PURPOSE: The results of studies comparing survival in familial and sporadic breast cancer (BC) are inconsistent. A higher incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) has been reported in familial BC. Ascertainment bias may influence both the reported familial CBC and survival. DESIGN: We assessed CBC incidence, distant disease free (DDFS) and overall survival (OS) in 327 BC patients who had > or =3 breast and/or ovarian cancers in the family but no BRCA1/2 gene mutation (non-BRCA1/2). They were matched to 327 sporadic controls for year and age at detection. To correct for ascertainment bias, we analyzed also separately the results (1) Of the 250 non-BRCA1/2 patients with DNA testing performed before diagnosis or within 2 years ('unselected') and (2) Of the 77 with testing > or =2 years after diagnosis (late-tested). RESULTS: Median follow-up of non-BRCA1/2 patients was 6.1 yrs. Ten years CBC incidence was 11% in non-BRCA1/2 versus 6% in sporadic patients (p = 0.002). At multivariate analysis CBC incidence was increased in late-tested non-BRCA1/2 (HR 4.6; p = 0.001) not in 'unselected' (HR 1.8; p = 0.1). Increased CBC occurred in non-BRCA1/2 patients mainly before genetic testing, suggesting ascertainment bias. Tumors were < or =T1 in 62% of non-BRCA1/2 versus 50% of sporadic patients (p = 0.003), node-negative in 55% versus 52% respectively (p = 0.5). After correction for stage and therapy, OS did not differ between 'unselected' non-BRCA1/2 and sporadic patients (HR 0.8; p = 0.3), but was improved in late-tested non-BRCA1/2. CONCLUSION: Overall survival and contralateral breast cancer incidence were similar in 'unselected' non-BRCA1/2- and sporadic patients. Reports of higher CBC incidence and better survival in non-BRCA1/2 patients may substantially be caused by DNA testing selection-bias.
PURPOSE: The results of studies comparing survival in familial and sporadic breast cancer (BC) are inconsistent. A higher incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) has been reported in familial BC. Ascertainment bias may influence both the reported familial CBC and survival. DESIGN: We assessed CBC incidence, distant disease free (DDFS) and overall survival (OS) in 327 BC patients who had > or =3 breast and/or ovarian cancers in the family but no BRCA1/2 gene mutation (non-BRCA1/2). They were matched to 327 sporadic controls for year and age at detection. To correct for ascertainment bias, we analyzed also separately the results (1) Of the 250 non-BRCA1/2patients with DNA testing performed before diagnosis or within 2 years ('unselected') and (2) Of the 77 with testing > or =2 years after diagnosis (late-tested). RESULTS: Median follow-up of non-BRCA1/2patients was 6.1 yrs. Ten years CBC incidence was 11% in non-BRCA1/2 versus 6% in sporadic patients (p = 0.002). At multivariate analysis CBC incidence was increased in late-tested non-BRCA1/2 (HR 4.6; p = 0.001) not in 'unselected' (HR 1.8; p = 0.1). Increased CBC occurred in non-BRCA1/2patients mainly before genetic testing, suggesting ascertainment bias. Tumors were < or =T1 in 62% of non-BRCA1/2 versus 50% of sporadic patients (p = 0.003), node-negative in 55% versus 52% respectively (p = 0.5). After correction for stage and therapy, OS did not differ between 'unselected' non-BRCA1/2 and sporadic patients (HR 0.8; p = 0.3), but was improved in late-tested non-BRCA1/2. CONCLUSION: Overall survival and contralateral breast cancer incidence were similar in 'unselected' non-BRCA1/2- and sporadic patients. Reports of higher CBC incidence and better survival in non-BRCA1/2patients may substantially be caused by DNA testing selection-bias.
Authors: Tehillah S Menes; Mary Beth Terry; David Goldgar; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Esther M John; Yuyan Liao; Melissa Southey; Alexander Miron; Wendy Chung; Saundra S Buys Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-05-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jon G Jonasson; Olafur A Stefansson; Oskar T Johannsson; Helgi Sigurdsson; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Gudridur H Olafsdottir; Kristin K Alexiusdottir; Hrefna Stefansdottir; Rodrigo Munoz Mitev; Katrin Olafsdottir; Kristrun Olafsdottir; Adalgeir Arason; Vigdis Stefansdottir; Elinborg J Olafsdottir; Rosa B Barkardottir; Jorunn E Eyfjord; Steven A Narod; Laufey Tryggvadóttir Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G Arpino; M Pensabene; C Condello; R Ruocco; I Cerillo; R Lauria; V Forestieri; M Giuliano; C De Angelis; M Montella; A Crispo; S De Placido Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Bernadette A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Marian B E Menke-Pluymers; Albert N van Geel; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Carina C M Bartels; Murly Tan; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Jan G M Klijn; Caroline Seynaeve Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: M R Wevers; N K Aaronson; S Verhoef; E M A Bleiker; D E E Hahn; M A Kuenen; J van der Sanden-Melis; T Brouwer; F B L Hogervorst; R B van der Luijt; H B Valdimarsdottir; T van Dalen; E B M Theunissen; B van Ooijen; M A de Roos; P J Borgstein; B C Vrouenraets; E Vriens; W H Bouma; H Rijna; J P Vente; A J Witkamp; E J T Rutgers; M G E M Ausems Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kerstin Rhiem; Christoph Engel; Monika Graeser; Silke Zachariae; Karin Kast; Marion Kiechle; Nina Ditsch; Wolfgang Janni; Christoph Mundhenke; Michael Golatta; Dominic Varga; Sabine Preisler-Adams; Tilman Heinrich; Ulrich Bick; Dorothea Gadzicki; Susanne Briest; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 6.466