Literature DB >> 23109704

A role for common genomic variants in the assessment of familial breast cancer.

Sarah Sawyer1, Gillian Mitchell, Joanne McKinley, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Jonathan Beesley, Xiao Qing Chen, David Bowtell, Alison H Trainer, Marion Harris, Geoffrey J Lindeman, Paul A James.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Genome-wide association studies have identified common genomic variants associated with increased susceptibility to breast cancer. In the general population, the risk associated with these known variants seems insufficient to inform clinical management. Their contribution to the development of familial breast cancer is less clear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 1,143 women with breast cancer who had completed BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation screening as a result of a high risk for hereditary breast cancer. Genotyping of 22 breast cancer-associated genomic variants was performed. A polygenic risk score (PRS), calculated as the sum of the log odds ratios for each allele, was compared with the same metric in 892 controls from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. The clinical features associated with the high and low ends of the polygenic risk distribution were compared.
RESULTS: Women affected by familial breast cancer had a highly significant excess of risk alleles compared with controls (P = 1.0 × 10(-16)). Polygenic risk (measured by the PRS) was greater in women who tested negative for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation compared with mutation carriers (P = 2.3 × 10(-6)). Non-BRCA1/2 women in the top quartile of the polygenic risk distribution were more likely to have had early-onset breast cancer (< 30 years of age, odds ratio [OR]= 3.37, P = .03) and had a higher rate of second breast cancer (OR 1.96, P = .02) compared with women with low polygenic risk.
CONCLUSION: Genetic testing for common risk variants in women undergoing assessment for familial breast cancer may identify a distinct group of high-risk women in whom the role of risk-reducing interventions should be explored.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23109704     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.41.7469

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  37 in total

1.  Genetic variants demonstrating flip-flop phenomenon and breast cancer risk prediction among women of African ancestry.

Authors:  Shengfeng Wang; Frank Qian; Yonglan Zheng; Temidayo Ogundiran; Oladosu Ojengbede; Wei Zheng; William Blot; Katherine L Nathanson; Anselm Hennis; Barbara Nemesure; Stefan Ambs; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dezheng Huo
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Six low-penetrance SNPs for the estimation of breast cancer heritability: A family-based study in Caucasian Italian patients.

Authors:  Simona De Summa; Francesca Graziano; Brunella Pilato; Rosamaria Pinto; Katia Danza; Rosanna Lacalamita; Simona Serratì; Domenico Sambiasi; Mario Grassi; Stefania Tommasi
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks.

Authors:  Mary-Anne Young; Laura Elenor Forrest; Victoria-Mae Rasmussen; Paul James; Gillian Mitchell; Sarah Dilys Sawyer; Katrina Reeve; Nina Hallowell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 4.  Genomic Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Michael F Walsh; Katherine L Nathanson; Fergus J Couch; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Two decades after BRCA: setting paradigms in personalized cancer care and prevention.

Authors:  Fergus J Couch; Katherine L Nathanson; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Genetic risk transmission in a family affected by familial breast cancer.

Authors:  Brunella Pilato; Simona De Summa; Katia Danza; Rosanna Lacalamita; Rossana Lambo; Domenico Sambiasi; Angelo Paradiso; Stefania Tommasi
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.172

7.  Behavioral and psychosocial responses to genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk.

Authors:  Kristi D Graves; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Rachel Nusbaum; Yasmin Salehizadeh; Gillian W Hooker; Beth N Peshkin; Morgan Butrick; William Tuong; Jeena Mathew; David Goerlitz; Mary B Fishman; Peter G Shields; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 5.736

8.  Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score.

Authors:  Yiwey Shieh; Donglei Hu; Lin Ma; Scott Huntsman; Charlotte C Gard; Jessica W T Leung; Jeffrey A Tice; Celine M Vachon; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Elad Ziv
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  The incidence of PALB2 c.3113G>A in women with a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer attending familial cancer centres in Australia.

Authors:  Zhi L Teo; Sarah D Sawyer; Paul A James; Gillian Mitchell; Alison H Trainer; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Kylie Shackleton; Linda Cicciarelli; Melissa C Southey
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Development and pilot testing of a leaflet informing women with breast cancer about genomic testing for polygenic risk.

Authors:  Rajneesh Kaur; Bettina Meiser; Tatiane Yanes; Mary-Anne Young; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Tony Roscioli; Sian Smith; Paul A James
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.