↓ Skip to main content

Candidate Genetic Modifiers for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Candidate Genetic Modifiers for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, January 2015
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0532
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Peterlongo, Jenny Chang-Claude, Kirsten B. Moysich, Anja Rudolph, Rita K. Schmutzler, Jacques Simard, Penny Soucy, Rosalind A. Eeles, Douglas F. Easton, Ute Hamann, Stefan Wilkening, Bowang Chen, Matti A. Rookus, Marjanka K. Schmidt, Frederieke H. van der Baan, Amanda B. Spurdle, Logan C. Walker, Felicity Lose, Ana-Teresa Maia, Marco Montagna, Laura Matricardi, Jan Lubinski, Anna Jakubowska, Encarna B. Gómez Garcia, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Robert L. Nussbaum, Katherine L. Nathanson, Susan M. Domchek, Timothy R. Rebbeck, Banu K. Arun, Beth Y. Karlan, Sandra Orsulic, Jenny Lester, Wendy K. Chung, Alex Miron, Melissa C. Southey, David E. Goldgar, Saundra S. Buys, Ramunas Janavicius, Cecilia M. Dorfling, Elizabeth J. van Rensburg, Yuan Chun Ding, Susan L. Neuhausen, Thomas V.O. Hansen, Anne-Marie Gerdes, Bent Ejlertsen, Lars Jønson, Ana Osorio, Cristina Martínez-Bouzas, Javier Benitez, Edye E. Conway, Kathleen R. Blazer, Jeffrey N. Weitzel, Siranoush Manoukian, Bernard Peissel, Daniela Zaffaroni, Giulietta Scuvera, Monica Barile, Filomena Ficarazzi, Frederique Mariette, Stefano Fortuzzi, Alessandra Viel, Giuseppe Giannini, Laura Papi, Aline Martayan, Maria Grazia Tibiletti, Paolo Radice, Athanassios Vratimos, Florentia Fostira, Judy E. Garber, Alan Donaldson, Carole Brewer, Claire Foo, D. Gareth R. Evans, Debra Frost, Diana Eccles, Angela Brady, Jackie Cook, Marc Tischkowitz, Julian Adlard, Julian Barwell, Lisa Walker, Louise Izatt, Lucy E. Side, M. John Kennedy, Mark T. Rogers, Mary E. Porteous, Patrick J. Morrison, Radka Platte, Rosemarie Davidson, Shirley V. Hodgson, Steve Ellis, Trevor Cole, on behalf of EMBRACE, Andrew K. Godwin, Kathleen Claes, Tom Van Maerken, Alfons Meindl, Andrea Gehrig, Christian Sutter, Christoph Engel, Dieter Niederacher, Doris Steinemann, Hansjoerg Plendl, Karin Kast, Kerstin Rhiem, Nina Ditsch, Norbert Arnold, Raymonda Varon-Mateeva, Barbara Wappenschmidt, Shan Wang-Gohrke, Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets, Bruno Buecher, Capucine Delnatte, Claude Houdayer, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Francesca Damiola, Isabelle Coupier, Laure Barjhoux, Laurence Venat-Bouvet, Lisa Golmard, Nadia Boutry-Kryza, Olga M. Sinilnikova, Olivier Caron, Pascal Pujol, Sylvie Mazoyer, Muriel Belotti, on behalf of GEMO Study Collaborators, Marion Piedmonte, Michael L. Friedlander, Gustavo C. Rodriguez, Larry J. Copeland, Miguel de la Hoya, Pedro Perez Segura, Heli Nevanlinna, Kristiina Aittomäki, Theo A.M. van Os, Hanne E.J. Meijers-Heijboer, Annemarie H. van der Hout, Maaike P.G. Vreeswijk, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge, Margreet G.E.M. Ausems, Helena C. van Doorn, J. Margriet Collée, on behalf of HEBON, Edith Olah, Orland Diez, Ignacio Blanco, Conxi Lazaro, Joan Brunet, Lidia Feliubadalo, Cezary Cybulski, Jacek Gronwald, Katarzyna Durda, Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek, Grzegorz Sukiennicki, Adalgeir Arason, Jocelyne Chiquette, Manuel R. Teixeira, Curtis Olswold, Fergus J. Couch, Noralane M. Lindor, Xianshu Wang, Csilla I. Szabo, Kenneth Offit, Marina Corines, Lauren Jacobs, Mark E. Robson, Liying Zhang, Vijai Joseph, Andreas Berger, Christian F. Singer, Christine Rappaport, Daphne Geschwantler Kaulich, Georg Pfeiler, Muy-Kheng M. Tea, Catherine M. Phelan, Mark H. Greene, Phuong L. Mai, Gad Rennert, Anna Marie Mulligan, Gord Glendon, Sandrine Tchatchou, Irene L. Andrulis, Amanda Ewart Toland, Anders Bojesen, Inge Sokilde Pedersen, Mads Thomassen, Uffe Birk Jensen, Yael Laitman, Johanna Rantala, Anna von Wachenfeldt, Hans Ehrencrona, Marie Stenmark Askmalm, Åke Borg, Karoline B. Kuchenbaecker, Lesley McGuffog, Daniel Barrowdale, Sue Healey, Andrew Lee, Paul D.P. Pharoah, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, on behalf of KConFab Investigators, Antonis C. Antoniou, Eitan Friedman

Abstract

Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at substantially increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer. The incomplete penetrance coupled with the variable age at diagnosis in carriers of the same mutation suggests the existence of genetic and non-genetic modifying factors. In this study we evaluated the putative role of variants in many candidate modifier genes. Methods: Genotyping data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers, for known variants (n=3,248) located within or around 445 candidate genes, were available through the iCOGS custom-designed array. Breast and ovarian cancer association analysis was performed within a retrospective cohort approach. Results: The observed p-values of association ranged between 0.005-1.000. None of the variants was significantly associated with breast or ovarian cancer risk in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, after multiple testing adjustments. Conclusion: There is little evidence that any of the evaluated candidate variants act as modifiers of breast and/or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: Genome-wide association studies have been more successful at identifying genetic modifiers of BRCA1/2 penetrance than candidate gene studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Librarian 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Professor 6 6%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 15%
Engineering 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,936,250
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#1,758
of 4,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,852
of 361,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#32
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.