A genetic epidemiologic investigation of breast cancer involving 389 breast cancer pedigrees including information on 14,721 individuals from the Icelandic population-based cancer registry is presented. Probands were women born in or after 1920 and reported to have breast cancer in the cancer regist
Genetic epidemiology of breast cancer: Segregation analysis of 200 Danish pedigrees
β Scribed by Wick R. Williams; David E. Anderson; D. C. Rao
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1984
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 965 KB
- Volume
- 1
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0741-0395
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
An investigation of the genetic epidemiology of breast cancer involving complex segregation analysis of 200 breast cancer pedigrees of Danish extraction is presented. The observed distribution of breast cancer is compatible with transmission of an autosomai-dominant gene with no evidence for residual family resemblance. The gene frequency of the abnormal allele is 0.00756, and the displacement between the homozygous genotype means is 1.695. The gene frequency accounts for a significant proportion of breast cancer in young women, whereas by an advanced age a majority (87%) of affected women are phenocopies. Genetic modeling of other breast cancer families and results of linkage studies are reviewed.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Breast cancer and prostate cancer are the most commonly occurring cancers in females and males, respectively. The objective of this project was to test the hypothesis that breast cancer in females and prostate cancer in males represent homologous cancers that may be controlled by one or
## Abstract We used the affectedβpedigreeβmember (APM) method to conduct linkage analyses on 19 pedigrees in which the probands had premenopausal bilateral breast cancer. This method analyzes all affected pairs of relatives, as opposed to siblings only, and incorporates into the analyses informatio
19841 recently presented a segregation analysis of 200 families of breast cancer patients published some 40 years ago. Unfortunately, in their discussion of work done by others Go et al, 1983; Cleton et al, 19831, they made some statements that could be misunderstood. It is our purpose here to clar