PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) are tumors with low or no expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. These tumors have a poor prognosis, remain a clinical challenge, and are more common among women with BRCA1 mutations. We tested whether there are distinguishing features of TNBC after BRCA1 mutation status has been taken into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We sequenced BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in a population-based sample of 1,469 patients with incident breast cancer age 20 to 49 years from Los Angeles County (California). Information on tumor receptor status was available for 1,167 women. Clinical, pathologic, and hormone-related lifestyle characteristics were compared across patient subgroups defined by BRCA1 mutation status and triple-negative receptor status. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of BRCA1 mutation carriers had TNBC compared with only 12% of noncarriers. Within BRCA1 mutation carriers, as well as within noncarriers, triple-negative receptor status was associated with younger age at diagnosis and higher tumor grade. Among women without a BRCA1 mutation, we observed that women with TNBC had higher premenopausal body mass index and earlier age at first full-term pregnancy than those with non-TNBC. Age at menarche and other reproductive factors were not associated with triple-negative status regardless of BRCA1 mutation status. Within BRCA1 mutation carriers, Ashkenazi Jewish women were about five times more likely to have TNBC than non-Ashkenazi Jewish women. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that among BRCA1 mutation carriers, as among noncarriers, there are unique characteristics associated with the triple-negative subtype. The findings in Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1 mutation carriers should be confirmed.
PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) are tumors with low or no expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. These tumors have a poor prognosis, remain a clinical challenge, and are more common among women with BRCA1 mutations. We tested whether there are distinguishing features of TNBC after BRCA1 mutation status has been taken into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We sequenced BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in a population-based sample of 1,469 patients with incident breast cancer age 20 to 49 years from Los Angeles County (California). Information on tumor receptor status was available for 1,167 women. Clinical, pathologic, and hormone-related lifestyle characteristics were compared across patient subgroups defined by BRCA1 mutation status and triple-negative receptor status. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of BRCA1 mutation carriers had TNBC compared with only 12% of noncarriers. Within BRCA1 mutation carriers, as well as within noncarriers, triple-negative receptor status was associated with younger age at diagnosis and higher tumor grade. Among women without a BRCA1 mutation, we observed that women with TNBC had higher premenopausal body mass index and earlier age at first full-term pregnancy than those with non-TNBC. Age at menarche and other reproductive factors were not associated with triple-negative status regardless of BRCA1 mutation status. Within BRCA1 mutation carriers, Ashkenazi Jewish women were about five times more likely to have TNBC than non-Ashkenazi Jewish women. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that among BRCA1 mutation carriers, as among noncarriers, there are unique characteristics associated with the triple-negative subtype. The findings in Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1 mutation carriers should be confirmed.
Authors: J Vallon-Christersson; C Cayanan; K Haraldsson; N Loman; J T Bergthorsson; K Brøndum-Nielsen; A M Gerdes; P Møller; U Kristoffersson; H Olsson; A Borg; A N Monteiro Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2001-02-15 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Louise A Quenneville; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Hilmi Ozcelik; Robert K Parkes; Julia A Knight; Pamela J Goodwin; Irene L Andrulis; Frances P O'Malley Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sunil R Lakhani; Marc J Van De Vijver; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Thomas J Anderson; Peter P Osin; Lesley McGuffog; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Donald A Berry; Edwin S Iversen; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Elaine H Hiller; Judy E Garber; Beth N Peshkin; Caryn Lerman; Patrice Watson; Henry T Lynch; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Wendy S Rubinstein; Kevin S Hughes; Giovanni Parmigiani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William D Foulkes; Ingunn M Stefansson; Pierre O Chappuis; Louis R Bégin; John R Goffin; Nora Wong; Michel Trudel; Lars A Akslen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-10-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: William D Foulkes; Kelly Metcalfe; Ping Sun; Wedad M Hanna; Henry T Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber; Jane McLennan; Ivo A Olivotto; Louis R Bégin; Steven A Narod Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Antonino Musolino; Maria Michiara; Maria A Bella; Nadia Naldi; Paola Zanelli; Beatrice Bortesi; Marzia Capelletti; Linda Soldani; Roberta Camisa; Eugenia Martella; Vittorio Franciosi; Mario Savi; Tauro M Neri; Andrea Ardizzoni; Stefano Cascinu Journal: Tumori Date: 2005 Nov-Dec
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Stephen R Cole; Lawrence S Engel; Jeannette T Bensen; Charles Poole; Amy H Herring; Robert C Millikan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sachin Kumar Deshmukh; Sanjeev K Srivastava; Nikhil Tyagi; Aamir Ahmad; Ajay P Singh; Ahmed A L Ghadhban; Donna L Dyess; James E Carter; Kari Dugger; Seema Singh Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 4.944