Systematic review reveals elevated breast cancer risk associated with brca1 and brca2 mutations in women with positive family histories, emphasizing the need for refined risk assessments.
Background: Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes significantly elevate breast cancer risk, particularly among women with a positive family history. However, precise risk quantification for this specific, genetically predisposed subpopulation requires consolidation from the growing body of recent literature. Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the association between BRCA1/2 mutations and breast cancer risk among women with a confirmed positive family history of the disease. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched for observational studies published between 2019-2024. Included studies reported breast cancer risk estimates for BRCA carriers versus non-carriers within cohorts of women with a family history. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Eight studies (n=35,842 participants) were included. The synthesis consistently demonstrated a substantially elevated risk for BRCA carriers with a family history compared to non-carrier relatives, with adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 12.5 to 28.4. Cumulative risk estimates by age 70 were high, between 66% and 72%. The strength of the family history was identified as a key effect modifier, with stronger family aggregation associated with higher penetrance. Conclusion: The evidence confirms that BRCA1/2 mutations confer a profoundly high risk of breast cancer in women with a positive family history. These findings are critical for refining risk assessment, guiding genetic counseling, and personalizing clinical management strategies for this high-risk population. Future research should focus on standardizing family history reporting and integrating genetic modifiers into risk prediction models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hassan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: