No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer
Permalink
Citation
Hollestelle , A , van der Baan , F H , Berchuck , A , Johnatty , S E , Aben , K K , Agnarsson , B A , Aittomäki , K , Alducci , E , Andrulis , I L , Anton-Culver , H , Antonenkova , N N , Antoniou , A C , Apicella , C , Arndt , V , Arnold , N , Arun , B K , Arver , B , Ashworth , A , Baglietto , L , Balleine , R , Bandera , E V , Barrowdale , D , Bean , Y T , Beckmann , L , Beckmann , M W , Benitez , J , Berger , A , Berger , R , Beuselinck , B , Bisogna , M , Bjorge , L , Blomqvist , C , Bogdanova , N V , Bojesen , A , Bojesen , S E , Bolla , M K , Bonanni , B , Brand , J S , Brauch , H , Brenner , H , Brinton , L , Brooks-Wilson , A , Bruinsma , F , Brunet , J , Bruning , T , Butzow , R , Leminen , A , Muranen , T A , Nevanlinna , H , Pelttari , L M , Ovarian Canc Assoc Consortium , Breast Canc Assoc Consortium , Consortium Modifiers BRCA1 & BRCA2 , Australian Ovarian Canc Study Grp , Breast Cancer Family Register , EMBRACE , GEMO Study Collaborators , GENICA Network , HEBON , kConFab Investigators & SWE-BRCA 2016 , ' No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer ' , Gynecologic Oncology , vol. 141 , no. 2 , pp. 386-401 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.034
| Title: | No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer |
| Author: | Hollestelle, Antoinette; van der Baan, Frederieke H.; Berchuck, Andrew; Johnatty, Sharon E.; Aben, Katja K.; Agnarsson, Bjarni A.; Aittomäki, Kristiina; Alducci, Elisa; Andrulis, Irene L.; Anton-Culver, Hoda; Antonenkova, Natalia N.; Antoniou, Antonis C.; Apicella, Carmel; Arndt, Volker; Arnold, Norbert; Arun, Banu K.; Arver, Brita; Ashworth, Alan; Baglietto, Laura; Balleine, Rosemary; Bandera, Elisa V.; Barrowdale, Daniel; Bean, Yukie T.; Beckmann, Lars; Beckmann, Matthias W.; Benitez, Javier; Berger, Andreas; Berger, Raanan; Beuselinck, Benoit; Bisogna, Maria; Bjorge, Line; Blomqvist, Carl; Bogdanova, Natalia V.; Bojesen, Anders; Bojesen, Stig E.; Bolla, Manjeet K.; Bonanni, Bernardo; Brand, Judith S.; Brauch, Hiltrud; Brenner, Hermann; Brinton, Louise; Brooks-Wilson, Angela; Bruinsma, Fiona; Brunet, Joan; Bruning, Thomas; Butzow, Ralf; Leminen, Arto; Muranen, Taru A.; Nevanlinna, Heli; Pelttari, Liisa M.; Ovarian Canc Assoc Consortium; Breast Canc Assoc Consortium; Consortium Modifiers BRCA1 & BRCA2; Australian Ovarian Canc Study Grp; Breast Cancer Family Register; EMBRACE; GEMO Study Collaborators; GENICA Network; HEBON; kConFab Investigators; SWE-BRCA |
| Contributor organization: | Medicum Kristiina Aittomäki / Principal Investigator Department of Medical and Clinical Genetics Clinicum Department of Oncology Department of Pathology Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology HUS Gynecology and Obstetrics |
| Date: | 2016-05 |
| Language: | eng |
| Number of pages: | 16 |
| Belongs to series: | Gynecologic Oncology |
| ISSN: | 0090-8258 |
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.034 |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10138/223960 |
| Abstract: | Objective. Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3' UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370. Methods. Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers). Results. We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p = 0.74) or breast cancer (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.14, breast cancer HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p = 0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p = 034, breast cancer HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p = 0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p = 0.38), breast cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p = 0.38), and all other previously-reported associations. Conclusions. rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| Subject: |
KRAS variant
Breast cancer Ovarian cancer Genetic association Clinical outcome GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION MICRORNA-BINDING-SITE SUSCEPTIBILITY LOCI RISK PROSTATE IDENTIFICATION POLYMORPHISMS ENDOMETRIOSIS WOMEN 3123 Gynaecology and paediatrics 3122 Cancers |
| Peer reviewed: | Yes |
| Usage restriction: | openAccess |
| Self-archived version: | publishedVersion |
Files in this item
Total number of downloads: Loading...
| Files | Size | Format | View |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1_s2.0_S009082581500863X_main.pdf | 672.7Kb |
View/ |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
Articles from TUHAT system
[53339]
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
(2019)Importance: Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. Objective: To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. Evidence Review: We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-Adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. Findings: In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). Conclusions and Relevance: The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care. © 2019 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
-
(2017)Familial risks of lung cancer are well-established, but whether lung cancer clusters with other discordant cancers is less certain, particularly beyond smoking-related sites, which may provide evidence on genetic contributions to lung cancer aetiology. We used a novel approach to search for familial associations in the Swedish Family-Cancer Database. This involved assessment of familial relative risk for cancer X in families with increasing numbers of lung cancer patients and, conversely, relative risks for lung cancer in families with increasing numbers of patients with cancers X. However, we lacked information on smoking. The total number of lung cancers in the database was 125 563. We applied stringent statistical criteria and found that seven discordant cancers were associated with lung cancer among family members, and six of these were known to be connected with smoking: oesophageal, upper aerodigestive tract, liver, cervical, kidney and urinary bladder cancers. A further novel finding was that cancer of unknown primary also associated with lung cancer. We also factored in histological evidence and found that anal and connective tissue cancers could be associated with lung cancer for reasons other than smoking. For endometrial and prostate cancers, suggestive negative associations with lung cancer were found. Although we lacked information on smoking it is prudent to conclude that practically all observed discordant associations of lung cancer were with cancers for which smoking is a risk factor. © ERS 2017.
-
(2018)Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific type of cancer. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Oesophageal and gastric: essential requirements for quality care: Oesophageal and gastric (OG) cancers are a challenging tumour group with a poor prognosis and wide variation in outcomes among European countries. Increasing numbers of older people are contracting the diseases, and treatments and care pathways are becoming more complex in both curative and palliative settings. High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised OG cancer units or centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Such units or centres are far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the essential requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality OG cancer service. The ERQCC expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with OG cancer.