26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Second malignancies after breast cancer: the impact of different treatment modalities

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Treatment for non-metastatic breast cancer (BC) may be the cause of second malignancies in long-term survivors. Our aim was to investigate whether survivors present a higher risk of malignancy than the general population according to treatment received. We analysed data for 16 705 BC survivors treated at the Curie Institute (1981–1997) by either chemotherapy (various regimens), radiotherapy (high-energy photons from a 60Co unit or linear accelerator) and/or hormone therapy (2–5 years of tamoxifen). We calculated age-standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for each malignancy, using data for the general French population from five regional registries. At a median follow-up 10.5 years, 709 patients had developed a second malignancy. The greatest increases in risk were for leukaemia (SIR: 2.07 (1.52–2.75)), ovarian cancer (SIR: 1.6 (1.27–2.04)) and gynaecological (cervical/endometrial) cancer (SIR: 1.6 (1.34–1.89); P<0.0001). The SIR for gastrointestinal cancer, the most common malignancy, was 0.82 (0.70–0.95; P<0.007). The increase in leukaemia was most strongly related to chemotherapy and that in gynaecological cancers to hormone therapy. Radiotherapy alone also had a significant, although lesser, effect on leukaemia and gynaecological cancer incidence. The increased risk of sarcomas and lung cancer was attributed to radiotherapy. No increased risk was observed for malignant melanoma, lymphoma, genitourinary, thyroid or head and neck cancer. There is a significantly increased risk of several kinds of second malignancy in women treated for BC, compared with the general population. This increase may be related to adjuvant treatment in some cases. However, the absolute risk is small.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

          Breast cancer is known to have an inherited component, consistent in some families with autosomal dominant inheritance; in such families the disease often occurs in association with ovarian cancer. Previous genetic linkage studies have established that in some such families disease occurrence is linked to markers on chromosome 17q. This paper reports the results of a collaborative linkage study involving 214 breast cancer families, including 57 breast-ovarian cancer families; this represents almost all the known families with 17q linkage data. Six markers on 17q, spanning approximately 30 cM, were typed in the families. The aims of the study were to define more precisely the localization of the disease gene, the extent of genetic heterogeneity and the characteristics of linked families and to estimate the penetrance of the 17q gene. Under the assumption of no genetic heterogeneity, the strongest linkage evidence was obtained with D17S588 (maximum LOD score [Zmax] = 21.68 at female recombination fraction [theta f] = .13) and D17S579 (Zmax = 13.02 at theta f = .16). Multipoint linkage analysis allowing for genetic heterogeneity provided evidence that the predisposing gene lies between the markers D17S588 and D17S250, an interval whose genetic length is estimated to be 8.3 cM in males and 18.0 cM in females. This position was supported over other intervals by odds of 66:1. The location of the gene with respect to D17S579 could not be determined unequivocally. Under the genetic model used in the analysis, the best estimate of the proportion of linked breast-ovarian cancer families was 1.0 (lower LOD-1 limit 0.79). In contrast, there was significant evidence of genetic heterogeneity among the families without ovarian cancer, with an estimated 45% being linked. These results suggest that a gene(s) on chromosome 17q accounts for the majority of families in which both early-onset breast cancer and ovarian cancer occur but that other genes predisposing to breast cancer exist. By examining the fit of the linkage data to different penetrance functions, the cumulative risk associated with the 17q gene was estimated to be 59% by age 50 years and 82% by age 70 years. The corresponding estimates for the breast-ovary families were 67% and 76%, and those for the families without ovarian cancer were 49% and 90%; these penetrance functions did not differ significantly from one another.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk of second cancer among women with breast cancer.

            A large number of women survive a diagnosis of breast cancer. Knowledge of their risk of developing a new primary cancer is important not only in relation to potential side effects of their cancer treatment, but also in relation to the possibility of shared etiology with other types of cancer. A cohort of 525,527 women with primary breast cancer was identified from 13 population-based cancer registries in Europe, Canada, Australia and Singapore, and followed for second primary cancers within the period 1943-2000. We used cancer incidence rates of first primary cancer for the calculation of standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of second primary cancer. Risk of second primary breast cancer after various types of nonbreast cancer was also computed. For all second cancer sites combined, except contralateral breast cancer, we found a SIR of 1.25 (95% CI = 1.24-1.26) on the basis of 31,399 observed cases after first primary breast cancer. The overall risk increased with increasing time since breast cancer diagnosis and decreased by increasing age at breast cancer diagnosis. There were significant excesses of many different cancer sites; among these the excess was larger than 150 cases for stomach (SIR = 1.35), colorectal (SIR = 1.22), lung (SIR = 1.24), soft tissue sarcoma (SIR = 2.25), melanoma (SIR = 1.29), non-melanoma skin (SIR = 1.58), endometrium (SIR = 1.52), ovary (SIR = 1.48), kidney (SIR = 1.27), thyroid gland (SIR = 1.62) and leukaemia (SIR = 1.52). The excess of cancer after a breast cancer diagnosis is likely to be explained by treatment for breast cancer and by shared genetic or environmental risk factors, although the general excess of cancer suggests that there may be additional explanations such as increased surveillance and general cancer susceptibility. 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcome of conservatively managed early-onset breast cancer by BRCA1/2 status.

              Management of early-stage breast cancer in young women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 remains controversial. This study assessed the long-term risks of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer in a cohort of young women who underwent breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Between 1975 and 1998, 290 women with breast cancer diagnosed at age 42 years or younger underwent lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy at our hospital. We recruited 127 of these women for complete sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Demographic, clinical, pathological, and outcome data were recorded. The primary endpoints were rates of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer, in relation to germline BRCA1/2 status. 105 women were classified as having sporadic disease (94 with wild-type or known polymorphisms and 11 with variants of unclear significance) and 22 as having genetic predisposition (deleterious mutations in BRCA1 [15] or BRCA2 [seven]). At 12 years of follow-up, the genetic group had significantly higher rates of ipsilateral (49% vs 21%, p=0.007) and contralateral events (42% vs 9%, p=0.001) than the sporadic group. The majority of events were classified as second primary tumours. No patient in the genetic group had undergone oophorectomy or was taking prophylactic agents such as tamoxifen. Patients with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a high risk of developing late ipsilateral and contralateral second primary tumours. With breast-conserving therapy, chemoprophylaxis or other interventions to reduce the rate of second cancers may be valuable. Alternatively, bilateral mastectomy may be considered, to minimise the risk of second tumours in the breasts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                12 February 2008
                04 March 2008
                11 March 2008
                : 98
                : 5
                : 870-874
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie Paris, France
                [2 ]Department of Biostatistics, Institut Curie Paris, France
                [3 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie Paris, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: youlia.kirova@ 123456curie.net
                Article
                6604241
                10.1038/sj.bjc.6604241
                2266852
                18268495
                a0f59629-50db-4ff0-95ef-6c34d51d048a
                Copyright 2008, Cancer Research UK
                History
                : 19 November 2007
                : 29 December 2007
                : 07 January 2008
                Categories
                Clinical Studies

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                long-term risk,hormone therapy,breast cancer,second malignancies,chemotherapy,second malignant neoplasms,radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article