Diabetes, antidiabetic medications, and pancreatic cancer risk: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has been associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, but the magnitude of the risk and the time-risk relationship are unclear, and there is limited information on the role of antidiabetic medications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed individual-level data from 15 case-control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium, including 8305 cases and 13 987 controls. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from multiple logistic regression models, adjusted for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 1155 (15%) cases and 1087 (8%) controls reported a diagnosis of diabetes 2 or more years before cancer diagnosis (or interview, for controls), corresponding to an OR of 1.90 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.72-2.09). Consistent risk estimates were observed across strata of selected covariates, including body mass index and tobacco smoking. Pancreatic cancer risk decreased with duration of diabetes, but a significant excess risk was still evident 20 or more years after diabetes diagnosis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.63). Among diabetics, long duration of oral antidiabetic use was associated with a decreased pancreatic cancer risk (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.69, for ≥15 years). Conversely, insulin use was associated with a pancreatic cancer risk in the short term (OR 5.60, 95% CI 3.75-8.35, for <5 years), but not for longer duration of use (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53-1.70, for ≥15 years). CONCLUSION: This study provides the most definitive quantification to date of an excess risk of pancreatic cancer among diabetics. It also shows that a 30% excess risk persists for more than two decades after diabetes diagnosis, thus supporting a causal role of diabetes in pancreatic cancer. Oral antidiabetics may decrease the risk of pancreatic cancer, whereas insulin showed an inconsistent duration-risk relationship.

A prior diagnosis of breast cancer is a risk factor for breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.

BACKGROUND: The risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is influenced by factors other than the genetic mutation itself. Modifying factors include a woman's reproductive history and family history of cancer. Risk factors are more likely to be present in women with breast cancer than in women without breast cancer, and therefore the risk of cancer in the two breasts should not be independent. It is not clear to what extent modifying factors influence the risk of a first primary or a contralateral breast cancer in BRCA carriers. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study of breast cancer among 3920 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. We asked whether a past history of breast cancer in the contralateral breast was a risk factor for breast cancer. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, country of residence, and cancer treatment, a previous cancer of the right breast was found to be a significant risk factor for cancer of the left breast among BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers (relative risk: 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 3.0; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a woman with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who is diagnosed with breast cancer, the risk of cancer in the contralateral breast depends on the first diagnosis. That observation supports the hypothesis that there are important genetic or non-genetic modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA carriers. Discovering risk modifiers might lead to greater personalization of risk assessment and management recommendations for BRCA-positive patients.

Screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among French-Canadian breast cancer cases attending an outpatient clinic in Montreal.

Study subjects were French-Canadian women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer (incident or prevalent) who were treated and followed at a single breast cancer clinic affiliated with the Research Center of University of Montreal (CRCHUM), who were either aged less than 50 years at diagnosis or who were 50 years or older and with at least two affected first- or second-degree relatives. Subjects were tested for six founder mutations (three in BRCA1 and three in BRCA2); 1093 eligible cases were tested. Of these, 56 women (5.1%) were mutation carriers, including 43 BRCA2 carriers and 13 BRCA1 carriers. The prevalence of mutations was 5.3% for unselected women aged 50 and less and was 4.6% for familial cases over age 50. The prevalence of mutations was 3.3% for women with DCIS and was 5.3% for women with invasive cancer. It is rational to offer genetic testing to all French-Canadian women diagnosed recently or in the past with either DCIS or invasive breast cancer before age 50 or with familial breast cancer above age 50.

Health care provider recommendations for reducing cancer risks among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

There is a significant variation in the uptake of cancer risk reducing options by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. It is currently unclear why these differences exist and it is possible that recommendations vary between providers and these influence patient decisions. Eligible health care providers who provide genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families in Canada were identified. Each provider was asked to complete a study specific questionnaire that included their opinion of various cancer risk reduction options and their recommendations for specific cases. Respondents recommended prophylactic oophorectomy more often than prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (p < 0.0001). Fewer than half of the respondents agreed with the recommendation for prophylactic mastectomy, and a minority of the respondents supported the recommendation for tamoxifen for chemoprevention. The majority of Canadian genetics health care providers adhere to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline of recommending prophylactic oophorectomy to mutation carriers, however, the minority of genetics health care providers recommend either prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen.

Incidence of colorectal cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from a follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: The BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes confer increased susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer and to a spectrum of other cancers. There is controversy regarding the risk of colorectal cancer conferred by germline mutations in these two genes. METHODS: We followed 7015 women with a BRCA mutation for new cases of colorectal cancer. Incidence rates in carriers were compared with population-specific incidence rates, and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were estimated. The expected numbers of cancers were computed by multiplying person-years at risk by the appropriate age-, sex- and country-specific incidence rates from the five countries. RESULTS: Twenty-one incident colorectal cancer cases were observed among all mutation carriers, compared with 23.6 cases expected. The SIR for BRCA1 carriers was 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54-1.40, P=0.7) and for BRCA2 carriers was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.30-1.81, P=0.7). The SIR for colon cancer was 3.81 (95% CI 1.77-7.23) for women below the age of 50 years (both genes combined) and was 0.60 (95% CI 0.33-1.00) for women aged 50 years and above. CONCLUSION: The risk of colorectal cancer is increased in female carriers of BRCA1 mutations below the age of 50 years but not in women with BRCA2 mutations or in older women.

Ulcer, gastric surgery and pancreatic cancer risk: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Peptic ulcer and its treatments have been associated to pancreatic cancer risk, although the evidence is inconsistent. METHODS: We pooled 10 case-control studies within the Pancreatic Cancer Case-control Consortium (PanC4), including 4717 pancreatic cancer cases and 9374 controls, and estimated summary odds ratios (OR) using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: The OR for pancreatic cancer was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.23] for history of ulcer (OR = 1.08 for gastric and 0.97 for duodenal ulcer). The association was stronger for a diagnosis within 2 years before cancer diagnosis (OR = 2.43 for peptic, 1.75 for gastric, and 1.98 for duodenal ulcer). The OR was 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.03) for history of gastrectomy; however, the excess risk was limited to a gastrectomy within 2 years before cancer diagnosis (OR = 6.18, 95% CI 1.82-20.96), while no significant increased risk was observed for longer time since gastrectomy. No associations were observed for pharmacological treatments for ulcer, such as antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, or proton-pump inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This uniquely large collaborative study does not support the hypothesis that peptic ulcer and its treatment materially affect pancreatic cancer risk. The increased risk for short-term history of ulcer and gastrectomy suggests that any such association is due to increased cancer surveillance.

Parental origin of mutation and the risk of breast cancer in a prospective study of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

The objective is to estimate the risk of breast cancer in women who carry a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, according to parental origin of mutation. We conducted a cohort study of women with a BRCA1 mutation (n = 1523) or BRCA2 mutation (n = 369) who had not been diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. For each woman, the pedigree was reviewed and the origin of the mutation was assigned as probable paternal or maternal. The hazard ratio (HR) for developing breast cancer in the follow-up period was estimated for women with a paternal mutation compared to a maternal mutation. The risk of breast cancer was modestly higher in women with a paternal BRCA1 mutation compared to women with a maternal BRCA1 mutation (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.99-2.16) but the difference was not significant (p = 0.06). The parental mutation origin did not affect the risk in women with a BRCA2 mutation. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that there is an increased risk of breast cancer among women with a paternally inherited BRCA1 mutation compared to a maternally inherited mutation. However, the data are not sufficiently compelling to justify different screening recommendations for the two subgroups.

The incidence of pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to pancreatic cancer. We estimated the incidence of pancreatic cancer in a cohort of female carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. We also estimated survival rates in pancreatic cancer cases from families with a BRCA mutation. METHODS: We followed 5149 women with a mutation for new cases of pancreatic cancer. The standardised incidence ratios (SIR) for pancreatic cancer were calculated based on age group and country of residence. We also reviewed the pedigrees of 8140 pedigrees with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation for those with a case of pancreatic cancer. We recorded the year of diagnosis and the year of death for 351 identified cases. RESULTS: Eight incident pancreatic cancer cases were identified among all mutation carriers. The SIR for BRCA1 carriers was 2.55 (95% CI=1.03-5.31, P=0.04) and for BRCA2 carriers was 2.13 (95% CI=0.36-7.03, P=0.3). The 5-year survival rate was 5% for cases from a BRCA1 family and 4% for cases from a BRCA2 family. CONCLUSION: The risk of pancreatic cancer is approximately doubled in female BRCA carriers. The poor survival in familial pancreatic cancer underscores the need for novel anti-tumoural strategies.

Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer risk: a pooled analysis in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer; however, an unknown fraction of the disease is thought to be a consequence of tumor-related duct obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis of a history of pancreatitis and risk of pancreatic cancer was carried out considering the time interval between diagnoses and potential modification by covariates. Adjusted pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from 10 case-control studies (5048 cases of ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 10,947 controls) taking part in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). RESULTS: The association between pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was nearly three-fold at intervals of >2 years between diagnoses (OR: 2.71, 95% CI: 1.96-3.74) and much stronger at intervals of ≤2 years (OR: 13.56, 95% CI: 8.72-21.90) probably reflecting a combination of reverse causation and antecedent misdiagnosis of pancreas cancer as pancreatitis. The younger (<65 years) pancreatic cancer cases showed stronger associations with previous (>2 years) pancreatitis (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 2.53-6.04) than the older (≥65 years) cases (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.02-2.76; P value for interaction: 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a moderately strong association between pancreatitis (diagnosed before >2 years) and pancreatic cancer, the population attributable fraction was estimated at 1.34% (95% CI: 0.612-2.07%), suggesting that a relatively small proportion of pancreatic cancer might be avoided if pancreatitis could be prevented.

Alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol drinking has been related to pancreatic cancer, but the issue is still unsolved. METHODS: To evaluate the role of alcohol consumption in relation to pancreatic cancer, we conducted a pooled analysis of 10 case-control studies (5585 cases and 11,827 controls) participating in the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium. We computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) by estimating study-specific ORs adjusted for selected covariates and pooling them using random effects models. RESULTS: Compared with abstainers and occasional drinkers (< 1 drink per day), we observed no association for light-to-moderate alcohol consumption (≤ 4 drinks per day) and pancreatic cancer risk; however, associations were above unity for higher consumption levels (OR = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2-2.2 for subjects drinking ≥ 9 drinks per day). Results did not change substantially when we evaluated associations by tobacco smoking status, or when we excluded participants who reported a history of pancreatitis, or participants whose data were based upon proxy responses. Further, no notable differences in pooled risk estimates emerged across strata of sex, age, race, study type, and study area. CONCLUSION: This collaborative-pooled analysis provides additional evidence for a positive association between heavy alcohol consumption and the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (Panc4).

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dose-response relationship between cigarette smoking and pancreatic cancer and to examine the effects of temporal variables. METHODS: We analyzed data from 12 case-control studies within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4), including 6507 pancreatic cases and 12 890 controls. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) by pooling study-specific ORs using random-effects models. RESULTS: Compared with never smokers, the OR was 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.3) for former smokers and 2.2 (95% CI 1.7-2.8) for current cigarette smokers, with a significant increasing trend in risk with increasing number of cigarettes among current smokers (OR=3.4 for ≥35 cigarettes per day, P for trend<0.0001). Risk increased in relation to duration of cigarette smoking up to 40 years of smoking (OR=2.4). No trend in risk was observed for age at starting cigarette smoking, whereas risk decreased with increasing time since cigarette cessation, the OR being 0.98 after 20 years. CONCLUSIONS: This uniquely large pooled analysis confirms that current cigarette smoking is associated with a twofold increased risk of pancreatic cancer and that the risk increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and duration of smoking. Risk of pancreatic cancer reaches the level of never smokers ∼20 years after quitting.

Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers; and measure the extent to which host, family history, and cancer treatment-related factors modify the risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 810 women, with stage I or II breast cancer, for whom a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had been identified in the family. Patients were followed from the initial diagnosis of cancer until contralateral mastectomy, contralateral breast cancer, death, or last follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 149 subjects (18.4%) developed a contralateral breast cancer. The 15-year actuarial risk of contralateral breast cancer was 36.1% for women with a BRCA1 mutation and was 28.5% for women with a BRCA2 mutation. Women younger than 50 years of age at the time of breast cancer diagnosis were significantly more likely to develop a contralateral breast cancer at 15 years, compared with those older than 50 years (37.6 vs 16.8%; P=0.003). Women aged <50 years with two or more first-degree relatives with early-onset breast cancer were at high risk of contralateral breast cancer, compared with women with fewer, or no first-degree relatives with breast cancer (50 vs 36%; P=0.005). The risk of contralateral breast cancer was reduced with oophorectomy (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.30-0.76; P=0.002). CONCLUSION: The risk of contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers declines with the age of diagnosis and increases with the number of first-degree relatives affected with breast cancer. Oophorectomy reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer in young women with a BRCA mutation.

Cigar and pipe smoking, smokeless tobacco use and pancreatic cancer: an analysis from the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4).

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is the best-characterized risk factor for pancreatic cancer. However, data are limited for other tobacco smoking products and smokeless tobacco. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of cigar and pipe smoking and smokeless tobacco use and risk of pancreatic cancer using data from 11 case-control studies (6056 cases and 11,338 controls) within the International Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Pooled odds ratios (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for study center and selected covariates. RESULTS: Compared with never tobacco users, the OR for cigar-only smokers was 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2-2.3), i.e. comparable to that of cigarette-only smokers (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4-1.6). The OR was 1.1 (95% CI 0.69-1.6) for pipe-only smokers. There was some evidence of increasing risk with increasing amount of cigar smoked per day (OR 1.82 for ≥ 10 grams of tobacco), although not with duration. The OR for ever smokeless tobacco users as compared with never tobacco users was 0.98 (95% CI 0.75-1.3). CONCLUSION: This collaborative analysis provides evidence that cigar smoking is associated with an excess risk of pancreatic cancer, while no significant association emerged for pipe smoking and smokeless tobacco use.

The contribution of founder mutations to early-onset breast cancer in French-Canadian women.

In an ethnically-homogeneous population, it is valuable to identify founder mutations in cancer-predisposing genes. Founder mutations have been found in four breast-cancer-predisposing genes in French-Canadian breast cancer families. The frequencies of the mutant alleles have been measured neither in a large series of unselected breast cancer patients from Quebec, nor in healthy controls. These estimates are necessary to measure their contribution to the hereditary burden of breast cancer in Quebec and to help develop genetic screening policies which are appropriate for the province. We studied 564 French-Canadian women with early-onset invasive breast cancer who were treated at a single Montreal hospital. Patients had been diagnosed at age 50 or less, and were ascertained between 2004 and 2008. We screened all 564 patients for nine founder mutations: four in BRCA1, three in BRCA2 and one each in PALB2 and CHEK2. We also studied 6433 DNA samples from newborn infants from the Quebec City area to estimate the frequency of the nine variant alleles in the French-Canadian population. We identified a mutation in 36 of the 564 breast cancer cases (6.4%) and in 35 of 6443 controls (0.5%). In the breast cancer patients, the majority of mutations were in BRCA2 (54%). However, in the general population (newborn infants), the majority of mutations were in CHEK2 (54%). The odds ratio for breast cancer to age 50, given a BRCA1 mutation, was 10.1 (95% CI: 3.7-28) and given a BRCA2 mutation was 29.5 (95% CI: 12.9-67). The odds ratio for breast cancer to age 50, given a CHEK2 mutation, was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.4-9.1). One-half of the women with a mutation had a first- or second-degree relative diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer. Thus, it can be concluded that a predisposing mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 or PALB2 is present in approximately 6% of French-Canadian women with early-onset breast cancer. It is reasonable to offer screening for founder mutations to all French-Canadian women with breast cancer before age 50. The frequency of these mutations in the general population (0.5%) is too low to advocate population-based screening.

Rapid progression of prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Men with BRCA2 mutations have been found to be at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. There is a recent report that BRCA2 carriers with prostate cancer have poorer survival than noncarrier prostate cancer patients. In this study, we compared survival of men with a BRCA2 mutation and prostate cancer with that of men with a BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer. We obtained the age at diagnosis, age at death or current age from 182 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA2 mutation and from 119 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA1 mutation. The median survival from diagnosis was 4.0 years for men with a BRCA2 mutation vs 8.0 years for men with a BRCA1 mutation, and the difference was highly significant (P<0.01). It may be important to develop targeted chemotherapies to treat prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Family history as a predictor of uptake of cancer preventive procedures by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at an elevated risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer; however, it is unclear to what extent family history influences the uptake of cancer prevention options. Women with a BRCA1/2 mutation completed a follow-up questionnaire that assessed uptake of cancer preventive options. The pedigree of each woman was reviewed, and information was recorded on cancers diagnosed in relatives. Five hundred and seventeen women were included in the study. Women with a sister with breast cancer were more likely to have a prophylactic mastectomy than those without a sister with breast cancer [odds ratios (OR) = 2.4, p = 0.003]. Uptake of prophylactic mastectomy was significantly lower in women with a mother with ovarian cancer compared with those whose mother did not have ovarian cancer (OR = 0.4, p = 0.01). Having a mother or sister with ovarian cancer significantly predicted the uptake of prophylactic oophorectomy (OR = 1.6, p = 0.04). Women with a BRCA2 mutation were less likely to have a prophylactic oophorectomy than those with a BRCA1 mutation (OR = 0.49, p = 0.0004). Among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, family history predicts the uptake of prophylactic mastectomy and prophylactic oophorectomy.

Germline BRCA2 mutations and the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

The incidence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is very high among the Turkmen population of Iran. Family studies suggest a genetic component to the disease. Turkmen are ethnically homogenous and are well suited for genetic studies. A previous study from China suggested that BRCA2 might play a role in the etiology of ESCC. We screened for mutations in the coding region of the BRCA2 gene in the germline DNA of 197 Turkmen patients with ESCC. A nonsense variant, K3326X, was identified in 9 of 197 cases (4.6%) vs 2 of 254 controls (0.8%) (OR=6.0, 95% CI=1.3-28; P=0.01). This mutation leads to the loss of the C-terminal domain of the BRCA2 protein, a part of the region of interaction with the FANCD2 protein. We observed nine other BRCA2 variants in single cases only, including two deletions, and seven missense mutations. Six of these were judged to be pathogenic. In total, a suspicious deleterious BRCA2 variant was identified in 15 of 197 ESCC cases (7.6%).

Diet quality and BRCA-associated breast cancer risk.

Although it has been suggested that dietary energy intake restriction may be related to reduced BRCA-associated breast cancer (BC) risk, it is currently not known whether overall diet quality could predict the BC risk among women with deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) genes who already have an elevated BC risk. To assess possible relationships between diet quality, reflected by the Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI), the Diet Quality Index-Revised (DQI-R), the alternate Mediterranean Diet Index (aMED), the Canadian Healthy Eating Index (CHEI), and BRCA-associated BC risk, a case-control study was carried out within a cohort of 80 French-Canadian families with 250 members involving 89 carriers of BRCA genes affected by BC, 48 non-affected carriers and 46 non-affected non-carriers. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in unconditional logistic regression models. After adjustment for age, physical activity and total energy intake, we did not detect any association between the AHEI or aMED and BC. However, a strong and significant inverse relationship was apparent between the DQI-R and CHEI and BRCA-associated BC risk. ORs comparing the highest and lowest tertiles of diet quality scores were 0.35 (95%CI = 0.12-1.02; p ( )= 0.034 for trend) for the DQI-R and 0.18 (95%CI = 0.05-0.68; p = 0.006 for trend) for the CHEI, respectively. These inverse associations were not the result of a link with any specific component of the diet quality indexes. These results suggest that dietary guidelines reflected by the DQI-R and CHEI may constitute preventive strategies for reducing BRCA-associated BC risk.

Application of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier prediction models in breast and/or ovarian cancer families of French Canadian descent.

The BRCAPRO, Couch, Myriad I and II, Ontario Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT), and Manchester models have been used to predict BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier status of women at high risk for developing the heritable form of breast and ovarian cancers. We have evaluated these models for their accuracy in classifying 224 French Canadian families with at least three cases of breast cancer (diagnosed before the age of 65 years), ovarian cancer, or male breast cancer where mutation status was known for an index affected case used to assess the model. This series includes 44 BRCA1 and 52 BRCA2 mutation-positive families. Using receiver operator characteristics analyses, the C-statistics were found to be 0.81, 0.80, 0.79, and 0.74 for the BRCAPRO, FHAT, Manchester, and Myriad II models, respectively, when incorporating both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier predictions. For the BRCAPRO model, 75% scored greater than a 0.43 probability in the mutation-positive group and 75% scored less than 0.50 in the mutation-negative group. Only 38 of 128 (30%) mutation-negative group had a probability greater than 0.43 with the BRCAPRO model. While all models were highly predictive of carrier status, the BRCAPRO model was the most accurate where a cut-off of 10% would have eliminated 60 of 128 (47%) mutation-negative families for genetic testing and only miss 10 of 96 (10%) mutation-positive families. A review of the cancer phenotypes with high BRCAPRO probabilities showed that significantly more metachronous bilateral breast cancer cases occurred in BRCA1/2 mutation carrier families in comparison to mutation-negative families, a feature which is not discriminated in the BRCAPRO model.