Breast cancer risks in individuals testing negative for a known family mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2

Results of a randomized controlled trial of a decision support intervention for disclosing maternal BRCA genetic test results to children and adolescents

Objective

Evaluate the impact of a targeted family communication intervention for mothers undergoing genetic counseling and testing (GCT) for BRCA gene alterations.

Methods

Following BRCA GCT, mothers (N = 204; M age = 45 y) were randomized to either a control condition (self-help print materials) or intervention (printed decision support guide, based on behavioral decision making theory in health care) for supporting choices about disclosing maternal genetic test results to children and adolescents. Behavioral assessments were administered prior to maternal GCT and after receipt of results: primary outcomes were maternal disclosure to children and parent-child communication quality.

Results

Mothers in the intervention were > 2x likely to disclose their BRCA test results to their children compared to those in the control condition (odds ratio [OR] = 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06, 5.10; p = .04). This effect was moderated by children's ages: mothers of preteens (<13 y) assigned to the intervention were >3x likely to disclose their results (OR = 3.74, 95% CI = 1.49, 9.41; p = .005). In adjusted models, intervention was also associated with favorable changes in the quality of parent-child communication (95% CI = 0.30, 9.00; p < .05).

Conclusion

Decision support improves parent-child communication outcomes about GCT for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer.

Innovation

This trial is among the first to empirically evaluate the outcomes of a behavioral intervention to support family communication of maternal BRCA risk information to children.

A Collaborative Model to Implement Flexible, Accessible and Efficient Oncogenetic Services for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: The C-MOnGene Study

Simple Summary

We recently developed an oncogenetic model to overcome the unprecedented demand for genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Quality and performance indicators showed that the implementation of this model improved access to genetic counseling and minimized delays for genetic tests for patients, who reported to be overwhelmingly satisfied with the process. However, it remains unknown whether this model is robust and sustainable or requires adjustments. In addition, whether the model could be deployed elsewhere remains also to be elucidated. The C-MOnGene study was therefore designed to gain an in-depth understanding of the context in which the model was developed and implemented, and document the lessons that can be learned to optimize oncogenetic services delivery in other settings.

Abstract

Medical genetic services are facing an unprecedented demand for counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a context of limited resources. To help resolve this issue, a collaborative oncogenetic model was recently developed and implemented at the CHU de Québec-Université Laval; Quebec; Canada. Here, we present the protocol of the C-MOnGene (Collaborative Model in OncoGenetics) study, funded to examine the context in which the model was implemented and document the lessons that can be learned to optimize the delivery of oncogenetic services. Within three years of implementation, the model allowed researchers to double the annual number of patients seen in genetic counseling. The average number of days between genetic counseling and disclosure of test results significantly decreased. Group counseling sessions improved participants’ understanding of breast cancer risk and increased knowledge of breast cancer and genetics and a large majority of them reported to be overwhelmingly satisfied with the process. These quality and performance indicators suggest this oncogenetic model offers a flexible, patient-centered and efficient genetic counseling and testing for HBOC. By identifying the critical facilitating factors and barriers, our study will provide an evidence base for organizations interested in transitioning to an oncogenetic model integrated into oncology care; including teams that are not specialized but are trained in genetics.

Association of Vitamin D Receptor and Vitamin D-Binding Protein Polymorphisms with Familial Breast Cancer Prognosis in a Mono-Institutional Cohort

Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) has been associated with an increased cancer incidence and poorer prognosis. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of vitamin D receptor (VDR) and vitamin D binding protein (GC gene) may interfere with vitamin D activity. This study assesses the role of VDR and GC SNPs on breast cancer (BC) recurrence and survival in a cohort of patients with a family history of breast cancer, without the pathogenic variant for BRCA1 and BRCA2. A consecutive series of patients who underwent genetic testing were genotyped for VDR and GC genes. Specifically, ApaI, FokI, TaqI, BsmI and rs2282679, rs4588, rs7041 SNPs were determined. A total of 368 wild type (WT) patients with BC were analyzed for VDR and GC SNPs. The GC rs2282679 minor allele was significantly associated with luminal subtype of the primary tumor compared to Her2+/TN breast cancer (p = 0.007). Multivariate Cox models showed that BmsI and TaqI are significantly associated with BC outcome. Patients with the major alleles showed more than 30% lower hazard of relapse (BsmI p = 0.02 and TaqI p = 0.03). Our study supports the evidence for a pivotal role of 25OHD metabolism in BC. GC SNPs may influence the hormone tumor responsiveness and VDR may affect tumor prognosis.

Economic Modelling of Screen-and-Treat Strategies for Brazilian Women at Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical evidence supports the use of genetic counselling and BRCA1/2 testing for women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Currently, screen-and-treat strategies are not reimbursed in the Brazilian Unified Healthcare System (SUS). The aim of this modelling study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a gene-based screen-and-treat strategy for BRCA1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by preventive interventions compared with no screening.

METHODS

Adopting the SUS perspective, a Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of healthy women aged 30 years that fulfilled the criteria for BRCA1/2 testing according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline. For women who tested positive, preventive options included intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The Markov model comprised the health states 'well', 'breast cancer', 'death' and two post-cancer states. Outcomes were the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and the incremental costs per life-year gained (LYG). Data were mainly obtained by a literature review. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In the base case, the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in additional costs of 3515 Brazilian reais (R$) (US$1698) and a gain of 0.145 QALYs, compared with no screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was R$24,263 (US$21,724) per QALY and R$27,258 (US$24,405) per LYG. Applying deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to the probability of a positive test result and the discount rate. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a willingness to pay of R$25,000 per QALY gained for the screen-and-treat strategy resulted in a probability of cost effectiveness of 80%.

CONCLUSION

Although there is no rigorous cost-effectiveness threshold in Brazil, the result of this cost-effectiveness analysis may support the inclusion of BRCA1/2 testing for women at high-risk of cancer in the SUS. The ICER calculated for the provision of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 approximates the cost-effectiveness threshold proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for low- and middle-income countries.

Survey of primary care physicians' views about breast and ovarian cancer screening for true BRCA1/2 non-carriers

Despite some controversy, true BRCA1/2 non-carriers are generally considered to be at an average risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Primary care physicians are then expected to encourage their non-carrier patients to adopt cancer screening practices appropriate to women of the same age in the general population. This study aimed to describe breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations that primary care physicians would consider advisable for young true BRCA1/2 non-carriers. One hundred thirty-four family physicians and 123 gynecologists (response rate 45%) completed a cross-sectional mailed survey administered in the Province of Quebec, Canada. The survey included questions about basic genetic knowledge and screening recommendations for two fictitious cases (< 40 years), one carrier and one non-carrier, from a BRCA1/2 mutation-positive family. Screening exams considered advisable did not differ significantly between family physicians and gynecologists. More than 75% of physicians considered the cancer risks of true non-carriers to be comparable with that of the general population and 14% to be a little higher. Still, 53% would prescribe a biennial and or even an annual (27%) mammography to a non-carrier woman before the recommended starting age. Physician considerations of non-carriers' expectations or requests for screening were associated with more screening prescriptions. More than half of primary care physicians would recommend more mammography screenings than expected for a young true BRCA1/2 non-carrier. Personalized cancer risk assessment may help primary care physicians tailor screening of women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families and allow these women to make more informed choices regarding cancer risk management options.

Information and support needs of young women regarding breast cancer risk and genetic testing: adapting effective interventions for a novel population

Young women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families face a unique set of challenges in managing their HBOC risk, where obtaining essential information to inform decision making is key. Previous work suggests that this need for specific health information also comes at a time of heightened distress and greater individuation from family. In this report, we describe our adaptation of a previously-studied behavioral intervention for this population, utilizing a systematic approach outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. First, we assessed the information needs and levels of distress in this population and correlates of this distress. These data then were used to inform the adaptation and piloting of a three-session telephone-based peer coaching intervention. One hundred young women (M age = 25 years) who were first or second degree relatives of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers participated. Sixty-three percent of the sample endorsed unmet HBOC information needs and they, on average, reported moderate levels of cancer-related distress (M = 21.9, SD = 14.6). Greater familial disruption was associated with greater cancer-related distress in multivariable models (p < .05). Ten women who participated in the survey completed the intervention pilot. They reported lower distress from pre- to post- (15.8 vs. 12.0), as well as significantly lower decisional conflict (p < .05) and greater endorsement of an array of healthy coping strategies (i.e., active coping, instrumental coping, positive reframing, planning, p's < .05). Our survey results suggest that young adult women from HBOC families have unmet cancer genetic information and support needs. Our pilot intervention was able to reduce levels of decisional conflict and promote the use of effective coping strategies. This approach needs to be further tested in a larger randomized trial.

Risks of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predictive test negatives: findings from the EMBRACE study

PURPOSE

BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives are proven noncarriers of a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation that is carried by their relatives. The risk of developing breast cancer (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in these women is uncertain. The study aimed to estimate risks of invasive BC and EOC in a large cohort of BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives.

METHODS

We used cohort analysis to estimate incidences, cumulative risks, and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs).

RESULTS

A total of 1,895 unaffected women were eligible for inclusion in the BC risk analysis and 1,736 in the EOC risk analysis. There were 23 incident invasive BCs and 2 EOCs. The cumulative risk of invasive BC was 9.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-15%) by age 85 years and the corresponding risk of EOC was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-2.6%). The SIR for invasive BC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) in the overall cohort, 0.85 (95% CI 0.48-1.50) in noncarriers from BRCA1 families, and 1.03 (95% CI 0.57-1.87) in noncarriers from BRCA2 families. The SIR for EOC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.20-3.17) in the overall cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our results did not provide evidence for elevated risks of invasive BC or EOC in BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives.

Can chimerism explain breast/ovarian cancers in BRCA non-carriers from BRCA-positive families?

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is most frequently caused by mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (in short, BRCA) genes. The incidence of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in relatives of BRCA mutation carriers who test negative for the familial mutation (non-carriers) may be increased. However, the data is controversial, and at this time, these individuals are recommended the same cancer surveillance as general population. One possible explanation for BRCA phenocopies (close relatives of BRCA carriers who have developed cancer consistent with HBOC but tested negative for a familial mutation) is natural chimerism where lack of detectable mutation in blood may not rule out the presence of the mutation in the other tissues. To test this hypothesis, archival tumor tissue from eleven BRCA phenocopies was investigated. DNA from the tumor tissue was analyzed using sequence-specific PCR, capillary electrophoresis, and pyrosequencing. The familial mutations were originally detected in the patients’ first-degree relatives by commercial testing. The same testing detected no mutations in the blood of the patients under study. The test methods targeted only the known familial mutation in the tumor tissue. Tumor diagnoses included breast, ovarian, endometrial and primary peritoneal carcinoma. None of the familial mutations were found in the tumor samples tested. These results do not support, but do not completely exclude, the possibility of chimerism in these patients. Further studies with comprehensive sequence analysis in a larger patient group are warranted as a chimeric state would further refine the predictive value of genetic testing to include BRCA phenocopies.

Inherited Cancer in the Age of Next-Generation Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has led to the ability to test for multiple cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously without significantly increasing cost or turnaround time. With growing usage of multigene testing for inherited cancer, ongoing education for nurses and other health-care providers about hereditary cancer screening is imperative to ensure appropriate testing candidate identification, test selection, and posttest management. The purpose of this review article is to (1) provide an overview of how NGS works to detect germline mutations, (2) summarize the benefits and limitations of multigene panel testing, (3) describe risk categories of cancer susceptibility genes, and (4) highlight the counseling considerations for patients pursuing multigene testing.

Multi-gene Panel Testing in Breast Cancer Management

Hereditary predisposition accounts for approximately 10% of all breast cancers and is mostly associated with germline mutations in high-penetrance genes encoding for proteins participating in DNA repair through homologous recombination (BRCA1 and BRCA2). With the advent of massive parallel next-generation DNA sequencing, simultaneous analysis of multiple genes with a short turnaround time and at a low cost has become possible. The clinical validity and utility of multi-gene panel testing is getting better characterized as more data on the significance of moderate-penetrance genes are collected from large, cancer genetic testing studies. In this chapter, we attempt to provide a general guide for interpretation of panel gene testing in breast cancer and use of the information obtained for clinical decision-making.

No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families

BACKGROUND

In families with a proven BRCA1/2 mutation, women not carrying the familial mutation should follow the cancer screening recommendations applying to women in the general population. In the present study, we evaluated the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarriers from families with a proven BRCA mutation, and we assessed the role of family history in their screening practices.

METHODS

Self-report data were provided retrospectively by 220 unaffected female noncarriers for periods of up to 10 years (mean: 4.3 years) since disclosure of their BRCA1/2 genetic test result. A ratio for the annual frequency of breast and ovarian cancer screening exams (mammography, breast ultrasonography, breast magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound, cancer antigen 125 testing) was calculated as number of screening exams divided by the number of years in the individual observation period.

RESULTS

The annual average for mammography exams was 0.15, 0.4, 0.56, and 0.71 in women 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69 years of age respectively. The uptake of other breast and ovarian cancer screening exams was very low. Mammography and breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were generally more frequent among participants with at least 1 first-degree relative affected by breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In most noncarriers, screening practices are consistent with the guidelines concerning women in the general population. When noncarriers adopt screening behaviours that are different from those that would be expected for average-risk women, those behaviours are influenced by their familial cancer history.

IMPACT

Decision tools might help female noncarriers to be involved in their follow-up in accordance with their genetic status and their family history, while taking into account the benefits and disadvantages of cancer screening.

No evidence of increased breast cancer risk for proven noncarriers from BRCA1 and BRCA2 families

In families screened for mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes and found to have a segregating mutation the breast cancer risk for women shown not to carry the family-specific mutation might be at above "average" risk. We assessed the risk of breast cancer in a clinic based cohort of 725 female proven noncarriers in 239 BRCA1 and BRCA2 families compared with birth-matched controls from the Danish Civil Registration System. Prospective analysis showed no significantly increased risk for breast cancer in noncarriers with a hazard ratio of 0.67 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.42, p = 0.29] for all family members who tested negative and 0.87 (95 % CI 0.38-1.97, p = 0.73) for non-carries who were first-degree relatives of mutation carriers. Proven noncarriers from BRCA1 and BRCA2 families have no markedly increased risk for breast cancer compared to the general population, and our data do not suggest targeted breast cancer surveillance for noncarriers from BRCA1 and BRCA2 families.

Antimüllerian hormone levels are lower in BRCA2 mutation carriers

OBJECTIVE

To compare antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels in women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer compared with healthy low-risk control women.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Reproductive-age women with a uterus and both ovaries were analyzed in four groups: BRCA1 mutation carriers, BRCA2 carriers, BRCA-negative women, and low-risk controls.

INTERVENTION(S)

Self-collected dried blood spot.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

AMH levels.

RESULT(S)

One hundred ninety-five women were included: 55 BRCA1 carriers, 50 BRCA2 carriers, 26 BRCA negative women, and 64 low-risk controls. After adjusting for confounders, BRCA2 carriers had AMH levels that were 33% lower than control women and an increased odds of having AMH <1 ng/mL. BRCA1 carriers and BRCA-negative women had AMH levels similar to control women. When analysis was restricted to regularly menstruating women younger than 40 years of age, BRCA2 carriers continued to demonstrate significantly lower AMH levels and increased likelihood of low AMH. Also, in this restricted group, BRCA-negative women demonstrated AMH levels that were 42% lower than control women. No difference in AMH was observed for BRCA1 carriers.

CONCLUSION(S)

We observed significantly lower AMH levels among BRCA2 carriers compared with low-risk control women. These results were stable across all models. BRCA-negative women also had lower AMH values, but only in models restricted to young regularly menstruating women. In contrast to earlier analyses, BRCA1 carriers had AMH values that were similar to low-risk control women, but this may be due to differences in the population studied.

Analysis of chromosomal radiosensitivity of healthy BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers in BRCA families with the G2 micronucleus assay

Breast cancer risk drastically increases in individuals with a heterozygous germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, while it is estimated to equal the population risk for relatives without the familial mutation (non-carriers). The aim of the present study was to use a G2 phase-specific micronucleus assay to investigate whether lymphocytes of healthy BRCA2 mutation carriers are characterized by increased radiosensitivity compared to controls without a family history of breast/ovarian cancer and how this relates to healthy non-carrier relatives. BRCA2 is active in homologous recombination, a DNA damage repair pathway, specifically active in the late S/G2 phase of the cell cycle. We found a significantly increased radiosensitivity in a cohort of healthy BRCA2 mutation carriers compared to individuals without a familial history of breast cancer (P=0.046; Mann-Whitney U test). At the individual level, 50% of healthy BRCA2 mutation carriers showed a radiosensitive phenotype (radiosensitivity score of 1 or 2), whereas 83% of the controls showed no radiosensitivity (P=0.038; one-tailed Fishers exact test). An odds ratio of 5 (95% CI, 1.07–23.47) indicated an association between the BRCA2 mutation and radiosensitivity in healthy mutation carriers. These results indicate the need for the gentle use of ionizing radiation for either diagnostic or therapeutic use in BRCA2 mutation carriers. We detected no increased radiosensitivity in the non-carrier relatives.

Incorporating truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk model

PURPOSE

The proliferation of gene panel testing precipitates the need for a breast cancer (BC) risk model that incorporates the effects of mutations in several genes and family history (FH). We extended the BOADICEA model to incorporate the effects of truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM.

METHODS

The BC incidence was modeled via the explicit effects of truncating variants in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM and other unobserved genetic effects using segregation analysis methods.

RESULTS

The predicted average BC risk by age 80 for an ATM mutation carrier is 28%, 30% for CHEK2, 50% for PALB2, and 74% for BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, the BC risks are predicted to increase with FH burden. In families with mutations, predicted risks for mutation-negative members depend on both FH and the specific mutation. The reduction in BC risk after negative predictive testing is greatest when a BRCA1 mutation is identified in the family, but for women whose relatives carry a CHEK2 or ATM mutation, the risks decrease slightly.

CONCLUSIONS

The model may be a valuable tool for counseling women who have undergone gene panel testing for providing consistent risks and harmonizing their clinical management. A Web application can be used to obtain BC risks in clinical practice (http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/boadicea/).Genet Med 18 12, 1190-1198.

Do women change their breast cancer mammogram screening behaviour after BRCA1/2 testing?

Little is known about the change in mammograms use by women after BRCA1/2 genetic testing. We compared the rate of bilateral mammograms after and prior to BRCA1/2 testing, according to test result. Information from the Quebec Health Insurance Board database was used to identify all registered mammograms delivered between May 1, 1998 and March 31, 2012 to a cohort of 396 unaffected French Canadian women tested for BRCA1/2 mutations. Mammograms incidence density ratios were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model for repeated events. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women with an inconclusive result had more mammograms after, than prior to, genetic testing. Non-carriers did not receive more mammograms. The observed increase in mammography screening in BRCA1/2 carriers is consistent with the high risk of developing breast cancer in this group. The estimation of the cancer risk associated with an inconclusive result is based on familial cancer history, and women who received this result appear to have received follow-up as if at high risk. The fact that non-carriers did not change their use of mammograms after genetic testing may possibly reflect a 'defensive medicine' approach by some physicians or the women's preference.

Decision making, psychological wellbeing and psychosocial outcomes for high risk women who choose to undergo bilateral prophylactic mastectomy - A review of the literature

A bilateral prophylactic, or preventative, mastectomy (BPM) for women at high risk of developing breast cancer (BC) can reduce their risk of developing the disease by up to 90% (relative risk reduction). An increasing number of women, including young women, are taking up this option. However, there is a dearth of information for younger women (under 40 years) choosing preventative mastectomy. In fact, no studies to date have specifically focused on younger women's experiences of a BPM and investigated their informational needs. The purpose of this review is to report on the current literature surrounding the psychological experience of a BPM and the informational needs for women at high risk of developing BC with a particular emphasis on younger women. Research has highlighted a range of psychological outcomes linked to preventative mastectomy, including positives such as reduced anxiety and negatives including impaired body image and sexuality. The literature strongly suggests women want more information surrounding BPM, particularly related to the after effects of the surgery, and the impact on their psychological wellbeing. Research method limitations and reporting has resulted in conflicting conclusions, making it difficult for women to be well informed. In particular, there has been little focus on the experiences and needs of younger women opting for BPM. Due to the unique needs of younger women and an increase in BPM rates for younger women, it is imperative that the needs of this group are addressed. Together these findings provide justification and recommendation for further research in this area.

Clinical follow-up and breast and ovarian cancer screening of true BRCA1/2 noncarriers: a qualitative investigation

PURPOSE

Most women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families who did not inherit the familial mutation have breast and ovarian cancer risks similar to those of women of the same age in the general population. However, recent studies suggest that some of these noncarriers may exhibit screening practices that may be considered as excessive compared to general population screening guidelines. Reasons for such tendencies remain largely unknown. This study aims to better understand how the implications of a noncarrier status are explained to these women and how their own realization of this status affects their screening behaviors.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted with five focus groups (n = 28) in Quebec City and Montreal, Canada.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of the discussions highlighted four major themes: (i) acquiring a noncarrier identity takes place progressively; (ii) noncarriers show a range of opinions about screening; (iii) noncarriers have mixed feelings about the follow-up by their physicians and gynecologists; and (iv) noncarriers need more information in a context where genetics progresses ever more rapidly.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide novel insights regarding the physician-patient interaction and the organizational aspects of the health-care system that may significantly impact the cancer screening practices of BRCA1/2 noncarriers.Genet Med 18 6, 627-634.

Pathologic findings at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: primary results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial GOG-0199

PURPOSE

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) lowers mortality from ovarian/tubal and breast cancers among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Uncertainties persist regarding potential benefits of RRSO among high-risk noncarriers, optimal surgical age, and anatomic origin of clinically occult cancers detected at surgery. To address these topics, we analyzed surgical treatment arm results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol-0199 (GOG-0199), the National Ovarian Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Study.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

This analysis included asymptomatic high-risk women age ≥ 30 years who elected RRSO at enrollment. Women provided risk factor data and underwent preoperative cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) serum testing and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU). RRSO specimens were processed according to a standardized tissue processing protocol and underwent central pathology panel review. Research-based BRCA1/2 mutation testing was performed when a participant's mutation status was unknown at enrollment. Relationships between participant characteristics and diagnostic findings were assessed using univariable statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Invasive or intraepithelial ovarian/tubal/peritoneal neoplasms were detected in 25 (2.6%) of 966 RRSOs (BRCA1 mutation carriers, 4.6%; BRCA2 carriers, 3.5%; and noncarriers, 0.5%; P < .001). In multivariable models, positive BRCA1/2 mutation status (P = .0056), postmenopausal status (P = .0023), and abnormal CA-125 levels and/or TVU examinations (P < .001) were associated with detection of clinically occult neoplasms at RRSO. For 387 women with negative BRCA1/2 mutation testing and normal CA-125 levels, findings at RRSO were benign.

CONCLUSION

Clinically occult cancer was detected among 2.6% of high-risk women undergoing RRSO. BRCA1/2 mutation, postmenopausal status, and abnormal preoperative CA-125 and/or TVU were associated with cancer detection at RRSO. These data can inform management decisions among women at high risk of ovarian/tubal cancer.

Estrogen controls the survival of BRCA1-deficient cells via a PI3K-NRF2-regulated pathway

Mutations in the tumor suppressor BRCA1 predispose women to breast and ovarian cancers. The mechanism underlying the tissue-specific nature of BRCA1's tumor suppression is obscure. We previously showed that the antioxidant pathway regulated by the transcription factor NRF2 is defective in BRCA1-deficient cells. Reactivation of NRF2 through silencing of its negative regulator KEAP1 permitted the survival of BRCA1-null cells. Here we show that estrogen (E2) increases the expression of NRF2-dependent antioxidant genes in various E2-responsive cell types. Like NRF2 accumulation triggered by oxidative stress, E2-induced NRF2 accumulation depends on phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT activation. Pretreatment of mammary epithelial cells (MECs) with the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor BKM120 abolishes the capacity of E2 to increase NRF2 protein and transcriptional activity. In vivo the survival defect of BRCA1-deficient MECs is rescued by the rise in E2 levels associated with pregnancy. Furthermore, exogenous E2 administration stimulates the growth of BRCA1-deficient mammary tumors in the fat pads of male mice. Our work elucidates the basis of the tissue specificity of BRCA1-related tumor predisposition, and explains why oophorectomy significantly reduces breast cancer risk and recurrence in women carrying BRCA1 mutations.

Genetic counseling for breast cancer risk: how did we get here and where are we going?

Genetic counselors have been helping patients navigate hereditary cancer risk for decades. The rapidly changing landscape of genetic testing options means the field is again at a unique time in its history. Fears that arose when BRCA testing first became available are again being voiced in light of next-generation sequencing. The origins of genetic counseling, best practices, and recommendations that have come about since those early days need to be well understood before these new challenges can be met. The role of a proper risk assessment in preventing adverse outcomes is vital as options for testing change. In addition, an understanding of how various countries have incorporated genetic testing and genetic counseling into their healthcare systems can provide lessons in moving forward and capitalizing on the new technology that is again creating a genetics revolution.

Hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndrome: a primer for obstetricians/gynecologists

An understanding of the diagnosis and clinical management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is essential for obstetricians/gynecologists. This article provides practical information regarding collecting a family history, cancer risk assessment and genetic testing, BRCA-associated cancer prognosis and treatment, screening recommendations, and prevention strategies. Through appropriate cancer risk assessment, women with BRCA1/2 mutations can be identified, and screening and prevention strategies can be used before a diagnosis of cancer occurs. Women's health providers with a strong working knowledge of HBOC are able to improve the quality of care for women and families impacted by BRCA1/2 mutations.

Proven non-carriers in BRCA families have an earlier age of onset of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Risk estimates for proven non-carriers in BRCA mutation families are inconsistent for breast cancer and lacking for ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess the age-related risks for breast and ovarian cancer for proven non-carriers in these families.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort study ascertained 464 proven non-carriers who had a first-degree relative with a pathogenic BRCA mutation. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the age-related cancer risks, and we calculated standardised incidence ratios.

RESULTS

In the 464 non-carriers, 17 breast cancers and two ovarian cancers were detected at a mean age of 47 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 32-61) and 49 years (95% CI 32-67), respectively. Overall, by the age of 50, the breast and ovarian cancer risks among non-carriers were 6.4% (95% CI 2.9-9.8%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0-1.3%), of which the breast cancer risk was statistically significantly higher than the risk in the general population. In particular, the number of breast cancers among non-carriers in BRCA1 families was higher than expected for the general population (standardised incidence ratio (SIR) 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.3). In the BRCA1 cohort, the mean number of breast cancer cases was higher in families in which non-carriers were diagnosed before the age of 50 (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The age at diagnosis of breast cancer in non-carriers in BRCA mutation families is younger than expected, yielding an increased risk in the fifth decade. This effect is most evident in BRCA1 families. If our results are confirmed by others, this could affect the advice given on breast cancer screening to proven non-carriers between the age of 40 and 50 in such families.

Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families

This study aimed to 1) compare the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarrier women under 40 and those aged 40 to 49, following the age-based medical screening guidelines, and 2) consider the way the patients justified their practices of screening or over-screening. For this study, 131 unaffected noncarriers-77 women under age 40 and 54 between 40 and 49, all belonging to a BRCA1/2 family-responded to a questionnaire on breast or ovarian cancer screenings they had undergone since receiving their negative genetic test results, their motives for seeking these screenings, and their intentions to pursue these screenings in the future. Unaffected noncarriers under age 40 admitted practices that could be qualified as over-screening. Apart from mammogram and breast ultrasounds, which the women under 40 reported seeking less often, these women's screening practices were comparable to those of women between 40 and 49. Cancer prevention and a family history of cancer were the two most frequently cited justifications for pursuing these screenings. We suggest that health care professionals discuss with women under 50 the ineffectiveness of breast and ovarian cancer screenings so that they will adapt their practices to conform to medical guidelines and limit their exposure to the potentially negative impacts of early cancer screening.

Evidence that BRCA1- or BRCA2-associated cancers are not inevitable

Inheriting a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation can cause a deficiency in repairing complex DNA damage. This step leads to genomic instability and probably contributes to an inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Complex DNA damage has been viewed as an integral part of DNA replication before cell division. It causes temporary replication blocks, replication fork collapse, chromosome breaks and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs). Chemical modification of DNA may also occur spontaneously as a byproduct of normal processes. Pathways containing BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene products are essential to repair spontaneous complex DNA damage or to carry out SCEs if repair is not possible. This scenario creates a theoretical limit that effectively means there are spontaneous BRCA1/2-associated cancers that cannot be prevented or delayed. However, much evidence for high rates of spontaneous DNA mutation is based on measuring SCEs by using bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU). Here we find that the routine use of BrdU has probably led to overestimating spontaneous DNA damage and SCEs because BrdU is itself a mutagen. Evidence based on spontaneous chromosome abnormalities and epidemiologic data indicates strong effects from exogenous mutagens and does not support the inevitability of cancer in all BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. We therefore remove a theoretical argument that has limited efforts to develop chemoprevention strategies to delay or prevent cancers in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

The oviduct and ovarian cancer: causality, clinical implications, and "targeted prevention"

A novel origin for pelvic serous cancer (ovarian cancer) has been proposed in the distal oviduct. This has important implications, including both early detection in high-risk women and wisdom of relying on serological tests to detect a disease that begins so close to the peritoneal surfaces. With the recent discovery of premalignant disturbances in gene function in the tubal mucosa, the concept of targeted prevention is emerging whereby the interruption of a portion of the carcinogenic pathway will prevent cancer. This alternative to detect early malignancy is a new paradigm in the quest to prevent this deadly disease.

Colorectal and other cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To determine whether cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation are increased above the risks of the general population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively followed a cohort of 446 unaffected carriers of an MMR gene mutation (MLH1, n = 161; MSH2, n = 222; MSH6, n = 47; and PMS2, n = 16) and 1,029 their unaffected relatives who did not carry a mutation every 5 years at recruitment centers of the Colon Cancer Family Registry. For comparison of cancer risk with the general population, we estimated country-, age-, and sex-specific standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of cancer for carriers and noncarriers.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 5 years, mutation carriers had an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC; SIR, 20.48; 95% CI, 11.71 to 33.27; P < .001), endometrial cancer (SIR, 30.62; 95% CI, 11.24 to 66.64; P < .001), ovarian cancer (SIR, 18.81; 95% CI, 3.88 to 54.95; P < .001), renal cancer (SIR, 11.22; 95% CI, 2.31 to 32.79; P < .001), pancreatic cancer (SIR, 10.68; 95% CI, 2.68 to 47.70; P = .001), gastric cancer (SIR, 9.78; 95% CI, 1.18 to 35.30; P = .009), urinary bladder cancer (SIR, 9.51; 95% CI, 1.15 to 34.37; P = .009), and female breast cancer (SIR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.59 to 8.13; P = .001). We found no evidence of their noncarrier relatives having an increased risk of any cancer, including CRC (SIR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.33 to 2.39; P = .97).

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that carriers of an MMR gene mutation were at increased risk of a wide variety of cancers, including some cancers not previously recognized as being a result of MMR mutations, and found no evidence of an increased risk of cancer for their noncarrier relatives.

Breast cancer risk for noncarriers of family-specific BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: findings from the Breast Cancer Family Registry

PURPOSE

Women with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have five- to 20-fold increased risks of developing breast and ovarian cancer. A recent study claimed that women testing negative for their family-specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (noncarriers) have a five-fold increased risk of breast cancer. We estimated breast cancer risks for noncarriers by using a population-based sample of patients with breast cancer and their female first-degree relatives (FDRs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were women with breast cancer and their FDRs enrolled in the population-based component of the Breast Cancer Family Registry; patients with breast cancer were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, as were FDRs of identified mutation carriers. We used segregation analysis to fit a model that accommodates familial correlation in breast cancer risk due to unobserved shared risk factors.

RESULTS

We studied 3,047 families; 160 had BRCA1 and 132 had BRCA2 mutations. There was no evidence of increased breast cancer risk for noncarriers of identified mutations compared with FDRs from families without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: relative risk was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.04 to 3.81). Residual breast cancer correlation within families was strong, suggesting substantial risk heterogeneity in women without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, with some 3.4% of them accounting for roughly one third of breast cancer cases.

CONCLUSION

These results support the practice of advising noncarriers that they do not have any increase in breast cancer risk attributable to the family-specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Prospective study of breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive families

Published studies have reached contradictory conclusions regarding breast cancer risk for women from families segregating a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who do not carry the family-specific mutation. Accurate estimation of breast cancer risk is crucial for appropriate counselling regarding risk management. The aim of this study is to prospectively assess whether breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations is greater than for women in the general population. Eligible women were 722 first-, second- and third-degree relatives of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier from 224 mutation positive (128 BRCA1, 96 BRCA2) families, had no personal cancer history at baseline, and had been tested and found not to carry the family-specific mutation. Self-reported family history of cancer, preventive interventions and verified cancer diagnoses were collected at baseline, and every 3 years thereafter. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (range 0.1-12.4 years). Time at risk of breast cancer was censored at cancer diagnosis or risk-reducing surgery. Standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated by comparing observed to population incidences of invasive breast cancer using Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality Books. Six cases of invasive breast cancer were observed. The estimated SIRs were 1.14 (95% CI: 0.51-2.53) overall (n = 722), 1.29 (95% CI: 0.58-2.88) when restricted to first- and second-degree relatives of an affected mutation carrier (n = 442) and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.12-1.93) when restricted to those with no family history of breast cancer in the non-mutation carrying parental lineage (n = 424). There was no evidence that mutation negative women from families segregating BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are at increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this being the largest prospective cohort to assess this issue, moderately increased breast cancer risk (2-fold) cannot be ruled out.

Breast and ovarian cancer screening of non-carriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families: 2-year follow-up of cohorts from France and Quebec

We described and compared breast and ovarian screening practices in the 2-year period following test result disclosure in female non-carriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families living in two countries, France and Quebec, Canada, which provide universal health care. Four hundred and two (France n=293; Quebec n=109) unaffected female non-carriers from BRCA-proven mutation families provided information about the uptake of mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, and ovarian ultrasounds using self-administered questionnaires. The frequency of screening practices between study cohorts were compared using logistic regression. Annual mammography was conducted in 23 and 43% of French and Quebecer women participants <50 years of age, respectively (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=2.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-6.81). In women ≥ 50 years of age, mammography was conducted in 49 and 65% of French and Quebecer participants (aOR=1.77; 95% CI, 0.07-4.51). Overall, 33% of French women and 39% of Quebecer women underwent at least one ovarian ultrasound during the 2-year period following BRCA1/2 test result with no significant difference between cohorts of women < 50 years of age. Among older women, Quebecers reported more frequently than French women that they had undergone ultrasound once (aOR=3.00; 95% CI, 1.02-8.83). The frequency of cancer screening practices for female non-carriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families in both France and Quebec exceeded those recommended for similarly aged women in the general population. Our findings highlight the need for clearcut recommendations on the follow-up of women from BRCA1/2 families who are not themselves carriers of a BRCA1/2 mutation.

No evidence of excess breast cancer risk among mutation-negative women from BRCA mutation-positive families

This analysis addresses risk of breast cancer among women in BRCA-positive families who test negative for the family mutation. We compared the number of prospectively diagnosed breast cancers in 395 mutation-negative women from 28 BRCA1/2-positive families to an age-, race-, and calendar time-specific expected number of breast cancers derived from the SEER 9 Cancer Registry. Study participants contributed a total of 7008.1 person-years of follow-up. The mean age at study entry was 31.3 years; mean follow-up was 17.7 years. Ten women developed breast cancer yielding an observed-to-expected ratio of 0.82 (95% CI 0.39-1.51). Adjustment for possible reduction in breast cancer risk due to oophorectomy by two different methods resulted in O/E ratios in the range of 0.80-0.99. Stratification by degree of relatedness to the nearest mutation carrier did not substantially alter these results, however, women with at least one-first degree relative with breast cancer appeared to have a slightly increased, though not statistically significant, risk of breast cancer (O/E ratio = 1.33, 95% CI 0.41-2.91). Our data suggest that breast cancer risk among mutation-negative women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families is similar to that observed in the general population, with a possible slight increase in risk among mutation-negative women with a family history of breast cancer in a first degree relative. Although this is the largest prospective cohort yet assembled to address this important question, the number of breast cancer events is still relatively small.

BRCA1/2 test results impact risk management attitudes, intentions, and uptake

Women who receive positive or uninformative BRCA1/2 test results face a number of decisions about how to manage their cancer risk. The purpose of this study was to prospectively examine the effect of receiving a positive versus uninformative BRCA1/2 genetic test result on the perceived pros and cons of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing oophorectomy (RRO) and breast cancer screening. We further examined how perceived pros and cons of surgery predict intention for and uptake of surgery. 308 women (146 positive, 162 uninformative) were included in RRM and breast cancer screening analyses. 276 women were included in RRO analyses. Participants completed questionnaires at pre-disclosure baseline and 1-, 6-, and 12-months post-disclosure. We used linear multiple regression to assess whether test result contributed to change in pros and cons and logistic regression to predict intentions and surgery uptake. Receipt of a positive BRCA1/2 test result predicted stronger pros for RRM and RRO (P < 0.001), but not perceived cons of RRM and RRO. Pros of surgery predicted RRM and RRO intentions in carriers and RRO intentions in uninformatives. Cons predicted RRM intentions in carriers. Pros and cons predicted carriers' RRO uptake in the year after testing (P < 0.001). Receipt of BRCA1/2 mutation test results impacts how carriers see the positive aspects of RRO and RRM and their surgical intentions. Both the positive and negative aspects predict uptake of surgery.