Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer penetrance during prospective, long-term follow-up of BRCA1 mutation carriers

被引:102
作者
Kramer, JL
Velazquez, IA
Chen, BSE
Rosenberg, PS
Struewing, JP
Greene, MH
机构
[1] NCI, Clin Genet Branch, Div Canc Epidemiol & Genet, NIH,Dept Hlth & Human Serv, Rockville, MD 20852 USA
[2] NCI, Biostat Branch, Div Canc Epidemiol & Genet, NIH,Dept Hlth & Human Serv, Rockville, MD 20852 USA
[3] NCI, Lab Populat Genet, Canc Res Ctr, NIH,Dept Hlth & Human Serv, Rockville, MD 20852 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1200/JCO.2005.02.9199
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose Breast cancer penetrance estimates in BRCA1 mutation carriers have varied from 40% to 85%; this heterogeneity has been attributed to variations in risk among different study populations. No study has taken oophorectomy status into account in estimating penetrance. Because prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 50%, we hypothesized that population differences in oophorectomy prevalence might significantly influence breast cancer penetrance estimates. Methods Females from multiple-case breast/ovarian cancer families that segregate deleterious BRCA1 mutations were observed prospectively for breast cancer incidence and oophorectomy. Results Within this cohort, 33 cases of breast cancer developed in 98 women with deleterious BRCA1 mutations during follow-up, yielding an estimated cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of 80%. This estimate increased to 94% when the study participants were censored at the time of oophorectomy. Six of the 33 mutation-positive women who underwent oophorectomy during follow-up developed breast cancer, compared with 27 of 65 mutation carriers with intact ovaries (hazard ratio = 0.38-1 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.97). Estimates of absolute breast cancer risk demonstrated that the protective effect of oophorectomy was strongest among women who were premenopausal at the time of surgery. When surgical status was ignored, the strong protective effect of oophorectomy, coupled with the high prevalence of the procedure in these families, led to a significantly lower estimate of the breast cancer penetrance in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Conclusion Differing rates of oophorectomy likely represent an underappreciated basis for a portion of the heterogeneity in estimated breast cancer penetrance described in BRCA mutation carriers, particularly mutation carriers from extensively affected, multiple-case families.
引用
收藏
页码:8629 / 8635
页数:7
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2003, Techniques for censored and truncated data, DOI DOI 10.1007/0-387-21645-6_3
[2]   Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history:: A combined analysis of 22 studies [J].
Antoniou, A ;
Pharoah, PDP ;
Narod, S ;
Risch, HA ;
Eyfjord, JE ;
Hopper, JL ;
Loman, N ;
Olsson, H ;
Johannsson, O ;
Borg, Å ;
Pasini, B ;
Radice, P ;
Manoukian, S ;
Eccles, DM ;
Tang, N ;
Olah, E ;
Anton-Culver, H ;
Warner, E ;
Lubinski, J ;
Gronwald, J ;
Gorski, B ;
Tulinius, H ;
Thorlacius, S ;
Eerola, H ;
Nevanlinna, H ;
Syrjäkoski, K ;
Kallioniemi, OP ;
Thompson, D ;
Evans, C ;
Peto, J ;
Lalloo, F ;
Evans, DG ;
Easton, DF .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2003, 72 (05) :1117-1130
[3]   A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes [J].
Antoniou, AC ;
Pharoah, PDP ;
McMullan, G ;
Day, NE ;
Stratton, MR ;
Peto, J ;
Ponder, BJ ;
Easton, DF .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2002, 86 (01) :76-83
[4]   MENSTRUAL FACTORS AND RISK OF BREAST-CANCER [J].
BRINTON, LA ;
SCHAIRER, C ;
HOOVER, RN ;
FRAUMENI, JF .
CANCER INVESTIGATION, 1988, 6 (03) :245-254
[5]  
Brose MS, 2002, J NATL CANCER I, V94, P1365, DOI 10.1093/jnci/94.18.1365
[6]  
Easton DF, 2004, SCIENCE, V306, P2187
[7]  
EASTON DF, 1995, AM J HUM GENET, V56, P265
[8]   Communicating evidence for participatory decision making [J].
Epstein, RM ;
Alper, BS ;
Quill, TE .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (19) :2359-2366
[9]   Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families [J].
Ford, D ;
Easton, DF ;
Stratton, M ;
Narod, S ;
Goldgar, D ;
Devilee, P ;
Bishop, DT ;
Weber, B ;
Lenoir, G ;
Chang-Claude, J ;
Sobol, H ;
Teare, MD ;
Struewing, J ;
Arason, A ;
Scherneck, S ;
Peto, J ;
Rebbeck, TR ;
Tonin, P ;
Neuhausen, S ;
Barkardottir, R ;
Eyfjord, J ;
Lynch, H ;
Ponder, BAJ ;
Gayther, SA ;
Birch, JM ;
Lindblom, A ;
Stoppa-Lyonnet, D ;
Bignon, Y ;
Borg, A ;
Hamann, U ;
Haites, N ;
Scott, RJ ;
Maugard, CM ;
Vasen, H .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 1998, 62 (03) :676-689
[10]   RISKS OF CANCER IN BRCA1-MUTATION CARRIERS [J].
FORD, D ;
EASTON, DF ;
BISHOP, DT ;
NAROD, SA ;
GOLDGAR, DE ;
HAITES, N ;
MILNER, B ;
ALLAN, L ;
PONDER, BAJ ;
PETO, J ;
SMITH, S ;
STRATTON, M ;
LENOIR, GM ;
FEUNTEUN, J ;
LYNCH, H ;
ARASON, A ;
BARKARDOTTIR, R ;
EGILSSON, V ;
BLACK, DM ;
KELSELL, D ;
SPURR, N ;
DEVILEE, P ;
CORNELISSE, CJ ;
VARSEN, H ;
BIRCH, JM ;
SKOLNICK, M ;
SANTIBANEZKOREF, MS ;
TEARE, D ;
STEEL, M ;
PORTER, D ;
COHEN, BB ;
CAROTHERS, A ;
SMYTH, E ;
WEBER, B ;
NEWBOLD, B ;
BOEHNKE, M ;
COLLINS, FS ;
CANNONALBRIGHT, LA ;
GOLDGAR, D .
LANCET, 1994, 343 (8899) :692-695