Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis

Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent progress in understanding the genetic basis of breast cancer and widely publicized reports of celebrities undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) have increased interest in RRM as a method of preventing breast cancer. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006 and 2010.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To determine whether risk-reducing mastectomy reduces death rates from any cause in women who have never had breast cancer and in women who have a history of breast cancer in one breast, and (ii) to examine the effect of risk-reducing mastectomy on other endpoints, including breast cancer incidence, breast cancer mortality, disease-free survival, physical morbidity, and psychosocial outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 July 2016. We included studies in English.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants included women at risk for breast cancer in at least one breast. Interventions included all types of mastectomy performed for the purpose of preventing breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently abstracted data from each report. We summarized data descriptively; quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient reporting. We analyzed data separately for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). Four review authors assessed the methodological quality to determine whether or not the methods used sufficiently minimized selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias.

MAIN RESULTS

All 61 included studies were observational studies with some methodological limitations; randomized trials were absent. The studies presented data on 15,077 women with a wide range of risk factors for breast cancer, who underwent RRM.Twenty-one BRRM studies looking at the incidence of breast cancer or disease-specific mortality, or both, reported reductions after BRRM, particularly for those women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Twenty-six CRRM studies consistently reported reductions in incidence of contralateral breast cancer but were inconsistent about improvements in disease-specific survival. Seven studies attempted to control for multiple differences between intervention groups and showed no overall survival advantage for CRRM. Another study showed significantly improved survival following CRRM, but after adjusting for bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (BRRSO), the CRRM effect on all-cause mortality was no longer significant.Twenty studies assessed psychosocial measures; most reported high levels of satisfaction with the decision to have RRM but greater variation in satisfaction with cosmetic results. Worry over breast cancer was significantly reduced after BRRM when compared both to baseline worry levels and to the groups who opted for surveillance rather than BRRM, but there was diminished satisfaction with body image and sexual feelings.Seventeen case series reporting on adverse events from RRM with or without reconstruction reported rates of unanticipated reoperations from 4% in those without reconstruction to 64% in participants with reconstruction.In women who have had cancer in one breast, removing the other breast may reduce the incidence of cancer in that other breast, but there is insufficient evidence that this improves survival because of the continuing risk of recurrence or metastases from the original cancer. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention, when considering RRM.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While published observational studies demonstrated that BRRM was effective in reducing both the incidence of, and death from, breast cancer, more rigorous prospective studies are suggested. BRRM should be considered only among those at high risk of disease, for example, BRCA1/2 carriers. CRRM was shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence that CRRM improves survival, and studies that control for multiple confounding variables are recommended. It is possible that selection bias in terms of healthier, younger women being recommended for or choosing CRRM produces better overall survival numbers for CRRM. Given the number of women who may be over-treated with BRRM/CRRM, it is critical that women and clinicians understand the true risk for each individual woman before considering surgery. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention when considering RRM.

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Patients with Genetic Risk in a University Hospital: Before and After the Implementation of a Heredofamilial Cancer Unit

The identification of patients at risk for breast cancer by genetic testing has proven to reduce breast cancer mortality. In 2010, due to a lack of systematization in hereditary cancer assistance in our center, we implemented a multidisciplinary Heredofamilial Cancer Unit (HFCU). We analyze if the HFCU improved the rates of referrals and preventive management of breast cancer patients with genetic risk. We retrospectively compared family history records, referrals of high-risk patients to genetic counseling, and detection and management of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations in two cohorts of breast cancer patients diagnosed before (first period: 2007-2010) and after the creation of the HFCU (second period: 2010-2013). In the first period, 893 patients were included, and 902 were included in the second. Due to the inability to establish their genetic risk, 142 patients (15.9%) vs. 70 (7.8%) were excluded from analysis (p < 0.001). Among the evaluable patients, 194 (25.8%) vs. 223 (26.8%) fulfilled one or more risk criteria (p = 0.65). Family history documentation in patient's medical records (92.4 vs. 97.8%, p < 0.001) and referral rate (26.3 vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) significantly increased in the second period. Eight BRCA1/2 mutations were detected among patients referred in the first period and 17 among those referred to the HFCU. The rate of preventive surgeries in patients with BRCA mutations significantly increased in the second period (25 vs. 76.5%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, there was a clear improvement in family history records, referrals, and preventive surgeries in breast cancer patients with genetic risk after the implementation of the HFCU.

Prophylactic Surgery: For Whom, When and How?

Risk-reducing surgery has proved to be a reasonable procedure in healthy women with a definitely elevated risk of developing cancer. Here we consider the elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancer. There is a clear indication for such surgery in healthy women with a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation. For these patients, a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy leads to a verifiable reduction in mortality from breast cancer, particularly for young patients. In most cases, surgery is combined with breast reconstruction. The pros and cons of surgical treatment and the different surgical techniques have to be explained to and carefully considered with the patient. As yet, no unequivocal data for the benefits of intensifying early detection have been ascertained with respect to mortality from breast carcinoma. In index patients with a BRCA mutation, the surgical treatment should depend on the prognosis of the primary disease. A lower age at onset and a better prognosis of the primary disease make a contralateral mastectomy (CPM) more reasonable. In the case of BRCA mutation-related cancer, a reduction of mortality through CPM has been proven. A risk-reducing adnexectomy is basically recommended for BRCA mutation carriers. Healthy premenopausal women need a subsequent hormone replacement therapy. The prognosis of the patients is dominated by the ovarian carcinoma. This can be prevented by risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in 95% of the cases.

Is Mastectomy Oncologically Safer than Breast-Conserving Treatment in Early Breast Cancer?

AIM

To describe and discuss the evidence for oncological safety of different procedures in oncological breast surgery, i.e. breast-conserving treatment versus mastectomy.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

Oncological safety in breast cancer surgery has many dimensions. Breast-conserving treatment has been established as the standard surgical procedure for primary breast cancer and fits to the preferences of most breast cancer patients concerning oncological safety and aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast-conserving treatment is safe. Nonetheless, the preferences of the individual patients in their consideration of breast conservation versus mastectomy should be integrated into routine treatment decisions.

Management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome represents 5-10% of all breast cancers. In Japan, the HBOC syndrome is frequently diagnosed in patients with breast cancer. Therefore, a treatment strategy combining a plan for existing breast cancer and for reduction of future breast and ovarian cancer risk is necessary. Breast cancer risk-reducing management involves three options-surveillance, chemoprevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). RRM can prevent >90% of new breast cancers. Ovarian cancer risk management options are more limited, and risk-reduction salpingo-oophorectomy is the only option since there is no proven effective early detection method available. The local recurrence rate following breast-conserving surgery in BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer is not significantly higher than that in sporadic breast cancer. Furthermore, there is no difference in prognosis between surgical methods. Clinicians should inform patients that there are no data on long-term monitoring and fully discuss risks of re-developing breast cancer with patients when choosing the surgical method. In HBOC, BRCA1/2 mutations lead to failure of double-strand DNA break repair, with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) playing an important role in single-strand DNA nick repair. Use of PARP inhibitors in HBOC prevents DNA repair (synthetic lethality) leading to cell death. This review summarizes management of the HBOC syndrome based on recent evidence.

BRCAsearch: written pre-test information and BRCA1/2 germline mutation testing in unselected patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer

Purpose

To evaluate a simplified method of pre-test information and germline BRCA1/2 mutation testing.

Methods

In a prospective, single-arm study, comprehensive BRCA1/2 testing was offered to unselected patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer at three hospitals in south Sweden (BRCAsearch, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02557776). Pre-test information was provided by a standardized invitation letter, but the patients could contact a genetic counselor for telephone genetic counseling if they felt a need for that. Noncarriers were informed about the test result through a letter. Mutation carriers were contacted and offered an appointment for in-person post-test genetic counseling.

Results

During the period Feb 2, 2015–Aug 26, 2016, eight hundred and eighteen patients were invited to participate in the study. Through Jan 31, 2017, five hundred and forty-two (66.2%) of them consented to analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Eleven pathogenic mutations were found (BRCA1, n = 2; BRCA2, n = 9), corresponding to a mutation prevalence of 2.0%. Six out of 11 fulfilled the Swedish BRCA testing criteria, and 9 out of 11 fulfilled the NCCN testing criteria. None of the BRCA-associated tumors were of the luminal A-like subtype. Very few patients contacted us for telephone genetic counseling or practical questions, suggesting that a majority felt that the written pre-test information was sufficient for them to make a decision on testing.

Conclusions

Streamlining the process of pre-test information, genetic testing, and delivery of test results was feasible and was associated with an uptake of genetic testing in 2/3 of the breast cancer patients.

Efficacy versus effectiveness of clinical genetic testing criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary mutations in incident breast cancer

Increasing evidence supports the benefit of identifying BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in early breast cancer. Selection of patients for genetic testing is based on defined criteria taking individual and family history related factors into account. It is important to make a distinction between efficacy and effectiveness of BRCA testing criteria. Efficacy can be defined as the performance under ideal circumstances, whereas effectiveness refers to its real life performance. To allow for an unbiased and detailed evaluation of efficacy and effectiveness of the Swedish BRCA testing criteria, we retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected cohort of 273 breast cancer patients from the well-characterized, population-based, single-site All Breast Cancer in Malmö (ABiM) study. The patients were diagnosed with breast cancer during the years 2007 through 2009. Out of 20 mutation carriers identified, 13 fulfilled Swedish criteria at time of diagnosis. Thus, the efficacy of these criteria was 65%. Excluding three patients in whom a mutation was already known at time of diagnosis, only 3/17 had been identified in the clinical routine, corresponding to an effectiveness of 18%. Here we detail the reasons why mutation carriers in our cohort were not detected though routine health care. In conclusion, effectiveness of BRCA testing criteria was much lower than efficacy. Our results indicate that current testing criteria and procedures associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing are insufficient. There is room for improvement of their efficacy, but even more so regarding effectiveness. Clinical BRCA testing routines need to be critically revised.

Genetic testing in women with breast cancer: implications for treatment

INTRODUCTION

Mutations in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are responsible for approximately 42,000 cases of breast cancer annually. Identifying these germline mutations in a woman with breast cancer is important because it can influence her immediate and long-term management and has important implications for other family members. Areas covered: This review highlights how treatment-focussed genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations can potentially influence cancer treatment and secondary prevention decisions in women with breast cancer. Expert commentary: Testing women with breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations has the potential to decrease cancer burden and improve cancer outcomes. It can help optimise surgical and systemic therapy approaches. Clinicians should actively consider whether genetic testing is appropriate for each woman with breast cancer, and if so should instigate it early in the treatment trajectory when it can most influence cancer care.

National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer

Purpose In the United States, 3.8 million women have a history of breast (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC). Up to 15% of cases are attributable to heritable mutations, which, if identified, provide critical knowledge for treatment and preventive care. It is unknown how many patients who are at high risk for these mutations have not been tested and how rates vary by risk criteria. Methods We used pooled cross-sectional data from three Cancer Control Modules (2005, 2010, 2015) of the National Health Interview Survey, a national in-person household interview survey. Eligible patients were adult females with a history of BC and/or OC meeting select 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network eligibility criteria on the basis of age of diagnosis and family history. Outcomes included the proportion of individuals reporting a history of discussing genetic testing with a health professional, being advised to undergo genetic testing, or undergoing genetic testing for BC or OC. Results Of 47,218 women, 2.7% had a BC history and 0.4% had an OC history. For BC, 35.6% met one or more select eligibility criteria; of those, 29.0% discussed, 20.2% were advised to undergo, and 15.3% underwent genetic testing. Testing rates for individual eligibility criteria ranged from 6.2% (relative with OC) to 18.2% (diagnosis ≤ 45 years of age). For OC, 15.1% discussed, 13.1% were advised to undergo, and 10.5% underwent testing. Using only four BC eligibility criteria and all patients with OC, an estimated 1.2 to 1.3 million individuals failed to receive testing. Conclusion Fewer than one in five individuals with a history of BC or OC meeting select National Cancer Comprehensive Network criteria have undergone genetic testing. Most have never discussed testing with a health care provider. Large national efforts are warranted to address this unmet need.

Preoperative genetic testing impacts surgical decision making in BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer: a retrospective cohort analysis

Background

The impact of timing of genetic testing on surgical decision making in women with breast cancer and BRCA mutation is not well known.

Methods

Women who were found to carry a deleterious BRCA mutation and had been diagnosed with breast cancer were identified from a database at Beaumont Health. Women who had received BRCA positive results at least a day prior to their index surgery were considered to be aware of their mutation status prior to surgery. Baseline characteristics and surgical choices were compared between women who were aware of their mutation status prior to surgery and those who were not. Fischer’s exact test was used for categorical variables and Mann–Whitney U-Test was used for continuous variables.

Results

A total of 220 patients were included in the final analysis, 208 (94.5%) with unilateral breast cancer and 12 (5.5%) with bilateral breast cancer. Out of the 208 patients with unilateral breast cancer, 106 (51.0%) patients were aware of their mutation status prior to index surgery while 102 (49%) were not. A significantly (p < 0.05) higher proportion of women underwent contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the group that was aware of their mutation status prior to index surgery compared to the group that was not (76.4% vs 14.7%).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that knowledge of BRCA mutation status impacts surgical decision making in favor of bilateral mastectomy in patients who are aware of their results prior to index surgery. This finding supports the practice of preoperative genetic testing in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Information Topics of Greatest Interest for Return of Genome Sequencing Results among Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer at a Young Age

We investigated what information women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age would want to learn when genome sequencing results are returned. We conducted 60 semi-structured interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. We examined what specific information participants would want to learn across result types and for each type of result, as well as how much information they would want. Genome sequencing was not offered to participants as part of the study. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo10. Across result types, participants wanted to learn about health implications, risk and prevalence in quantitative terms, causes of variants, and causes of diseases. Participants wanted to learn actionable information for variants affecting risk of preventable or treatable disease, medication response, and carrier status. The amount of desired information differed for variants affecting risk of unpreventable or untreatable disease, with uncertain significance, and not health-related. Women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age recognize the value of genome sequencing results in identifying potential causes and effective treatments and expressed interest in using the information to help relatives and to further understand their other health risks. Our findings can inform the development of effective feedback strategies for genome sequencing that meet patients' information needs and preferences.

Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk

Several medical management approaches have been shown to be effective in preventing breast cancer and detecting it early among women at elevated risk: 1) prophylactic mastectomy; 2) prophylactic oophorectomy; 3) chemoprevention; and 4) enhanced screening routines. To varying extents, however, these approaches are substantially underused relative to clinical practice recommendations. This article reviews the existing research on the uptake of these prevention approaches, the characteristics of women who are likely to use various methods, and the decision-making processes that underlie the differing choices of women. It also highlights important areas for future research, detailing the types of studies that are particularly needed in four key areas: documenting women's perspectives on their own perceptions of risk and prevention decisions; explicit comparisons of available prevention pathways and their likely health effects; the psychological, interpersonal, and social processes of prevention decision making; and the dynamics of subgroup variation. Ultimately, this research could support the development of interventions that more fully empower women to make informed and values-consistent decisions, and to move towards favorable health outcomes.

How, who, and when: preferences for delivery of genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

Background

The increasing use of genome sequencing with patients raises a critical communication challenge: return of secondary findings. While the issue of what sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger.

Methods

We conducted 60 semistructured, in‐person individual interviews to examine preferences for the return of different types of genome sequencing results and the reasons underlying these preferences. Two coders independently coded interview transcripts; analysis was conducted using NVivo 10.

Results

The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person. Participants also emphasized the importance of a results return process tailored to a patient's individual circumstances and one that she has a voice in determining.

Conclusions

A critical goal for future transdisciplinary research including clinicians, patients, and communication researchers may be to develop decision‐making processes to help patients make decisions about how they would like various sequencing results returned.

While the issue of what genome sequencing results should be returned to patients has been examined, much less attention has been paid to developing strategies to return these results in ways that meet patients' needs and preferences. To address this, we investigated delivery preferences (i.e., who, how, when) for individual genome sequencing results among women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger. The major findings from the study were that: (1) many participants wanted sequencing results as soon as possible, even at the time of breast cancer diagnosis; (2) participants wanted an opportunity for an in‐person discussion of results; and (3) they put less emphasis on the type of person delivering results than on the knowledge and communicative skills of that person.

Oestrogen receptor status, treatment and breast cancer prognosis in Icelandic BRCA2 mutation carriers

BACKGROUND

The impact of an inherited BRCA2 mutation on the prognosis of women with breast cancer has not been well documented. We studied the effects of oestrogen receptor (ER) status, other prognostic factors and treatments on survival in a large cohort of BRCA2 mutation carriers.

METHODS

We identified 285 breast cancer patients with a 999del5 BRCA2 mutation and matched them with 570 non-carrier patients. Clinical information was abstracted from patient charts and pathology records and supplemented by evaluation of tumour grade and ER status using archived tissue specimens. Univariate and multivariate hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for breast cancer-specific survival using Cox regression. The effects of various therapies were studied in patients treated from 1980 to 2012.

RESULTS

Among mutation carriers, positive ER status was associated with higher risk of death than negative ER status (HR=1.94; 95% CI=1.22-3.07, P=0.005). The reverse association was seen for non-carriers (HR=0.71; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Among BRCA2 carriers, ER-positive status is an adverse prognostic factor. BRCA2 carrier status should be known at the time when treatment decisions are made.

Adjuvant radiotherapy for primary breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and risk of contralateral breast cancer with special attention to patients irradiated at younger age

The purpose of this study was to estimate the influence of adjuvant radiotherapy for primary breast cancer (BC) on the risk of contralateral BC (CBC) in BRCA1 or BRCA2(BRCA1/2) mutation carriers, with special attention to patients irradiated at age younger than 40 years. Additionally, tendencies in locoregional treatments and rates of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy over time were explored. In this retrospective cohort study, 691 BRCA1/2-associated BC patients treated between 1980 and 2013 were followed from diagnosis until CBC or censoring event including ipsilateral BC recurrence, distant metastasis, contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, other invasive cancer diagnosis, death, or loss to follow up. Hazard ratios (HR) for CBC associated with radiotherapy were estimated using Cox regression. Median follow-up time was 8.6 years [range 0.3–34.3 years]. No association between radiotherapy for primary BC and risk of CBC was found, neither in the total population (HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.45–1.49) nor in the subgroup of patients younger than 40 years at primary diagnosis (HR 1.36, 95 % CI 0.60–3.09). During follow-up, the number of patients at risk decreased substantially since a large proportion of patients were censored after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy or BC recurrence. Over the years, increasing preference for mastectomy without radiotherapy compared to breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy was found ranging from less than 30 % in 1995 to almost 50 % after 2010. The rate of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy increased over the years from less than 40 % in 1995 to more than 60 % after 2010. In this cohort of BRCA1/2-associated BC patients, no association between radiotherapy for primary BC and risk of CBC was observed in the total group, nor in the patients irradiated before the age of 40 years. The number of patients at risk after 10 and 15 years of follow-up, however, was too small to definitively exclude harmful effects of adjuvant radiotherapy.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: current perspectives

There has been an increasing trend in the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in the United States among women diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer, particularly young women. Approximately one-third of women <40 years old are undergoing CPM in the US. Most studies have shown that the CPM trend is mainly patient-driven, which reflects a changing environment for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The most common reason that women choose CPM is based on misperceptions about CPM’s effect on survival and overestimation of their contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk. No prospective studies have shown survival benefit to CPM, and the CBC rate for most women is low at 10 years. Fear of recurrence is also a big driver of CPM decisions. Nonetheless, studies have shown that women are mostly satisfied with undergoing CPM, but complications and subsequent surgeries with reconstruction have been associated with dissatisfaction with CPM. Studies on surgeon’s perspectives on CPM are sparse but show that the most common reasons surgeons discuss CPM with patients is because of a suspicious family history or for a patient who is a confirmed BRCA mutation carrier. Studies on the cost–effectiveness of CPM have been conflicting and are highly dependent on patient’s quality of life after CPM. Most recent guidelines for CPM are contradictory. Future areas of research include the development of interventions to better inform patients about CPM, modification of the guidelines to form a more consistent statement, longer term studies on CBC risk and CPM’s effect on survival, and prospective studies that track the psychosocial effects of CPM on body image and sexuality.

Conservative mastectomies for breast cancer and risk-reducing surgery: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience

Demand for conservative mastectomies continues to increase as more patients choose to undergo breast reconstruction, often with simultaneous contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). In addition, the increasing use of risk-reducing surgery in high-risk groups has contributed to the increased use of these techniques. We have reviewed the indications and outcomes of a large group of patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) at this institution. In total, 728 nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) were performed in 413 patients between 2000 and 2013, for treatment of breast cancer (n=269) or risk reduction (n=459). Of 728 NSMs performed, 177 (24.3%) were in patients known to have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation, or a genetic variant of uncertain significance. There was an incidental finding of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive carcinoma in 22 (4.8%) and 8 (1.7%) of 459 prophylactic NSMs, respectively. In addition, unexpected invasive carcinoma was found in 17 of 98 therapeutic NSMs (17.3%) performed for DCIS. At median follow-up of 49 months, there were no known cases of local recurrence and only one case of regional recurrence. Immediate breast reconstruction was performed in 409 patients, most of whom underwent tissue expander/implant based procedures (n=401). Although 273 breasts (37.5%) had some evidence of skin desquamation at follow-up, most resolved spontaneously with 47 breasts (6.5%) requiring debridement. Other complications included hematoma in seven breasts (1%) and wound infection in 31 breasts (4.3%). Expander/implant removal was required in 20 cases (2.8%). The nipple-areola complex (NAC) was subsequently excised in 10 of 728 breasts (1.4%) due to oncologic concerns following assessment of retroareolar tissue. NSM was successful in most patients with an acceptable complication rate and in few patients subsequently undergoing removal of the NAC. Patients requiring mastectomy for breast cancer or risk reduction may now benefit from conservative mastectomy techniques such as NSM, resulting in improved cosmesis and, possibly, a reduced psychological impact.

Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction Differentially Expands Breast Progenitors in Tissue Adjacent to Tumors Compared to Healthy Breast Tissue

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Autologous fat grafts supplemented with adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction are used in reconstructive and cosmetic breast procedures. Stromal vascular fraction contains adipose-derived stem cells that are thought to encourage wound healing, tissue regeneration, and graft retention. Although use of stromal vascular fraction has provided exciting perspectives for aesthetic procedures, no studies have yet been conducted to determine whether its cells contribute to breast tissue regeneration. The authors examined the effect of these cells on the expansion of human breast epithelial progenitors.

Methods:

From patients undergoing reconstructive breast surgery following mastectomies, abdominal fat, matching tissue adjacent to breast tumors, and the contralateral non–tumor-containing breast tissue were obtained. Ex vivo co-cultures using breast epithelial cells and the stromal vascular fraction cells were used to study the expansion potential of breast progenitors. Breast reduction samples were collected as a source of healthy breast cells.

Results:

The authors observed that progenitors present in healthy breast tissue or contralateral non–tumor-containing breast tissue showed significant and robust expansion in the presence of stromal vascular fraction (5.2- and 4.8-fold, respectively). Whereas the healthy progenitors expanded up to 3-fold without the stromal vascular fraction cells, the expansion of tissue adjacent to breast tumor progenitors required the presence of stromal vascular fraction cells, leading to a 7-fold expansion, which was significantly higher than the expansion of healthy progenitors with stromal vascular fraction.

Conclusions:

The use of stromal vascular fraction might be more beneficial to reconstructive operations following mastectomies compared with cosmetic corrections of the healthy breast. Future studies are required to examine the potential risk factors associated with its use.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Therapeutic, V.

SEOM clinical guidelines in Hereditary Breast and ovarian cancer

Approximately, 7 % of all breast cancers (BC) and 11-15 % of ovarian cancers (OC) are associated with inherited predisposition, mainly related to germline mutations in high penetrance BRCA1/2 genes. Clinical criteria for genetic testing are based on personal and family history to estimate a minimum 10 % detection rate. Selection criteria are evolving according to new advances in this field and the clinical utility of genetic testing. Multiplex panel testing carries its own challenges and we recommend inclusion of genes with clinical utility. We recommend screening with annual mammography from age 30 and breast MRI from age 25 for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be offered to women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, between 35 and 40 years and after completion of childbearing, or individualise based on the earliest age of ovarian cancer diagnosed in the family. Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy is an option for healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, as well as contralateral mastectomy for young patients with a prior BC diagnosis. BRCA genetic testing in patients with BC and OC may influence their locoregional and systemic treatment.

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer had a low incidence several decades ago. However, it has become a predominant cancer and now accounts for approximately 10% of cancer-related mortality in western countries. The 'rise' of colorectal cancer in developed countries can be attributed to the increasingly ageing population, unfavourable modern dietary habits and an increase in risk factors, such as smoking, low physical exercise and obesity. New treatments for primary and metastatic colorectal cancer have emerged, providing additional options for patients; these treatments include laparoscopic surgery for primary disease, more-aggressive resection of metastatic disease (such as liver and pulmonary metastases), radiotherapy for rectal cancer, and neoadjuvant and palliative chemotherapies. However, these new treatment options have had limited impact on cure rates and long-term survival. For these reasons, and the recognition that colorectal cancer is long preceded by a polypoid precursor, screening programmes have gained momentum. This Primer provides an overview of the current state of the art of knowledge on the epidemiology and mechanisms of colorectal cancer, as well as on diagnosis and treatment.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families

An estimated 10% of breast cancer cases exhibit a higher familial incidence, and functional mutations in BRCA (breast cancer-gene) 1 or 2 are responsible for the development of malignant tumors in approximately half of these cases. Women with a germline mutation in either of the two genes have a lifetime risk of up to 85% to develop breast cancer, and of up to 60% risk to develop ovarian cancer. This clinical practice guideline defines the individual and familial tumor constellations that represent an indication for BRCA germline testing. It also describes the therapeutic options (early detection programme vs prophylactic surgery) that arise from the result of a BRCA mutational analysis. This guideline further includes recommendations regarding the use of multigene panels and therapeutic aspects that arise from the selective use of poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with known BRCA1 or 2 mutations. It replaces the previous version of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention and Early Detection of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families" which was published in 2012.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and variants of uncertain significance

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is associated with improved cosmesis and is being performed increasingly. Its role in BRCA mutation carriers has not been well described. This was a study of the indications for, and outcomes of, NSM in BRCA mutation carriers.

METHODS

BRCA mutation carriers who underwent NSM were identified. Details of patient demographics, surgical procedures, complications, and relevant disease stage and follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 177 NSMs were performed in 89 BRCA mutation carriers between September 2005 and December 2013. Twenty-six patients of median age 41 years had NSM for early-stage breast cancer and a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Mean tumour size was 1·4 (range 0·1-3·5) cm. Sixty-three patients of median age 39 years had prophylactic NSM, eight of whom had an incidental diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. There were no local or regional recurrences in the 26 patients with breast cancer at a median follow-up of 28 (i.q.r. 15-43) months. There were no newly diagnosed breast cancers in the 63 patients undergoing prophylactic NSM at a median follow-up of 26 (11-42) months. All patients had immediate breast reconstruction. Five patients (6 per cent) required subsequent excision of the nipple-areola complex for oncological or other reasons. Skin desquamation occurred in 68 (38·4 per cent) of the 177 breasts, and most resolved without intervention. Debridement was required in 13 (7·3 per cent) of the 177 breasts, and tissue-expander or implant removal was necessary in six instances (3·4 per cent).

CONCLUSION

NSM is an acceptable choice for patients with BRCA mutations, with no evidence of compromise to oncological safety at short-term follow-up. Complication rates were acceptable, and subsequent excision of the nipple-areola complex was rarely required.