CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21BRCA gene mutations in cancerMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersPARP inhibition in cancer therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prophylactic Interventions for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risks and Mortality in BRCA1/2 Carriers

Open access
Liu, Taoran, Yu, Jing, Gao, Yangyang, Ma, Xinyang, Jiang, Shan, Gu, Yuanyuan, Ming, Wai-kit·2023·Cancers
DOI 10.3390/cancers16010103PMC PMC10778044
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOCs) pose significant health risks worldwide and are mitigated by prophylactic interventions. However, a meta-analysis of their efficacy and the impact of different genetic variants on their effectiveness is lacking. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, adhering to Cochrane guidelines. The review encompassed studies that involved prophylactic interventions for healthy women with BRCA variants, focusing on cancer incidence and mortality outcomes. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias assessment. We pooled the extracted outcomes using random effects models and conducted subgroup analyses stratified by intervention, variant, and cancer types. Results: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic interventions significantly reduced cancer risk and mortality. The subgroup analysis showed a greater protective effect for BRCA2 than BRCA1 variant carriers. Risk-reducing surgeries (RRS) were more effective than chemoprevention, with RRS notably reducing cancer risk by 56% compared to 39% for chemoprevention. Prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced HBOC risks, while the effect of prophylactic mastectomy and chemoprevention on mortality was less conclusive. Conclusions: Prophylactic interventions significantly reduce the risk of HBOC and associated mortality. This comprehensive analysis provides insights for future economic evaluations and clinical decision-making in HBOC interventions.

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 · 10.3390/cancers16010103

Cites

1 of 1 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

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?

  • A meta-analysis of 21 studies found that risk-reducing surgery (BSO and RRM) significantly reduced cancer risk and mortality.

    “The meta-analysis revealed that RRS (BSO and RRM) significantly reduced cancer risk and mortality.”

    From Screening, Risk Reduction Strategies, and Clinical Management of Unaffected Carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Results (section 3.3) report that risk-reducing surgery lowered cancer risk and that oophorectomy significantly lowered breast-cancer-specific mortality. But the Discussion (section 4) says risk-reducing mastectomy did not significantly alter mortality risk, so the claim overstates the mortality finding when applied to both surgeries. The paper reports 21 included studies. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

  • Breast Cancer after Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation

    Meijers-Heijboer, H., van Geel, B., van Putten, W. L. J., Henzen-Logmans, S. C., Seynaeve, C., Menke-Pluymers, M. B. E., Bartels, C. C. M., Verhoog, L. C., van den Ouweland, A. M. W., Niermeijer, M. F., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200107193450301 · Cited by 973 · cited 2×

    “…et al., 2008 [25], Domchek et al., 2010 [10], Heemskerk-Gerritsen, 2013 and 2019 [20,21], Kaas et al., 2010 [23], and Meijers-Heijboer et al., 2001 [30], as well as Finch et al., 2014 [19], were excluded from Figure 2b–d, and substudies by Mavaddat et al., 2020 [29] were omitted from Figure 2a…”
    Method

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Ford, 1998, Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 62, 676, 10.1086/301749 · DOI
  2. King, 2003, Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, Science, 302, 643, 10.1126/science.1088759 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Struewing, 1997, The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews, N. Engl. J. Med., 336, 1401, 10.1056/NEJM199705153362001 · DOI
  4. Antoniou, 2003, Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: A combined analysis of 22 studies, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 72, 1117, 10.1086/375033 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group (2000). Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases. Br. J. Cancer, 83, 1301. · DOI
  6. Satagopan, 2002, Ovarian cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, Clin. Cancer Res., 8, 3776
  7. Domchek, 2010, Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality, JAMA, 304, 967, 10.1001/jama.2010.1237 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Metcalfe, 2019, International trends in the uptake of cancer risk reduction strategies in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, Br. J. Cancer, 121, 15, 10.1038/s41416-019-0446-1 · DOI
  9. Kotsopoulos, 2023, Tamoxifen and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 201, 257, 10.1007/s10549-023-06991-3 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Moher, 2010, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement, Int. J. Surg., 8, 336, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Domchek, 2006, Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A prospective cohort study, Lancet Oncol., 7, 223, 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70585-X · DOI
  12. Eisen, 2005, Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: An international case-control study, J. Clin. Oncol., 23, 7491, 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.7138 · DOI
  13. Finch, 2006, Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation, JAMA, 296, 185, 10.1001/jama.296.2.185 · DOI
  14. Finch, 2014, Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, J. Clin. Oncol., 32, 1547, 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.2820 · DOI
  15. Jager, 2013, Substantial breast cancer risk reduction and potential survival benefit after bilateral mastectomy when compared with surveillance in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A prospective analysis, Ann. Oncol., 24, 2029, 10.1093/annonc/mdt134 · DOI
  16. Jager, 2019, Survival after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 177, 723, 10.1007/s10549-019-05345-2 · DOI
  17. Ingham, 2013, Risk-reducing surgery increases survival in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers unaffected at time of family referral, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 142, 611, 10.1007/s10549-013-2765-x · DOI
  18. Kaas, 2010, Prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: Very low risk for subsequent breast cancer, Ann. Surg., 251, 488, 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c3c36d · DOI
  19. Kauff, 2002, Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, N. Engl. J. Med., 346, 1609, 10.1056/NEJMoa020119 · DOI
  20. Kauff, 2008, Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1-and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: A multicenter, prospective study, J. Clin. Oncol., 26, 1331, 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9626 · DOI
  21. King, 2001, Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial, JAMA, 286, 2251, 10.1001/jama.286.18.2251 · DOI
  22. Kotsopoulos, 2005, Changes in body weight and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, Breast Cancer Res., 7, 1, 10.1186/bcr1293 · DOI
  23. Kotsopoulos, 2017, Bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 109, djw177, 10.1093/jnci/djw177 · DOI
  24. Mavaddat, 2020, Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, natural menopause, and breast cancer risk: An international prospective cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, Breast Cancer Res., 22, 8, 10.1186/s13058-020-1247-4 · DOI
  25. Rebbeck, 2002, Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, N. Engl. J. Med., 346, 1616, 10.1056/NEJMoa012158 · DOI
  26. Rebbeck, 2004, Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: The PROSE Study Group, J. Clin. Oncol., 22, 1055, 10.1200/JCO.2004.04.188 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Rutter, 2003, Gynecologic surgeries and risk of ovarian cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi founder mutations: An Israeli population-based case–control study, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 95, 1072, 10.1093/jnci/95.14.1072 · DOI
  28. Skytte, 2011, Breast cancer after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy, Clin. Genet., 79, 431, 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01604.x · DOI
  29. Piva, 2018, Satisfaction and impact on quality of life of clinical and instrumental surveillance and prophylactic surgery in BRCA-mutation carriers, Clin. Breast Cancer, 18, e1361, 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.015 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Soper, 2020, Exome sequencing reveals a high prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder variants in a diverse population-based biobank, Genome Med., 12, 2, 10.1186/s13073-019-0691-1 · DOI
  31. Uzan, 2010, Characteristics, treatment, and outcome of breast cancers diagnosed in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers in intensive screening programs including magnetic resonance imaging, Clin. Breast Cancer, 10, 113, 10.3816/CBC.2010.n.022 · DOI
  32. Grann, 2011, Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 125, 837, 10.1007/s10549-010-1043-4 · DOI
  33. Manna, E.D.F., Serrano, D., Aurilio, G., Bonanni, B., and Lazzeroni, M. (2023). Chemoprevention and Lifestyle Modifications for Risk Reduction in Sporadic and Hereditary Breast Cancer. Healthcare, 11. · DOI
  34. Piek, 2003, BRCA1/2-related ovarian cancers are of tubal origin: A hypothesis, Gynecol. Oncol., 90, 491, 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00365-2 · DOI
  35. Neff, 2017, BRCA mutation in ovarian cancer: Testing, implications and treatment considerations, Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol., 9, 519, 10.1177/1758834017714993 · DOI
  36. Manchanda, 2022, Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and the use of hormone replacement therapy below the age of natural menopause: Scientific impact paper No. 66, BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 129, e16, 10.1111/1471-0528.16896 · DOI
  37. Erekson, 2013, Oophorectomy: The debate between ovarian conservation and elective oophorectomy, Menopause, 20, 110, 10.1097/gme.0b013e31825a27ab · DOI
  38. Shu, 2016, Uterine cancer after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy without hysterectomy in women with BRCA mutations, JAMA Oncol., 2, 1434, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1820 · DOI
  39. Jiang, 2021, Incorporating future unrelated medical costs in cost-effectiveness analysis in China, BMJ Glob. Health, 6, e006655, 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006655 · DOI
  40. Jiang, 2022, Incorporating productivity loss in health economic evaluations: A review of guidelines and practices worldwide for research agenda in China, BMJ Glob. Health, 7, e009777, 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009777 · DOI
  41. Jiang, 2020, Addressing methodological and ethical issues in practicing health economic evaluation in China, J. Glob. Health, 10, 020322, 10.7189/jogh.10.020322 · DOI
  42. Tappenden, 2012, Whole Disease Modeling to Inform Resource Allocation Decisions in Cancer: A Methodological Framework, Value Health, 15, 1127, 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.008 · DOI
  43. Jiang, 2022, Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments, Pharmacoeconomics, 41, 43, 10.1007/s40273-022-01198-8 · DOI
  44. Gasparri, M.L., Taghavi, K., Fiacco, E., Zuber, V., Di Micco, R., Gazzetta, G., Valentini, A., Mueller, M.D., Papadia, A., and Gentilini, O.D. (2019). Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for BRCA mutation carriers and hormonal replacement therapy: If it should rain, better a drizzle than a storm. Medicina, 55. · DOI
  45. Simões Corrêa Galendi, J., Kautz-Freimuth, S., Stock, S., and Müller, D. (2022). Uptake rates of risk-reducing surgeries for women at increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian Cancer applied to cost-effectiveness analyses: A scoping systematic review. Cancers, 14. · DOI
  46. Jiang, 2023, Breast Cancer Screening Should Embrace Precision Medicine: Evidence by Reviewing Economic Evaluations in China, Adv. Ther., 40, 1393, 10.1007/s12325-023-02450-z · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liu, T., Yu, J., Gao, Y., Ma, X., Jiang, S., Gu, Y., & Ming, W.-K.
Affiliations
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Gu, Yuanyuan
  • Ming, Wai-kit
ORCID
Venue
Cancers
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-12-24
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
103
ISSN
2072-6694 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/cancers16010103
PMC
PMC10778044
OpenAlex
W4390175983
Cited by
21
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cancers (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CityU Scholars (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
SIRG—the CityU Strategic Interdisciplinary Research Grant (7020093)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Multiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › PARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Keywords
hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1, BRCA2, prophylactic interventions, prophylactic surgery, prophylactic oophorectomy, prophylactic mastectomy, chemoprevention, cancer risk reduction, cancer mortality, genetic variants

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