Association of PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: results from a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The variable penetrance of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers suggests that other genetic or environmental factors modify breast cancer risk. Two genes of special interest are prohibitin (PHB) and methylene-tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), both of which are important either directly or indirectly in maintaining genomic integrity. METHODS: To evaluate the potential role of genetic variants within PHB and MTHFR in breast and ovarian cancer risk, 4102 BRCA1 and 2093 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 6211 BRCA1 and 2902 BRCA2 carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA) were genotyped for the PHB 1630 C>T (rs6917) polymorphism and the MTHFR 677 C>T (rs1801133) polymorphism, respectively. RESULTS: There was no evidence of association between the PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with either disease for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers when breast and ovarian cancer associations were evaluated separately. Analysis that evaluated associations for breast and ovarian cancer simultaneously showed some evidence that BRCA1 mutation carriers who had the rare homozygote genotype (TT) of the PHB 1630 C>T polymorphism were at increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancer (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.04 and HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.24-3.76, respectively). However, there was no evidence of association under a multiplicative model for the effect of each minor allele. CONCLUSION: The PHB 1630TT genotype may modify breast and ovarian cancer risks in BRCA1 mutation carriers. This association need to be evaluated in larger series of BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Breast cancer risk after salpingo-oophorectomy in healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: revisiting the evidence for risk reduction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported a breast cancer (BC) risk reduction of approximately 50% after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but may have been subject to several types of bias. The purpose of this nationwide cohort study was to assess potential bias in the estimated BC risk reduction after RRSO. METHODS: We selected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from an ongoing nationwide cohort study on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON). First, we replicated the analytical methods as previously applied in four major studies on BC risk after RRSO. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios and conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios. Secondly, we analyzed the data in a revised design in order to further minimize bias using an extended Cox model with RRSO as a time-dependent variable to calculate the hazard ratio. The most important differences between our approach and those of previous studies were the requirement of no history of cancer at the date of DNA diagnosis and the inclusion of person-time preceding RRSO. RESULTS: Applying the four previously described analytical methods and the data of 551 to 934 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a median follow-up of 2.7 to 4.6 years, the odds ratio was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 1.08), and the hazard ratios were 0.36 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.53), 0.62 (95% CI = 0.39 to 0.99), and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.71), being similar to earlier findings. For the revised analysis, we included 822 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. After a median follow-up period of 3.2 years, we obtained a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.77). CONCLUSION: In previous studies, BC risk reduction after RRSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may have been overestimated because of bias. Using a design that maximally eliminated bias, we found no evidence for a protective effect.