IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0120189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Worse Breast Cancer Prognosis of BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: What's the Evidence? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra J van den Broek
  • Marjanka K Schmidt
  • Laura J van ‘t Veer
  • Rob A E M Tollenaar
  • Flora E van Leeuwen

Abstract

Objective: Conflicting conclusions have been published regarding breast cancer survival of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Here we provide an evidence-based systematic literature review. Methods: Eligible publications were observational studies assessing the survival of breast cancer patients carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation compared to non-carriers or the general breast cancer population. We performed meta-analyses and best-evidence syntheses for survival outcomes taking into account study quality assessed by selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding. Results: Sixty-six relevant studies were identified. Moderate evidence for a worse unadjusted recurrence-free survival for BRCA1 mutation carriers was found. For BRCA1 and BRCA2 there was a tendency towards a worse breast cancer-specific and overall survival, however, results were heterogeneous and the evidence was judged to be indecisive. Surprisingly, only 8 studies considered adjuvant treatment as a confounder or effect modifier while only two studies took prophylactic surgery into account. Adjustment for tumour characteristics tended to shift the observed risk estimates towards a relatively more favourable survival. Conclusions: In contrast to currently held beliefs of some oncologists, current evidence does not support worse breast cancer survival of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the adjuvant setting; differences if any are likely to be small. More well-designed studies are awaited.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra J van den Broek & Marjanka K Schmidt & Laura J van ‘t Veer & Rob A E M Tollenaar & Flora E van Leeuwen, 2015. "Worse Breast Cancer Prognosis of BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: What's the Evidence? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-29, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120189
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120189
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120189&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0120189?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.