BACKGROUND: The identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at-risk relatives. Those who test negative are usually reassured and additional breast cancer surveillance is discontinued. However, we postulated that in high-risk families, such as those seen in clinical genetics centres, the risk of breast cancer might be influenced not only by the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation but also by modifier genes. One manifestation of this would be the presence of phenocopies in BRCA1/BRCA2 kindreds. METHODS: 277 families with pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations were reviewed and 28 breast cancer phenocopies identified. The relative risk of breast cancer in those testing negative was assessed using incidence rates from our cancer registry based on local population. RESULTS: Phenocopies constituted up to 24% of tests on women with breast cancer after the identification of the mutation in the proband. The standardised incidence ratio for women who tested negative for the BRCA1/BRCA2 family mutation was 5.3 for all relatives, 5.0 for all first-degree relatives (FDRs) and 3.2 (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 4.9) for FDRs in whose family all other cases of breast and ovarian cancer could be explained by the identified mutation. 13 of 107 (12.1%) FDRs with breast cancer and no unexplained family history tested negative. CONCLUSION: In high-risk families, women who test negative for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation have an increased risk of breast cancer consistent with genetic modifiers. In light of this, such women should still be considered for continued surveillance.
BACKGROUND: The identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at-risk relatives. Those who test negative are usually reassured and additional breast cancer surveillance is discontinued. However, we postulated that in high-risk families, such as those seen in clinical genetics centres, the risk of breast cancer might be influenced not only by the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation but also by modifier genes. One manifestation of this would be the presence of phenocopies in BRCA1/BRCA2 kindreds. METHODS: 277 families with pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations were reviewed and 28 breast cancer phenocopies identified. The relative risk of breast cancer in those testing negative was assessed using incidence rates from our cancer registry based on local population. RESULTS: Phenocopies constituted up to 24% of tests on women with breast cancer after the identification of the mutation in the proband. The standardised incidence ratio for women who tested negative for the BRCA1/BRCA2 family mutation was 5.3 for all relatives, 5.0 for all first-degree relatives (FDRs) and 3.2 (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 4.9) for FDRs in whose family all other cases of breast and ovarian cancer could be explained by the identified mutation. 13 of 107 (12.1%) FDRs with breast cancer and no unexplained family history tested negative. CONCLUSION: In high-risk families, women who test negative for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation have an increased risk of breast cancer consistent with genetic modifiers. In light of this, such women should still be considered for continued surveillance.
Authors: Gillian S Dite; Mark A Jenkins; Melissa C Southey; Jane S Hocking; Graham G Giles; Margaret R E McCredie; Deon J Venter; John L Hopper Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-03-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Raquel Rodríguez-López; Ana Osorio; Gloria Ribas; Marina Pollán; Luis Sánchez-Pulido; Miguel de la Hoya; Alvaro Ruibal; Pilar Zamora; Jose Ignacio Arias; Raquel Salazar; Ana Vega; Jose Ignacio Martínez; Eva Esteban-Cardeñosa; Carmen Alonso; Rocío Letón; Miguel Urioste Azcorra; Cristina Miner; M Eugenia Armengod; Angel Carracedo; Rogelio González-Sarmiento; Trinidad Caldés; Orland Díez; Javier Benítez Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-07-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: A W K Tso; R Rong; C Y Lo; K C B Tan; S C Tiu; N M S Wat; J Y Xu; A Villablanca; C Larsson; B T Teh; K S L Lam Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: L Kadouri; Z Kote-Jarai; A Hubert; F Durocher; D Abeliovich; B Glaser; T Hamburger; R A Eeles; T Peretz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-05-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Larissa A Korde; Christine M Mueller; Jennifer T Loud; Jeffery P Struewing; Kathy Nichols; Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: M M Blokhuis; G E Pietersen; P A Goldberg; U Algar; L Van der Merwe; N Mbatani; A A Vorster; R S Ramesar Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: D Gareth R Evans; Fiona Lennard; Linda J Pointon; Susan J Ramus; Simon A Gayther; Nayanta Sodha; Gek E Kwan-Lim; Martin O Leach; Ruth Warren; Deborah Thompson; Douglas F Easton; Rosalind Eeles Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Helen Byers; Yvonne Wallis; Elke M van Veen; Fiona Lalloo; Kim Reay; Philip Smith; Andrew J Wallace; Naomi Bowers; William G Newman; D Gareth Evans Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 4.246