Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bermejo, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hemminki, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bermejo, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Hemminki, K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 15:598-604, 2004
© 2004 European Society for Medical Oncology


Original Paper

Familial risk of endometrial cancer after exclusion of families that fulfilled Amsterdam, Japanese or Bethesda criteria for HNPCC

Received 29 September 2003; revised 2 December 2003; accepted 22 December 2003

Background:

Endometrial cancer is the second most common lesion within hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. The importance of the non-HNPCC genetic predisposition to endometrial cancer is unclear, and the familial aggregation of endometrial cancer after exclusion of HNPCC families may offer valuable clues about the involvement of non-HNPCC-related genes.

Patients and methods:

The families of the nationwide Swedish Family-Cancer Database were classified as HNPCC families according to the Amsterdam I or II, the modified Amsterdam, the Japanese and the Bethesda criteria. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for endometrial cancer when parents or siblings were diagnosed with cancer at the most common sites were calculated before and after exclusion of HNPCC families.

Results:

The proportion of individuals in the families with endometrial cancer was highest when the criteria required three cancers within a family or multiple HNPCC-related cancers in the same individual. Consideration of the Amsterdam or the Japanese criteria hardly reduced the familial aggregation of endometrial cancer. After exclusion of families that fulfilled the Bethesda criteria, SIRs were significant when the parents were diagnosed with endometrial or thyroid gland cancers; 75.7% (95% confidence interval 60% to 99.1%) of the familial cases of endometrial cancer were not related to HNPCC according to the Bethesda criteria. The reduction of SIRs for cancers at the colon, pancreas, prostate and ovary was limited when the Bethesda criteria were applied. However, the Bethesda criteria identified most of the familial aggregation when endometrial cancers were diagnosed before the age of 55 years.

Conclusions:

The data suggest that additional effects, not related to HNPCC, contribute to the familial aggregation of endometrial cancer.

J. Lorenzo Bermejo1,*, F. L. Büchner1 and K. Hemminki1,2

1 Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; 2 Department of Biosciences at Novum, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden

Key words: Amsterdam criteria, Bethesda guidelines, endometrial cancer, familial risk, HNPCC, Japanese criteria


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
A. Brandt, J. L. Bermejo, J. Sundquist, and K. Hemminki
Age of onset in familial cancer
Ann. Onc., December 1, 2008; 19(12): 2084 - 2088.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
K. Hemminki, J. Sundquist, and J. Lorenzo Bermejo
Familial Risks for Cancer as the Basis for Evidence-Based Clinical Referral and Counseling
Oncologist, March 1, 2008; 13(3): 239 - 247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.