Breast cancer risks in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who have tested negative for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation
2009

Breast cancer risks in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who have tested negative for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

Sample size: 1492 publication Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Metcalfe K A, Finch A, Poll A, Horsman D, Kim-Sing C, Scott J, Royer R, Sun P, Narod S A

Primary Institution: Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto

Hypothesis

What are the breast cancer risks for women with a family history of breast cancer who tested negative for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations?

Conclusion

Women with a significant family history of breast cancer but who test negative for BRCA mutations have approximately a four-fold risk of developing breast cancer.

Supporting Evidence

  • 65 women developed breast cancer compared to an expected number of 15.2.
  • The actuarial risk of breast cancer in the entire cohort was 0.7% per year.
  • The SIR was highest for women under the age of 40 at 14.9.
  • Women between 50 and 70 years had a higher absolute risk of 1% per year.

Takeaway

If your mom or sister had breast cancer, and you don't have the BRCA gene, you still have a higher chance of getting breast cancer than most people.

Methodology

The study followed 1492 women from families with a history of breast cancer who tested negative for BRCA mutations, collecting data on cancer status and calculating standardized incidence ratios.

Potential Biases

Selection bias may have occurred if the proband included only relatives with breast cancer.

Limitations

Cancers were self-reported and not confirmed by pathology; genetic testing was limited to the proband, and some BRCA mutations may have been missed.

Participant Demographics

Women from 365 families with a significant family history of breast cancer.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.0001

Confidence Interval

95% CI=3.1–5.0

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/sj.bjc.6604830

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication