Tumor characteristics and detection method in the MRISC screening program for the early detection of hereditary breast cancer

Hereditary Breast Cancer: BRCA Mutations and Beyond

Hereditary breast cancers are manifested by pathogenic and likely pathogenic genetic mutations. Penetrance expresses the breast cancer risk associated with these genetic mutations. Although BRCA1/2 are the most widely known genetic mutations associated with breast cancer, numerous additional genes demonstrate high and moderate penetrance for breast cancer. This review describes current genetic testing, details the specific high and moderate penetrance genes for breast cancer and reviews the current approach to screening for breast cancer in patients with these genetic mutations.

Sensitivity of Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI vs X-ray Mammography Based on Cancer Histology, Tumor Grading, Receptor Status, and Molecular Subtype: A Supplemental Analysis of 2 Large Phase III Studies

Background:

The impact of certain tumor parameters on the sensitivity of imaging tools is unknown. The purpose was to study the impact of breast cancer histology, tumor grading, single receptor status, and molecular subtype on the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-BMRI) vs X-ray mammography (XRM) to detect breast cancer.

Materials and Methods:

We ran a supplemental analysis of 2 global Phase III studies which recruited patients with histologically proven breast cancers. The sensitivity of CE-BMRI vs XRM to detect cancer lesions with different histologies, tumor grading, single receptor status, and molecular subtype was compared. Six blinded readers for each study evaluated the images. Results were summarized as the “Mean Reader.” For each reader, sensitivity was defined as the proportion of detected lesions vs the total number of lesions identified by the standard of reference. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for within-group proportions, and for the difference between CE-BMRI and XRM, using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.

Results:

In 778 patients, 1273 cancer lesions were detected. A total of 435 patients had 1 lesion, 254 had 2 lesions, and 77 had 3 or more lesions. The sensitivity of CE-BMRI was significantly higher compared with XRM irrespective of the histology. The largest difference was seen for invasive lobular carcinoma (22.3%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (19%). Across all 3 tumor grades, the sensitivity advantage of CE-BMRI over XRM ranged from 15.7% to 18.5%. Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging showed higher sensitivity compared with XRM irrespective of single receptor expressions (15.3%-19.4%). The sensitivities for both imaging methods were numerically higher for the more aggressive ER– (estrogen receptor), PR– (progesterone receptor), and HER2+ (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) tumors. Irrespective of molecular subtype, sensitivity of CE-BMRI was 14.8% to 18.9% higher compared with XRM.

Conclusions:

Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging showed significantly higher sensitivity compared with XRM independent of tumor histology, tumor grading, single receptor status, and molecular subtype.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01067976 and NCT01104584.

Impact of national guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of advice

Background

This nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients.

Methods

Clinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008–July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010–July 2011 and July 2012–July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate.

Results

There were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30–50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women.

Conclusions

Guidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13053-021-00180-3.

Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program

BACKGROUND

The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided.

RESULTS

Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.

Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening

Multiple studies in the first decade of the 21^st century have established contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening modality for women with a hereditary or familial increased risk for the development of breast cancer. In recent studies, in women with various risk profiles, the sensitivity ranges between 81% and 100%, which is approximately twice as high as the sensitivity of mammography. The specificity increases in follow-up rounds to around 97%, with positive predictive values for biopsy in the same range as for mammography. MRI preferentially detects the more aggressive/invasive types of breast cancer, but has a higher sensitivity than mammography for any type of cancer. This performance implies that in women screened with breast MRI, all other examinations must be regarded as supplemental. Mammography may yield ~5% additional cancers, mostly ductal carcinoma in situ, while slightly decreasing specificity and increasing the costs. Ultrasound has no supplemental value when MRI is used. Evidence is mounting that in other groups of women the performance of MRI is likewise superior to more conventional screening techniques. Particularly in women with a personal history of breast cancer, the gain seems to be high, but also in women with a biopsy history of lobular carcinoma in situ and even women at average risk, similar results are reported. Initial outcome studies show that breast MRI detects cancer earlier, which induces a stage-shift increasing the survival benefit of screening. Cost-effectiveness is still an issue, particularly for women at lower risk. Since costs of the MRI scan itself are a driving factor, efforts to reduce these costs are essential. The use of abbreviated MRI protocols may enable more widespread use of breast MRI for screening. Level of Evidence: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:377-390.

Surveillance of Women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation by Using Biannual Automated Breast US, MR Imaging, and Mammography

Purpose To evaluate a multimodal surveillance regimen including yearly full-field digital (FFD) mammography, dynamic contrast agent-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and biannual automated breast (AB) ultrasonography (US) in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Materials and Methods This prospective multicenter trial enrolled 296 carriers of the BRCA mutation (153 BRCA1 and 128 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 women with first-degree untested relatives) between September 2010 and November 2012, with follow-up until November 2015. Participants underwent 2 years of intensified surveillance including biannual AB US, and routine yearly DCE MR imaging and FFD mammography. The surveillance performance for each modality and possible combinations were determined. Results Breast cancer was screening-detected in 16 women (age range, 33-58 years). Three interval cancers were detected by self-examination, all in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation under age 43 years. One cancer was detected in a carrier of the BRCA1 mutation with a palpable abnormality in the contralateral breast. One incidental breast cancer was detected in a prophylactic mastectomy specimen. Respectively, sensitivity of DCE MR imaging, FFD mammography, and AB US was 68.1% (14 of 21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.9%, 85.8%), 37.2% (eight of 21; 95% CI: 19.8%, 58.7%), and 32.1% (seven of 21; 95% CI: 16.1%, 53.8%); specificity was 95.0% (643 of 682; 95% CI: 92.7%, 96.5%), 98.1% (638 of 652; 95% CI: 96.7%, 98.9%), and 95.1% (1030 of 1088; 95% CI: 93.5%, 96.3%); cancer detection rate was 2.0% (14 of 702), 1.2% (eight of 671), and 1.0% (seven of 711) per 100 women-years; and positive predictive value was 25.2% (14 of 54), 33.7% (nine of 23), and 9.5% (seven of 68). DCE MR imaging and FFD mammography combined yielded the highest sensitivity of 76.3% (16 of 21; 95% CI: 53.8%, 89.9%) and specificity of 93.6% (643 of 691; 95% CI: 91.3%, 95.3%). AB US did not depict additional cancers. FFD mammography yielded no additional cancers in women younger than 43 years, the mean age at diagnosis. In carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, sensitivity of FFD mammography with DCE MR imaging surveillance was 90.9% (10 of 11; 95% CI: 72.7%, 100%) and 60.0% (six of 10; 95% CI: 30.0%, 90.0%) in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation because of the high interval cancer rate in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation. Conclusion AB US may not be of added value to yearly FFD mammography and DCE MR imaging surveillance of carriers of the BRCA mutation. Study results suggest that carriers of the BRCA mutation younger than 40 years may not benefit from FFD mammography surveillance in addition to DCE MR imaging. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Imaging surveillance programs for women at high breast cancer risk in Europe: Are women from ethnic minority groups adequately included? (Review)

Women from ethnic minority groups, including immigrants and refugees are reported to have low breast cancer (BC) screening rates. Active, culturally-sensitive outreach is vital for increasing participation of these women in BC screening programs. Women at high BC risk and who belong to an ethnic minority group are of special concern. Such women could benefit from ongoing trials aimed at optimizing screening strategies for early BC detection among those at increased BC risk. Considering the marked disparities in BC survival in Europe and its enormous and dynamic ethnic diversity, these issues are extremely timely for Europe. We systematically reviewed the literature concerning European surveillance studies that had imaging in the protocol and that targeted women at high BC risk. The aim of the present review was thereby to assess the likelihood that women at high BC risk from minority ethnic groups were adequately included in these surveillance programs. Twenty-seven research groups in Europe reported on their imaging surveillance programs for women at increased BC risk. The benefit of strategies such as inclusion of magnetic resonance imaging and/or more intensive screening was clearly documented for the participating women at increased BC risk. However, none of the reports indicated that sufficient outreach was performed to ensure that women at increased BC risk from minority ethnic groups were adequately included in these surveillance programs. On the basis of this systematic review, we conclude that the specific screening needs of ethnic minority women at increased BC risk have not yet been met in Europe. Active, culturally-sensitive outreach is needed to identify minority women at increased BC risk and to facilitate their inclusion in on-going surveillance programs. It is anticipated that these efforts would be most effective if coordinated with the development of European-wide, population-based approaches to BC screening.

Effectiveness of Screening With Annual Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography: Results of the Initial Screen From the Ontario High Risk Breast Screening Program

Purpose

The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen women age 30 to 69 years at high risk for breast cancer with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first organized screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer.

Patients and Methods

Performance measures after assessment were compared with screening results for 2,207 women with initial screening examinations. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility: known mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or other gene predisposing to a markedly increased risk of breast cancer, untested first-degree relative of a gene mutation carrier, family history consistent with hereditary breast cancer syndrome and estimated personal lifetime breast cancer risk ≥ 25%, or radiation therapy to the chest (before age 30 years and at least 8 years previously).

Results

The recall rate was significantly higher among women who had abnormal MRI alone (15.1%; 95% CI, 13.8% to 16.4%) compared with mammogram alone (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.5% to 7.3%). Of the 35 breast cancers detected (16.3 per 1,000; 95% CI, 11.2 to 22.2), none were detected by mammogram alone, 23 (65.7%) were detected by MRI alone (10.7 per 1,000; 95% CI, 6.7 to 15.8), and 25 (71%) were detected among women who were known gene mutation carriers (30.8 per 1,000, 95% CI, 19.4 to 43.7). The positive predictive value was highest for detection based on mammogram and MRI (12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3% to 19.3%).

Conclusion

Screening with annual MRI combined with mammography has the potential to be effectively implemented into an organized breast screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer. This could be considered an important management option for known BRCA gene mutation carriers.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome: cancer risk assessment and clinical management

Carriers of germline mutations in the TP53 gene, encoding the cell-cycle regulator and tumour suppressor p53, have a markedly increased risk of cancer-related morbidity and mortality during both childhood and adulthood, and thus require appropriate and effective cancer risk management. However, the predisposition of such patients to multiorgan tumorigenesis presents a specific challenge for cancer risk management programmes. Herein, we review the clinical implications of germline mutations in TP53 and the evidence for cancer screening and prevention strategies in individuals carrying such mutations, as well as examining the potential psychosocial implications of lifelong management for a ubiquitous cancer risk. In addition, we propose an evidence-based framework for the clinical management of TP53 mutation carriers and provide a platform for addressing the management of other cancer predisposition syndromes that can affect multiple organs.

Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations face difficult decisions about managing their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer. We developed an online tool to guide decisions about cancer risk reduction (available at: http://brcatool.stanford.edu ), and recruited patients and clinicians to test its feasibility. We developed questionnaires for women with BRCA1/2 mutations and clinicians involved in their care, incorporating the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Center for Healthcare Evaluation Provider Satisfaction Questionnaire (CHCE-PSQ). We enrolled BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who were seen by local physicians or participating in a national advocacy organization, and we enrolled clinicians practicing at Stanford University and in the surrounding community. Forty BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 16 clinicians participated. Both groups found the tool easy to use, with SUS scores of 82.5-85 on a scale of 1-100; we did not observe differences according to patient age or gene mutation. General satisfaction was high, with a mean score of 4.28 (standard deviation (SD) 0.96) for patients, and 4.38 (SD 0.89) for clinicians, on a scale of 1-5. Most patients (77.5 %) were comfortable using the tool at home. Both patients and clinicians agreed that the decision tool could improve patient-doctor encounters (mean scores 4.50 and 4.69, on a 1-5 scale). Patients and health care providers rated the decision tool highly on measures of usability and clinical relevance. These results will guide a larger study of the tool's impact on clinical decisions.

Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma

PURPOSE

Current guidelines recommend breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in female cancer survivors treated with chest irradiation at a young age, beginning 8 to 10 years after treatment. Prospective data evaluating its efficacy in female cancer survivors are lacking. This study sought to compare the sensitivity and specificity of breast MRI with those of mammography in women who received chest irradiation for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 148 women treated with chest irradiation for HL at age ≤ 35 years who were > 8 years beyond treatment. Yearly breast MRI and mammogram were performed over a 3-year period. Sensitivity and specificity of the two screening modalities were compared.

RESULTS

With the screening, 63 biopsies were performed in 45 women; 18 (29%) showed a malignancy. All but one of the screen-detected malignancies were preinvasive or subcentimeter node-negative breast cancers. After excluding first-screen MRI and mammogram, mammogram sensitivity was 68% as compared with 67% for MRI (P = 1.0). Sensitivity increased to 94% using both screening modalities. The specificities of mammogram alone, MRI alone, and both were 93%, 94%, and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to women with genetic or familial risk, in HL survivors breast MRI was not more sensitive than mammogram for breast cancer detection. However, the two screening modalities complement each other in the detection of early cases of disease. Early diagnosis is particularly important in these patients, given the breast cancer treatment challenges in patients who have received prior cancer therapy.

The risk of primary and contralateral breast cancer after ovarian cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: Implications for counseling

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of primary breast cancer (PBC) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) in patients who had BRCA1/BRCA2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

From the database of the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic, patients who had BRCA-associated OC without a history of unilateral breast cancer (BC) (at risk of PBC; n = 79) or with a history of unilateral BC (at risk of CBC; n = 37) were selected. The control groups consisted of unaffected BRCA mutation carriers (n = 351) or mutation carriers who had a previous unilateral BC (n = 294), respectively. The risks of PBC and CBC were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier survival method with death considered as a competing risk event.

RESULTS

Women with BRCA-associated OC had lower 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year risks of PBC (3%, 6%, and 11%, respectively) compared with unaffected mutation carriers (6%, 16%, and 28%, respectively; P = .03), although they had a considerably higher mortality rate at similar time points (13%, 33%, and 61%, respectively, vs 1%, 2%, and 2%, respectively; P < .001). In BRCA mutation carriers with a previous unilateral BC, the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year risks of CBC were nonsignificantly lower in patients with OC than in those without OC (0%, 7%, and 7%, respectively, vs 6%, 16%, and 34%, respectively; P = .06), whereas the mortality rate was higher in patients with OC (19%, 34%, and 55%, respectively, vs 4%, 11%, and 21%, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BRCA-associated OC had a lower risk of developing a subsequent PBC or CBC than mutation carriers without OC, whereas the risk of dying from OC was greater than the risk of developing BC. These data may facilitate more tailored counseling for this patient subgroup, although confirmative studies are warranted.

Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

PURPOSE

Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations must choose between prophylactic surgeries and screening to manage their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer, comparing options in terms of cancer incidence, survival, and quality of life. A clinical decision tool could guide these complex choices.

METHODS

We built a Monte Carlo model for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, simulating breast screening with annual mammography plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from ages 25 to 69 years and prophylactic mastectomy (PM) and/or prophylactic oophorectomy (PO) at various ages. Modeled outcomes were cancer incidence, tumor features that shape treatment recommendations, overall survival, and cause-specific mortality. We adapted the model into an online tool to support shared decision making.

RESULTS

We compared strategies on cancer incidence and survival to age 70 years; for example, PO plus PM at age 25 years optimizes both outcomes (incidence, 4% to 11%; survival, 80% to 83%), whereas PO at age 40 years plus MRI screening offers less effective prevention, yet similar survival (incidence, 36% to 57%; survival, 74% to 80%). To characterize patients' treatment and survivorship experiences, we reported the tumor features and treatments associated with risk-reducing interventions; for example, in most BRCA2 mutation carriers (81%), MRI screening diagnoses stage I, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, which may not require chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Cancer risk-reducing options for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers vary in their impact on cancer incidence, recommended treatments, quality of life, and survival. To guide decisions informed by multiple health outcomes, we provide an online tool for joint use by patients with their physicians (http://brcatool.stanford.edu).

Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers

Comparative effectiveness research has become an integral part of health care planning in most developed countries. In a simulated cohort of women, aged 30-65, who tested positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, we compared outcomes of mammography with and without MRI, prophylactic oophorectomy with and without mastectomy, mastectomy alone, and chemoprevention.

METHODS

Using Treeage 9.02 software, we developed Markov models with 25,000 Monte Carlo simulations and conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis. We based mutation penetrance rates, breast and ovarian cancer incidence, and mortality rates, and costs in terms of 2009 dollars, on published studies and data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End RESULTS (SEER) Program and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We used preference ratings obtained from mutation carriers and controls to adjust survival for quality of life (QALYs).

RESULTS

For BRCA1 mutation carriers, prophylactic oophorectomy at $1,741 per QALY, was more cost effective than both surgeries and dominated all other interventions. For BRCA2 carriers, prophylactic oophorectomy, at $4,587 per QALY, was more cost effective than both surgeries. Without quality adjustment, both mastectomy and BSO surgeries dominated all other interventions. In all simulations, preventive surgeries or chemoprevention dominated or were more cost effective than screening because screening modalities were costly.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggested that among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, prophylactic surgery would dominate or be cost effective compared to chemoprevention and screening. Annual screening with MRI and mammography was the most effective strategy because it was associated with the longest quality-adjusted survival, but it was also very expensive.

Imaging studies for the early detection of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of mammographic screening has been proven at evidence level 1A. Mammography offers the best ratio of benefits to side effects of any screening method tested to date. In this literature review, we ask whether early detection might be improved still further by combining mammography with other imaging modalities.

METHODS

The authors performed a selective literature search for combined key words in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases from 1/2000 to 11/2007, screened all titles, and evaluated the full text of all original articles. We selected articles for further analysis according to systematic criteria (minimum numbers, avoidance of overlap) and also considered published guidelines.

RESULTS

No screening studies of comparable size to those for mammography are available for ultrasound or MRI. Smaller studies have indicated that the use of these two modalities might lead to the detection of additional cancers in selected subgroups. For mass screening an increase in the detection rate of 10% to 15% might become possible. This increase would probably be associated with a tripling of the breast biopsy rate, compared to mammography alone. The number of indeterminate cases in which short-term follow-up (i.e., at 6 months) would be recommended would increase roughly tenfold with MRI, and to an unknown extent with ultrasound. The related quality-assurance issues remain to be addressed.

DISCUSSION

Randomized controlled studies are needed for a realistic assessment of the achievable benefits and unavoidable side effects of combined screening. For women whose risk of breast cancer is not elevated, mammography remains the standard screening method.

Breast tumor characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers on MRI

The appearance of malignant lesions in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-MCs) on mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated. Thus, 29 BRCA-MCs with breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated and the results compared with an age, tumor size and tumor type matched control group of 29 sporadic breast cancer cases. Detection rates on both modalities were evaluated. Tumors were analyzed on morphology, density (mammography), enhancement pattern and kinetics (MRI). Overall detection was significantly better with MRI than with mammography (55/58 vs 44/57, P = 0.021). On mammography, lesions in the BRCA-MC group were significantly more described as rounded (12//19 vs 3/13, P = 0.036) and with sharp margins (9/19 vs 1/13, P = 0.024). On MRI lesions in the BRCA-MC group were significantly more described as rounded (16/27 vs 7/28, P = 0.010), with sharp margins (20/27 vs 7/28, P < 0.001) and with rim enhancement (7/27 vs 1/28, P = 0.025). No significant difference was found for enhancement kinetics (P = 0.667). Malignant lesions in BRCA-MC frequently have morphological characteristics commonly seen in benign lesions, like a rounded shape or sharp margins. This applies for both mammography and MRI. However the possibility of MRI to evaluate the enhancement pattern and kinetics enables the detection of characteristics suggestive for a malignancy.

Is breast cancer prognosis inherited?

INTRODUCTION

A genetic component is well established in the etiology of breast cancer. It is not well known, however, whether genetic traits also influence prognostic features of the malignant phenotype.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based cohort study in Sweden based on the nationwide Multi-Generation Register. Among all women with breast cancer diagnosed from 1961 to 2001, 2,787 mother-daughter pairs and 831 sister pairs with breast cancer were identified; we achieved complete follow-up and classified 5-year breast cancer-specific prognosis among proband (mother or oldest sister) into tertiles as poor, intermediary, or good. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival proportions and Cox models to calculate relative risks of dying from breast cancer within 5 years depending on the proband's outcome.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival proportion among daughters whose mothers died within 5 years was 87% compared to 91% if the mother was alive (p = 0.03). Among sisters, the corresponding proportions were 70% and 88%, respectively (p = 0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, daughters and sisters of a proband with poor prognosis had a 60% higher 5-year breast cancer mortality compared to those of a proband with good prognosis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 2.2; p for trend 0.002). This association was slightly stronger among sisters (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.4) than among daughters (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.3).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer prognosis of a woman predicts the survival in her first-degree relatives with breast cancer. Our novel findings suggest that breast cancer prognosis might be inherited.