Advertisement

A meta-analysis of consanguinity and breast cancer

  • John B. Wild
  • Mei-Ju Hwang
  • Gabriela Jones
Review Article
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

Background

There have been various publications stating that consanguinity both increases and decreases the risk of breast cancer.

Aims

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of consanguinity upon breast cancer. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Methods

Eligible studies were identified on Medline and EMBASE updated to the 19 of September 2017. Studies with sufficient comparative data were included in a meta-analysis. Analyses were carried out using RevMan software.

Results

Three comparative studies with a total of 317 individuals with breast cancer and 1459 controls. Reviewing the literature demonstrated conflicting conclusions of the influence of consanguinity upon breast cancer. The meta-analysis showed that there were no statistically significant associations between consanguinity and breast cancer though there was a trend protection from a history of consanguinity.

Conclusion

Though there is limited literature published on the effects of parental consanguinity, the available data does not demonstrate that it is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer Consanguinity Inbreeding Incest Risk 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this study.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO Global Health Estimates 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou AC, Easton DF (2003) Polygenic inheritance of breast cancer: implications for design of association studies. Genet Epidemiol 25:190–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Romeo G, Bittles AH (2014) Consanguinity in the contemporary world. Hum Hered 77(1–4):6–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nabulsi MM, Tamim H, Sabbagh M, Obeid MY, Yunis KA, Bitar FF (2003) Parental consanguinity and congenital heart malformations in a developing country. Am J Med Genet A 116A(4):342–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomsen H, Chen B, Figlioli G, Elisei R, Romei C, Cipollini M, Cristaudo A, Bambi F, Hoffmann P, Herms S, Landi S, Hemminki K, Gemignani F, Försti A (2016) Runs of homozygosity and inbreeding in thyroid cancer. BMC Cancer 16:227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomsen H, Inacio da Silva Filho M, Fuchs M, Ponader S, Pogge von Strandmann E, Eisele L, Herms S, Hoffmann P, Engert A, Hemminki K, Försti A (2016) Evidence of inbreeding in Hodgkin lymphoma. PLoS One 11(4):e0154259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simpson JL, Martin AO, Elias S, Sarto GE, Dunn JK (1981) Cancers of the breast and female genital system: search for recessive genetic factors through analysis of human isolate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141(6):629–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liede A, Malik IA, Aziz Z, Rios Pd PL, Kwan E, Narod SA (2002) Contribution of BRCA1and BRCA2 mutations to breast and ovarian cancer in Pakistan. Am J Hum Genet 71:595–606CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Denic S, Bener A (2001) Consanguinity decreases risk of breast cancer—cervical cancer unaffected. Br J Cancer 85(11):1675–1679CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bener A, Ayoubi HR, Ali AI, Al-Kubaisi A, Al-Sulaiti H (2010) Does consanguinity lead to decreased incidence of breast cancer? Cncer Epidemiol 34(4):413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Petersen J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. 2017. Available at http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp Accessed Oct 2017
  13. 13.
    Denic S, Bener A, Sabri S, Khatib F, Milenkovic J (2005) Parental consanguinity and risk of breast cancer: a population-based case-control study. Med Sci Monit 11(9):CR415–CR419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elalaoui SC, Jaouad IC, Laarabi FZ, Elgueddari Bel K (2013) Low level of consanguinity in moroccan families at high risk of breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14(2):723–726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medimegh I, Troudi W, Omrane I, Ayari H, Uhrhummer N, Majoul H, Benayed F, Mezlini A, Bignon YJ, Sibille C, Elgaaied AB (2015) Consanguinity protecting effect against breast cancer among Tunisian women: analysis of BRCA1 haplotypes. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16(9):4051–4055CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lazarev I, Flaschner M, Geffen DB, Ariad S (2014) Breast cancer in Bedouin-Arab patients in southern Israel: epidemiologic and biologic features in comparison with Jewish patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(18):7533–7537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCormack VA, Mangtani P, Bhakta D, McMichael AJ, dos Santos Silva I (2004) Heterogeneity of breast cancer risk within the South Asian female population in England: a population-based case-control study of first-generation migrants. Br J Cancer 90(1):160–166CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rudan I (1999) Inbreeding and cancer incidence in human isolates. Hum Biol 71(2):173–187PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018
corrected publication April 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Breast Surgery Worcester Royal HospitalWorcestershireUK
  2. 2.Department of Breast Surgery Birmingham City HospitalBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Department of Clinical GeneticsNottingham City HospitalNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations