Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where William D. Foulkes is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by William D. Foulkes.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2010

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

William D. Foulkes; Ian E. Smith; Jorge S. Reis-Filho

Triple-negative breast cancer, so called because it lacks expression of the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2, is often, but not always, a basal-like breast cancer. This review focuses on its origin, molecular and clinical characteristics, and treatment.


Nature Reviews Cancer | 2004

BRCA1 and BRCA2 : 1994 and beyond

Steven A. Narod; William D. Foulkes

The discovery of the first gene associated with hereditary breast cancer, BRCA1, was anticipated to greatly increase our understanding of both hereditary and sporadic forms of breast cancer, and to lead to therapeutic and preventive breakthroughs. Much has been learned during the past decade about the genetic epidemiology of breast cancer, the ethnic distribution and clinical consequences of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and the central role of DNA repair in breast cancer susceptibility. The ability to translate this knowledge into novel treatments, however, remains elusive.


PLOS Medicine | 2010

Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies

Fiona Blows; Kristy Driver; Marjanka K. Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Flora E. van Leeuwen; Jelle Wesseling; Maggie Cheang; Karen A. Gelmon; Torsten O. Nielsen; Carl Blomqvist; Päivi Heikkilä; Tuomas Heikkinen; Heli Nevanlinna; Lars A. Akslen; Louis R. Bégin; William D. Foulkes; Fergus J. Couch; Xianshu Wang; Vicky Cafourek; Janet E. Olson; Laura Baglietto; Graham G. Giles; Gianluca Severi; Catriona McLean; Melissa C. Southey; Emad A. Rakha; Andrew R. Green; Ian O. Ellis; Mark E. Sherman; Jolanta Lissowska

Paul Pharoah and colleagues evaluate the prognostic significance of immunohistochemical subtype classification in more than 10,000 breast cancer cases with early disease, and examine the influence of a patients survival time on the prediction of future survival.


The American Journal of Gastroenterology | 2006

Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

Polymnia Galiatsatos; William D. Foulkes

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is an autosomal-dominant colorectal cancer syndrome, caused by a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene, on chromosome 5q21. It is characterized by hundreds of adenomatous colorectal polyps, with an almost inevitable progression to colorectal cancer at an average age of 35 to 40 yr. Associated features include upper gastrointestinal tract polyps, congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium, desmoid tumors, and other extracolonic malignancies. Gardner syndrome is more of a historical subdivision of FAP, characterized by osteomas, dental anomalies, epidermal cysts, and soft tissue tumors. Other specified variants include Turcot syndrome (associated with central nervous system malignancies) and hereditary desmoid disease. Several genotype–phenotype correlations have been observed. Attenuated FAP is a phenotypically distinct entity, presenting with fewer than 100 adenomas. Multiple colorectal adenomas can also be caused by mutations in the human MutY homologue (MYH) gene, in an autosomal recessive condition referred to as MYH associated polyposis (MAP). Endoscopic screening of FAP probands and relatives is advocated as early as the ages of 10–12 yr, with the objective of reducing the occurrence of colorectal cancer. Colectomy remains the optimal prophylactic treatment, while the choice of procedure (subtotal vs proctocolectomy) is still controversial. Along with identifying better chemopreventive agents, optimizing screening of extracolonic cancers and applying new radiological and endoscopic technology to the diagnosis and management of extracolonic features are the major challenges for the future.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2016

Contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Kelly Metcalfe; Henry T. Lynch; Parviz Ghadirian; Nadine Tung; Ivo A. Olivotto; Ellen Warner; Olufunmilayo I. Olopade; Andrea Eisen; Barbara L. Weber; Jane McLennan; Ping Sun; William D. Foulkes; Steven A. Narod

PURPOSE To estimate the risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers after diagnosis and to determine which factors are predictive of the risk of a second primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients included 491 women with stage I or stage II breast cancer, for whom a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had been identified in the family. Patients were followed from the initial diagnosis of cancer until contralateral mastectomy, contralateral breast cancer, death, or last follow-up. RESULTS The actuarial risk of contralateral breast cancer was 29.5% at 10 years. Factors that were predictive of a reduced risk were the presence of a BRCA2 mutation (v BRCA1 mutation; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.15); age 50 years or older at first diagnosis (v <or= 49 years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.10); use of tamoxifen (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.01); and history of oophorectomy (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.91). The effect of oophorectomy was particularly strong in women first diagnosed prior to age 49 years (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.77). For women who did not have an oophorectomy or take tamoxifen, the 10-year risk of contralateral cancer was 43.4% for BRCA1 carriers and 34.6% for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION The risk of contralateral breast cancer in women with a BRCA mutation is approximately 40% at 10 years, and is reduced in women who take tamoxifen or who undergo an oophorectomy.


Human Mutation | 2008

Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results

Sharon E. Plon; Diana Eccles; Douglas F. Easton; William D. Foulkes; Maurizio Genuardi; Marc S. Greenblatt; Frans B. L. Hogervorst; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Amanda B. Spurdle; Sean V. Tavtigian

Genetic testing of cancer susceptibility genes is now widely applied in clinical practice to predict risk of developing cancer. In general, sequence‐based testing of germline DNA is used to determine whether an individual carries a change that is clearly likely to disrupt normal gene function. Genetic testing may detect changes that are clearly pathogenic, clearly neutral, or variants of unclear clinical significance. Such variants present a considerable challenge to the diagnostic laboratory and the receiving clinician in terms of interpretation and clear presentation of the implications of the result to the patient. There does not appear to be a consistent approach to interpreting and reporting the clinical significance of variants either among genes or among laboratories. The potential for confusion among clinicians and patients is considerable and misinterpretation may lead to inappropriate clinical consequences. In this article we review the current state of sequence‐based genetic testing, describe other standardized reporting systems used in oncology, and propose a standardized classification system for application to sequence‐based results for cancer predisposition genes. We suggest a system of five classes of variants based on the degree of likelihood of pathogenicity. Each class is associated with specific recommendations for clinical management of at‐risk relatives that will depend on the syndrome. We propose that panels of experts on each cancer predisposition syndrome facilitate the classification scheme and designate appropriate surveillance and cancer management guidelines. The international adoption of a standardized reporting system should improve the clinical utility of sequence‐based genetic tests to predict cancer risk. Hum Mutat 29(11), 1282–1291, 2008.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2005

Breast Cancer Risk Following Bilateral Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: An International Case-Control Study

Andrea Eisen; Jan Lubinski; J.G.M. Klijn; Pål Møller; Henry T. Lynch; Kenneth Offit; Barbara L. Weber; Timothy R. Rebbeck; Susan L. Neuhausen; Parviz Ghadirian; William D. Foulkes; Ruth Gershoni-Baruch; Eitan Friedman; Gadi Rennert; Teresa Wagner; Claudine Isaacs; Charmaine Kim-Sing; Peter Ainsworth; Ping Sun; Steven A. Narod

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent of protection offered against breast cancer by prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and to determine to what extent risk reduction varies with age at oophorectomy, age at diagnosis, and time elapsed since surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed 1,439 patients with breast cancer and 1,866 matched controls derived from a registry of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) of breast cancer for having had a bilateral oophorectomy, using conditional logistic regression, matched for parity and for oral contraceptive use. RESULTS A previous history of oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk of 56% for BRCA1 carriers (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.66) and of 46% for BRCA2 carriers (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.15). The risk reduction was greater if the oophorectomy was performed before age 40 (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.64 for BRCA1 carriers) than after age 40 (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.91). The protective effect was evident for 15 years post-oophorectomy (OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57). CONCLUSION Oophorectomy is an effective means of reducing the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 mutations. The data suggest oophorectomy is protective in BRCA2 carriers as well, but needs to be confirmed in other studies.


Clinical Cancer Research | 2009

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Distinguishing between Basal and Nonbasal Subtypes

Emad A. Rakha; Somaia Elsheikh; Muhammed A. Aleskandarany; Hany O. Habashi; Andrew R. Green; Desmond G. Powe; Maysa E. El-Sayed; Ahmed Benhasouna; Jean-Sébastien Brunet; Lars A. Akslen; Andrew Evans; R.W. Blamey; Jorge S. Reis-Filho; William D. Foulkes; Ian O. Ellis

Purpose: Triple-negative (TN; estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 negative) cancer and basal-like breast cancer (BLBC) are associated with poor outcome and lack the benefit of targeted therapy. It is widely perceived that BLBC and TN tumors are synonymous and BLBC can be defined using a TN definition without the need for the expression of basal markers. Experimental Design: We have used two well-defined cohorts of breast cancers with a large panel of biomarkers, BRCA1 mutation status, and follow-up data to compare the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features of TN tumors expressing one or more of the specific basal markers (CK5/6, CK17, CK14, and epidermal growth factor receptor; BLBC) with those TN tumors that express none of these markers (TN3BKE−). Results: Here, we show that although the morphologic features of BLBC are not significantly different from that of TN3BKE- tumors, BLBC showed distinct clinical and immunophenotypic differences. BLBC showed a statistically significant association with the expression of the hypoxia-associated factor (CA9), neuroendocrine markers, and other markers of poor prognosis such as p53. A difference in the expression of cell cycle-associated proteins and biomarkers involved in the immunologic portrait of tumors was seen. Compared with TN3BKE- tumors, BLBC was positively associated with BRCA1 mutation status and showed a unique pattern of distant metastasis, better response to chemotherapy, and shorter survival. Conclusion: TN breast cancers encompass a remarkably heterogeneous group of tumors. Expression of basal markers identifies a biologically and clinically distinct subgroup of TN tumors, justifying the use of basal markers (in TN tumors) to define BLBC.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2014

Breast-Cancer Risk in Families with Mutations in PALB2

Antonis C. Antoniou; Silvia Casadei; Tuomas Heikkinen; Daniel Barrowdale; Katri Pylkäs; Jonathan C. Roberts; Andrew Lee; Deepak Subramanian; Kim De Leeneer; Florentia Fostira; Eva Tomiak; Susan L. Neuhausen; Zhi L Teo; Sofia Khan; Kristiina Aittomäki; Jukka S. Moilanen; Clare Turnbull; Sheila Seal; Arto Mannermaa; Anne Kallioniemi; Geoffrey J. Lindeman; Saundra S. Buys; Irene L. Andrulis; Paolo Radice; Carlo Tondini; Siranoush Manoukian; Amanda Ewart Toland; Penelope Miron; Jeffrey N. Weitzel; Susan M. Domchek

BACKGROUND Germline loss-of-function mutations in PALB2 are known to confer a predisposition to breast cancer. However, the lifetime risk of breast cancer that is conferred by such mutations remains unknown. METHODS We analyzed the risk of breast cancer among 362 members of 154 families who had deleterious truncating, splice, or deletion mutations in PALB2. The age-specific breast-cancer risk for mutation carriers was estimated with the use of a modified segregation-analysis approach that allowed for the effects of PALB2 genotype and residual familial aggregation. RESULTS The risk of breast cancer for female PALB2 mutation carriers, as compared with the general population, was eight to nine times as high among those younger than 40 years of age, six to eight times as high among those 40 to 60 years of age, and five times as high among those older than 60 years of age. The estimated cumulative risk of breast cancer among female mutation carriers was 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 20) by 50 years of age and 35% (95% CI, 26 to 46) by 70 years of age. Breast-cancer risk was also significantly influenced by birth cohort (P<0.001) and by other familial factors (P=0.04). The absolute breast-cancer risk for PALB2 female mutation carriers by 70 years of age ranged from 33% (95% CI, 25 to 44) for those with no family history of breast cancer to 58% (95% CI, 50 to 66) for those with two or more first-degree relatives with breast cancer at 50 years of age. CONCLUSIONS Loss-of-function mutations in PALB2 are an important cause of hereditary breast cancer, with respect both to the frequency of cancer-predisposing mutations and to the risk associated with them. Our data suggest the breast-cancer risk for PALB2 mutation carriers may overlap with that for BRCA2 mutation carriers. (Funded by the European Research Council and others.).


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2008

Inherited Susceptibility to Common Cancers

William D. Foulkes

This review deals with germ-line genes that increase susceptibility to five major types of cancer: breast, lung, pancreatic, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Often familial, often appearing at a young age, and often with atypical features, these cancers are caused by mutations in a germ-line gene and frequently with a second mutation in a gene in a somatic cell. The review ends with a discussion of clinical implications, especially for genetic counseling.

Collaboration


Dive into the William D. Foulkes's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Nancy Hamel

McGill University Health Centre

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ping Sun

Women's College Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Nadine Tung

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jan Lubinski

Pomeranian Medical University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge