4.5 Article

Are BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation patients underscreened for pancreatic adenocarcinoma?

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 119, 期 6, 页码 777-783

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25376

关键词

breast cancer mutation; intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; pancreatic adenocarcinoma; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Breast cancer (BRCA) mutations account for the highest proportion of hereditary causes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Screening is currently recommended only for patients with one first-degree relative or two family members with PDAC. We hypothesized that screening all BRCA1/2 patients would identify a higher rate of pancreatic abnormalities. Methods All BRCA1/2 patients at a single academic center were retrospectively reviewed (2005-2015). Pancreatic abnormalities were defined on cross-sectional imaging as pancreatic neoplasm (cystic/solid) or main-duct dilation. Results Two hundred and four patients were identified with BRCA mutations. Forty-seven (40%) had abdominal imaging (20 computerized tomography and 27 magnetic resonance imaging). Twenty-one percent had pancreatic abnormalities (PDAC [n = 2] and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm [IPMN; n = 8]). The prevalence of pancreatic abnormalities and IPMN was higher in BRCA2 patients than in the general population (21% vs 8% and 17% vs 1%; P = 0.0007 and P < 0.0001, respectively), with no influence of family history. Similarly, BRCA1 patients had an increased prevalence of IPMN (8.3% vs 1%; P < 0.0001). Conclusions In this series, 4% and 17% of BRCA2 patients developed PDAC and IPMN, respectively. Eight percent of BRCA1 patients developed IPMN. Under current recommended screening, 60% of BRCA1/2 patients had incompletely pancreatic assessment. With no influence of family history, this study suggests all BRCA1/2 patients should undergo a high-risk screening protocol that will identify a higher rate of precancerous pancreatic neoplasms amenable to curative resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据