Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome: Implications for genetic counselling

Sharon E. Johnatty, Yen Y. Tan, Daniel D. Buchanan, Michael Bowman, Rhiannon J. Walters, Andreas Obermair, Michael A. Quinn, Penelope B. Blomfield, Alison Brand, Yee Leung, Martin K. Oehler, Judy A. Kirk, Tracy A. O'Mara, Penelope M. Webb, Amanda B. Spurdle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To determine endometrial cancer (EC) risk according to family cancer history, including assessment by degree of relatedness, type of and age at cancer diagnosis of relatives. Methods Self-reported family cancer history was available for 1353 EC patients and 628 controls. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between EC and cancer diagnosis in ≥ 1 first or second degree relative, and to assess whether level of risk differed by degree of relationship and/or relative's age at diagnosis. Risk was also evaluated for family history of up to three cancers from known familial syndromes (Lynch, Cowden, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) overall, by histological subtype and, for a subset of 678 patients, by EC tumor mismatch repair (MMR) gene expression. Results Report of EC in ≥ 1 first- or second-degree relative was associated with significantly increased risk of EC (P = 3.8 × 10− 7), independent of lifestyle risk factors. There was a trend in increasing EC risk with closer relatedness and younger age at EC diagnosis in relatives (PTrend = 4.43 × 10− 6), and with increasing numbers of Lynch cancers in relatives (PTrend ≤ 0.0001). EC risk associated with family history did not differ by proband tumor MMR status, or histological subtype. Reported EC in first- or second-degree relatives remained associated with EC risk after conservative correction for potential misreported family history (OR 2.0; 95% CI, 1.24–3.37, P = 0.004). Conclusion The strongest predictor of EC risk was closer relatedness and younger EC diagnosis age in ≥ 1 relative. Associations remained significant irrespective of proband MMR status, and after excluding MMR pathogenic variant carriers, indicating that Lynch syndrome genes do not fully explain familial EC risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)381-387
Number of pages7
JournalGynecologic Oncology
Volume147
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Neoplasms
Genetic Counseling
Endometrial Neoplasms
Neoplasms
DNA Mismatch Repair
Multiple Hamartoma Syndrome
Ovarian Neoplasms

Cite this

Johnatty, S. E., Tan, Y. Y., Buchanan, D. D., Bowman, M., Walters, R. J., Obermair, A., ... Spurdle, A. B. (2017). Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome: Implications for genetic counselling. Gynecologic Oncology, 147(2), 381-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.011
Johnatty, Sharon E. ; Tan, Yen Y. ; Buchanan, Daniel D. ; Bowman, Michael ; Walters, Rhiannon J. ; Obermair, Andreas ; Quinn, Michael A. ; Blomfield, Penelope B. ; Brand, Alison ; Leung, Yee ; Oehler, Martin K. ; Kirk, Judy A. ; O'Mara, Tracy A. ; Webb, Penelope M. ; Spurdle, Amanda B. / Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome : Implications for genetic counselling. In: Gynecologic Oncology. 2017 ; Vol. 147, No. 2. pp. 381-387.
@article{ce0c7c0cefeb4623b48fcc6d3cdeb697,
title = "Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome: Implications for genetic counselling",
abstract = "Objective To determine endometrial cancer (EC) risk according to family cancer history, including assessment by degree of relatedness, type of and age at cancer diagnosis of relatives. Methods Self-reported family cancer history was available for 1353 EC patients and 628 controls. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between EC and cancer diagnosis in ≥ 1 first or second degree relative, and to assess whether level of risk differed by degree of relationship and/or relative's age at diagnosis. Risk was also evaluated for family history of up to three cancers from known familial syndromes (Lynch, Cowden, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) overall, by histological subtype and, for a subset of 678 patients, by EC tumor mismatch repair (MMR) gene expression. Results Report of EC in ≥ 1 first- or second-degree relative was associated with significantly increased risk of EC (P = 3.8 × 10− 7), independent of lifestyle risk factors. There was a trend in increasing EC risk with closer relatedness and younger age at EC diagnosis in relatives (PTrend = 4.43 × 10− 6), and with increasing numbers of Lynch cancers in relatives (PTrend ≤ 0.0001). EC risk associated with family history did not differ by proband tumor MMR status, or histological subtype. Reported EC in first- or second-degree relatives remained associated with EC risk after conservative correction for potential misreported family history (OR 2.0; 95{\%} CI, 1.24–3.37, P = 0.004). Conclusion The strongest predictor of EC risk was closer relatedness and younger EC diagnosis age in ≥ 1 relative. Associations remained significant irrespective of proband MMR status, and after excluding MMR pathogenic variant carriers, indicating that Lynch syndrome genes do not fully explain familial EC risk.",
keywords = "Endometrial cancer, Family cancer history, Lynch syndrome, Mismatch repair, Risk",
author = "Johnatty, {Sharon E.} and Tan, {Yen Y.} and Buchanan, {Daniel D.} and Michael Bowman and Walters, {Rhiannon J.} and Andreas Obermair and Quinn, {Michael A.} and Blomfield, {Penelope B.} and Alison Brand and Yee Leung and Oehler, {Martin K.} and Kirk, {Judy A.} and O'Mara, {Tracy A.} and Webb, {Penelope M.} and Spurdle, {Amanda B.}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.011",
language = "English",
volume = "147",
pages = "381--387",
journal = "Gynecologic Oncology",
issn = "0090-8258",
publisher = "Academic Press",
number = "2",

}

Johnatty, SE, Tan, YY, Buchanan, DD, Bowman, M, Walters, RJ, Obermair, A, Quinn, MA, Blomfield, PB, Brand, A, Leung, Y, Oehler, MK, Kirk, JA, O'Mara, TA, Webb, PM & Spurdle, AB 2017, 'Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome: Implications for genetic counselling' Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 381-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.011

Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome : Implications for genetic counselling. / Johnatty, Sharon E.; Tan, Yen Y.; Buchanan, Daniel D.; Bowman, Michael; Walters, Rhiannon J.; Obermair, Andreas; Quinn, Michael A.; Blomfield, Penelope B.; Brand, Alison; Leung, Yee; Oehler, Martin K.; Kirk, Judy A.; O'Mara, Tracy A.; Webb, Penelope M.; Spurdle, Amanda B.

In: Gynecologic Oncology, Vol. 147, No. 2, 01.11.2017, p. 381-387.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome

T2 - Implications for genetic counselling

AU - Johnatty, Sharon E.

AU - Tan, Yen Y.

AU - Buchanan, Daniel D.

AU - Bowman, Michael

AU - Walters, Rhiannon J.

AU - Obermair, Andreas

AU - Quinn, Michael A.

AU - Blomfield, Penelope B.

AU - Brand, Alison

AU - Leung, Yee

AU - Oehler, Martin K.

AU - Kirk, Judy A.

AU - O'Mara, Tracy A.

AU - Webb, Penelope M.

AU - Spurdle, Amanda B.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Objective To determine endometrial cancer (EC) risk according to family cancer history, including assessment by degree of relatedness, type of and age at cancer diagnosis of relatives. Methods Self-reported family cancer history was available for 1353 EC patients and 628 controls. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between EC and cancer diagnosis in ≥ 1 first or second degree relative, and to assess whether level of risk differed by degree of relationship and/or relative's age at diagnosis. Risk was also evaluated for family history of up to three cancers from known familial syndromes (Lynch, Cowden, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) overall, by histological subtype and, for a subset of 678 patients, by EC tumor mismatch repair (MMR) gene expression. Results Report of EC in ≥ 1 first- or second-degree relative was associated with significantly increased risk of EC (P = 3.8 × 10− 7), independent of lifestyle risk factors. There was a trend in increasing EC risk with closer relatedness and younger age at EC diagnosis in relatives (PTrend = 4.43 × 10− 6), and with increasing numbers of Lynch cancers in relatives (PTrend ≤ 0.0001). EC risk associated with family history did not differ by proband tumor MMR status, or histological subtype. Reported EC in first- or second-degree relatives remained associated with EC risk after conservative correction for potential misreported family history (OR 2.0; 95% CI, 1.24–3.37, P = 0.004). Conclusion The strongest predictor of EC risk was closer relatedness and younger EC diagnosis age in ≥ 1 relative. Associations remained significant irrespective of proband MMR status, and after excluding MMR pathogenic variant carriers, indicating that Lynch syndrome genes do not fully explain familial EC risk.

AB - Objective To determine endometrial cancer (EC) risk according to family cancer history, including assessment by degree of relatedness, type of and age at cancer diagnosis of relatives. Methods Self-reported family cancer history was available for 1353 EC patients and 628 controls. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between EC and cancer diagnosis in ≥ 1 first or second degree relative, and to assess whether level of risk differed by degree of relationship and/or relative's age at diagnosis. Risk was also evaluated for family history of up to three cancers from known familial syndromes (Lynch, Cowden, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) overall, by histological subtype and, for a subset of 678 patients, by EC tumor mismatch repair (MMR) gene expression. Results Report of EC in ≥ 1 first- or second-degree relative was associated with significantly increased risk of EC (P = 3.8 × 10− 7), independent of lifestyle risk factors. There was a trend in increasing EC risk with closer relatedness and younger age at EC diagnosis in relatives (PTrend = 4.43 × 10− 6), and with increasing numbers of Lynch cancers in relatives (PTrend ≤ 0.0001). EC risk associated with family history did not differ by proband tumor MMR status, or histological subtype. Reported EC in first- or second-degree relatives remained associated with EC risk after conservative correction for potential misreported family history (OR 2.0; 95% CI, 1.24–3.37, P = 0.004). Conclusion The strongest predictor of EC risk was closer relatedness and younger EC diagnosis age in ≥ 1 relative. Associations remained significant irrespective of proband MMR status, and after excluding MMR pathogenic variant carriers, indicating that Lynch syndrome genes do not fully explain familial EC risk.

KW - Endometrial cancer

KW - Family cancer history

KW - Lynch syndrome

KW - Mismatch repair

KW - Risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027406843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.011

DO - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.011

M3 - Article

VL - 147

SP - 381

EP - 387

JO - Gynecologic Oncology

JF - Gynecologic Oncology

SN - 0090-8258

IS - 2

ER -