Approximately 12% of breast cancers in the Ashkenazi Jewish population are attributable to mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Genetic testing may be useful when Jewish women with breast cancer are diagnosed before age 50 years or have a close relative with ovarian or early-onset breast cancer. An association between breast and prostate cancers was observed in our study population.

Evidence suggests that women who receive uninformative results for breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1/2) gene mutations may experience as much distress as women whose results indicate the presence of a gene mutation. No intervention to reduce distress after receipt of uninformative results has yet been tested. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and preliminary effects of a psycho-educational telephone (PET) intervention to reduce distress in women who receive uninformative BRCA1/2 results. A single group with repeated measures was used to assess the impact of the intervention on 72 such women. After receiving the results, most of the women continued to feel uncertain about their carrier genetic status. However, their distress significantly decreased between receipt of uninformative results and 3 months post-intervention (p = 0.01). The preliminary findings suggest that a PET uncertainty intervention is clinically feasible and may reduce the distress of receiving uninformative results.

Over the 10-year period, the EPAC has remained a vital service for managing early pregnancy complications for women. However, the clinic has not yet had a sustained impact on ER visits for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and hemorrhage. It is possible that a reduction in ER assessments and reassessments for early pregnancy complications can be achieved through a clinic with daily access.

No abstract

Background: Germline mutation screening of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is performed in suspected familial breast cancer cases, but a causative mutation is found in only 30% of patients. The development of additional methods to identify good candidates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis would therefore increase the efficacy of diagnostic mutation screening. With this in mind, we developed a study to determine molecular signatures of BRCA1—or BRCA2—mutated breast cancers. Materials and Methods: Array-cgh (comparative genomic hybridization) and transcriptomic analysis were performed on a series of 103 familial breast cancers. The series included 7 breast cancers with a BRCA1 mutation and 5 breast cancers with a BRCA2 mutation. The remaining 91 cases were obtained from 73 families selected on the basis of at least 3 affected first-degree relatives or at least 2 affected first-degree relatives with breast cancer at an average age of 45 years. Array-cgh analyses were performed on a 4407 BAC-array (CIT-V8) manufactured by IntegraGen. Transcriptomic analyses were performed using an Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 chip. Results: Using supervised clustering analyses we identified two transcriptomic signatures: one for BRCA1-mutated breast cancers consisting of 600 probe sets and another for BRCA2-mutated breast cancers also consisting of 600 probes sets. We also defined cgh-array signatures, based on the presence of specific genomic rearrangements, one for BRCA1-mutated breast cancers and one for BRCA2-mutated breast cancers. Conclusions: This study identified molecular signatures of breast cancers with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. Genes present in these signatures could be exploited to find new markers for such breast cancers. We also identified specific genomic rearrangements in these breast cancers, which could be screened for in a diagnostic setting using fluorescence in situ hybridization, thus improving patient selection for BRCA1 and BRCA2 molecular genetic analysis.