 |
 |

Sex Ratios in Families With BRCA Mutations
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
To the Editor: Dr de la Hoya and colleagues1 found that in families with breast and/or ovarian cancer, mutations in BRCA1 but not BRCA2 were associated with a sex ratio skewed against male births. However, because the authors did not assess for several possible sources of confounding, their results may not permit the conclusion that BRCA1 mutations are associated with an asymmetrical sex ratio. The highly penetrant breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 families is an example of an autosomal dominant sex-limited phenotype. That is, only females carrying a BRCA1 mutation can develop ovarian cancer, and the majority of cases of breast cancer in families with the BRCA1 mutation also occurs in females.
Thus, the finding that more female offspring are seen in BRCA1 pedigrees is more likely to be explained by ascertainment bias than a true sex-ratio distortion. Families in this study were ascertained by the presence of 3 . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Matthew E. Mealiffe, MD
Department of Medicine University of Washington Seattle
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Sex Ratios in Families With BRCA MutationsReply
Miguel de la Hoya, Juan M Fernández, Alicia Tosar, Javier Godino, Ana Sánchez de Abajo, José A Vidart, Pedro Pérez-Segura, Eduardo Díaz-Rubio, and Trinidad Caldés
JAMA. 2003;290(19):2544-2545.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Association Between BRCA1 Mutations and Ratio of Female to Male Births in Offspring of Families With Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, or Both
Miguel de la Hoya, Juan M. Fernández, Alicia Tosar, Javier Godino, Ana Sánchez de Abajo, Jose A. Vidart, Pedro Pérez-Segura, Eduardo Díaz-Rubio, and Trinidad Caldés
JAMA. 2003;290(7):929-931.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Sex Ratio Among the Offspring of BRCA Mutation Carriers
Feunteun et al.
JAMA 2004;292:687-688.
FULL TEXT
|