Abstract PD4-8: Prevalence of gene mutations among hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients using a 25 gene panel

Author(s):  
N Tung ◽  
C Battelli ◽  
B Allen ◽  
R Kaldate ◽  
K Soltis ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
L.M. Pelttari ◽  
H. Shimelis ◽  
H. Toiminen ◽  
A. Kvist ◽  
T. Törngren ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
O T Jóhannsson ◽  
J Ranstam ◽  
A Borg ◽  
H Olsson

PURPOSE Recent studies indicate that BRCA1 breast and ovarian tumors may have an advantageous survival. In this population-based study, the survival of carriers of a mutated BRCA1 gene was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS The survival of 71 BRCA1-associated cancer patients (33 breast cancer, seven breast and ovarian cancer, and 31 ovarian cancer patients from 21 families with BRCA1 germline mutations) diagnosed after 1958 was compared with that of a population-based comparison group that consisted of all other invasive breast (n = 28,281) and ovarian (n = 7,011) cancers diagnosed during 1958 to 1995, as well as an age- and stage-matched control group. RESULTS No apparent survival advantage was found for BRCA1-associated breast cancers upon direct comparison. After adjustment for age and calendar year of diagnosis, survival was equal to or worse than that of the comparison group (hazards ratio [HR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 2.4). In comparison with an age- and stage-matched control group, survival again appeared equal or worse (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.7). For BRCA1-associated ovarian cancers, an initial survival advantage was noted that disappeared with time. Due to this time dependency, multivariate analyses cannot adequately be analyzed. Compared with the age- and stage-matched control group, survival again appeared equal or worse (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.8). CONCLUSION The results suggest that survival for carriers of a BRCA1 mutation may be similar, or worse than, that for breast and ovarian cancer in general. This finding is in accordance with the adverse histopathologic features observed in BRCA1 tumors and underlines the need for surveillance in families that carry a BRCA1 mutation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146831882110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Asphaug ◽  
Hans Olav Melberg

Background. Expansion of routine genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer from conventional BRCA testing to a multigene test could improve diagnostic yield and increase the opportunity for cancer prevention in both identified carriers and their relatives. We use an economic decision model to assess whether the current knowledge on non- BRCA mutation prevalence, cancer risk, and patient preferences justifies switching to a multigene panel for testing of early-onset breast cancer patients. Methods. We evaluated routine testing by BRCA testing, a 7-gene panel, and a 14-gene panel using individual-level simulations of annual health state transitions over a lifetime perspective. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence is reduced and posttreatment survival is improved when high-risk mutations are detected and risk-reducing treatment offered. Most model inputs were synthesized from published literature. Intermediate health outcomes included breast and ovarian cancer incidence rates, along with organ-specific cancer mortality. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were health sector costs and quality-adjusted life years. Results. Intermediate health outcomes improved by testing with multigene panels. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $77,000, a 7-gene panel test with five non- BRCA genes was the optimal strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,310 per quality-adjusted life year compared to BRCA-only testing. Limitations. Unable to stratify carriers to specific mutations within genes, we can only make predictions on the gene level, with combined risk estimates for known variants. As mutation prevalence is the absolute upper bound of returns to more expansive testing, the rarity of modelled mutations makes analysis outcomes sensitive to model implementation. Conclusions. A 7-gene panel to diagnose hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in early-onset breast cancer patients can be a cost-effective alternative to current BRCA-only testing in Norway.


Author(s):  
Muhannad Shweash ◽  
Saddam Jumaa Naseer ◽  
Maisam Khider Al-anii ◽  
Thulfiqar Fawwaz Mutar

Objective: Cancer ovary is one of the fatal gynecologic malignancies worldwide. Since breast cancer (BRCA) genes are considered tumor suppressor genes and play important roles in cancer by repairing of chromosomal damage with the error repair of DNA breaks. Therefore, breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) gene mutations strongly enhance the development of ovarian cancer risk among women. Here, we report that both genes are an essential mediator of progress ovarian cancer, to determine the influence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the improvement of ovarian cancer.Methods: A total of 25 subjects were chosen for the genetic studies, and three groups were recruited: fifteen ovarian cancer patients group, five healthy controls, and five first-degree relatives to a known case of ovarian cancer patients.Results: A genetic analysis revealed that a strong correlation exists between both gene mutations’ status in ovarian cancer, and BRCA gene mutations (185delAG, 5382insC, and 4153delA in BRCA1 and 6174delT in BRCA2) remained to establish to have a relatively high frequency among people in this study among ovarian cancer patients. Furthermore, seven patients with ovarian cancer carried all of the four investigated mutations, and five had three mutations.Conclusion: Otherwise, BRCA gene frequency showed low prevalence among first-degree relatives, and to a lesser extent among healthy controls, with only a few had all of the mutations combined. These data demonstrate for the first time a molecular link between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in ovarian cancer progression in Iraq.


2015 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A6.1-A6
Author(s):  
Leif W Ellisen ◽  
Stephen E Lincoln ◽  
Allison W Kurian ◽  
Andrea J Desmond ◽  
Shan Yang ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Petr Pohlreich ◽  
Michal Zikan ◽  
Jana Stribrna ◽  
Zdenek Kleibl ◽  
Marketa Janatova ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. S9
Author(s):  
L. Ottini ◽  
C. D’Amico ◽  
C. Noviello ◽  
C. Pizzi ◽  
S. Lauro ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document