BACKGROUND: Several authors have proposed the use of patients with double primary malignancies affecting the same or contralateral organ as a genetically enriched resource of cases for epidemiologic case-control studies in cancer. Such an approach is based on the assumption that the factors that increase the risk of a second primary are the same ones which influence the risk of a first primary. The advantages for statistical power are premised on the assumption that relative risks in survivors of a first primary cancer are similar to relative risks in the unaffected population. We explore these assumptions theoretically and empirically using published data from breast cancer studies involving bilateral breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify case-control studies of variants in 4 genes known to affect breast cancer risk: CHEK2*1100delC; multiple variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2; and FGFR2 rs2981582. Summary odds ratios were obtained for each of 3 study designs: a conventional case-control design, the design comparing bilateral cases with unilateral controls, and the design comparing bilateral cases with population controls. RESULTS: The data show strong patterns of steadily increasing prevalence of risk factors from healthy controls to primary cases to bilateral cases, as expected. Relative risks in survivors of unilateral breast cancer are either the same as in the general population, or modestly attenuated. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with double primary malignancies are a very important underused resource for cancer epidemiologic investigation. Such patients are especially useful for broad genome-wide discovery studies, and for studies of rare, strong risk factors such as high penetrance genes.
BACKGROUND: Several authors have proposed the use of patients with double primary malignancies affecting the same or contralateral organ as a genetically enriched resource of cases for epidemiologic case-control studies in cancer. Such an approach is based on the assumption that the factors that increase the risk of a second primary are the same ones which influence the risk of a first primary. The advantages for statistical power are premised on the assumption that relative risks in survivors of a first primary cancer are similar to relative risks in the unaffected population. We explore these assumptions theoretically and empirically using published data from breast cancer studies involving bilateral breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify case-control studies of variants in 4 genes known to affect breast cancer risk: CHEK2*1100delC; multiple variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2; and FGFR2rs2981582. Summary odds ratios were obtained for each of 3 study designs: a conventional case-control design, the design comparing bilateral cases with unilateral controls, and the design comparing bilateral cases with population controls. RESULTS: The data show strong patterns of steadily increasing prevalence of risk factors from healthy controls to primary cases to bilateral cases, as expected. Relative risks in survivors of unilateral breast cancer are either the same as in the general population, or modestly attenuated. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with double primary malignancies are a very important underused resource for cancer epidemiologic investigation. Such patients are especially useful for broad genome-wide discovery studies, and for studies of rare, strong risk factors such as high penetrance genes.
Authors: Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis Antoniou; Martin Bobrow; Ron L Zimmern; Douglas F Easton; Bruce A J Ponder Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2002-03-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Evgeny N Suspitsin; Konstantin G Buslov; Maxim Yu Grigoriev; Julia G Ishutkina; Julia M Ulibina; Victoria M Gorodinskaya; Kazymir M Pozharisski; Lev M Berstein; Kaido P Hanson; Alexandr V Togo; Evgeny N Imyanitov Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2003-01-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: E S Kuligina; A V Togo; E N Suspitsin; M Y Grigoriev; K M Pozharisskiy; O L Chagunava; L M Berstein; C Theillet; K P Hanson; E N Imyanitov Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2000-08-01 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Evgeny N Imyanitov; Evgeny N Suspitsin; Maxim Yu Grigoriev; Alexandr V Togo; Ekatherina Sh Kuligina; Evgeniya V Belogubova; Kazymir M Pozharisski; Elena A Turkevich; Carmen Rodriquez; Cees J Cornelisse; Kaido P Hanson; Charles Theillet Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-08-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Gary M Tse; Fred Y Kung; Amy B Chan; Bonita K Law; Alexander R Chang; Kwok-Wai Lo Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: A C Antoniou; P D P Pharoah; G McMullan; N E Day; M R Stratton; J Peto; B J Ponder; D F Easton Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-01-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Petra E A Huijts; Antoinette Hollestelle; Brunilda Balliu; Jeanine J Houwing-Duistermaat; Caro M Meijers; Jannet C Blom; Bahar Ozturk; Elly M M Krol-Warmerdam; Juul Wijnen; Els M J J Berns; John W M Martens; Caroline Seynaeve; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Henricus F van der Heijden; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Peter Devilee; Christi J van Asperen Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Marinela Capanu; Patrick Concannon; Robert W Haile; Leslie Bernstein; Kathleen E Malone; Charles F Lynch; Xiaolin Liang; Sharon N Teraoka; Anh T Diep; Duncan C Thomas; Jonine L Bernstein; Colin B Begg Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2011-04-25 Impact factor: 2.135
Authors: Ekatherina Sh Kuligina; Anna P Sokolenko; Nathalia V Mitiushkina; Svetlana N Abysheva; Elena V Preobrazhenskaya; Tatiana V Gorodnova; Grigoriy A Yanus; Alexandr V Togo; Nadezhda V Cherdyntseva; Svetlana A Bekhtereva; J Michael Dixon; Alexey A Larionov; Sergey G Kuznetsov; Evgeny N Imyanitov Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Natalia Bogdanova; Anna P Sokolenko; Aglaya G Iyevleva; Svetlana N Abysheva; Magda Blaut; Michael Bremer; Hans Christiansen; Margret Rave-Fränk; Thilo Dörk; Evgeny N Imyanitov Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 4.872