4.7 Article

Ten-Year Survival in Patients With BRCA1-Negative and BRCA1-Positive Breast Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 26, Pages 3191-+

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3571

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To estimate 10-year overall survival (OS) rates for patients with early-onset breast cancer, with and without a BRCA1 mutation, and to identify prognostic factors among those with BRCA1-positive breast cancer. Patients and Methods A total of 3,345 women with stage I to III breast cancer, age <= 50 years, were tested for three founder mutations in BRCA1. Information on tumor characteristics and treatments received was retrieved from medical records. Dates of death were obtained from the vital statistics registry. Survival curves for the mutation-positive and -negative subcohorts were compared. Predictors of OS were determined using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results Of the 3,345 patients enrolled onto the study, 233 (7.0%) carried a BRCA1 mutation. The 10-year survival rate for mutation carriers was 80.9% (95% CI, 75.4% to 86.4%); for noncarriers, it was 82.2% (95% CI, 80.5% to 83.7%). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) associated with carrying a BRCA1 mutation was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.26 to 2.61). Among BRCA1 carriers with a small (< 2 cm) node-negative tumor, the 10-year survival rate was 89.9%. Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, positive lymph node status was a strong predictor of mortality (adjusted HR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.8 to 8.9). Oophorectomy was associated with improved survival in BRCA1 carriers (adjusted HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.75). Conclusion The 10-year survival rate among women with breast cancer and a BRCA1 mutation is similar to that of patients without a BRCA1 mutation. Among women with a BRCA1 mutation, survival was much improved after oophorectomy. (C) 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available