Familial invasive and borderline ovarian tumors by proband status, age and histology

Familial risks of ovarian cancer by age at diagnosis, proband type and histology

Ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Data regarding familial risks for specific proband, age at diagnosis and histology are limited. Such data can assist genetic counseling and help elucidate etiologic differences among various histologic types of ovarian malignancies. By using the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, we calculated relative risks (RRs) for detailed family histories using a two-way comparison, which implied e.g. estimation of RRs for overall ovarian cancer when family history was histology-specific ovarian cancer, and conversely, RRs for histology-specific ovarian cancer when family history was overall ovarian cancer. In families of only mother, only sisters or both mother and sisters diagnosed with ovarian cancer, cancer risks for ovary were 2.40, 2.59 and 10.40, respectively; and were higher for cases diagnosed before the age of 50 years. All histological types showed a familial risk in two-way analyses, except mucinous and sex cord-stromal tumors. RRs for concordant histology were found for serous (2.47), endometrioid (3.59) and mucinous ovarian cancers (6.91). Concordant familial risks were highest for mucinous cancer; for others, some discordant associations, such as endometrioid-undifferentiated (9.27) and serous-undifferentiated (4.80), showed the highest RRs. Familial risks are high for early-onset patients and for those with multiple affected relatives. Sharing of different histological types of ovarian cancer is likely an indication of the complexity of the underlying mechanisms.

Familial Ovarian Cancer Clusters with Other Cancers

Familial risk of ovarian cancer is well-established but whether ovarian cancer clusters with other cancers and the clusters differ by histology remains uncertain. Using data from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, we explored familial associations of ovarian cancer with other cancers with a novel approach; relative risk for (histology-specific) ovarian cancer was estimated in families with patients affected by other cancers, and conversely, risks for other cancers in families with (histology-specific) ovarian cancer patients. Eight discordant cancers were associated with ovarian cancer risk, of which family history of breast cancer showed a dose-response (P-trend <0.0001). Conversely, risks of eight types of cancer increased in families with ovarian cancer patients, and dose-responses were shown for risks of liver (P-trend = 0.0083) and breast cancers (P-trend <0.0001) and cancer of unknown primary (P-trend = 0.0157). Some cancers were only associated with histology-specific ovarian cancers, e.g. endometrial cancer was only associated with endometrioid type but with highest significance. Novel associations with virus-linked cancers of the nose and male and female genitals were found. The results suggest that ovarian cancer shares susceptibility with a number of other cancers. This might alert genetic counselors and challenge approaches for gene and gene-environment identification.

The association between cancer family history and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: can it be explained by the mutation position?

This observational study aimed to investigate whether the reported association between family history (FH) of breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) and OC risks in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers can be explained by mutation position on the gene. In total, 3310 female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers participating in a nationwide prospective cohort (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the Netherlands) were included. FH was classified according to cancer occurrence in first-degree relatives (BC only, OC only, both, neither) and mutations were classified according to their position on the gene (OC cluster region (OCCR), BC cluster region, neither). The main outcome was OC occurrence. Cox proportional-hazard models were applied to investigate the association between FH and OC risks before and after adjusting for mutation position. Of all women included, 202 were diagnosed with OC. A BC-only FH tended to be associated with lower OC risks when compared with a FH without BC/OC (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.52-1.17; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.07 for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively) while an OC-only FH tended to be associated with higher risks (HR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.90-2.77; HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 0.70-4.37 for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively). After adjusting for mutation position, association between FH and OC risks was slightly smaller in magnitude (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.55-1.30; HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.34-1.21 for BC-only FH in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively; HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.80-2.68; HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.44-4.02 for OC-only FH in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively), indicating that mutation position explains only part of the association. Considering the magnitude of the observed trend, we do not believe FH should be used to change counseling regarding OC prevention.

Ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: The impact of mutation position and family history on the cancer risk

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the combined impact of mutation position, regarding the ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR), and type of cancer family history (FH) on age-related penetrance of ovarian cancer (OC) in women from BRCA1/2 families from the northern Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN

A consecutive series of 1763 mutation carriers and their first-degree relatives from 355 proven BRCA1/2 families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer with in total 248 OC cases was included. Mutations were stratified for gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) and location (within or outside the OCCR). FH was stratified for type of cancer occurring in first and second-degree relatives (OC only, breast cancer (BC) only or both OC and BC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cox-proportional hazard models were applied to estimate the OCCR effect, including and excluding a FH of cancer.

RESULTS

Among BRCA1 families, OC risks were higher in women with OCCR mutations versus those with non-OCCR mutations (HR=1.59, 95%CI=1.19-2.12). This effect remained significant after adjustment for the type of FH (HR=1.50, 95%CI=1.11-2.01). In BRCA2 families, mutation position did not significantly affect the OC risk (HR=1.50, 95%CI=0.74-3.04). However, in the BRCA2 group, a FH including only OC presented by itself a strong impact on OC risk (HR=4.63, 95%CI=2.38-9.02), which remained stable after adjustment for mutation position (HR=4.48, 95%CI=2.28-8.81).

CONCLUSION

OCCR mutations significantly increased the OC risk in BRCA1 families regardless of the type of FH, but in BRCA2 families, type of FH seems to have a higher impact than mutation position on OC risk.

Morbidity and mortality in gynecological cancers among first- and second-generation immigrants in Sweden

We studied the effect of new environment on the risk in and mortality of gynecological cancers in first- and second-generation immigrants in Sweden. We used the nationwide Swedish Family-Cancer Database to calculate standardized incidence/mortality ratios (SIRs/SMRs) of cervical, endometrial and ovarian cancers among immigrants in comparison to the native Swedes. Risk of cervical cancer increased among first-generation immigrants with Danish (SIR = 1.64), Norwegian (1.33), former Yugoslavian (1.21) and East European (1.35) origins, whereas this risk decreased among Finns (0.88) and Asians (SIRs varies from 0.11 in Iranians to 0.54 in East Asians). Risk of endometrial (SIRs varies from 0.28 in Africans to 0.86 in Finns) and ovarian (SIRs varies from 0.23 in Chileans to 0.82 in Finns) cancers decreased in first-generation immigrants. The overall gynecological cancer risk for the second-generation immigrants, independent of the birth region, was almost similar to that obtained for the first generations. The birth region-specific SMRs of gynecological cancers in first- and second-generation immigrants co-varied with the SIRs. Risk of gynecological cancers among the first-generation immigrants is similar to that in their original countries, except for cervical cancer among Africans and endometrial cancer among North Americans and East Europeans. Our findings show that risk and mortality of gynecological cancers observed in the first-generation immigrants remain in the second generation. We conclude that the risk and protective factors of gynecological cancers are preserved upon immigration and through generations, suggesting a role for behavioral factors or familial aggregation in the etiology of these diseases.

Age of onset in familial cancer

BACKGROUND

Reliable estimates on the age of onset between familial and sporadic cancers are important for etiological understanding and clinical practice. Specific studies on the age of onset of familial cancer compared with sporadic cancer are less common than studies on familial risks and these are almost lacking for rare cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Swedish Family-Cancer Database was used to estimate cumulative risks of all common cancer types according to family history with a stratified Cox model based on Tsiatis' method. We calculated the age at which the cumulative risk of cancer reached 0.1% and 0.5%.

RESULTS

The age to reach a cumulative risk of 0.1% was significantly lower among individuals with a parent or a sibling affected for any of the investigated cancer sites. The age differences ranged from 2.6 years (sons of prostate cancer patients) to 16.3 years (brothers of urinary bladder cancer patients). A cumulative risk of 0.5% was also reached earlier for individuals with a family history, especially for individuals with a parent and a sibling affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancers in individuals with a family history occur earlier than in sporadic patients. The derived estimates may be useful for clinical counseling and screening recommendations.

Identical twins with ovarian endometriosis and mucinous borderline tumor: an unusual association

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of monozygotic twins with unilateral ovarian tumors of different histology and character.

DESIGN

Case report.

SETTING

Medical center and teaching hospital.

PATIENT(S)

A 22-year-old woman with ruptured ovarian endometrioma and her twin with mucinous borderline tumor of the ovary.

INTERVENTION(S)

Ultrasonography, laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy, and salpingo-oophorectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ovarian cystectomy for the twin with endometrioma and examination of the asymptomatic twin.

RESULT(S)

Diagnosis and treatment of the asymptomatic twin.

CONCLUSION(S)

Ovarian tumors present in monozygotic twins may not always be of the same histologic type.

Population attributable fractions for ovarian cancer in Swedish women by morphological type

Using the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, among a total of 1 030 806 women followed from 1993 through 2004, invasive and borderline epithelial ovarian cancer was identified in 3306 and 822 women respectively, with data on family history, reproductive variables, residential region and socioeconomic status. Relative risks and population-attributable fractions (PAFs) were estimated by Poisson regression. The overall PAFs of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer for family history and for reproductive factors were 2.6 and 22.3%, respectively, for serous/seropapillary cystadenocarcinoma (3.0 and 19.1%), endometrioid carcinoma (2.6 and 26.6%), mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (0.5 and 23.9%) and clear-cell carcinoma (2.6 and 73.9%). The corresponding PAFs of borderline tumours due to family history were lower, but higher due to reproductive factors. Family history, low parity and young age at first birth were associated with elevated risks. The risks for women with a family history were among the highest, but these women accounted for the smallest proportion of the cases, giving the lowest PAFs.

A case of loss of heterozygosity in the BRCA2 gene of a borderline ovarian tumor: case report and review of literature

Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations highly increase the risk of breast and female adnexal cancer. The role of these genes in the tumorigenesis of other malignancies is still under debate. Borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) are occasionally found in families with a strong history of breast and/or female adnexal cancer with or without proven germline mutations. We investigated whether a BOT arising in a germline BRCA2 mutation carrier could be attributed to this mutation, in which case BOT should be added to the BRCA2 related tumor spectrum. Tumor DNA of a serous borderline ovarian tumor (sBOT) of a 55-year-old female carrier of a pathogenic BRCA2 mutation (6085G>T) was analyzed for loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of BRCA2. The sBOT cells, unexpectedly, revealed loss of the mutant allele of BRCA2, while ovarian stroma cells and peripheral blood lymphocytes contained both wild-type and mutant allele of BRCA2. The finding that no loss of the wild-type BRCA2 allele was found in the tumor tissue but loss of the mutant allele was seen suggests that sBOT are not part of the BRCA2 related tumor spectrum. In the literature BOT's in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are described incidentally, while in patients with a BOT a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is rarely found. Therefore, we conclude that borderline ovarian tumors are neither part of the BRCA1- nor the BRCA2- related tumor spectrum.

Familial risks of cancer as a guide to gene identification and mode of inheritance

Occurrence of cancer in parents and offspring may be due to dominant causes, whereas cancer affecting only siblings may indicate a recessive causation. Systematic comparisons of mode of inheritance have not been available for most types of cancer. Using the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated for offspring whose parents or siblings were diagnosed with the same cancer. The degree of environmental causation was assessed by spouse correlation and by comparing risks among siblings of different ages. We identified reliable familial risks for all common neoplasms, SIRs ranging from 1.6 to 4.3 when only a parent was affected and up to 8.5 when only a sibling was effected. Risks between siblings were particularly high for renal cancer. Spouse correlation was found only for lung and stomach cancer, but the analysis of sibling risks by their age difference suggested that even for some other cancers environmental effects in childhood may contribute to familial aggregation. The results from these analysis suggest that familial cluster of cancer at most sites is heritable, caused by dominant effects; for renal cancer recessive effects may be most important.

Genetic epidemiology of cancer: From families to heritable genes

A reliable determination of familial risks for cancer is important for clinical counseling, prevention and understanding cancer etiology. Family-based gene identification efforts may be targeted if the risks are well characterized and the mode of inheritance is identified. Medically verified data on familial risks have not been available for all types of cancer but they have become available through the use of the nationwide Swedish Family-Cancer Database, which includes all Swedes born in 1932 and later with their parents, totaling over 10 million individuals. Over 150 publications have emanated from this source. The familial risks of cancer have been characterized for all main cancers and the contribution of environmental and heritable effects to the familial aggregation has been assessed. Furthermore, the mode of inheritance has been deduced by comparing risks from parental and sibling probands. Examples are shown on familial clustering of cancers, for which heritable susceptibility genes are yet unknown, such as squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, intestinal carcinoids, thyroid papillary tumors, brain astrocytomas and pituitary adenomas. Some common cancers, such as lung and kidney cancers, appear to show an early-onset recessive component because familial risks among siblings are much higher than those in families where parents are probands. Many of the cancer sites showing high familial risks lack guidelines for clinical counseling or action level. In conclusion, we recommend that any future gene identification efforts, either using linkage or association designs, devise their strategies based on data from family studies. Clinical genetic counseling would benefit from reviewing established familial risks on all main types of cancer.