The probabilistic aggregate consumer exposure model (PACEM): Validation and comparison to a lower-tier assessment for the cyclic siloxane D5

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Current practice of chemical risk assessment for consumer product ingredients still rarely exercises the aggregation of multi-source exposure. However, focusing on a single dominant source/pathway combination may lead to a significant underestimation of the risk for substances present in numerous consumer products, which often are used simultaneously. Moreover, in most cases complex multi-route exposure scenarios also need to be accounted for. This paper introduces and evaluates the performance of the Probabilistic Aggregate Consumer Exposure Model (PACEM) applied in the context of a tiered approach to exposure assessment for ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products (C&PCPs) using decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) as a worked example. It is demonstrated that PACEM predicts a more realistic, but still conservative aggregate exposure within the Dutch adult population when compared to a deterministic point estimate obtained in a lower tier screening assessment. An overall validation of PACEM is performed by quantitatively relating and comparing its estimates to currently available human biomonitoring and environmental sampling data. Moderate (by maximum one order of magnitude) overestimation of exposure is observed due to a justified conservatism built into the model structure, resulting in the tool being suitable for risk assessment

The Influence of Number and Timing of Pregnancies on Breast Cancer Risk for Women With BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

International audienceBACKGROUND:Full-term pregnancy (FTP) is associated with a reduced breast cancer (BC) risk over time, but women are at increased BC risk in the immediate years following an FTP. No large prospective studies, however, have examined whether the number and timing of pregnancies are associated with BC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.METHODS:Using weighted and time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, we investigated whether reproductive events are associated with BC risk for mutation carriers using a retrospective cohort (5707 BRCA1 and 3525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and a prospective cohort (2276 BRCA1 and 1610 BRCA2 mutation carriers), separately for each cohort and the combined prospective and retrospective cohort.RESULTS:For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was no overall association with parity compared with nulliparity (combined hazard ratio [HRc] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.18). Relative to being uniparous, an increased number of FTPs was associated with decreased BC risk (HRc = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; HRc = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82; HRc = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.63, for 2, 3, and ≥4 FTPs, respectively, P trend < .0001) and increasing duration of breastfeeding was associated with decreased BC risk (combined cohort P trend = .0003). Relative to being nulliparous, uniparous BRCA1 mutation carriers were at increased BC risk in the prospective analysis (prospective hazard ration [HRp] = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.62). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, being parous was associated with a 30% increase in BC risk (HRc = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.69), and there was no apparent decrease in risk associated with multiparity except for having at least 4 FTPs vs. 1 FTP (HRc = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.98).CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest differential associations with parity between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with higher risk for uniparous BRCA1 carriers and parous BRCA2 carriers

The predictive ability of the 313 variant–based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant

Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant–based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes. Methods: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk. Results: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06–1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07–1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively. Conclusion: The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making

The Influence of Number and Timing of Pregnancies on Breast Cancer Risk for Women With BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

Background: Full-term pregnancy (FTP) is associated with a reduced breast cancer (BC) risk over time, but women are at increased BC risk in the immediate years following an FTP. No large prospective studies, however, have examined whether the number and timing of pregnancies are associated with BC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: Using weighted and time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, we investigated whether reproductive events are associated with BC risk for mutation carriers using a retrospective cohort (5707 BRCA1 and 3525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and a prospective cohort (2276 BRCA1 and 1610 BRCA2 mutation carriers), separately for each cohort and the combined prospective and retrospective cohort. Results: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was no overall association with parity compared with nulliparity (combined hazard ratio [HRc] ¼ 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] ¼ 0.83 to 1.18). Relative to being uniparous, an increased number of FTPs was associated with decreased BC risk (HRc¼ 0.79, 95% CI ¼ 0.69 to 0.91; HRc¼ 0.70, 95% CI ¼ 0.59 to 0.82; HRc¼ 0.50, 95% CI ¼ 0.40 to 0.63, for 2, 3, and 4 FTPs, respectively, Ptrend < .0001) and increasing duration of breastfeeding was associated with decreased BC risk (combined cohort Ptrend ¼ .0003). Relative to being nulliparous, uniparous BRCA1 mutation carriers were at increased BC risk in the prospective analysis (prospective hazard ration [HRp] ¼ 1.69, 95% CI ¼ 1.09 to 2.62). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, being parous was associated with a 30% increase in BC risk (HRc ¼ 1.33, 95% CI ¼ 1.05 to 1.69), and there was no apparent decrease in risk associated with multiparity except for having at least 4 FTPs vs. 1 FTP (HRc¼ 0.72, 95% CI ¼ 0.54 to 0.98). Conclusions: These findings suggest differential associations with parity between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with higher risk for uniparous BRCA1 carriers and parous BRCA2 carriers

Factsheet algemeen - Randvoorwaarden en betrouwbaarheid, ventilatie, kamergrootte, lichaamsoppervlak. Geupdate versie voor ConsExpo 4

In this fact sheet general information is presented necessary to calculate exposure of consumers to compounds in consumer products. Calculations are carried out with the computer program ConsExpo (Consumer Exposure). To calculate the exposure information is gathered about groups containing similar products like: paint, pest control products, cosmetics and cleaning products. The information is described in a fact sheet. This fact sheet covers information about the way human exposure is calculated with the values from the fact sheets. Furthermore in this fact sheet information is documented, which is important for several groups of consumer products, such as: - the volume and surface area of rooms in Dutch dwellings, - the air-change rate in various rooms in dwellings, - the total body surface and surface of body parts of men and women, adults and children. This fact sheet contributes considerable to a fast, transparent and standardized exposure assessment of consumer products

Consumer product in vitro digestion model: Bioaccessibility of contaminants and its application in risk assessment.

This paper describes the applicability of in vitro digestion models as a tool for consumer products in (ad hoc) risk assessment. In current risk assessment, oral bioavailability from a specific product is considered to be equal to bioavailability found in toxicity studies in which contaminants are usually ingested via liquids or food matrices. To become bioavailable, contaminants must first be released from the product during the digestion process (i.e. become bioaccessible). Contaminants in consumer products may be less bioaccessible than contaminants in liquid or food. Therefore, the actual risk after oral exposure could be overestimated. This paper describes the applicability of a simple, reliable, fast and relatively inexpensive in vitro method for determining the bioaccessibility of a contaminant from a consumer product. Different models, representing sucking and/or swallowing were developed. The experimental design of each model can be adjusted to the appropriate exposure scenarios as determined by the risk assessor. Several contaminated consumer products were tested in the various models. Although relevant in vivo data are scare, we succeeded to preliminary validate the model for one case. This case showed good correlation and never underestimated the bioavailability. However, validation check needs to be continued

Plasma levels of advanced glycation endproducts Nε-(carboxymethyl) lysine, Nε-(carboxyethyl)lysine, and pentosidine are not independently associated with cardiovascular disease in individuals with or without type 2 diabetes: The hoorn and CODAM studies

Objective: Experimental and histological data suggest a role for advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). However, the epidemiological evidence of an adverse association between AGEs and CVD remains inconclusive. We therefore investigated, in individuals with various degrees of glucose metabolism, the associations of plasma AGEs with prevalent CVD. Research Design and Methods: We measured plasma levels of protein-bound Nε-(carboxymethyl)lysine (CML),Nε-(carboxyethyl)lysine (CEL), and pentosidine, in participants from two Dutch cohort studies (n=1291, mean age 64.7±8.3 years, 45% women), including 573 individuals with normal glucose metabolism, 304 with impaired glucose metabolism, and 414 with T2DM. In addition, we measured free CML, CEL, and 5-hydro-5-methylimidazolone in a subset of participants (n=554). Data were analyzed with multiple logistic or linear regression analyses. Results: CEL (32 [interquartile range: 25-40] vs 28 [22-35] nmol/mmol lysine) and pentosidine (0.53 [0.43-0.67] vs 0.48 [0.40-0.59] nmol/mmol lysine) as well as free CEL (48 [39-62] vs 45 [36-56] nmol/L) and 5-hydro-5-methylimidazolone (141 [96-209] vs 116 [84-165] nmol/L) were higher in individuals with vs without CVD, whereas protein-bound CML was lower (33 [27-38] vs 34 [29-39] nmol/mmol lysine). However, these differences disappeared after adjustment for confounders. The associations did not differ consistently between individuals with and without T2DM. Conclusions: We found no independent adverse associations of plasma AGEs with CVD in individuals with normal glucose metabolism, impaired glucose metabolism, and T2DM. Copyrigh

Short fatigue questionnaire: Screening for severe fatigue.

Objective. To determine psychometric properties, a cut-off score for severe fatigue and normative data for the 4-item Short Fatigue Questionnaire (SFQ) derived from the multi-dimensional fatigue questionnaire Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). Methods. Data of previous studies investigating the prevalence of fatigue in ten chronic conditions (n = 2985) and the general population (n = 2288) was used to determine the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the SFQ, its relation with other fatigue measures (EORTC QLQ-30 fatigue subscale and digital fatigue diary), a cut-off score for severe fatigue (ROC analysis) and to examine whether the four SFQ items truly measure the same construct. Norms were calculated for ten patient groups and the Dutch general population. Results. Cronbach's alpha of the SFQ were excellent in almost all groups. Pearson's correlations between the SFQ and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 fatigue subscale and a fatigue diary were respectively 0.76 and 0.68. ROC analysis showed an area under the curve of 0.982 (95% CI: 0.979–0.985) and cut-off score of 18 was suggested which showed a good sensitivity (0.984) and specificity (0.826) as well as excellent values for the positive and negative prediction values within all groups using the CIS as golden standard. Factor analysis showed a one factor solution (Eigenvalue: 3.095) with factor loadings of all items on the factor being greater than 0.87. Conclusion. The SFQ is an easy to use, reliable and valid instrument to screen for severe fatigue in clinical routine and research

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Funder: CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research – UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research -UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT and ABS are NHMRC Research Fellows. iCOGS: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. BCFR: UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). CNIO: Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. CONSIT: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 no.15547) to P. Radice. Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; grant no.16933) to L. Ottini. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 no.16732) to P. Peterlongo. Jacopo Azzollini is supported by funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’). DEMOKRITOS: European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. DFKZ: German Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by R0 1CA140323, R01 CA214545, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. FPGMX: FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). GC-HBOC: German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). GEMO: Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). GEORGETOWN: the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. HEBON: the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HRBCP: Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and OTKA K-112228. ICO: The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). IHCC: PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. MAYO: NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201),and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). MODSQUAD: MH CZ - DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS - NPS I - LO1413 to LF and by the European Regional Development Fund and the State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO, CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101) to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC: the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. NICCC: Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. SEABASS: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association. SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032, P20CA233307, American Cancer Society (MRSG-13-063-01-TBG, CRP-10-119-01-CCE), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation (SAC110026), and Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women's Cancer Research Alliance. Mr. Qian was supported by the Alpha Omega Alpha Carolyn L. Cuckein Student Research Fellowship. UCLA: Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Research UK. UPENN: Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Center for BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124.Abstract: Background: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. Methods: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. Results: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85–1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06–1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08–2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). Conclusion: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population