<?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/latestarticles/journal?quantity=&amp;format=rss&amp;version=">
        <title>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice - Latest Articles</title>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com</link>
        <description>The latest research articles published by Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</description>
        <dc:date>2010-08-12T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/7" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/6" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/5" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/4" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/3" />
                                <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/7/1/17" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/16" />
                                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/7/1/15" />
                            </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/8/1/7">
        <title>A novel pathogenic MLH1 missense mutation, c.112A&gt;C, p.Asn38His, in six families with Lynch syndrome</title>
        <description>Background:
An unclassified variant (UV) in exon 1 of the MLH1 gene, c.112A &gt; C, p.Asn38His, was found in six families who meet diagnostic criteria for Lynch syndrome. The pathogenicity of this variant was unknown. We aim to elucidate the pathogenicity of this MLH1 variant in order to counsel these families adequately and to enable predictive testing in healthy at-risk relatives.
Methods:
We studied clinical data, microsatellite instability and immunohistochemical staining of MMR proteins, and performed genealogy, haplotype analysis and DNA testing of control samples.
Results:
The UV showed co-segregation with the disease in all families. All investigated tumors showed a microsatellite instable pattern. Immunohistochemical data were variable among tested tumors. Three families had a common ancestor and all families originated from the same geographical area in The Netherlands. Haplotype analysis showed a common haplotype in all six families.
Conclusions:
We conclude that the MLH1 variant is a pathogenic mutation and genealogy and haplotype analysis results strongly suggest that it is a Dutch founder mutation. Our findings imply that predictive testing can be offered to healthy family members. The immunohistochemical data of MMR protein expression show that interpreting these results in case of a missense mutation should be done with caution.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/7</link>
                <dc:creator>Els van Riel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Margreet Ausems</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Frans Hogervorst</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Irma Kluijt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Marielle van Gijn</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jeanne van Echtelt</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Karen Scheidel-Jacobse</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Eric Hennekam</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rein Stulp</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Yvonne Vos</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>G Johan Offerhaus</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Fred Menko</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Johan Gille</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:7</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-08-12T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-7</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-08-12T00:00:00Z</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/8/1/6">
        <title>Cancer and Lhermitte-Duclos disease are common in Cowden syndrome patients
</title>
        <description>Background:
Cancer risk and Lhermitte-Duclos disease (LDD) risk estimates for Cowden syndrome (CS) are broad and based on a small number of patients. Risk estimates are vital to the development of diagnostic criteria, genetic counseling, and cancer surveillance. To further elaborate and estimate the risks associated with CS, a large cohort of patients was evaluated.
Methods:
CS patients were identified from the medical literature and the Mayo Clinic&apos;s records. All patients met accepted diagnostic criteria for CS.
Results:
A total of 211 CS patients (age 44 &#177; 16 years, 64% female, 46% PTEN mutation) were included (published literature 90% and Mayo Clinic series 10%). The cumulative lifetime (age 70 years) risks were 89% for any cancer diagnosis (95% confidence interval (CI) = 80%,95%), breast cancer [female] 81% (CI = 66%,90%), LDD 32% (CI = 19%,49%), thyroid cancer 21% (CI = 14%,29%), endometrial cancer 19% (CI = 10%,32%), and renal cancer 15% (CI = 6%,32%). A previously unreported increased lifetime risk for colorectal cancer was identified (16%, CI = 8%,24%). Male CS patients had fewer cancers diagnosed than female patients and often had cancers not classically associated with CS. Seven percent of breast and thyroid cancers occurred in patients who were younger than the recommended age to commence radiographic cancer screening. There was a trend for patients with a family history of CS and PTEN mutations to have a lower cancer risk than those without.
Conclusions:
This study confirms CS patients are at increased risk for cancer and quantitative data is provided to guide clinical care. Based on a different tumor spectrum, separate male and female clinical CS diagnostic criteria may be indicated.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/6</link>
                <dc:creator>Douglas Riegert-Johnson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ferga Gleeson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Maegan Roberts</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Krysta Tholen</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lauren Youngborg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Melvin Bullock</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Lisa Boardman</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:6</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-06-17T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-6</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-06-17T00:00:00Z</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/8/1/5">
        <title>MSH6 and PMS2 mutation positive Australian Lynch syndrome families: novel mutations, cancer risk and age of diagnosis of colorectal cancer</title>
        <description>Background:
Approximately 10% of Lynch syndrome families have a mutation in MSH6 and fewer families have a mutation in PMS2. It is assumed that the cancer incidence is the same in families with mutations in MSH6 as in families with mutations in MLH1/MSH2 but that the disease tends to occur later in life, little is known about families with PMS2 mutations. This study reports on our findings on mutation type, cancer risk and age of diagnosis in MSH6 and PMS2 families.
Methods:
A total of 78 participants (from 29 families) with a mutation in MSH6 and 7 participants (from 6 families) with a mutation in PMS2 were included in the current study. A database of de-identified patient information was analysed to extract all relevant information such as mutation type, cancer incidence, age of diagnosis and cancer type in this Lynch syndrome cohort. Cumulative lifetime risk was calculated utilising Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
Results:
MSH6 and PMS2 mutations represent 10.3% and 1.9%, respectively, of the pathogenic mutations in our Australian Lynch syndrome families. We identified 26 different MSH6 and 4 different PMS2 mutations in the 35 families studied. We report 15 novel MSH6 and 1 novel PMS2 mutations. The estimated cumulative risk of CRC at age 70 years was 61% (similar in males and females) and 65% for endometrial cancer in MSH6 mutation carriers. The risk of developing CRC is different between males and females at age 50 years, which is 34% for males and 21% for females.
Conclusion:
Novel MSH6 and PMS2 mutations are being reported and submitted to the current databases for identified Lynch syndrome mutations. Our data provides additional information to add to the genotype-phenotype spectrum for both MSH6 and PMS2 mutations.</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/5</link>
                <dc:creator>Bente Talseth-Palmer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mary McPhillips</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Claire Groombridge</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Allan Spigelman</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Rodney Scott</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:5</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-05-21T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-5</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-05-21T00:00:00Z</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/8/1/4">
        <title>BRCA1 mutations in women with familial or early-onset breast cancer and BRCA2 mutations in familial cancer in Estonia</title>
        <description>Background:
The aim of this study was to identify BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the Estonian population. We analyzed genetic data and questionnaire from 64 early-onset (&lt; 45 y) breast cancer patients, 47 familial cases (patients with breast or ovarian cancer and a case of these cancers in the family), and 33 predictive cases (patients without breast or ovarian cancer, with a family history of such diseases) from Estonia for mutations in the BRCA1 gene. A sub-set of familial cases and predictive cases were also analyzed for mutations in the BRCA2 gene.
Methods:
For mutation detection, we used the Polymerase Chain Reaction-Single Stranded Conformation Polymorphism Heteroduplex Analysis (PCR-SSCP-HD), followed by direct DNA sequencing.
Results:
We identified three clinically important mutations in the BRCA1 gene, including seven occurrences of the c.5382insC mutation, three of c.4154delA, and one instance of c.3881_3882delGA. We also detected six polymorphisms: c.2430T&gt;C, c.3232A&gt;G, c.4158A&gt;G, c.4427T&gt;C, c.4956A&gt;G, and c.5002T&gt;C. Four sequence alterations were detected in introns: c.560+64delT, c.560+ [36-38delCTT, 52-63del12], c.666-58delT, and c.5396+60insGTATTCCACTCC. In the BRCA2 gene, two clinically important mutations were found: c.9610C&gt;T and c.6631delTTAAATG. Additionally, two alterations (c.7049G&gt;T and c.7069+80delTTAG) with unknown clinical significance were detected.
Conclusions:
In our dataset, the overall frequency of clinically important BRCA1 mutations in early-onset patients, familial cases, and predictive testing was 7.6% (144 cases, 11 mutation carriers). Pathogenic mutations were identified in 4 of the 64 early-onset breast cancer cases (6.3%). In familial cases, clinically important mutations in the BRCA1 gene were found in 6 of the 47 individuals analyzed (12.8%). In predictive cases, 1 clinically important mutation was detected in 33 individuals studied (3%). The occurrence of clinically important mutations in BRCA2 in familial cases of breast cancer was 2 of the 16 individuals analyzed (12.5%).</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/4</link>
                <dc:creator>Kristiina Tamboom</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Krista Kaasik</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jelena Arsavskaja</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Mare Tekkel</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Aili Lilleorg</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Peeter Padrik</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Andres Metspalu</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Toomas Veidebaum</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:4</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-04-09T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-4</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-04-09T00:00:00Z</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/8/1/3">
        <title>Surveillance of FAP: a prospective blinded comparison of capsule endoscopy and other GI imaging to detect small bowel polyps</title>
        <description>Background:
Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a hereditary disorder characterized by polyposis along the gastrointestinal tract. Information on adenoma status below the duodenum has previously been restricted due to its inaccessibility in vivo. Capsule Endoscopy (CE) may provide a useful adjunct in screening for polyposis in the small bowel in FAP patients. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of CE in the assessment of patients with FAP, compared to other imaging modalities for the detection of small bowel polyps.Method20 consecutive patients with previously diagnosed FAP and duodenal polyps, presenting for routine surveillance of polyps at The Royal Melbourne Hospital were recruited. Each fasted patient initially underwent a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of the abdomen, and a barium small bowel follow-through study. Capsule Endoscopy was performed four weeks later on the fasted patient. An upper gastrointestinal side-viewing endoscopy was done one (1) to two (2) weeks after this. Endoscopists and investigators were blinded to results of other investigations and patient history.
Results:
Within the stomach, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy found more polyps than other forms of imaging. SBFT and MRI generally performed poorly, identifying fewer polyps than both upper gastrointestinal and capsule endoscopy. CE was the only form of imaging that identified polyps in all segments of the small bowel as well as the only form of imaging able to provide multiple findings outside the stomach/duodenum.
Conclusion:
CE provides important information on possible polyp development distal to the duodenum, which may lead to surgical intervention. The place of CE as an adjunct in surveillance of FAP for a specific subset needs consideration and confirmation in replication studies.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000616370</description>
        <link>http://www.hccpjournal.com/content/8/1/3</link>
                <dc:creator>Paul Tescher</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Finlay Macrae</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Tony Speer</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Damien Stella</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Robert Gibson</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Jason Tye-Din</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Geeta Srivatsa</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Ian Jones</dc:creator>
                <dc:creator>Kaye Marion</dc:creator>
                <dc:source>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 2010, 8:3</dc:source>
        <dc:date>2010-04-04T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
        <dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1897-4287-8-3</dc:identifier>
        <prism:publicationName>Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:issn>1897-4287</prism:issn>
        <prism:volume>8</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>2010-04-04T00:00:00Z</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/8/1/2">
        <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/7/1/17">
        <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/7/1/16">
        <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/7/1/15">
        <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>
        <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>
