Literature DB >> 10728676

Major improvement in the efficacy of BRCA1 mutation screening using morphoclinical features of breast cancer.

R Lidereau1, F Eisinger, M H Champème, C Noguès, I Bièche, D Birnbaum, C Pallud, J Jacquemier, H Sobol.   

Abstract

A family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer is the main criterion used in screening BRCA1 gene carriers. However, ascertaining a patient's family history is a difficult task, which significantly restricts the use of this parameter in clinical practice. Alternative individual criteria that can be used to identity BRCA1 gene carriers would, therefore, be of great value. In this context, it was recently established that BRCA1-associated breast cancers (BRCA1-BCs) show a specific morphoclinical pattern. In multivariate analyses, the two most discriminant morphoclinical parameters available for establishing the BRCA1 status, in addition to an early age at onset, are estrogen receptor negativity (ER-) and poor tumor differentiation (TD3). Here we tested the efficacy of these two morphological parameters as BRCA1 mutation indicators and investigated their economic impact, in a population-based survey on a series of women who developed invasive breast cancer by the age of 35 years, regardless of their family history. A high rate of 28.6% of BRCA1 mutations was found to have occurred in the group of tumors with both ER- and TD3 versus only 3.6% in tumors with other profiles (P = 0.007; odds ratio, 10.8). When the sole criterion used was early onset by the age of 35 years, the mutation rate was found to be 8.6%. The resulting cost of testing only women with ER- and TD3 tumors worked out at 30% that of testing the whole population of women with cancer by the age of 35 years, and the sensitivity was found to be of 66%. Lastly, the family history of ER- and TD3 cases with a BRCA1 mutation was investigated retrospectively, and none of these cases was found to have a particularly extensive family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The use of these morphological features of BRCA1-BCs that are currently typed in clinical practice, therefore, provides a helpful and cost-effective tool for those making decisions about genetic screening. This strategy makes it possible to identify gene carriers who would be overlooked using current criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10728676

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res        ISSN: 0008-5472            Impact factor:   12.701


  26 in total

1.  Outcome of triple-negative breast cancer in patients with or without deleterious BRCA mutations.

Authors:  Soley Bayraktar; Angelica M Gutierrez-Barrera; Diane Liu; Tunc Tasbas; Ugur Akar; Jennifer K Litton; E Lin; Constance T Albarracin; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 2.  Triple-negative breast cancer: disease entity or title of convenience?

Authors:  Lisa Carey; Eric Winer; Giuseppe Viale; David Cameron; Luca Gianni
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Prediction of BRCA1 germline mutation status in women with ovarian cancer using morphology-based criteria: identification of a BRCA1 ovarian cancer phenotype.

Authors:  Mika Fujiwara; Valerie A McGuire; Anna Felberg; Weiva Sieh; Alice S Whittemore; Teri A Longacre
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 4.  The contribution of breast cancer pathology to statistical models to predict mutation risk in BRCA carriers.

Authors:  Ana Cristina Vargas; Leonard Da Silva; Sunil R Lakhani
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Kirsten M Timms; Shuying Liu; Huiqin Chen; Jennifer K Litton; Jennifer Potter; Jerry S Lanchbury; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Bryan T Hennessy; Banu K Arun; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kim-Anh Do; Gordon B Mills; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Genetic testing for familial/hereditary breast cancer-comparison of guidelines and recommendations from the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany.

Authors:  Dorothea Gadzicki; D Gareth Evans; Hilary Harris; Claire Julian-Reynier; Irmgard Nippert; Jörg Schmidtke; Aad Tibben; Christi J van Asperen; Brigitte Schlegelberger
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-03-02

Review 7.  Genetic susceptibility to breast cancer.

Authors:  Nasim Mavaddat; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton; Montserrat Garcia-Closas
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 6.603

8.  Incorporating tumour pathology information into breast cancer risk prediction algorithms.

Authors:  Nasim Mavaddat; Timothy R Rebbeck; Sunil R Lakhani; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 9.  Demystifying basal-like breast carcinomas.

Authors:  L Da Silva; C Clarke; S R Lakhani
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  The prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among young women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  S R Young; Robert T Pilarski; Talia Donenberg; Charles Shapiro; Lyn S Hammond; Judith Miller; Karen A Brooks; Stephanie Cohen; Beverly Tenenholz; Damini Desai; Inuk Zandvakili; Robert Royer; Song Li; Steven A Narod
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.