Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 495

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes

Open access
Antoniou, A C, Pharoah, P D P, McMullan, G, Day, N E, Stratton, M R, Peto, J, Ponder, B J, Easton, D F·2002·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

In computing the probability that a woman is a BRCA1 or BRCA2 carrier for genetic counselling purposes, it is important to allow for the fact that other breast cancer susceptibility genes may exist. We used data from both a population based series of breast cancer cases and high risk families in the UK, with information on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, to investigate the genetic models that can best explain familial breast cancer outside BRCA1 and BRCA2 families. We also evaluated the evidence for risk modifiers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated the simultaneous effects of BRCA1, BRCA2, a third hypothetical gene ‘BRCA3’, and a polygenic effect using segregation analysis. The hypergeometric polygenic model was used to approximate polygenic inheritance and the effect of risk modifiers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 could not explain all the observed familial clustering. The best fitting model for the residual familial breast cancer was the polygenic, although a model with a single recessive allele produced a similar fit. There was also significant evidence for a modifying effect of other genes on the risks of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Under this model, the frequency of BRCA1 was estimated to be 0.051% (95% CI: 0.021–0.125%) and of BRCA2 0.068% (95% CI: 0.033–0.141%). The breast cancer risk by age 70 years, based on the average incidence over all modifiers was estimated to be 35.3% for BRCA1 and 50.3% for BRCA2. The corresponding ovarian cancer risks were 25.9% for BRCA1 and 9.1% for BRCA2. The findings suggest that several common, low penetrance genes with multiplicative effects on risk may account for the residual non-BRCA1/2 familial aggregation of breast cancer. The modifying effect may explain the previously reported differences between population based estimates for BRCA1/2 penetrance and estimates based on high-risk families.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600008

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 495

Metadata

Authors
Antoniou, A. C., Pharoah, P. D. P., McMullan, G., Day, N. E., Stratton, M. R., Peto, J., Ponder, B. J., & Easton, D. F.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2002-01
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
76-83
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2117298495
Cited by
495
References
2
FWCI
16.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600008
The paper
Antoniou, A. C., Pharoah, P. D. P., McMullan, G., Day, N. E., Stratton, M. R., Peto, J., Ponder, B. J., & Easton, D. F. (2002). A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.