N Lynn Henry1,2, Lisa A Cannon-Albright2,3,4. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The inherited predisposition to developing specific histologic subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma has been incompletely investigated. By using a large, population-based database, the authors sought to investigate familial clustering of breast cancer by histologic subtype. METHODS: By using the Utah Population Database, which links genealogy records to the National Cancer Institute's statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry, the authors identified patients with breast cancer by histology and tested for evidence of shared genetic predisposition to histologic specific subtypes by examining pairwise relatedness and estimating the relative risk (RR) among first-degree, second-degree, and third-degree relatives. RESULTS: The authors identified 23,629 individuals in the Utah Population Database who had at least 3 generations of genealogy and at least 1 primary breast cancer, 2883 (12.2%) of which were specific histologic subtypes other than invasive ductal carcinoma (including inflammatory [n = 178], lobular [n = 1688], and mucinous [n = 542]). Statistically significant excess distant relatedness was identified for the mucinous subtype (P = .011) as well as for inflammatory breast cancers (P = .024). The RR for breast cancer of any histology in second-degree relatives was significantly increased for patients with inflammatory (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68; P = .03), lobular (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.25-1.47; P < .001), and mucinous (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P = .00021) subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence for significant familial clustering within histological subtypes for lobular, mucinous, and inflammatory breast carcinomas. Further research is required to identify the underlying genetic variants responsible for the increased risk. Studies of high-risk pedigrees segregating a specific histologic subtype could be a powerful design for predisposition gene identification.
BACKGROUND: The inherited predisposition to developing specific histologic subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma has been incompletely investigated. By using a large, population-based database, the authors sought to investigate familial clustering of breast cancer by histologic subtype. METHODS: By using the Utah Population Database, which links genealogy records to the National Cancer Institute's statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry, the authors identified patients with breast cancer by histology and tested for evidence of shared genetic predisposition to histologic specific subtypes by examining pairwise relatedness and estimating the relative risk (RR) among first-degree, second-degree, and third-degree relatives. RESULTS: The authors identified 23,629 individuals in the Utah Population Database who had at least 3 generations of genealogy and at least 1 primary breast cancer, 2883 (12.2%) of which were specific histologic subtypes other than invasive ductal carcinoma (including inflammatory [n = 178], lobular [n = 1688], and mucinous [n = 542]). Statistically significant excess distant relatedness was identified for the mucinous subtype (P = .011) as well as for inflammatory breast cancers (P = .024). The RR for breast cancer of any histology in second-degree relatives was significantly increased for patients with inflammatory (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68; P = .03), lobular (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.25-1.47; P < .001), and mucinous (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P = .00021) subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence for significant familial clustering within histological subtypes for lobular, mucinous, and inflammatory breast carcinomas. Further research is required to identify the underlying genetic variants responsible for the increased risk. Studies of high-risk pedigrees segregating a specific histologic subtype could be a powerful design for predisposition gene identification.
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Daniel Barrowdale; Irene L Andrulis; Susan M Domchek; Diana Eccles; Heli Nevanlinna; Susan J Ramus; Amanda Spurdle; Mark Robson; Mark Sherman; Anna Marie Mulligan; Fergus J Couch; Christoph Engel; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Olga M Sinilnikova; Melissa C Southey; Mary Beth Terry; David Goldgar; Frances O'Malley; Esther M John; Ramunas Janavicius; Laima Tihomirova; Thomas V O Hansen; Finn C Nielsen; Ana Osorio; Alexandra Stavropoulou; Javier Benítez; Siranoush Manoukian; Bernard Peissel; Monica Barile; Sara Volorio; Barbara Pasini; Riccardo Dolcetti; Anna Laura Putignano; Laura Ottini; Paolo Radice; Ute Hamann; Muhammad U Rashid; Frans B Hogervorst; Mieke Kriege; Rob B van der Luijt; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; D Gareth Evans; Carole Brewer; Lisa Walker; Mark T Rogers; Lucy E Side; Catherine Houghton; JoEllen Weaver; Andrew K Godwin; Rita K Schmutzler; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Alfons Meindl; Karin Kast; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Christian Sutter; Helmut Deissler; Doroteha Gadzicki; Sabine Preisler-Adams; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Ines Schönbuchner; Heidrun Gevensleben; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Muriel Belotti; Laure Barjhoux; Claudine Isaacs; Beth N Peshkin; Trinidad Caldes; Miguel de la Hoya; Carmen Cañadas; Tuomas Heikkinen; Päivi Heikkilä; Kristiina Aittomäki; Ignacio Blanco; Conxi Lazaro; Joan Brunet; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Adalgeir Arason; Rosa B Barkardottir; Martine Dumont; Jacques Simard; Marco Montagna; Simona Agata; Emma D'Andrea; Max Yan; Stephen Fox; Timothy R Rebbeck; Wendy Rubinstein; Nadine Tung; Judy E Garber; Xianshu Wang; Zachary Fredericksen; Vernon S Pankratz; Noralane M Lindor; Csilla Szabo; Kenneth Offit; Rita Sakr; Mia M Gaudet; Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng Tea; Christine Rappaport; Phuong L Mai; Mark H Greene; Anna Sokolenko; Evgeny Imyanitov; Amanda Ewart Toland; Leigha Senter; Kevin Sweet; Mads Thomassen; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Torben Kruse; Maria Caligo; Paolo Aretini; Johanna Rantala; Anna von Wachenfeld; Karin Henriksson; Linda Steele; Susan L Neuhausen; Robert Nussbaum; Mary Beattie; Kunle Odunsi; Lara Sucheston; Simon A Gayther; Kate Nathanson; Jenny Gross; Christine Walsh; Beth Karlan; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kenneth W Hance; William F Anderson; Susan S Devesa; Heather A Young; Paul H Levine Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-07-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Zsofia K Stadler; Peter Thom; Mark E Robson; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Noah D Kauff; Karen E Hurley; Vincent Devlin; Bert Gold; Robert J Klein; Kenneth Offit Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Dawood; S D Merajver; P Viens; P B Vermeulen; S M Swain; T A Buchholz; L Y Dirix; P H Levine; A Lucci; S Krishnamurthy; F M Robertson; W A Woodward; W T Yang; N T Ueno; M Cristofanilli Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 32.976