Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:50:47.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The polygenic basis of breast cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2009

Alan Wright
Affiliation:
MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh
Nicholas Hastie
Affiliation:
MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

Introduction

A major challenge for molecular and epidemiological science is to unravel the molecular genetic basis of chronic disease. The past 30 years have seen considerable progress in understanding the molecular genetics of diseases that are inherited according to Mendelian rules, that is, those in which mutations in a single gene have a large effect on disease risk (see Chapter 10). However, little is known about complex disease, which results from the combined effects of many genes, that is, diseases which show polygenic inheritance. Rapid advances in our understanding of human genome architecture together with technological developments may help us meet this challenge successfully. This will bring new insights into disease etiology, which, in turn, will help in the development of new methods for disease prevention and treatment. As a result of these advances, it may also become possible to target interventions to individuals at greatest risk of disease. In this chapter we will review the evidence for the polygenic model of breast cancer susceptibility and discuss the implications of the model for disease prevention in the population. We will contrast this with the potential impact of preventive interventions targeted at women with single gene disorders who are at high risk of disease.

Genetic models of breast cancer susceptibility

It is likely that the inheritance of most common cancers is polygenic. Breast cancer, like other common cancers, exhibits some degree of familial clustering, with disease being approximately twice as common in first-degree relatives of cases (Amundadottir et al. 2004; Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cabcer, 2001).

Type
Chapter
Information
Genes and Common Diseases
Genetics in Modern Medicine
, pp. 224 - 232
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amundadottir, L. T., Thorvaldsson, S., Gudbjartsson, D. F.et al. (2004). Cancer as a complex phenotype: pattern of cancer distribution within and beyond the nuclear family. PLoS Med, 1, e65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. (2000). Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population based series of breast cancer cases. Br J Cancer, 83, 1301–8.CrossRef
Antoniou, A. C., Pharoah, P. D. P., McMullen, G.et al. (2001). Evidence for further breast cancer susceptibility genes in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a population based study. Genetic Epidemiology, 21, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. (2001). Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,209 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet, 358, 1389–99.CrossRef
Cui, J., Antoniou, A. C., Dite, G. S.et al. (2001). After BRCA1 and BRCA2 – what next? Multifactorial segregation analyses of three-generation, population-based Australian families affected by female breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet, 68, 420–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunning, A. M., Healey, C. S., Pharoah, P. D. P.et al. (1999). A systematic review of genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, 8, 843–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Easton, D. F. (1999). How many more breast cancer predisposition genes are there. Breast Cancer Research, 1, 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, D., Easton, D. F., Stratton, M.et al. (1998). Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62, 676–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldgar, D. E., Easton, D. F., Cannon-Albright, L. A. and Skolnick, M. H. (1994). A systematic population based assessment of cancer risk in first degree relatives of cancer probands. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86, 1600–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtzman, N. A. and Marteau, T. M. (2000). Will genetics revolutionize medicine?N Engl J Med, 343, 141–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerlikowske, K., Grady, D., Rubin, S. M., Sandrock, C. and Ernster, V. L. (1995). Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 149–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lichtenstein, P., Holm, N. V., Verkasalo, P. K.et al. (2000). Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer – analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark and Finland. N Engl J Med, 343, 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peto, J. and Mack, T. M. (2000). High constant incidence in twins and other relatives of women with breast cancer. Nat Genet, 26, 411–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pharoah, P. D. P., Dunning, A. M., Ponder, B. A. J. and Easton, D. F. (2004). Association studies for finding cancer-susceptibility genetic variants. Nature Reviews Cancer, 4, 850–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pharoah, P. D. P. and Mackay, J. (1998). Absolute risk of breast cancer in women at increased risk: a more useful clinical measure than relative risk?The Breast, 7, 255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risch, N. (2001). The genetic epidemiology of cancer: interpreting family and twin studies and their implications for molecular genetic approaches. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 10, 733–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Risch, N. and Merikangas, K. (1996). The future of genetic studies of complex diseases. Science, 273, 1516–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, G. (1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14, 32–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaittinen, P. and Hemminki, K. (2000). Risk factors and age-incidence relationships for contralateral breast cancer. Int J Cancer, 88, 998–1002.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vineis, P., Schulte, P. and McMichael, A. J. (2001). Misconceptions about the use of genetic tests in populations. Lancet, 357, 709–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×