Skip to main content
Download PDF

BRCA 1/2 mutations and risk of uterine cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Genomic Data volume 25, Article number: 13 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

In this study, we aim to investigate the association between BRCA1/2 mutation and uterine cancer incidence.

Material and method

We systematically searched three databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to August 2023; and reviewed 23 cohorts and cross-sectional studies to explore the association between BRCA1/2 mutations and uterine cancer incidence.

Results

This systematic review comprised a total of 21 cohort studies and 2 cross-sectional studies after the screening process. According to meta-analysis the prevalence of the BRCA1/2 gene in patients with uterine cancer was 0.02 (95%CI = [0.01,0.03], P < 0.01, I2 = 94.82%)

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis investigates a 2% prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutation in patients with uterine cancer. Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations might be more conscious of uterine malignancies.

Peer Review reports

Background

Uterine cancer risk in BRCA1/2m women and its significance in the BRCA mutated condition are still beyond controversy. The similarities between serous ovarian and uterine cancers, especially serous carcinomas, have prompted researchers to look for shared pathogenetic traits as well as hereditary factors. Even though the particular gene sequence implicated is mostly unclear, 10% of the cases of endometrial cancer are found to have positive family histories, suggesting a genetic tendency [1]. BRCA1 is located in chromosome 17q21, whereas BRCA2 is located in chromosome 13q12, which are both autosomal dominant tumor suppressor genes involved in DNA damage repair prior to cell replication [2, 3]. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers’ risk of developing uterine cancer is still unknown due to inconsistent results from various studies that may have been impacted by past tamoxifen treatment. However, the majority of research has indicated an approximately two-fold increase in risk compared to the general population [4]. A higher risk of endometrial cancer, and especially uterine serous carcinoma in BRCA1m women, was verified by some writers [5,6,7], but not by others [8, 9]. 11,847 BRCA1 variant carriers participated in global cohort research of the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium that discovered a significant two- to three-fold increase in the risk of endometrial cancer. The fact that BRCA1 variant carriers may use tamoxifen, which is known to raise the risk of endometrial cancer [10, 11].

Endometrial cancer develops in the inner layers of the uterus from a glandular epithelium layer that covers the luminal surface and secretes substances that are essential to normal periods and developmental stages of development. Endometrial cancer is a common cancer influencing the female reproductive organs in higher-income states [12]. In patients with no metastatic disease, five years of overall survival ranges from 74 to 91% [13]. An aggressive form of endometrial cancer (EC), uterine serous carcinoma (USC) accounts for 5–10% of all uterine carcinomas and represents over 40% of EC-related death [14]. Numerous studies have demonstrated an elevated risk of developing EC, particularly in gBRCA1 carriers, with the largest risks being seen in an aggressive subtype of EC called serous-like ECs [8, 14]. Others, however, failed to notice this elevated risk or blamed it on prior tamoxifen therapy rather than the gBRCA1 mutation [9, 15]. And also, some other studies revealed an elevated risk of developing EC, particularly in those who carried the mutation in the BRCA1 gene, with the serous-like form of EC showing the highest reported risk [16]. These BRCA1-associated endometrial cancers are associated with an unfavorable outcome [16] and it requires additional studies to confirm these findings. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine how BRCA1/2 affects uterine cancer and provide answers to these concerns.

Method

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the effect of BRCA 1/2 mutations on the risk of uterine cancer. The research protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform.

Search strategy

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to find any studies which demonstrated the effect of BRCA 1/2 mutations on the risk of uterine cancer up to August 1, 2023. For any additional eligible studies, reference lists of identified systematic reviews and included studies were manually checked. The search strategy of this systematic review and meta-analysis is available in Table 1. As the first step, the title and abstract of the screened articles were reviewed by one of the researchers after removing duplications.

Table 1 Search strategy for current systematic review and meta-analysis
Full size table

Study selection

Cross-sectional studies, prospective cohorts, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of BRCA1/2 mutations on the risk of uterine cancer (uterine carcinoma and endometrial cancer) were included. Articles that didn’t match inclusion criteria or data that were not announced or case reports, editorials, and reviews were excluded because they didn’t provide sufficient data of methodological quality. In conclusion, a single rate meta-analysis and diagnostic meta-analysis have been reported.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers (EF, AA), extracted the necessary information based on the pre-defined criteria. The quality of the studies was checked by two reviewers (EF, AA) separately.

Statistical analysis

Data related to the relationship between BRCA 1/2 mutations and the risk of uterine cancer were extracted from included studies.

A randomized meta-analysis model, as a result of the heterogeneity of study results, has been implemented in order to incorporate effect sizes. For the estimation of variance between study pairs, a method known as DerSimonian and Laird [17] was applied which is applicable to both within and intra-study differences. Heterogeneity between included studies was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistic, and I2 more than 50% was considered as heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were planned to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including study design (cohort vs. cross-sectional), menopausal age categories (early vs. late), and geographic location. In order to assess the differences between subgroups, interaction tests have been performed. A sensitivity test was performed to assess the robustness of the results. In order to assess their impact on the overall effect size estimate, the exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias of more than 50% has been carried out. To evaluate the study’s publication bias, a visual evaluation of the symmetry of the flow chart and Bagg and Egger regression tests have been carried out. SPSS version 22 was used to conduct all the statistical analyses and p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature search

A total of 1371 records were found overall by searching databases. 1260 papers were assessed after 111 duplicates were eliminated, and 1209 were excluded based on the titles. 25 findings were excluded after the papers’ abstracts were reviewed. A full text for 26 records was collected and 3 publications were excluded according to the study type review. Finally, 23 full-text articles were included in the systematic review after the screening process. Figure 1(PRISMA flow chart of study identification) reports specifics about the literature search findings. Studies that evaluated the relevance of BRCA1/2 mutations in individuals with uterine and endometrial cancer were all included [1, 5, 7,8,9,10, 15, 18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram for this present systematic review and meta-analysis

Full size image

Patient characteristics and methodological aspects of the included studies

This systematic review included almost 26,000 patients in total, who were all evaluated. The included studies on the incidence of BRCA mutation in endometrial cancer patients had a patient population ranging from 7 to 3623, and the research on the incidence of endometrial cancer in BRCA mutation carriers had a patient population ranging from 828 to 5980. 3.3 to 14 years were covered by the median follow-up. This systematic review comprised a total of 21 cohort studies and 2 cross-sectional studies. Six researches included Jewish women in Israel [1, 7, 20, 27, 28, 31]. Seventeen studies were remained, of which 8 studies were conducted in United States [5, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33], 2 in Australia [22, 24], 2 in United Kingdom [10, 23], 2 in Canada [15, 29], 2 in Netherlands [9, 30], and 1 in France [8]. Table 2 demonstrated the key characteristics of eligible studies on the prevalence of BRCA mutation in patients with endometrial cancer and on the incidence of endometrial cancer in BRCA mutation patients. The prevalence of BRCA mutation varied from 0% [18] to 27.2% [27] in patients with uterine cancer, and the currency of uterine cancer ranged from 0.53% [23] to 1.87% [30] in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers according to the baseline table.

Table 2 The key characteristics of included studies of BCRA mutations and uterine cancer
Full size table

Main findings

According to meta-analysis (Fig. 2) the prevalence of the BRCA1/2 gene in patients with uterine cancer was 0.02 (95%CI = [0.01,0.03], I2 = 94.82%, p < 0.01). In proportion to Funnel plot (Fig. 3) and sensitivity analysis were also provided no studies were excluded according to their results.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot diagram for included studies

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Funnel plot diagram for included studies

Full size image

Discussion

The clinical significance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations has been covered in numerous research. To draw a conclusion from these data, there is still much work to be done [34]. Gene mutations are thought to be the main cause of about 5% of cases of endometrial cancer [35]. Characterizing somatic genetic changes in uterine cancer has received a lot of attention in the last ten years, but uterine cancer’s molecular causes are not yet well understood. Such uterine cancers exhibit similar molecular and morphological characteristics, indicating the potential of a connection to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and the BRCA1 mutation [19]. Furthermore, we did a reverse analysis of prospective research to determine the risk of uterine cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. We summarized all of the research that examined uterine cancer patients for BRCA mutation as well as the prevalence of uterine cancer in BRCA mutation women in this systematic review. Finally, our findings showed that the prevalence of BRCA mutations in patients with uterine carcinoma is 2%. Numerous studies have found that UPSC patients have a high prevalence of BRCA mutations and that BRCA mutation carriers have a higher risk of developing UPSC [5, 7], but some other results do not corroborate these results [8, 9, 19, 23]. Compared to the general population, women with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had a roughly 2.5-fold greater risk of getting uterine cancer, according to the cohort study on the rate of BRCA mutation in uterine cancer. Despite the fact that this was statistically insignificant, the SIR was 2.87 for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 2.01 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, to be more specific [22]. These findings prompted us to gather information and perform subgroup analysis on 21 previously published cohorts and 2 cross-sectional studies in order to determine if BRCA mutations might contribute to the pathogenesis of uterine cancer and also to improve these patients’ outcomes. One of the studies just reported the prevalence of BRCA1 in uterine cancer cases [19] and one of them didn’t segregate the BRCA1 and BRCA2 prevalence [26]. Therefore, the population usually overlaps. For example, eight studies chose patient from the United States [5, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33], six from Israel [1, 7, 20, 27, 28, 31], and two from Australia [22, 24].

A significant retrospective study from the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium revealed an elevated chance of uterine cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers, but weren’t for BRCA2 mutation carriers (RR = 2.65; 95% CI: [1.69,4.16]; P < 0.001) [10, 36]. In this cohort study of 1,083 women, there were five incident cases of serous/serous-like endometrial carcinoma that occurred after RRSO, four in BRCA1 mutation carriers, and one in BRCA2 mutation carriers. However, when tumor subtypes were analyzed, there was statistically significant increased risk of serous carcinomas in BRCA1 mutation carriers (observed to expected ratio of 22.2, 95%CI: [6.1,56.9], P < 0.001). There was no evidence of a causal relationship between BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and serous endometrial cancer; carriers of these variants did not have a higher risk of developing the disease, and there were no pathogenic types found in the BRCA1/2 genes in the tumor cells from 15 random cases of serous endometrial cancer. These encouraging results are in line with those of Lee et al., who did not observe an increase in serous or endometrioid endometrial cancer in their small Australasian population, and Levine et al., who reported a relative risk of endometrial cancer of 0.75 (95% CI = [0.24, 2.34], p = 0.6) in 199 Ashkenazi Jews with BRCA1/2(BRCA1 SIR = 2.87, 95%CI = [0.59,8.43], p = 0.18 / BRCA2 SIR = 2.01, 95%CI = [0.24,7.30], p = 0.52) [22]. In the study using case-case approach, pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were linked to higher chances for uterine/EC (odds ratio [OR]: 3.1, 95%CI: [1.6,5.7]). Their findings show that BRCA1 and PALB2 pathogenic mutations are more common in EC patients with prior BC and a family history of EC when using a case-case approach [24]. Another study suggested that one out of the three prevalent BRCA germline mutations that are recognized in the Jewish population were carried by 27% of our patients with a diagnosis of USPC. The known mutation rate (2.5%) for the general Jewish community is considerably less than this mutation incidence. Only 22 Jewish women was the population of the cohort research and conclusions may be conflicting. Considering that the Jewish population has a distinctive carrier pattern for the three typical BRCA1e2 germline mutations, this population bias may be a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between the contradicting results; although the Lavie et al.‘s [37] findings and this study’s total quantity of BRCA germline mutations were similar, but the location of the mutations is different [27].

In order to describe the discrepancy in results, we should consider several reasons: First, all of the cohort studies were limited to the population of a region and that may cause race and genetic panel differences. Second, in some studies BRCA1/2 germline mutation was limited by the small number of women with genetic testing results or were included small population [18, 19]. Third, Tamoxifen taking and personal history of breast cancer are effective cause that didn’t screened in all studies. And forth, follow up durations varied. Proof of advantages is unquestionably required to balance these additional risks given the increased potential morbidity linked to more complex surgery. It is currently unclear whether or not there is a distinct benefit in particular subgroups of BRCA pathogenic variant carriers because neither this study nor which have been published before contained data on body mass index (BMI), making it unable to account for this in analyses [23].

Limitations

When analyzing the results of the current study, a few restrictions must be taken into attention. First, linguistic bias can be an issue because only English-language articles were chosen. Second, because the eligible studies under consideration all were conducted in various locations, recall bias and selection bias were unavoidable. Third, it may be biased because favorable results were more likely to be published than negative discoveries. Fourth, Patients with a significant family history may be examined for potential mutations, although some patients may pay less attention to their family history and avoid the tests [3].

The direction of bias depends on the magnitude and direction of each bias alone. For example, if the selection bias is high in the publication of studies with favorable results and people with a positive family history, the prevalence of BRCA 1/2 in uterine cancer is overestimated. Contrariwise, if the recall bias prevails in remembering the positive family history, the prevalence of this mutation is underestimated. Both of these directions highlight the need to interpret the data with caution. However, in this study we used sensitivity tests to assess the bias and no significant bias was found, which reduces the possible bias rate, leading to validity og the results.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis investigates 2% prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutation in patients with uterine cancer. Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations might be more conscious of uterine malignancies. Our findings might help physicians enhance therapy options for USC patients by including targeted therapies and preventing and genetic guidance. Large scaled observational studied are needed to further support this articles results.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

EC:

Endometrial cancer

USC:

Uterine serous carcinoma

OSF:

Open Science Framework

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

BMI:

Body mass index

References

  1. Barak F, Milgrom R, Laitman Y, Gemer O, Rabinovich A, Piura B, et al. The rate of the predominant Jewish mutations in the BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2 and MSH6 genes in unselected Jewish endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119(3):511–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gasparri ML, Bellaminutti S, Farooqi AA, Cuccu I, Di Donato V, Papadia A. Endometrial cancer and BRCA mutations: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2022;11(11):3114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee Y-C, Lee Y-L, Li C-Y. BRCA genes and related cancers: a meta-analysis from epidemiological cohort studies. Medicina. 2021;57(9):905.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Xia YY, Gronwald J, Karlan B, Lubinski J, McCuaig JM, Brooks J, et al. Contraceptive use and the risk of Ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;164(3):514–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shu CA, Pike MC, Jotwani AR, Friebel TM, Soslow RA, Levine DA, et al. Uterine cancer after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy without hysterectomy in women with BRCA mutations. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1434–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Casey MJ, Bewtra C, Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Stacey M. Endometrial cancers in mutation carriers from hereditary breast Ovarian cancer syndrome kindreds: report from the Creighton University Hereditary Cancer Registry with review of the implications. Int J Gynecologic Cancer. 2015;25(4).

  7. Laitman Y, Michaelson-Cohen R, Levi E, Chen-Shtoyerman R, Reish O, Josefsberg Ben-Yehoshua S, et al. Uterine cancer in Jewish Israeli BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Cancer. 2019;125(5):698–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Saule C, Mouret-Fourme E, Briaux A, Becette V, Rouzier R, Houdayer C, et al. Risk of serous endometrial carcinoma in women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(2):213–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Reitsma W, Mourits MJ, De Bock GH, Hollema H. Endometrium is not the primary site of origin of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(4):572–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson D, Easton DF. Cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(18):1358–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Spurdle AB, Bowman MA, Shamsani J, Kirk J. Endometrial cancer gene panels: clinical diagnostic vs research germline DNA testing. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(8):1048–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dörk T, Hillemanns P, Tempfer C, Breu J, Fleisch MC. Genetic susceptibility to endometrial cancer: risk factors and clinical management. Cancers. 2020;12(9):2407.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Morice P, Leary A, Creutzberg C, Abu-Rustum N, Darai E. Endometrial cancer. The Lancet. 2016;387(10023):1094–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Jonge M, Mooyaart A, Vreeswijk M, de Kroon C, van Wezel T, van Asperen C, et al. Linking uterine serous carcinoma to BRCA1/2-associated cancer syndrome: a meta-analysis and case report. Eur J Cancer. 2017;72:215–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Segev Y, Iqbal J, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Lynch HT, Moller P, et al. The incidence of endometrial cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: an international prospective cohort study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(1):127–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. de Jonge MM, Ritterhouse LL, de Kroon CD, Vreeswijk MP, Segal JP, Puranik R, et al. Germline BRCA-associated endometrial carcinoma is a distinct clinicopathologic entity. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(24):7517–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Frimer M, Levano KS, Rodriguez-Gabin A, Wang Y, Goldberg GL, Horwitz SB, et al. Germline mutations of the DNA repair pathways in uterine serous carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141(1):101–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hecht JL, Konstantinopoulos PA, Awtrey CS, Soslow RA. Immunohistochemical loss of BRCA1 protein in uterine serous carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2014;33(3):282–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kadan Y, Raviv O, Segev Y, Lavie O, Bruchim I, Fishman A, et al. Impact of BRCA mutations on outcomes among patients with serous endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;142(1):91–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Frey MK, Sandler G, Sobolev R, Kim SH, Chambers R, Bassett RY, et al. Multigene panels in Ashkenazi Jewish patients yield high rates of actionable mutations in multiple non-BRCA cancer-associated genes. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(1):123–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee Y, Milne R, Lheureux S, Friedlander M, McLachlan S, Martin K, et al. Risk of Uterine cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:114–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kitson SJ, Bafligil C, Ryan NA, Lalloo F, Woodward ER, Clayton RD, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers and endometrial cancer risk: a cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2020;136:169–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnatty SE, Pesaran T, Dolinsky J, Yussuf A, LaDuca H, James PA, et al. Case–case analysis addressing ascertainment bias for multigene panel testing implicates BRCA1 and PALB2 in endometrial cancer. Hum Mutat. 2021;42(10):1265–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sun D, Fan Y-J, Chen Y-M, Fan J-T, Chen H, Liang S-J, et al. BRCA1 single nucleotide polymorphisms and microsatellite instability in endometrial cancer and their association with patient prognosis in a Chinese population. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2017;38(6):871–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Burkett W, Holman L, Konecny G, Prendergast E, Ondunsi K, Moore K. Exploratory analysis of somatic BRCA mutations in endometrial cancer and its clinical implications. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;154(1):e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Biron-Shental T, Drucker L, Altaras M, Bernheim J, Fishman A. High incidence of BRCA1–2 germline mutations, previous Breast cancer and familial cancer history in Jewish patients with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO). 2006;32(10):1097–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bruchim I, Amichay K, Kidron D, Attias Z, Biron-Shental T, Drucker L et al. BRCA1/2 germline mutations in Jewish patients with uterine serous carcinoma. Int J Gynecologic Cancer. 2010;20(7).

  29. Beiner ME, Finch A, Rosen B, Lubinski J, Moller P, Ghadirian P, et al. The risk of endometrial cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. A prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104(1):7–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. de Jonge MM, de Kroon CD, Jenner DJ, Oosting J, De Hullu JA, Mourits MJ, et al. Endometrial cancer risk in women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: multicenter cohort study. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(9):1203–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Levine DA, Lin O, Barakat RR, Robson ME, McDermott D, Cohen L, et al. Risk of endometrial carcinoma associated with BRCA mutation. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80(3):395–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Long B, Lilyquist J, Weaver A, Hu C, Gnanaolivu R, Lee KY, et al. Cancer susceptibility gene mutations in type I and II endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;152(1):20–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lavie O, Hornreich G, Arie AB, Renbaum P, Levy-Lahad E, Beller U. BRCA1 germline mutations in women with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(1):28–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eccles D, Mitchell G, Monteiro A, Schmutzler R, Couch F, Spurdle A, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing—pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(10):2057–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Meyer LA, Broaddus RR, Lu KH. Endometrial cancer and Lynch syndrome: clinical and pathologic considerations. Cancer Control. 2009;16(1):14–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Institute BCLCJJotNC. Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. 1999;91(15):1310–6.

  37. Lavie O, Hornreich G, Ben-Arie A, Rennert G, Cohen Y, Keidar R, et al. BRCA germline mutations in Jewish women with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92(2):521–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the researchers whose works were included in this study.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Faezeh Zakerinasab & Ghazalehsadat Ahmadi

  2. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Qumars Behfar

  3. Master Student in Molecular Genetics, Transplant Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Reza Parsaee

  4. Student’s Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Reza Hossein Zadeh

  5. School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Elaheh Foroughi

  6. Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Amirhesam Amirbeik

Authors
  1. Faezeh Zakerinasab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qumars Behfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reza Parsaee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reza Hossein Zadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elaheh Foroughi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Amirhesam Amirbeik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ghazalehsadat Ahmadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.Z. performed search strategy, selected studies, and prepared Table 1; Fig. 1. E.F. and A.A. extracted data and checked the quality assessment of included studies. E.F. did statistically data analysis and prepared Figs. 2 and 3. Q.B., R.P., and R.Z. wrote the main manuscript text. G.A. prepared Table 2. All authors reviewed and admitted the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ghazalehsadat Ahmadi.

Ethics declarations

Ethnic approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zakerinasab, F., Behfar, Q., Parsaee, R. et al. BRCA 1/2 mutations and risk of uterine cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Genom Data 25, 13 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12863-024-01189-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12863-024-01189-y

Keywords

BMC Genomic Data

ISSN: 2730-6844

Contact us