<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/feeds/mostaccessed/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice - Most accessed articles</title>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com</link>
        <description>The most accessed research articles published by Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</description>
        <dc:date>2010-01-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/2" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/1" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/15" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/17" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/12" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/11" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/16" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/14" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/13" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/10" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
        <extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
            <html:div style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
                <html:span style="font-weight:bold">
                    This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central
                </html:span>
                <html:br />
                <html:span style="font-size: 12px;">
                    It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit
                    <html:br />
                    <html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">
                        http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/
                    </html:a>
                    <html:br />
                </html:span>
            </html:div>
        </extra:info>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/2">
        <title>High penetrances of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confirmed in a prospective series</title>
        <description>Penetrances of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been derived from retrospective studies, implying the possibility of ascertainment biases to influence the results.We have followed women at risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer for two decades, and report the prospectively observed age-related annual incidence rates to contract breast or ovarian cancer for women with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations based on 4830 observation years. Patients were grouped according to mutation, age and having/not having had previous cancer.In women not having had previous cancer and aged 40-59 years, the annual incidence rate to contract breast or ovarian cancer in those having the most frequent BRCA1 founder mutations was 4.0%, for women in this age group and with less frequent BRCA1 mutations annual incidence rate was 5.9%, and for women with BRCA2 mutations 3.5%.The observed figures may be used for genetic counseling of healthy mutation carriers in the respective age groups. The results may indicate that less frequent BRCA1 mutations have higher penetrances than BRCA1 founder mutations.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/2</link>
                <dc:creator>Pal Moller</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lovise Maehle</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lars Engebretsen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Trond Ludvigsen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Christoffer Jonsrud</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jaran Apold</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anita Vabo</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Neal Clark</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:2</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-01-19T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-2</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-01-19T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/1">
        <title>Is no news good news?  Inconclusive genetic test results in BRCA1 and BRCA2 from patients and professionals&apos; perspectives</title>
        <description>Background:
Women from families with a high risk of breast or ovarian cancer in which genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes is inconclusive are a vulnerable and understudied group. Furthermore, there are no studies of the professional specialists who treat them - geneticists, genetic counsellors/nurses, oncologists, gynaecologists and breast surgeons.
Methods:
We conducted a small qualitative study that investigated women who had developed breast cancer under the age of 45 and who had an inconclusive BRCA1/2 genetic diagnostic test (where no mutations or unclassified variants were identified). We arranged three focus groups for affected women and their close female relatives - 13 women took part. We also interviewed 12 health professionals who were involved in the care of these women.
Results:
The majority of the women had a good grasp of the meaning of their own or a family member&apos;s inconclusive result, but a few indicated some misunderstanding. Most of the women in this study underwent the test for the benefit of others in the family and none mentioned that they were having the test purely for themselves. A difficult issue for sisters of affected women was whether or not to undertake prophylactic breast surgery. The professionals were sensitive to the difficulties in explaining an inconclusive result. Some felt frustrated that technology had not as yet provided them with a better tool for prediction of risk.
Conclusions:
Some of the women were left with the dilemma of what decision to make regarding medical management of their cancer risk. For the most part, the professionals believed that the women should be supported in whatever management decisions they considered best, provided these decisions were based on a complete and accurate understanding of the genetic test that had taken place in the family.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/1</link>
                <dc:creator>Audrey Ardern-Jones</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Regina Kenen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elly Lynch</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rebecca Doherty</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rosalind Eeles</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:1</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-01-12T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-1</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-01-12T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/15">
        <title>Risk perception after genetic counseling in patients with increased risk of cancer</title>
        <description>Background:
Counselees are more aware of genetics and seek information, reassurance, screening and genetic testing. Risk counseling is a key component of genetic counseling process helping patients to achieve a realistic view for their own personal risk and therefore adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of disease and to encourage the patient to make informed choices 12.The aim of this study was to conceptualize risk perception and anxiety about cancer in individuals attending to genetic counseling.
Methods:
The questionnaire study measured risk perception and anxiety about cancer at three time points: before and one week after initial genetic counseling and one year after completed genetic investigations. Eligibility criteria were designed to include only index patients without a previous genetic consultation in the family. A total of 215 individuals were included. Data was collected during three years period.
Results:
Before genetic counseling all of the unaffected participants subjectively estimated their risk as higher than their objective risk. Participants with a similar risk as the population overestimated their risk most. All risk groups estimated the risk for children&apos;s/siblings to be lower than their own. The benefits of preventive surveillance program were well understood among unaffected participants.The difference in subjective risk perception before and directly after genetic counseling was statistically significantly lower in all risk groups. Difference in risk perception for children as well as for population was also statistically significant. Experienced anxiety about developing cancer in the unaffected subjects was lower after genetic counseling compared to baseline in all groups. Anxiety about cancer had clear correlation to perceived risk of cancer before and one year after genetic investigations.The affected participants overestimated their children&apos;s risk as well as risk for anyone in population. Difference in risk perception for children/siblings as for the general population was significant between the first and second measurement time points. Anxiety about developing cancer again among affected participants continued to be high throughout this investigation.
Conclusion:
The participant&apos;s accuracy in risk perception was poor, especially in low risk individuals before genetic counseling. There was a general trend towards more accurate estimation in all risk groups after genetic counseling. The importance of preventive programs was well understood. Cancer anxiety was prevalent and associated with risk perception, but decreased after genetic counseling.1 National Society of Genetic Counselors (2005), Genetic Counseling as a Profession. Available at http://www.nsgc.org/about/definition.cfm (accessed November 25th 2007)2 Julian-Reynier C., Welkenhuysen M-, Hagoel L., Decruyenaere M., Hopwood P. (2003) Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J of Human Genetics 11, 725-736.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/15</link>
                <dc:creator>Johanna Rantala</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ulla Platten</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gunilla Lindgren</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bo Nilsson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Brita Arver</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Annika Lindblom</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yvonne Brandberg</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:15</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-08-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-15</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>15</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-08-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/17">
        <title>Cancer risk in MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers; different risk profiles may influence clinical management</title>
        <description>Background:
Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with a high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and extracolonic malignancies, such as endometrial carcinoma (EC). The risk is dependent of the affected mismatch repair gene. The aim of the present study was to calculate the cumulative risk of LS related cancers in proven MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers.
Methods:
The studypopulation consisted out of 67 proven LS families. Clinical information including mutation status and tumour diagnosis was collected. Cumulative risks were calculated and compared using Kaplan Meier survival analysis.
Results:
MSH6 mutation carriers, both males and females had the lowest risk for developing CRC at age 70 years, 54% and 30% respectively and the age of onset was delayed by 3-5 years in males. With respect to endometrial carcinoma, female MSH6 mutation carriers had the highest risk at age 70 years (61%) compared to MLH1 (25%) and MSH2 (49%). Also, the age of EC onset was delayed by 5-10 years in comparison with MLH1 and MSH2.
Conclusions:
Although the cumulative lifetime risk of LS related cancer is similar, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutations seem to cause distinguishable cancer risk profiles. Female MSH6 mutation carriers have a lower CRC risk and a higher risk for developing endometrial carcinoma. As a consequence, surveillance colonoscopy starting at age 30 years instead of 20-25 years is more suitable. Also, prophylactic hysterectomy may be more indicated in female MSH6 mutation carriers compared to MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/17</link>
                <dc:creator>Dewkoemar Ramsoekh</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Anja Wagner</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Monique van Leerdam</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Dennis Dooijes</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Carli Tops</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ewout Steyerberg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ernst Kuipers</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:17</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-12-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-17</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>17</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-12-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/12">
        <title>Unusual presentation of Lynch Syndrome</title>
        <description>Lynch Syndrome/HNPCC is a syndrome of cancer predisposition linked to inherited mutations of genes participating in post-replicative DNA mismatch repair (MMR). The spectrum of cancer associated with Lynch Syndrome includes tumours of the colorectum, endometrium, ovary, upper gastrointestinal tract and the urothelium although other cancers are rarely described. We describe a family of Lynch Syndrome with an hMLH1 mutation, that harbours an unusual tumour spectrum and its diagnostic and management challenges.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/12</link>
                <dc:creator>Veronica Yu</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marco Novelli</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Stewart Payne</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Sam Fisher</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rebecca Barnetson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ian Frayling</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ann Barrett</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>David Goudie</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Audrey Ardern-Jones</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ros Eeles</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Susan Shanley</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:12</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-06-03T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-12</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>12</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-06-03T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/11">
        <title>Factors associated with testicular self-examination among unaffected men from multiple-case testicular cancer families</title>
        <description>Background:
The lifetime testicular cancer (TC) risk in the general population is relatively low (~1 in 250), but men with a family history of TC are at 4 to 9 times greater risk than those without. Some health and professional organizations recommend consideration of testicular self-examination (TSE) for certain high-risk groups (e.g. men with a family history of TC). Yet little is known about factors associated with TSE behaviors in this at-risk group.
Methods:
We collected information on this subject during an on-going NCI multidisciplinary, etiologically-focused, cross-sectional Familial Testicular Cancer (FTC) study. We present the first report specifically targeting TSE behaviors among first- and second-degree relatives (n = 99) of affected men from families with &#8805; 2 TC cases. Demographic, medical, knowledge, health belief, and psychological factors consistent with the Health Belief Model (HBM) were evaluated as variables related to TSE behavior, using chi-square tests of association for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables.
Results:
For men in our sample, 46% (n = 46) reported performing TSE regularly and 51% (n = 50) reported not regularly performing TSE. Factors associated (p &lt; .05) with regularly performing TSE in multivariate analysis were physician recommendation and testicular cancer worry. This is the first study to examine TSE in unaffected men from FTC families.
Conclusion:
The findings suggest that, even in this high-risk setting, TSE practices are sub-optimal. Our data provide a basis for further exploring psychosocial issues that are specific to men with a family history of TC, and formulating intervention strategies aimed at improving adherence to TSE guidelines.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/11</link>
                <dc:creator>Susan Vadaparampil</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Richard Moser</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jennifer Loud</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>June Peters</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mark Greene</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Larissa Korde</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:11</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-29T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-11</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>11</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-29T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/16">
        <title>Penetrance of HNPCC-related cancers in a retrolective cohort of 12 large Newfoundland families carrying a MSH2
founder mutation: an evaluation using modified segregation models</title>
        <description>Background:
Accurate risk (penetrance) estimates for associated phenotypes in carriers of a major disease gene are important for genetic counselling of at-risk individuals. Population-specific estimates of penetrance are often needed as well. Families ascertained from high-risk disease clinics provide substantial data to estimate penetrance of a disease gene, but these estimates must be adjusted for possible specific sources of bias.
Methods:
A cohort of 12 independently ascertained HNPCC families harbouring a founder MSH2 mutation was identified from a cancer genetics clinic in St. John&apos;s, Newfoundland, Canada. Carrier status was known for 247 family members but phenotype information on up to 85 additional relatives with unknown carrier status was available; using modified segregation models these additional individuals could be included in the analyses. Three HNPCC-related phenotypes were evaluated as age at diagnosis of: any HNPCC cancer (first cancer), colorectal cancer (CRC), and endometrial cancer (EC) for females.
Results:
Lifetime (age 70) risk estimates for male and female carriers were similar for developing any HNPCC cancer (Males = 98.2%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = (93.8%, 99.9%); Females = 92.8%, 95% CI = (82.4%, 99.1%)) but female carriers experienced substantially reduced lifetime risk for developing CRC compared to male carriers (Females = 38.9%, 95% CI = (24.2%, 62.1%); Males = 84.5%, 95% CI = (67.3%, 91.3%)). Female non-carriers had very low lifetime risk for these two outcomes while male non-carriers had lifetime risks intermediate to the female carriers and non-carriers. Female carriers had a lifetime risk of developing EC of 82.4%. Relative risks for developing any HNPCC cancer (carriers relative to non-carriers) were substantially greater for females compared to their male counterparts (Females = 54.8, 95%CI = (4.4, 379.8); Males = 9.7, 95% CI = (0.3, 23.8)). Relative risks for developing CRC at age 70 were substantially greater for females compared to their male counterparts (Females = 23.7, 95%CI = (5.6, 137.9); Males = 6.8%, 95% CI = (2.3, 66.2)). However, the risk of developing CRC decreased with age among both genders.
Conclusion:
The proposed modified segregation-based models used to estimate age-specific risks for HNPCC phenotypes can reduce bias due to ascertainment and missing genotype information as well as provide estimates of absolute and relative risks.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/16</link>
                <dc:creator>Karen Kopciuk</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yun-Hee Choi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Elena Parkhomenko</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Patrick Parfrey</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John McLaughlin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jane Green</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Laurent Briollais</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:16</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-10-28T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-16</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>16</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-10-28T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/14">
        <title>Penetrance of colorectal cancer among MLH1/MSH2 carriers participating in the colorectal cancer familial registry in Ontario </title>
        <description>Background:
Several DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, responsible for the majority of Lynch Syndrome cancers, have been identified, predominantly MLH1 and MSH2, but the risk associated with these mutations is still not well established. The aim of this study is to provide population-based estimates of the risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) by gender and mutation type from the Ontario population.
Methods:
We analyzed 32 families segregating MMR mutations selected from the Ontario Familial Colorectal Cancer Registry and including 199 first-degree and 421 second-degree relatives. The cumulative risks were estimated using a modified segregation-based approach, which allows correction for the ascertainment of the Lynch Syndrome families and permits account to be taken for missing genotype information.
Results:
The risks of developing CRC by age 70 were 60% and 47% among men and women carriers of any MMR mutation, respectively. Among MLH1 mutation carriers, males had significantly higher risks than females at all ages (67% vs. 35% by age 70, p-value = 0.02), while the risks were similar in MSH2 carriers (about 54%). The relative risk associated with MLH1 was almost constant with age (hazard ratio (HR) varied between 5.5-5.1 over age 30&#8211;70), while the HR for MSH2 decreased with age (from 13.1 at age 30 to 5.4 at age 70).
Conclusion:
This study provides a unique population-based study of CRC risks among MSH2/MLH1 mutation carriers in a Canadian population and can help to better define and understand the patterns of risks among members of Lynch Syndrome families.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/14</link>
                <dc:creator>Yun-Hee Choi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Michelle Cotterchio</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Gail McKeown-Eyssen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Monga Neerav</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Bharati Bapat</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kevin Boyd</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Steven Gallinger</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>John McLaughlin</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Melyssa Aronson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Laurent Briollais</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:14</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-08-23T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-14</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>14</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-08-23T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/13">
        <title>Molecular genetics analysis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients in India</title>
        <description>Background:
Hereditary cancers account for 5&#8211;10% of cancers. In this study BRCA1, BRCA2 and CHEK2*(1100delC) were analyzed for mutations in 91 HBOC/HBC/HOC families and early onset breast and early onset ovarian cancer cases.
Methods:
PCR-DHPLC was used for mutation screening followed by DNA sequencing for identification and confirmation of mutations. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were computed for five-year survival data on Breast and Ovarian cancer cases separately, and differences were tested using the Log-rank test.
Results:
Fifteen (16%) pathogenic mutations (12 in BRCA1 and 3 in BRCA2), of which six were novel BRCA1 mutations were identified. None of the cases showed CHEK2*1100delC mutation. Many reported polymorphisms in the exonic and intronic regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 were also seen. The mutation status and the polymorphisms were analyzed for association with the clinico-pathological features like age, stage, grade, histology, disease status, survival (overall and disease free) and with prognostic molecular markers (ER, PR, c-erbB2 and p53).
Conclusion:
The stage of the disease at diagnosis was the only statistically significant (p &lt; 0.0035) prognostic parameter. The mutation frequency and the polymorphisms were similar to reports on other ethnic populations. The lack of association between the clinico-pathological variables, mutation status and the disease status is likely to be due to the small numbers.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/13</link>
                <dc:creator>Nagasamy Soumittra</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Balaiah Meenakumari</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tithi Parija</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Veluswami Sridevi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karunakaran Nancy</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rajaraman Swaminathan</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kamalalayam Rajalekshmy</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Urmila Majhi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Thangarajan Rajkumar</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:13</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-08-06T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-13</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-08-06T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/10">
        <title>Early-onset breast cancer in a Lebanese family with Lynch syndrome due to MSH2 gene mutation</title>
        <description>Background:
There are still controversies about the integration of breast cancer as a part of the disease spectrum in Lynch syndrome.
Methods:
A regular follow-up of a Lebanese pedigree with Lynch syndrome due to a point mutation of MSH2 gene at the splice donor site of intron 3 started in 1996.
Results:
A 26-year-old pregnant woman, mutation carrier, developed an aggressive breast cancer, refractory to standard chemotherapy regimens. The microsatellite analysis of the tumor showed an unstable pattern for markers BAT25 and BAT26. The immunohistochemical staining was negative for MSH2 and MSH6 and normal for MLH1 and PMS6 enzymes.
Conclusion:
The segregation of the mutation with the disease phenotype and these results suggest that MSH2 inactivation may be involved in the accelerated breast carcinogenesis and might be considered in the cancer screening program.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/10</link>
                <dc:creator>Riad Akoum</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Albert Ghaoui</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Emile Brihi</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maroun Ghabash</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Nicolas Hajjar</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2009, 7:10</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2009-05-28T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-10</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>10</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2009-05-28T00:00:00Z</prism:publicationDate>
                <prism:versionidentifier>XML</prism:versionidentifier>
                <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
