Miao Liu1, Fei Xie1, Miaoyu Liu1, Yi Zhang1, Shu Wang2. 1. Breast Center, Peking University, People's Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Breast Center, Peking University, People's Hospital, Beijing, China. shuwang@pkuph.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating role of BRCA mutations on the survival outcomes in breast cancer (BC) patients have given confounding results and hence, in this meta-analysis, we assessed the impact of BRCA mutations on survival in BC patients. METHODS: Studies comparing survival outcomes of BC patients having BRCA mutations against wildtype BRCA phenotype were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCCS) were the outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed for survival based on triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and follow-up durations. The meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Altogether, 30 articles with 35,972 patients (mean age 45.6 years) were included. Patients with BRCA 1 mutation had significantly lower OS (HR [95% CI] 1.2 [1.08, 1.33]; P < 0.001), BRCA 2 mutation had significantly lower DFS (HR [95% CI] 1.35 [1.1, 1.67]; P = 0.0049) and BCSS (HR [95%CI] 1.46 [1.26, 1.7]; P < 0.0001), and TNBC patients with BRCA 1 mutation had significantly poor DFS (HR [95% CI] 1.65 [1.08, 2.54]; P = 0.0216). Based on follow-up duration, the OS in BRCA 1-mutated patients revealed significantly poorer outcomes in studies with ≤ 5 years (HR 1.48) and > 5 years (HR 1.14) of follow-up. In BRCA 2 -mutated patients, the OS was significantly poorer in studies with > 5 years of follow-up (HR 1.39, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BC patients with BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations had poor survival outcomes and hence screening patients with BC for BRCA mutations might help in strategizing their treatment and improving their survival.
BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating role of BRCA mutations on the survival outcomes in breast cancer (BC) patients have given confounding results and hence, in this meta-analysis, we assessed the impact of BRCA mutations on survival in BC patients. METHODS: Studies comparing survival outcomes of BC patients having BRCA mutations against wildtype BRCA phenotype were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCCS) were the outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed for survival based on triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and follow-up durations. The meta-analysis was performed as per PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Altogether, 30 articles with 35,972 patients (mean age 45.6 years) were included. Patients with BRCA 1 mutation had significantly lower OS (HR [95% CI] 1.2 [1.08, 1.33]; P < 0.001), BRCA 2 mutation had significantly lower DFS (HR [95% CI] 1.35 [1.1, 1.67]; P = 0.0049) and BCSS (HR [95%CI] 1.46 [1.26, 1.7]; P < 0.0001), and TNBC patients with BRCA 1 mutation had significantly poor DFS (HR [95% CI] 1.65 [1.08, 2.54]; P = 0.0216). Based on follow-up duration, the OS in BRCA 1-mutated patients revealed significantly poorer outcomes in studies with ≤ 5 years (HR 1.48) and > 5 years (HR 1.14) of follow-up. In BRCA 2 -mutated patients, the OS was significantly poorer in studies with > 5 years of follow-up (HR 1.39, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: BC patients with BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations had poor survival outcomes and hence screening patients with BC for BRCA mutations might help in strategizing their treatment and improving their survival.
Entities:
Keywords:
BRCA; Breast cancer; Prognosis; Survival
Authors: R Wooster; G Bignell; J Lancaster; S Swift; S Seal; J Mangion; N Collins; S Gregory; C Gumbs; G Micklem Journal: Nature Date: 1995 Dec 21-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Eun-Ha Lee; Sue K Park; Boyoung Park; Sung-Won Kim; Min Hyuk Lee; Sei Hyun Ahn; Byung Ho Son; Keun-Young Yoo; Daehee Kang Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Tom Walsh; Jessica B Mandell; Barbara M Norquist; Silvia Casadei; Suleyman Gulsuner; Ming K Lee; Mary-Claire King Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Y Miki; J Swensen; D Shattuck-Eidens; P A Futreal; K Harshman; S Tavtigian; Q Liu; C Cochran; L M Bennett; W Ding Journal: Science Date: 1994-10-07 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Maureen A Murtaugh; Carol Sweeney; Anna R Giuliano; Jennifer S Herrick; Lisa Hines; Tim Byers; Kathy B Baumgartner; Martha L Slattery Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ellen R Copson; Tom C Maishman; Will J Tapper; Ramsey I Cutress; Stephanie Greville-Heygate; Douglas G Altman; Bryony Eccles; Sue Gerty; Lorraine T Durcan; Louise Jones; D Gareth Evans; Alastair M Thompson; Paul Pharoah; Douglas F Easton; Alison M Dunning; Andrew Hanby; Sunil Lakhani; Ros Eeles; Fiona J Gilbert; Hisham Hamed; Shirley Hodgson; Peter Simmonds; Louise Stanton; Diana M Eccles Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 41.316