Survival in familial, BRCA1-associated, and BRCA2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer. United Kingdom Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research (UKCCCR) Familial Ovarian Cancer Study Group. (1/929)

The natural history of hereditary and BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer may differ from that of sporadic disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary ovarian cancer, hereditary ovarian cancer with no identified BRCA1/2 mutation, and ovarian cancer in population-based controls. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing was carried out on index cases from 119 families with site-specific epithelial ovarian cancer or breast-ovarian cancer. We estimated overall survival in 151 patients from 57 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation families and compared it with that in 119 patients from 62 families in which a BRCA1/2 mutation was not identified. We compared clinical outcome and data on tumor histopathology, grade, and stage. We also compared survival in familial epithelial ovarian cancer, whether or not a mutation was identified, with that of an age-matched set of population control cases. Overall survival at 5 years was 21% (95% confidence interval, 14-28) in cases from BRCA1 mutation families, 25% (8-42) in BRCA2 mutation families, and 19% (12-26) in families with no identified mutation (P = 0.91). Survival in familial ovarian cancer cases as a whole was significantly worse than for population controls (P = 0.005). In the familial cases, we found no differences in histopathological type, grade, or stage according to mutation status. Compared to population control cases, mucinous tumors occurred less frequently in the familial cases (2 versus 12%, P<0.001), and a greater proportion of the familial cases presented with advanced disease (83% stage III/IV versus 56%; P = 0.001). We have shown that survival in familial ovarian cancer cases is worse than that in sporadic cases, whether or not a BRCA1/2 mutation was identified, perhaps reflecting a difference in biology analogous to that observed in breast cancer.  (+info)

Exclusion of a major role for the PTEN tumour-suppressor gene in breast carcinomas. (2/929)

PTEN is a novel tumour-suppressor gene located on chromosomal band 10q23.3. This region displays frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in a variety of human neoplasms including breast carcinomas. The detection of PTEN mutations in Cowden disease and in breast carcinoma cell lines suggests that PTEN may be involved in mammary carcinogenesis. We here report a mutational analysis of tumour specimens from 103 primary breast carcinomas and constitutive DNA from 25 breast cancer families. The entire coding region of PTEN was screened by single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis and direct sequencing using intron-based primers. No germline mutations could be identified in the breast cancer families and only one sporadic carcinoma carried a PTEN mutation at one allele. In addition, all sporadic tumours were analysed for homozygous deletions by differential polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and for allelic loss using the microsatellite markers D10S215, D10S564 and D10S573. No homozygous deletions were detected and only 10 out of 94 informative tumours showed allelic loss in the PTEN region. These results suggest that PTEN does not play a major role in breast cancer formation.  (+info)

High frequency of germ-line BRCA2 mutations among Hungarian male breast cancer patients without family history. (3/929)

To determine the contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations to the pathogenesis of male breast cancer in Hungary, the country with the highest male breast cancer mortality rates in continental Europe, a series of 18 male breast cancer patients and three patients with gynecomastia was analyzed for germ-line mutations in both BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although no germ-line BRCA1 mutation was observed, 6 of the 18 male breast cancer cases (33%) carried truncating mutations in the BRCA2 gene. Unexpectedly, none of them reported a family history for breast/ovarian cancer. Four of six truncating mutations were novel, and two mutations were recurrent. Four patients (22%) had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer in at least one first- or second-degree relative; however, no BRCA2 mutation was identified among them. No mutation was identified in either of the genes in the gynecomastias. These results provide evidence for a strong genetic component of male breast cancer in Hungary.  (+info)

Benefits and costs of screening Ashkenazi Jewish women for BRCA1 and BRCA2. (4/929)

PURPOSE: To determine the survival benefit and cost-effectiveness of screening Ashkenazi Jewish women for three specific BRCA1/2 gene mutations. METHODS: We used a Markov model and Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the survival benefit and cost-effectiveness of screening for three specific mutations in a population in which their prevalence is 2.5% and the associated cancer risks are 56% for breast cancer and 16% for ovarian cancer. We assumed that the sensitivity and specificity of the test were 98% and 99%, respectively, that bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy would reduce ovarian cancer risk by 45%, and that bilateral prophylactic mastectomy would reduce breast cancer risk by 90%. We used Medicare payment data for treatment costs and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data for cancer survival. RESULTS: Our model suggests that genetic screening of this population could prolong average nondiscounted survival by 38 days (95% probability interval, 22 to 57 days) for combined surgery, 33 days (95% probability interval, 18 to 43 days) for mastectomy, 11 days (95% probability interval, 4 to 25 days) for oophorectomy, and 6 days (95% probability interval, 3 to 8 days) for surveillance. The respective cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year saved, with a discount rate of 3%, are $20,717, $29,970, $72,780, and $134,273. CONCLUSION: In this Ashkenazi Jewish population, with a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations, genetic screening may significantly increase average survival and, depending on costs and screening/treatment strategies, may be cost-effective by the standards of accepted cancer screening tests. According to our model, screening is cost-effective only if all women who test positive undergo prophylactic surgery. These estimates require confirmation through prospective observational studies and clinical trials.  (+info)

The prevalence of common BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among Ashkenazi Jews. (5/929)

Three founder mutations in the cancer-associated genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 occur frequently enough among Ashkenazi Jews to warrant consideration of genetic testing outside the setting of high-risk families with multiple cases of breast or ovarian cancer. We estimated the prevalence of these founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the general population of Ashkenazi Jews according to age at testing, personal cancer history, and family cancer history. We compared the results of anonymous genetic testing of blood samples obtained in a survey of >5,000 Jewish participants from the Washington, DC, area with personal and family cancer histories obtained from questionnaires completed by the participants. In all subgroups defined by age and cancer history, fewer mutations were found in this community sample than in clinical series studied to date. For example, 11 (10%) of 109 Jewish women who had been given a diagnosis of breast cancer in their forties carried one of the mutations. The most important predictor of mutation status was a previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer. In men and in women never given a diagnosis of cancer, family history of breast cancer before age 50 years was the strongest predictor. As interest in genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the Jewish community broadens, community-based estimates such as these help guide those seeking and those offering such testing. Even with accurate estimates of the likelihood of carrying a mutation and the likelihood of developing cancer if a mutation is detected, the most vexing clinical problems remain.  (+info)

Commercialization of BRCA1/2 testing: practitioner awareness and use of a new genetic test. (6/929)

It was our purpose to determine the characteristics of practitioners in the United States who were among the first to inquire about and use the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic tests outside of a research protocol. Questionnaires were mailed to all practitioners who requested information on or ordered a BRCA1/2 test from the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) Genetic Diagnostics Laboratory (GDL) between October 1, 1995 and January 1, 1997 (the first 15 months the test was available for clinical use). The response rate was 67% of practitioners; 54% (121/225) were genetic counselors, 39% (87/225) were physicians or lab directors. Most physicians were oncologists, pathologists, or obstetrician/gynecologists, but 20% practiced surgery or internal or general medicine. Fifty-six percent (125/225) had ordered a BRCA1/2 test for a patient; most of the rest had offered or were willing to offer testing. Of those who had offered testing, 70% had a patient decline BRCA1/2 testing when offered. Practitioners perceived that patients' fear of loss of confidentiality was a major reason for declining. Nearly 60% of practitioners reported that their patients had access to a genetic counselor, but 28% of physicians who ordered a BRCA1/2 test reported having no such access, despite the GDL's counseling requirement. The proportion of physicians reporting no access to genetic counselors for their patients increased from 22.4% in the first half of the study to 50% in the last half. Many practitioners have an interest in BRCA1/2 testing, despite policy statements that discourage its use outside of research protocols. Practitioner responses suggest that patient interest in testing seems to be tempered by knowledge of potential risks. An apparent increase in patient concern about confidentiality and inability to pay for testing could indicate growing barriers to testing. Although most practitioners reported having access to counseling facilities, perceived lack of such access among an increasing proportion of practitioners indicates that lab requirements for counseling are difficult to enforce and suggests that an increasing proportion of patients may not be getting access to counseling.  (+info)

Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Jewish mutations in Spanish breast cancer patients. (7/929)

We screened the 185delAG and 5382insC (BRCA1) and the 6174delT (BRCA2) mutation in 298 Spanish women with breast cancer. Two women (one with Sephardic ancestors) presented the 185delAG mutation and the same haplotype reported in Ashkenazim with this mutation. This suggests a common origin of the 185delAG in both Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations.  (+info)

Characteristics of small breast and/or ovarian cancer families with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. (8/929)

For families with a small number of cases of breast and/or ovarian cancer, limited data are available to predict the likelihood of genetic predisposition due to mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. In 104 families with three or more affected individuals (average 3.8) seeking counselling at family cancer clinics, mutation analysis was performed in the open reading frame of BRCA1 and BRCA2 by the protein truncation test and mutation-specific assays. In 31 of the 104 families tested, mutations were detected (30%). The majority of these mutations (25) occurred in BRCA1. Mutations were detected in 15 out of 25 families (60%) with both breast and ovarian cancer and in 16 out of 79 families (20%) with exclusively cases of breast cancer. Thus, an ovarian cancer case strongly predicted finding a mutation (P < 0.001). Within the group of small breast-cancer-only families, a bilateral breast cancer case or a unilateral breast cancer case diagnosed before age 40 independently predicted finding a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (P = 0.005 and P = 0.02, respectively). Therefore, even small breast/ovarian cancer families with at least one case of ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer, or a case of breast cancer diagnosed before age 40, should be referred for mutation screening.  (+info)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10