Janet R Vos1, Li Hsu2, Richard M Brohet2, Marian J E Mourits2, Jakob de Vries2, Kathleen E Malone2, Jan C Oosterwijk2, Geertruida H de Bock2. 1. Janet R. Vos, Marian J.E. Mourits, Jakob de Vries, Jan C. Oosterwijk, and Geertruida H. de Bock, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen; Richard M. Brohet, Spaarne Hospital, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; and Li Hsu and Kathleen E. Malone, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. j.r.vos01@umcg.nl. 2. Janet R. Vos, Marian J.E. Mourits, Jakob de Vries, Jan C. Oosterwijk, and Geertruida H. de Bock, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen; Richard M. Brohet, Spaarne Hospital, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; and Li Hsu and Kathleen E. Malone, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recommendations for treating patients who carry a BRCA1/2 gene are mainly based on cumulative lifetime risks (CLTRs) of breast cancer determined from retrospective cohorts. These risks vary widely (27% to 88%), and it is important to understand why. We analyzed the effects of methods of risk estimation and bias correction and of population factors on CLTRs in this retrospective clinical cohort of BRCA1/2 carriers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The following methods to estimate the breast cancer risk of BRCA1/2 carriers were identified from the literature: Kaplan-Meier, frailty, and modified segregation analyses with bias correction consisting of including or excluding index patients combined with including or excluding first-degree relatives (FDRs) or different conditional likelihoods. These were applied to clinical data of BRCA1/2 families derived from our family cancer clinic for whom a simulation was also performed to evaluate the methods. CLTRs and 95% CIs were estimated and compared with the reference CLTRs. RESULTS: CLTRs ranged from 35% to 83% for BRCA1 and 41% to 86% for BRCA2 carriers at age 70 years width of 95% CIs: 10% to 35% and 13% to 46%, respectively). Relative bias varied from -38% to +16%. Bias correction with inclusion of index patients and untested FDRs gave the smallest bias: +2% (SD, 2%) in BRCA1 and +0.9% (SD, 3.6%) in BRCA2. CONCLUSION: Much of the variation in breast cancer CLTRs in retrospective clinical BRCA1/2 cohorts is due to the bias-correction method, whereas a smaller part is due to population differences. Kaplan-Meier analyses with bias correction that includes index patients and a proportion of untested FDRs provide suitable CLTRs for carriers counseled in the clinic.
PURPOSE: Recommendations for treating patients who carry a BRCA1/2 gene are mainly based on cumulative lifetime risks (CLTRs) of breast cancer determined from retrospective cohorts. These risks vary widely (27% to 88%), and it is important to understand why. We analyzed the effects of methods of risk estimation and bias correction and of population factors on CLTRs in this retrospective clinical cohort of BRCA1/2 carriers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The following methods to estimate the breast cancer risk of BRCA1/2 carriers were identified from the literature: Kaplan-Meier, frailty, and modified segregation analyses with bias correction consisting of including or excluding index patients combined with including or excluding first-degree relatives (FDRs) or different conditional likelihoods. These were applied to clinical data of BRCA1/2 families derived from our family cancer clinic for whom a simulation was also performed to evaluate the methods. CLTRs and 95% CIs were estimated and compared with the reference CLTRs. RESULTS: CLTRs ranged from 35% to 83% for BRCA1 and 41% to 86% for BRCA2 carriers at age 70 years width of 95% CIs: 10% to 35% and 13% to 46%, respectively). Relative bias varied from -38% to +16%. Bias correction with inclusion of index patients and untested FDRs gave the smallest bias: +2% (SD, 2%) in BRCA1 and +0.9% (SD, 3.6%) in BRCA2. CONCLUSION: Much of the variation in breast cancer CLTRs in retrospective clinical BRCA1/2 cohorts is due to the bias-correction method, whereas a smaller part is due to population differences. Kaplan-Meier analyses with bias correction that includes index patients and a proportion of untested FDRs provide suitable CLTRs for carriers counseled in the clinic.
Authors: Regina Kroiss; Verena Winkler; Diana Bikas; Elisabeth Fleischmann; Claudia Mainau; Florian Frommlet; Daniela Muhr; Christine Fuerhauser; Maria Tea; Barbara Bittner; Ernst Kubista; Peter J Oefner; Peter Bauer; Teresa M U Wagner Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Dorina M van der Kolk; Geertruida H de Bock; Beike K Leegte; Michael Schaapveld; Marian J E Mourits; Jakob de Vries; Annemieke H van der Hout; Jan C Oosterwijk Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Clare L Scott; Mark A Jenkins; Melissa C Southey; Tracey A Davis; Jennifer A Leary; Douglas F Easton; Kelly-Anne Phillips; John L Hopper Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2003-02-25 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Janet R Vos; Natalia Teixeira; Dorina M van der Kolk; Marian J E Mourits; Matti A Rookus; Flora E van Leeuwen; Margriet Collée; Christi J van Asperen; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Margreet G E M Ausems; Theo A M van Os; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Encarna B Gómez-Garcia; Hans F Vasen; Richard M Brohet; Annemarie H van der Hout; Liesbeth Jansen; Jan C Oosterwijk; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: M C Southey; A Tesoriero; M A Young; A J Holloway; M A Jenkins; J Whitty; S Misfud; S A McLachlan; D J Venter; J E Armes Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: D Gareth Evans; Andrew Shenton; Emma Woodward; Fiona Lalloo; Anthony Howell; Eamonn R Maher Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Natalia Teixeira; Annemieke van der Hout; Jan C Oosterwijk; Janet R Vos; Peter Devilee; Klaartje van Engelen; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Rob B van der Luijt; Mieke Kriege; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Matti A Rookus; Kees E van Roozendaal; Marian J E Mourits; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Ana F Best; Margaret A Tucker; Megan N Frone; Mark H Greene; June A Peters; Hormuzd A Katki Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Meggie M C M Drissen; Janet R Vos; Dorien T J van der Biessen-van Beek; Rachel S van der Post; Iris D Nagtegaal; Mariëtte C A van Kouwen; Tanya M Bisseling; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Linda A J Hendricks; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Janneke H M Schuurs-Hoeijmakers; Janet R Vos Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 4.438