PURPOSE: Breast cancer penetrance estimates in BRCA1 mutation carriers have varied from 40% to 85%; this heterogeneity has been attributed to variations in risk among different study populations. No study has taken oophorectomy status into account in estimating penetrance. Because prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 50%, we hypothesized that population differences in oophorectomy prevalence might significantly influence breast cancer penetrance estimates. METHODS: Females from multiple-case breast/ovarian cancer families that segregate deleterious BRCA1 mutations were observed prospectively for breast cancer incidence and oophorectomy. RESULTS: Within this cohort, 33 cases of breast cancer developed in 98 women with deleterious BRCA1 mutations during follow-up, yielding an estimated cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of 80%. This estimate increased to 94% when the study participants were censored at the time of oophorectomy. Six of the 33 mutation-positive women who underwent oophorectomy during follow-up developed breast cancer, compared with 27 of 65 mutation carriers with intact ovaries (hazard ratio = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.97). Estimates of absolute breast cancer risk demonstrated that the protective effect of oophorectomy was strongest among women who were premenopausal at the time of surgery. When surgical status was ignored, the strong protective effect of oophorectomy, coupled with the high prevalence of the procedure in these families, led to a significantly lower estimate of the breast cancer penetrance in BRCA1 mutation carriers. CONCLUSION: Differing rates of oophorectomy likely represent an underappreciated basis for a portion of the heterogeneity in estimated breast cancer penetrance described in BRCA mutation carriers, particularly mutation carriers from extensively affected, multiple-case families.
PURPOSE:Breast cancer penetrance estimates in BRCA1 mutation carriers have varied from 40% to 85%; this heterogeneity has been attributed to variations in risk among different study populations. No study has taken oophorectomy status into account in estimating penetrance. Because prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 50%, we hypothesized that population differences in oophorectomy prevalence might significantly influence breast cancer penetrance estimates. METHODS: Females from multiple-case breast/ovarian cancer families that segregate deleterious BRCA1 mutations were observed prospectively for breast cancer incidence and oophorectomy. RESULTS: Within this cohort, 33 cases of breast cancer developed in 98 women with deleterious BRCA1 mutations during follow-up, yielding an estimated cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of 80%. This estimate increased to 94% when the study participants were censored at the time of oophorectomy. Six of the 33 mutation-positive women who underwent oophorectomy during follow-up developed breast cancer, compared with 27 of 65 mutation carriers with intact ovaries (hazard ratio = 0.38; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.97). Estimates of absolute breast cancer risk demonstrated that the protective effect of oophorectomy was strongest among women who were premenopausal at the time of surgery. When surgical status was ignored, the strong protective effect of oophorectomy, coupled with the high prevalence of the procedure in these families, led to a significantly lower estimate of the breast cancer penetrance in BRCA1 mutation carriers. CONCLUSION: Differing rates of oophorectomy likely represent an underappreciated basis for a portion of the heterogeneity in estimated breast cancer penetrance described in BRCA mutation carriers, particularly mutation carriers from extensively affected, multiple-case families.
Authors: Antonis C Antoniou; Olga M Sinilnikova; Jacques Simard; Mélanie Léoné; Martine Dumont; Susan L Neuhausen; Jeffery P Struewing; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Laure Barjhoux; David J Hughes; Isabelle Coupier; Muriel Belotti; Christine Lasset; Valérie Bonadona; Yves-Jean Bignon; Timothy R Rebbeck; Theresa Wagner; Henry T Lynch; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson; Judy E Garber; Jeffrey Weitzel; Steven A Narod; Gail Tomlinson; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Andrew Godwin; Claudine Isaacs; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Jacek Gronwald; Bohdan Górski; Tomasz Byrski; Tomasz Huzarski; Susan Peock; Margaret Cook; Caroline Baynes; Alexandra Murray; Mark Rogers; Peter A Daly; Huw Dorkins; Rita K Schmutzler; Beatrix Versmold; Christoph Engel; Alfons Meindl; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Helmut Deissler; Amanda B Spurdle; Xiaoqing Chen; Nicola Waddell; Nicole Cloonan; Tomas Kirchhoff; Kenneth Offit; Eitan Friedman; Bella Kaufmann; Yael Laitman; Gilli Galore; Gad Rennert; Flavio Lejbkowicz; Leon Raskin; Irene L Andrulis; Eduard Ilyushik; Hilmi Ozcelik; Peter Devilee; Maaike P G Vreeswijk; Mark H Greene; Sheila A Prindiville; Ana Osorio; Javier Benitez; Michal Zikan; Csilla I Szabo; Outi Kilpivaara; Heli Nevanlinna; Ute Hamann; Francine Durocher; Adalgeir Arason; Fergus J Couch; Douglas F Easton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Janet R Vos; Li Hsu; Richard M Brohet; Marian J E Mourits; Jakob de Vries; Kathleen E Malone; Jan C Oosterwijk; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Shah; M Rosen; J Stopfer; J Siegfried; R Kaltman; B Mason; K Armstrong; K L Nathanson; M Schnall; S M Domchek Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Laura M Koehly; June A Peters; Regina Kenen; Lindsey M Hoskins; Anne L Ersig; Natalia R Kuhn; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308