Cited by 1,802BRCA gene mutations in cancerGenetic factors in colorectal cancerMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers

Meta-Analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Penetrance

Open access
Chen, Sining, Parmigiani, Giovanni·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Genetic counseling is now routinely offered to individuals at high risk of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Risk prediction provided by the counselor requires reliable estimates of the mutation penetrance. Such penetrance has been investigated by studies worldwide. The reported estimates vary. To facilitate clinical management and counseling of the at-risk population, we address this issue through a meta-analysis. Methods: We conducted a literature search on PubMed and selected studies that had nonoverlapping patient data, contained genotyping information, used statistical methods that account for the ascertainment, and reported risks in a useable format. We subsequently combined the published estimates using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects modeling approach. Results: Ten studies were eligible under the selection criteria. Between-study heterogeneity was observed. Study population, mutation type, design, and estimation methods did not seem to be systematic sources of heterogeneity. Meta-analytic mean cumulative cancer risks for mutation carriers at age 70 years were as follows: breast cancer risk of 57% (95% CI, 47% to 66%) for BRCA1 and 49% (95% CI, 40% to 57%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers; and ovarian cancer risk of 40% (95% CI, 35% to 46%) for BRCA1 and 18% (95% CI, 13% to 23%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also report the prospective risks of developing cancer for currently asymptomatic carriers. Conclusion: This article provides a set of risk estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers that can be used by counselors and clinicians who are interested in advising patients based on a comprehensive set of studies rather than one specific study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.09.1066

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, S., & Parmigiani, G.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-04-10
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1329-1333
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2110137106
Cited by
1,802
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 124 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 167 · 2016: 158 · 2015: 122 · 2014: 102 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 81
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL99-024)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50-CA-88843, P50CA62924-05, P50CA088843, 5P30CA06973-39, R01CA105090, P50CA062924, P30CA006973)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Multiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Keywords
BRCA1, BRCA2, mutation penetrance, breast cancer risk, ovarian cancer risk, cumulative cancer risk, mutation carriers, genetic counseling, risk prediction, ascertainment bias
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Genetic Counseling, Genetic Testing, Genotype, Humans, Mutation, Ovarian Neoplasms, Genes, BRCA1, Penetrance, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genes, BRCA2

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