epithelial cancer cells in a co-culture system, as seen using MitoTracker. Finally, TFAM-deficient fibroblasts also showed a loss of caveolin-1 (Cav-1), a known breast cancer stromal biomarker. Loss of stromal fibroblast Cav-1 is associated with early tumor recurrence, metastasis, and treatment failure, resulting in poor clinical outcome in breast cancer patients. Thus, this new experimental model system, employing glycolytic fibroblasts, may be highly clinically relevant. These studies also have implications for understanding the role of hydrogen peroxide production in oxidative damage and "host cell aging," in providing a permissive metabolic microenvironment for promoting and sustaining tumor growth.
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; et al. (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.