Recurrent mutations of BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2 in the population of breast and ovarian cancer patients in Southern Poland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mutations in the BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2 genes are well-established risk factors for the development of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The frequency and spectrum of mutations in these genes has not yet been examined in the population of Southern Poland. METHODS: We examined the entire coding sequences of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and genotyped a recurrent mutation of the PALB2 gene (c.509_510delGA) in 121 women with familial and/or early-onset breast or ovarian cancer from Southern Poland. RESULTS: A BRCA1 mutation was identified in 11 of 121 patients (9.1 %) and a BRCA2 mutation was identified in 10 of 121 patients (8.3 %). Two founder mutations of BRCA1 accounted for 91 % of all BRCA1 mutation carriers (c.5266dupC was identified in six patients and c.181 T > G was identified in four patients). Three of the seven different BRCA2 mutations were detected in two patients each (c.9371A > T, c.9403delC and c.1310_1313delAAGA). Three mutations have not been previously reported in the Polish population (BRCA1 c.3531delT, BRCA2 c.1310_1313delAAGA and BRCA2 c.9027delT). The recurrent PALB2 mutation c.509_510delGA was identified in two patients (1.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: The standard panel of BRCA1 founder mutations is sufficiently sensitive for the identification of BRCA1 mutation carriers in Southern Poland. The BRCA2 mutations c.9371A > T and c.9403delC as well as the PALB2 mutation c.509_510delGA should be included in the testing panel for this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".