Risk-reducing surgery increases survival in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers unaffected at time of family referral

Bilateral Oophorectomy and All-Cause Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations

Importance

Preventive bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is offered to women at high risk of ovarian cancer who carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2; however, the association of oophorectomy with all-cause mortality has not been clearly defined.

Objective

To evaluate the association between bilateral oophorectomy and all-cause mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this international, longitudinal cohort study of women with BRCA sequence variations, information on bilateral oophorectomy was obtained via biennial questionnaire. Participants were women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, no prior history of cancer, and at least 1 follow-up questionnaire completed. Women were followed up from age 35 to 75 years for incident cancers and deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all-cause mortality associated with a bilateral oophorectomy (time dependent). Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 1, 2023.

Exposures

Self-reported bilateral oophorectomy (with or without salpingectomy).

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and ovarian cancer-specific mortality.

Results

There were 4332 women (mean age, 42.6 years) enrolled in the cohort, of whom 2932 (67.8%) chose to undergo a preventive oophorectomy at a mean (range) age of 45.4 (23.0-77.0) years. After a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, 851 women had developed cancer and 228 had died; 57 died of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, 58 died of breast cancer, 16 died of peritoneal cancer, and 97 died of other causes. The age-adjusted HR for all-cause mortality associated with oophorectomy was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001). The age-adjusted HR was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.38; P < .001) and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22-0.90; P = .03) for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variations, respectively. For women with BRCA1 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years was 25%, compared to 62% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. For women with BRCA2 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years was 14% for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years compared to 28% for women who did not have an oophorectomy.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality.

Counselling Framework for Germline BRCA1/2 and PALB2 Carriers Considering Risk-Reducing Mastectomy

Female BRCA1/2 and PALB2 germline pathogenic variant carriers have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and may wish to consider risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) for surgical prevention. Quantifying the residual lifetime risk and absolute benefit from RRM requires careful consideration of a patient's age, pathogenic variant, and their personal history of breast or ovarian cancer. Historically, patients have been counselled that RRM does not necessarily prolong survival relative to high-risk surveillance, although recent studies suggest a possible survival benefit of RRM in BRCA1 carriers. The uptake of RRM has increased dramatically over the last several decades yet varies according to sociodemographic factors and geographic region. The increased adoption of nipple-sparing mastectomy techniques, ability to avoid axillary staging, and availability of reconstructive options for most germline pathogenic variant carriers has helped to minimize the morbidity of RRM. Preoperative discussions should include evidence regarding postmastectomy sensation, the potential for supplemental surgery, pregnancy-related chest wall changes, and the need for continued clinical surveillance. Approaches that include sensation preservation and robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy are an area of evolving research that may be more widely adopted in the future.

Prophylactic Interventions for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risks and Mortality in BRCA1/2 Carriers

BACKGROUND

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOCs) pose significant health risks worldwide and are mitigated by prophylactic interventions. However, a meta-analysis of their efficacy and the impact of different genetic variants on their effectiveness is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, adhering to Cochrane guidelines. The review encompassed studies that involved prophylactic interventions for healthy women with BRCA variants, focusing on cancer incidence and mortality outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk of bias assessment. We pooled the extracted outcomes using random effects models and conducted subgroup analyses stratified by intervention, variant, and cancer types.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic interventions significantly reduced cancer risk and mortality. The subgroup analysis showed a greater protective effect for BRCA2 than BRCA1 variant carriers. Risk-reducing surgeries (RRS) were more effective than chemoprevention, with RRS notably reducing cancer risk by 56% compared to 39% for chemoprevention. Prophylactic oophorectomy significantly reduced HBOC risks, while the effect of prophylactic mastectomy and chemoprevention on mortality was less conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic interventions significantly reduce the risk of HBOC and associated mortality. This comprehensive analysis provides insights for future economic evaluations and clinical decision-making in HBOC interventions.

Low rate of complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy for patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation

Background: To describe the indications and outcomes of BRCA mutation carriers undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM). Methods: In this retrospective study, 76 BRCA mutation carriers with no cancer who opted to undergo risk reduction NSM or diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) who opted to undergo therapeutic NSM were included. Results: Indications for NSM: cancer treatment (n = 33), bilateral risk reduction (n = 39) and contralateral prophylactic NSM (n = 4). In a mean follow-up of 45 months (median: 30 months), one patient (2.5%) undergoing risk-reducing NSM developed a new BC. One (3%) local, one (3%) ipsilateral axillary and one (3%) distant recurrence were observed in BC patients. No partial or total nipple necrosis occurred. Conclusion: NSM is safe for reducing the risk of BC development in BRCA mutation carriers and for treating cancer.

Pediatric, adolescent, and young adult breast and reproductive tumors

Tumors of the breast and reproductive organs that occur in children, adolescents, and young adults (AYA) have different biological features and can present special challenges. Although prognosis for these tumors is generally favorable, the long-term effects of treatment can be debilitating. Treatments are often multimodal and may include surgery as well as chemotherapy and/or radiation, which can cause considerable distress and anxiety related to loss of femininity or masculinity, concern over future fertility, or sexual dysfunction. Thus, tumors of the reproductive organs in pediatric/AYA patients require special consideration of the treatment effects beyond the intended oncologic outcome. Multidisciplinary teams should be involved in their care and address issues of fertility, sexual dysfunction, and psychosexual concerns before treatment begins. This review addresses histology, risk factors, prognosis, staging and treatment of gynecologic, breast and testicular cancers in pediatric and AYA patients.

Differences among a Portuguese cohort of BRCA pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants carriers choosing risk-reducing mastectomy or intensive breast surveillance

PURPOSE

Women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants have a higher risk to develop breast and ovarian cancer. In structured high-risk clinics, risk-reducing measures are adopted. This study aimed at characterizing these women and identify factors that may have influenced their choice between risk reduction mastectomy (RRM) and intensive breast surveillance (IBS).

METHODS

This study reviewed retrospectively 187 clinical records of affected and unaffected women with P/LP variants of the BRCA1/2 genes, from 2007 to 2022, of which 50 chose RRM, while 137 chose IBS. The research focused on personal and family history and tumor characteristics and their relation with the preventive option chosen.

RESULTS

Among women with personal history of breast cancer, a higher proportion opted for RRM compared to those asymptomatic (34.2% vs 21.3%, p = 0.049), with younger age determining the option for RRM (38.5 years vs 44.0 years, p < 0.001). Among women with personal history of ovarian cancer, a higher proportion opted for RRM compared to those without that history (62.5% vs 25.1%, p = 0.033), with younger age determining the option for RRM (42.6 years vs 62.7 years, p = 0.009). Women who had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were more likely to choose RRM than those who did not (37.3% vs 18.3%, p = 0.003). Family history was not associated with preventive option (33.3% vs 25.3, p = 0.346).

CONCLUSIONS

The decision for the preventive option is multifactorial. In our study, personal history of breast or ovarian cancer, younger age at diagnosis, and previous bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were associated with the choice of RRM. Family history was not associated with the preventive option.

UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2

Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.

Controversies and Open Questions in Management of Cancer-Free Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1/BRCA2

Females harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 (BRCA) P/LPV are offered a tight surveillance scheme from the age of 25−30 years, aimed at early detection of specific cancer types, in addition to risk-reducing strategies. Multiple national and international surveillance guidelines have been published and updated over the last two decades from geographically diverse countries. We searched for guidelines published between 1 January 2015 and 1 May 2022. Differences between guidelines on issues such as primary prevention, mammography screening in young (<30 years) carriers, MRI screening in carriers above age 65 years, breast imaging (if any) after risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, during pregnancy, and breastfeeding, and hormone-replacement therapy, are just a few notable examples. Beyond formal guidelines, BRCA carriers’ concerns also focus on the timing of risk-reducing surgeries, fertility preservation, management of menopausal symptoms in cancer survivors, and pancreatic cancer surveillance, issues that, for some, there are no data to support evidence-based recommendations. This review discusses these unsettled issues, emphasizing the importance of future studies to enable global guideline harmonization for optimal surveillance strategies. Moreover, it raises the unmet need for personalized risk stratification and surveillance in BRCA P/LPV carriers.

Functions of Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes: Implications for Clinical Management

Approximately 5–10% of all breast cancer (BC) cases are caused by germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in various cancer predisposition genes (CPGs). The most common contributors to hereditary BC are BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D have also been recognized as CPGs with a high to moderate risk of BC. Primary and secondary cancer prevention strategies have been established for HBOC patients; however, optimal preventive strategies for most hereditary BCs have not yet been established. Most BC-associated CPGs participate in DNA damage repair pathways and cell cycle checkpoint mechanisms, and function jointly in such cascades; therefore, a fundamental understanding of the disease drivers in such cascades can facilitate the accurate estimation of the genetic risk of developing BC and the selection of appropriate preventive and therapeutic strategies to manage hereditary BCs. Herein, we review the functions of key BC-associated CPGs and strategies for the clinical management in individuals harboring the GPVs of such genes.

BRCA1 Norway: comparison of classification for BRCA1 germline variants detected in families with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer between different laboratories

Pathogenic germline variants in Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1) predispose carriers to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Through genetic testing of patients with suspected HBOC an increasing number of novel BRCA1 variants are discovered. This creates a growing need to determine the clinical significance of these variants through correct classification (class 1-5) according to established guidelines. Here we present a joint collection of all BRCA1 variants of class 2-5 detected in the four diagnostic genetic laboratories in Norway. The overall objective of the study was to generate an overview of all BRCA1 variants in Norway and unveil potential discrepancies in variant interpretation between the hospitals, serving as a quality control at the national level. For a subset of variants, we also assessed the change in classification over a ten-year period with increasing information available. In total, 463 unique BRCA1 variants were detected. Of the 126 variants found in more than one hospital, 70% were interpreted identically, while 30% were not. The differences in interpretation were mainly by one class (class 2/3 or 4/5), except for one larger discrepancy (class 3/5) which could affect the clinical management of patients. After a series of digital meetings between the participating laboratories to disclose the cause of disagreement for all conflicting variants, the discrepancy rate was reduced to 10%. This illustrates that variant interpretation needs to be updated regularly, and that data sharing and improved national inter-laboratory collaboration greatly improves the variant classification and hence increases the accuracy of cancer risk assessment.

Bilateral Salpingo-oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Assessing the Evidence

Without preventive interventions, women with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have high lifetime risks for breast cancer and tubo-ovarian cancer. The increased risk for breast cancer starts at a considerably younger age than that for tubo-ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (rrBSO) is effective in reducing tubo-ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, but whether it reduces breast cancer risk is less clear. All studies of rrBSO and breast cancer risk are observational in nature and subject to various forms of bias and confounding, thus limiting conclusions that can be drawn about causation. Early studies supported a statistically significant protective association for rrBSO on breast cancer risk, which is reflected by several international guidelines that recommend consideration of premenopausal rrBSO for breast cancer risk reduction. However, these historical studies were hampered by the presence of several important biases, including immortal person-time bias, confounding by indication, informative censoring, and confounding by other risk factors, which may have led to overestimation of any protective benefit. Contemporary studies, specifically designed to reduce some of these biases, have yielded contradictory results. Taken together, there is no clear and consistent evidence for a role of premenopausal rrBSO in reducing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Nipple Sparing Mastectomy as a Risk-Reducing Procedure for BRCA-Mutated Patients

Growing numbers of asymptomatic women who become aware of carrying a breast cancer gene mutation (BRCA) mutation are choosing to undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomies with immediate breast reconstruction. We reviewed the literature with the aim of assessing the oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) as a risk-reduction procedure in BRCA-mutated patients. Nine studies reporting on the incidence of primary breast cancer post NSM in asymptomatic BRCA mutated patients undergoing risk-reducing bilateral procedures met the inclusion criteria. NSM appears to be a safe option for BRCA mutation carriers from an oncological point of view, with low reported rates of new breast cancers, low rates of postoperative complications, and high levels of satisfaction and postoperative quality of life. However, larger multi-institutional studies with longer follow-up are needed to establish this procedure as the best surgical option in this setting.

Prophylactic Surgery in the BRCA+ Patient: Do Women Develop Breast Cancer While Waiting?

Breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers have an increased risk of breast cancer. Mitigation of this risk can be achieved via surveillance or prophylactic mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction. Those that choose surgery expect to reduce their chance of developing cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of patients developing breast cancer prior to surgery and to identify modifiable contributing factors within the patient journey. This is a historical cohort study of all BRCA mutation carriers identified through the British Columbia Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program between 2000 and 2012. Patients were divided into two groups: surveillance (S) and prophylactic mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (PM/IBR). The incidence of cancer, time to PM/IBR and patient journeys were analyzed. A total of 333 women were identified. The time to surgery from mutation disclosure was a median of 31 (5.3, 75.7) months. During this period, 6% of patients developed breast cancer compared with a 14% incidence of breast cancer in patients choosing surveillance. The majority of time to surgery was attributed to the period between mutation disclosure and the decision to proceed with surgery. Strategies to facilitate decision-making as well as wait list prioritization and dedicated operative time should be targeted to this population to decrease the number of women developing an interval cancer prior to surgery.

Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020)

Simple Summary

This study reports the management of women at high risk for breast cancer over a 33 years period. The aim was to summarize the numbers seen and to report the results of our studies on gene testing, the outcomes of screening and the success of preventive methods including lifestyle change, chemoprevention and risk-reducing mastectomy. We also discuss how the clinical Family History Service may be improved in the future.

Abstract

Clinics for women concerned about their family history of breast cancer are widely established. A Family History Clinic was set-up in Manchester, UK, in 1987 in a Breast Unit serving a population of 1.8 million. In this review, we report the outcome of risk assessment, screening and prevention strategies in the clinic and propose future approaches. Between 1987–2020, 14,311 women were referred, of whom 6.4% were from known gene families, 38.2% were at high risk (≥30% lifetime risk), 37.7% at moderate risk (17–29%), and 17.7% at an average/population risk who were discharged. A total of 4168 (29.1%) women were eligible for genetic testing and 736 carried pathogenic variants, predominantly in BRCA1 and BRCA2 but also other genes (5.1% of direct referrals). All women at high or moderate risk were offered annual mammographic screening between ages 30 and 40 years old: 646 cancers were detected in women at high and moderate risk (5.5%) with a detection rate of 5 per 1000 screens. Incident breast cancers were largely of good prognosis and resulted in a predicted survival advantage. All high/moderate-risk women were offered lifestyle prevention advice and 14–27% entered various lifestyle studies. From 1992–2003, women were offered entry into IBIS-I (tamoxifen) and IBIS-II (anastrozole) trials (12.5% of invitees joined). The NICE guidelines ratified the use of tamoxifen and raloxifene (2013) and subsequently anastrozole (2017) for prevention; 10.8% women took up the offer of such treatment between 2013–2020. Since 1994, 7164 eligible women at ≥25% lifetime risk of breast cancer were offered a discussion of risk-reducing breast surgery and 451 (6.2%) had surgery. New approaches in all aspects of the service are needed to build on these results.

Specialist oncological surgery for removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers may reduce primary peritoneal cancer risk to very low levels

Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRBSO) is highly effective for the prevention of high‐grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers (PVCs), but does not completely eliminate future risk of primary peritoneal cancer (PPC). The requirement to completely remove fallopian tubes at RRBSO and carefully exclude occult cancer/serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) lesions may not have been appreciated historically. We calculated rates of HGSOC and PPC in confirmed BRCA1/2 PVCs registered on the regional database in those who did (cases) and did not (controls) undergo RRBSO after genetic testing. Expected annual rates of ovarian/peritoneal cancer were 1% for BRCA1 ≥ 35 years and 0.5% for BRCA2 ≥ 45 years. Follow‐up before 35/45 years was “risk free” and lead time excluded RRBSO <35 years and <45 years for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. Women were followed from personal mutation report (controls) or RRBSO (cases) to death, ovarian/peritoneal cancer or last follow‐up, whichever was sooner. In total, 891 cases (BRCA1 = 468, BRCA2 = 423) and 1302 controls had follow‐up ≥35 years (BRCA1 = 736) and ≥45 years (BRCA2 = 566), respectively, over a total of 7261.1 risk eligible years (mean = 8.15 years). Twenty‐one occult ovarian cancers were found at RRBSO (2.4%), 16 at stage 1. Post RRBSO, 56.97 ovarian/peritoneal cancers were expected but only 3 were observed (HR = 0.053; 95% CI = 0.013‐0.14), with combined Kaplan‐Meier analysis HR = 0.029 (95% CI = 0.009‐0.100, P < .001). Risk reduction was greater in specialist (HR = 0.03; 95% CI = 0.001‐0.13) compared to non‐specialist centres (HR = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.02‐0.37) (P = .07). In controls, 23.35 ovarian/peritoneal cancers were expected with 32 observed (HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.95‐1.91). RRBSO <35/<45 years reduces the risk of ovarian/peritoneal cancer by 95% in BRCA1/2 PVCs and may be greater in specialist centres.

What's new?

Women who carry genetic variants in BRCA1/2 that are linked to high‐grade serous ovarian cancer are advised to undergo risk‐reducing prophylactic bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRBSO). RRBSO, however, is associated with a significant residual risk of primary peritoneal cancer (PPC). Here, the rate of PPC following prophylactic surgery for high‐grade serous ovarian cancer was investigated among 2,193 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who had undergone RRBSO. Estimates indicate that prophylactic surgery reduced the overall risk of PPC by 95 percent, a far greater reduction than previously described. Residual risk was lowest when RRBSO was carried out at specialist centers compared to non‐specialist centers.

Management of breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who are unaffected with cancer

Pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes markedly increase the risk of breast cancer and other cancers such as ovarian/fallopian tube, pancreatic, prostate, and melanoma. Patients with BRCA1 mutations have a slightly higher lifetime risk of breast cancer than BRCA2 mutation carriers, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers tend to develop breast cancer at an earlier age than the general population. In this review, we will discuss management recommendations to reduce breast cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers including special populations of carriers such as pregnant or lactating patients and men. Breast cancer screening, including clinical breast examination, mammogram, and breast MRI, is important for detecting breast cancer at an early and likely curable stage. In addition to screening, counseling on risk-reducing surgeries is strongly recommended for BRCA1/2 carriers. Risk-reducing mastectomy decreases the risk of breast cancer development, and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy decreases ovarian cancer-specific as well as overall mortality, but controversy exists regarding its impact on breast cancer-specific mortality. Given the effectiveness of screening for breast cancer, further management should be carried out on an individual basis taking into account quality of life and psychosocial factors, and recommendations should be readdressed periodically as science progresses and patients' goals may change.

Trends in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

INTRODUCTION

Many breast cancer patients remove their contralateral breast unaffected by cancer, commonly referred to as contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). CPM has been extensively studied and does not improve survival in patients without deleterious genetic mutation or lobular histology. Despite these limited indications, CPM rates have increased recently. We observed CPM trends in our county safety-net hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of women treated for breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy in our institution.

RESULTS

We analyzed 100 CPMs: 51% (n = 51) had bilateral breast MRI before CPM, 54% (n = 54) had genetic testing prior to CPM, and 56% (n = 30) had a deleterious genetic result. Another 12% (n = 12) had lobular histology as the primary determinant for CPM. Of patients without genetic mutation or lobular histology, 13% (n = 13) had suspicious MRI findings in the CPM side that drove the decision for CPM. Forty-seven percent (n = 47) had reconstructive surgery documented.

CONCLUSION

Only 42% (n = 42) of patients who underwent CPM had a documented justifiable medical reason. In the future, physician and patient education may decrease unindicated CPM. We also found that 13% of women without a medical indication chose CPM based on suspicious MRI findings, while only 8% of these MRI findings were malignant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Outcomes of women at high familial risk for breast cancer: An 8-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

The value of a high-risk surveillance program for mutation carriers and women at high familial breast cancer risk has not been extensively studied. A Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Management Clinic (BOCRMC) was established at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in 2010 to provide multimodality screening and risk management strategies for this group of women. The aims of this study were to evaluate the program and describe breast cancer diagnoses for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other germline mutation carriers as well as high-risk noncarriers attending the BOCRMC.

METHODS

Clinical data from mutation carriers and noncarriers with a ≥25% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer who attended between 2010 and 2018 were extracted from clinic records and compared. The pattern and mode of detection of cancer were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 206 mutation carriers and 305 noncarriers attended the BOCRMC and underwent screening on at least one occasion. Median age was 37 years. After a median follow-up of 34 months, 15 (seven invasive) breast cancers were identified in mutation carriers, with seven (six invasive) breast cancers identified in noncarriers. Of these, 20 (90.9%) were detected by annual screening, whereas two (9.1%) were detected as interval cancers (both in BRCA1 mutation carriers). Median size of the invasive breast cancers was 11 mm (range: 1.5-30 mm). The majority (76.9%) were axillary node negative. In women aged 25-49 years, the annualized cancer incidence was 1.6% in BRCA1, 1.4% in BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 0.5% in noncarriers. This compares to 0.06% annualized cancer incidence in the general Australian population.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening was effective at detecting early-stage cancers. The incidence of events in young noncarriers was substantially higher than in the general population. This potentially justifies ongoing management through a specialty clinic, although further research to better personalize risk assessment in noncarriers is required.

Using the literary folkloristic method to understand why people refuse medical interventions

BACKGROUND

Biomedicine is the dominant model in Western medicine. This regards disease as an identifiable reality located in people's bodies and best managed through medical interventions. Biomedicine has limited recognition of the effects of societal and cultural forces on health behaviours, so those who reject medical advice are problematic. This highlights the need for a method that considers the wider range of experiences that influence health behaviours.

AIM

To describe the use of the literary folkloristic method to understand why people refuse medical interventions that reduce the risk of disease.

DISCUSSION

This paper describes an innovative approach that was useful in understanding why people refuse conventional medical interventions. The literary folkloristic method provided a contextualised narrative of the experiences of high-risk women who refused risk-reducing surgery. Their stories revealed how their understandings of the risks from cancer contrasted starkly with the dominant medical discourse, ultimately leading them to reject interventions that could potentially save their lives.

CONCLUSION

The literary folkloristic method gave voice to those who might otherwise have been silenced by the healthcare system.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses and nurse researchers can influence policy and practice by offering alternative understandings of poorly understood phenomena, such as patients refusing medical interventions. It is important healthcare providers approach this from the viewpoints of those directly involved, since strategies to support patients may be ineffective without such understanding.

Survival after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background

In healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) strongly reduces the risk of developing breast cancer (BC); however, no clear survival benefit of BRRM over BC surveillance has been reported yet.

Methods

In this Dutch multicenter cohort study, we used multivariable Cox models with BRRM as a time-dependent covariable to estimate the associations between BRRM and the overall and BC-specific mortality rates, separately for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Results

During a mean follow-up of 10.3 years, 722 out of 1712 BRCA1 (42%) and 406 out of 1145 BRCA2 (35%) mutation carriers underwent BRRM. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, we observed 52 deaths (20 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 10 deaths (one from BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratios were 0.40 (95% CI 0.20–0.90) for overall mortality and 0.06 (95% CI 0.01–0.46) for BC-specific mortality. BC-specific survival at age 65 was 93% for surveillance and 99.7% for BRRM. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, we observed 29 deaths (7 from BC) in the surveillance group, and 4 deaths (no BC) after BRRM. The hazard ratio for overall mortality was 0.45 (95% CI 0.15–1.36). BC-specific survival at age 65 was 98% for surveillance and 100% for BRRM.

Conclusion

BRRM was associated with lower mortality than surveillance for BRCA1 mutation carriers, but for BRCA2 mutation carriers, BRRM may lead to similar BC-specific survival as surveillance. Our findings support a more individualized counseling based on BRCA mutation type.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05345-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Five screening-detected breast cancer cases in initially disease-free BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers

Individuals carrying pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have an increased lifetime risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The incidence of breast cancer amongst disease-free BRCA mutation carriers under surveillance and the clinical and pathological characteristics of those who subsequently develop the disease remain unclear in Japan. We reviewed the records of 155 individuals with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations identified by genetic testing between January 2000 and December 2016. At the time of genetic testing, 26 individuals with one of these mutations had no history of breast cancer and were therefore enrolled in a surveillance program that included biannual ultrasonography, clinical breast examination, annual mammography, and conditional magnetic resonance imaging for the early detection of primary breast cancer. During the surveillance period, 5 individuals with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were diagnosed with primary breast cancer. The mean surveillance duration until breast cancer diagnosis was 48 months. The incidence of primary breast cancer during surveillance in initially disease-free BRCA mutation carriers was 4.23%/year. In two cases, the tumors were only detectable on MRI. The case 5 patient who presented with a tumor that was detected by self-examination, which then grew rapidly, had stage IIB triple-negative breast cancer. In conclusion, our results show that some challenges exist in the early detection of breast cancers in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. There are also some difficulties in approaching those individuals in Japanese society.

Trends in use of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy vs high-risk surveillance in unaffected carriers of inherited breast cancer syndromes in the Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE)

PURPOSE

Awareness of inherited breast cancer has increased bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) among unaffected genetic mutation carriers, yet many still choose surveillance. We aimed to identify differences among women electing BPM vs high-risk surveillance.

METHODS

Participants from an IRB-approved database recruited from 11/2000 to 01/2017 with a deleterious/pathogenic, variant suspected deleterious, or likely pathogenic mutation in ≥ 1 of 11 genes with increased risk for breast cancer (per 2017 NCCN guidelines) were identified. Participants with breast cancer and males were excluded. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. The BPM and high-risk surveillance groups were compared using Wilcoxon, Fisher's Exact, and Pearson's Chi-Square analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 304 unaffected genetic mutation carriers were identified; 22 men were excluded. 113/282 (40%) underwent BPM. There was no significant difference in age, race, marital status, high school graduates, family history of breast cancer, breast biopsies, chemoprevention use, or understanding implications of genetic mutation carriage. BPM participants were more likely to have a prior pregnancy (p = 0.0005), college education (p = 0.04), income > $50,000/year (p = 0.01), first-degree relative with breast cancer (p = 0.04), higher total number of relatives with breast cancer (p = 0.01), and rate of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (p = < 0.0001). The high-risk surveillance group was more likely to have a history of ovarian cancer (p = 0.009) and cancer worry (p = < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

BPM is a common but not universal choice among unaffected genetic carriers of inherited breast cancer syndromes. Parity, education, income, ovarian cancer history, first-degree relatives with breast cancer, and cancer worry play significant roles in these decisions.

Real-world health services utilisation and outcomes after BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in Ontario, Canada: the What Comes Next Cohort Study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Women who have pathogenic mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are at greatly increased risks for breast and ovarian cancers. Although risk-reduction strategies can be undertaken by these women, knowledge regarding the uptake of these strategies is limited. Additionally, the healthcare behaviours of women who receive inconclusive test results are not known. This study protocol describes the creation of a retrospective cohort of women who have undergone genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, linking genetic test results with administrative data to quantify the uptake of risk-reduction strategies and to assess long-term cancer and non-cancer outcomes after genetic testing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Approximately two-thirds of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in Ontario, Canada is performed at North York General Hospital (NYGH) and Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH), Toronto. We will use registries at these sites to assemble a cohort of approximately 17 000 adult women who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing from January 2007 to April 2016. Trained chart abstractors will obtain detailed information for all women tested over this period, including demographics, personal and family cancer histories and genetic test results. We will link these data to provincial administrative databases, enabling assessment of healthcare utilisation and long-term outcomes after testing. Study outcomes will include the uptake of breast cancer screening and prophylactic breast and ovarian surgery, cancer incidence and mortality and incidence of non-cancer health outcomes, including cardiovascular, osteoporotic and neurodegenerative disease.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Boards at NYGH (no 16-0035), MSH (no 13-0124) and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (no 275-2016). We plan to disseminate research findings through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings.

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations

BACKGROUND

The presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) significantly increases the risk of developing some cancers, such as breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal origin. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is usually recommended to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers after completion of childbearing. Despite prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the role of RRSO in reducing the mortality and incidence of breast, HGSC and other cancers, RRSO is still an area of debate and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation carried.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of RRSO in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and trial registries, with no language restrictions up to July 2017. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised trials (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses comparing RRSO versus no RRSO in women without a previous or coexisting breast, ovarian or fallopian tube malignancy, in women with or without hysterectomy, and in women with a risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) before, with or after RRSO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To assess bias in the studies, we used the ROBINS-I 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We quantified inconsistency between studies by estimating the I² statistic. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled effect estimates.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 cohort studies, comprising 8087 participants (2936 (36%) surgical participants and 5151 (64%) control participants who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. All the studies compared RRSO with or without RRM versus no RRSO (surveillance). The certainty of evidence by GRADE assessment was very low due to serious risk of bias. Nine studies, including 7927 women, were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 27.4 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES

overall survival was longer with RRSO compared with no RRSO (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2548 women; very low-certainty evidence). HGSC cancer mortality (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; I² = 69%; P < 0.0001; 3 studies, 2534 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breast cancer mortality (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88; I² = 65%; P = 0.009; 7 studies, 7198 women; very low-certainty evidence) were lower with RRSO compared with no RRSO. None of the studies reported bone fracture incidence. There was a difference in favour of RRSO compared with no RRSO in terms of ovarian cancer risk perception quality of life (MD 15.40, 95% CI 8.76 to 22.04; P < 0.00001; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported adverse events.Subgroup analyses for main outcomes: meta-analysis showed an increase in overall survival among women who had RRSO versus women without RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; P < 0001; I² = 23%; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis showed a decrease in HGSC cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41; I² = 54%; P = 0.001; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but uncertain for BRCA2 mutation carriers due to low frequency of HGSC cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was a decrease in breast cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but not for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study showed a difference in favour of RRSO versus no RRSO in improving quality of life for ovarian cancer risk perception in women who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (MD 10.70, 95% CI 2.45 to 18.95; P = 0.01; 98 women; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (MD 13.00, 95% CI 3.59 to 22.41; P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence). Data from one study showed a difference in favour of RRSO and RRM versus no RRSO in increasing overall survival (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), but no difference for breast cancer mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19; P = 0.25; very low-certainty evidence). The risk estimates for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) was not protective and did not differ for BRCA1 (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I² = 16%; P = 0.23; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that RRSO may increase overall survival and lower HGSC and breast cancer mortality for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that RRSO reduces the risk of death from HGSC and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 mutations. Evidence for the effect of RRSO on HGSC and breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers was very uncertain due to low numbers. These results should be interpreted with caution due to questionable study designs, risk of bias profiles, and very low-certainty evidence. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding bone fracture incidence, quality of life, or severe adverse events for RRSO, or for effects of RRSO based on type and age at risk-reducing surgery. Further research on these outcomes is warranted to explore differential effects for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy in women at high risk of developing breast cancer

Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a valuable addition to the options available for women at high risk of developing breast cancer. In this review, we summarize current knowledge about the high-risk genes, BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 and the associated guidelines with regard to risk-reducing surgery. We consider other genetic risks and high-risk lesions. We discuss the literature on bilateral mastectomy for breast cancer risk-reduction, and the results of nipple-sparing mastectomy in particular. Finally, we report on patient satisfaction with these procedures and the impact that nipple-sparing mastectomy may have on women at high-risk of breast cancer.

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.

Personalized prevention in high risk individuals: Managing hormones and beyond

Increasing numbers of women are being identified at 'high-risk' of breast cancer, defined by The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as a 10-year risk of ≥8%. Classically women have been so identified through family history based risk algorithms or genetic testing of high-risk genes. Recent research has shown that assessment of mammographic density and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), when combined with established risk factors, trebles the number of women reaching the high risk threshold. The options for risk reduction in such women include endocrine chemoprevention with the selective estrogen receptor modulators tamoxifen and raloxifene or the aromatase inhibitors anastrozole or exemestane. NICE recommends offering anastrozole to postmenopausal women at high-risk of breast cancer as cost effectiveness analysis showed this to be cost saving to the National Health Service. Overall uptake to chemoprevention has been disappointingly low but this may improve with the improved efficacy of aromatase inhibitors, particularly the lack of toxicity to the endometrium and thrombogenic risks. Novel approaches to chemoprevention under investigation include lower dose and topical tamoxifen, denosumab, anti-progestins and metformin. Although oophorectomy is usually only recommended to women at increased risk of ovarian cancer it has been shown in numerous studies to reduce breast cancer risks in the general population and in those with mutations in BRCA1/2. However, recent evidence from studies that have confined analysis to true prospective follow up have cast doubt on the efficacy of oophorectomy to reduce breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers, at least in the short-term.

Missed therapeutic and prevention opportunities in women with BRCA-mutated epithelial ovarian cancer and their families due to low referral rates for genetic counseling and BRCA testing: A review of the literature

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Fifteen percent of women with epithelial ovarian cancer have inherited mutations in the BRCA breast cancer susceptibility genes. Knowledge of her BRCA status has value both for the woman and for her family. A therapeutic benefit exists for the woman with cancer, because a new family of oral drugs, the poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, has recently been approved, and these drugs have the greatest efficacy in women who carry the mutation. For her family, there is the potential to prevent ovarian cancer in those carrying the mutation by using risk-reducing surgery. Such surgery significantly reduces the chance of developing this, for the most part, incurable cancer. Despite these potential benefits, referral rates for genetic counseling and subsequent BRCA testing are low, ranging from 10% to 30%, indicating that these therapeutic and prevention opportunities are being missed. The authors have reviewed the relevant available literature. Topics discussed are BRCA and its relation to ovarian cancer, the rates of referral for genetic counseling/BRCA testing, reasons for these low rates, potential strategies to improve on those rates, lack of effectiveness of current screening strategies, the pros and cons of risk-reducing surgery, other prevention options, and the role and value of PARP inhibitors. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:493-506. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Müllerian intra-abdominal carcinomatosis in hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome: implications for risk-reducing surgery

More than 40 years ago Lynch et al. described several multigenerational breast cancer family pedigrees which demonstrated autosomal dominant inheritance of a trait(s) that increased risks for both breast and ovarian cancers. Mutation carriers in at least 90 % of these hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome families have been linked to cancer-associated mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. This review focuses on the contributions of Lynch, colleagues and collaborators and pertinent literature, toward defining the HBOC syndrome, the cancer risks that the inherited adverse mutations convey, the gynecologic tissues and organs from which the malignancy may arise to disseminate throughout the pelvic and abdominal organs and peritoneum and how this information can be used to reduce the risk and morbidities of intra-abdominal carcinomatosis in effected individuals.

Utility of Regular Radiological Follow-up on Early Detection of Contralateral Malignancy and Long-term Outcomes in Metachronous Bilateral Breast Cancer Patients

Objectives We investigated the utility of regular radiological follow-up on the early detection of contralateral breast cancer(CBC) and prognosis in patients with metachronous bilateral breast cancer. Methods Between 1983 and 2010, 49(2.1%) metachronous bilateral breast cancer patients were identified among a total of 2,343 cases of invasive or in situ breast carcinomas. We reviewed the patients' medical records including age, stage, duration between the first and second breast cancer diagnosis, operation method, recurrence, and breast cancer-specific survival. Results The mean ages at the first and second breast cancer diagnosis were 43.8 and 49.2 years, respectively. The mean duration between the first and second breast cancer diagnosis was 68.9 months (range, 7–266 months). Regular radiological follow-up with annual mammography(MMG) with or without ultrasonography was conducted in 28 patients (63.6%, Group 1), and no regular follow-up was performed in 12 patients (27.3%, Group 2). The median follow-up duration was 150 months. In a comparative analysis, Group 1 patients exhibited more stage 0 and stage 1 malignancies (82.1% vs. 25%, P =0.006) as second cancer and the same or an improved stage (71.4% vs. 33.3%, P =0.042) of second cancer compared to Group 2 patients. Breast cancer-specific survival rates between the two groups after the first cancer occurrence were higher in Group 1 patients compared to Group 2 patients, although this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion Screening for CBC with regular radiological follow-up could result in early detection of CBC, less invasive surgical procedures, and enhanced breast cancer-specific survival outcomes.

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.

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.

Risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery in BRCA mutation carriers, a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes results in an elevated risk for developing both breast and ovarian cancers over the lifetime of affected carriers. General surgeons may be faced with questions about surgical risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using the electronic databases PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, and Scopus comparing prophylactic surgery vs observation with respect to breast and ovarian cancer risk reduction and mortality in BRCA mutation carriers.

RESULTS

Bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy provides a 90% to 95% risk reduction in BRCA mutation carriers, although the data do not demonstrate improved mortality. The reduction in ovarian and breast cancer risks using risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has translated to improvement in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical management of patients at increased risk for breast cancer requires consideration of risk, patient preference, and quality of life.

Intensive breast screening in BRCA2 mutation carriers is associated with reduced breast cancer specific and all cause mortality

Background

The addition of annual MRI screening to mammography has heightened optimism that intensive screening along with improved treatments may substantially improve life expectancy of women at high risk of breast cancer. However, survival data from BRCA2 mutation carriers undergoing intensive combined breast screening are scarce.

Methods

We have collated the results of screening with either annual mammography or mammography with MRI in female BRCA2 mutation carriers in Manchester and Oslo and use a Manchester control group of BRCA2 mutation carriers who had their first breast cancer diagnosed without intensive screening.

Results

Eighty-seven BRCA2 mutation carriers had undergone combined (n = 34) or mammography (n = 53) screening compared to 274 without such intensive screening. Ten year breast cancer specific survival was 100 % in the combined group (95 % CI 82.5–100 %) and 85.5 % (95 % CI 72.6–98.4 %) in the mammography group compared to 74.6 % (95 % CI 66.6–82.6 %) in the control group. Better survival was driven by lymph node status (negative in 67 % of screened vs 39 % of unscreened women; p < 0.001) and a significantly greater proportion of intensively screened women had invasive breast cancers <2 cm at diagnosis (74.6 % vs 50.4 %; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Intensive combined breast cancer screening with annual MRI and mammography appears to improve survival from breast cancer in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Data from larger groups are required to confirm the effectiveness of combined screening in BRCA2 carriers.

Effectiveness of Prophylactic Surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically investigate the effectiveness of prophylactic surgeries (PS) implemented in women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The PubMed database was searched till August 2014 and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Fixed- or random-effects models were conducted according to study heterogeneity. We calculated the pooled relative risks (RR) for cancer risk or mortality along with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (PBSO) and bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) were both associated with a decreased breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (RR, 0.552; 95% CI, 0.448-0.682; RR, 0.114; 95% CI, 0.041-0.317, respectively). Similar findings were observed in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers separately. Moreover, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) significantly decreased contralateral breast cancer incidence in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (RR, 0.072; 95% CI, 0.035-0.148). Of note, PBSO was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers without breast cancer (HR, 0.349; 95% CI, 0.190-0.639) and those with breast cancer (HR, 0.432; 95% CI, 0.318-0.588). In addition, all-cause mortality was significantly lower for patients with CPM than those without (HR, 0.512; 95% CI, 0.368-0.714). However, BPM was not significantly associated with reduced all-cause mortality. Data were insufficient to obtain separate estimates of survival benefit with PS in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who have been treated with PS have a substantially reduced breast cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Cancer Res; 22(15); 3971-81. ©2016 AACR.

The Angelina Jolie Effect in Jewish Law: Prophylactic Mastectomy and Oophorectomy in BRCA Carriers

BACKGROUND

Following the announcement of actress Angelina Jolie's prophylactic bilateral mastectomies and subsequent prophylactic oophorectomy, there has been a dramatic increase in interest in BRCA testing and prophylactic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To review current medical literature on the benefits of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy among BRCA-positive women and its permissibility under Jewish law.

RESULTS

Recent literature suggests that in BRCA-positive women who undergo prophylactic oophorectomy the risk of dying of breast cancer is reduced by 90%, the risk of dying of ovarian cancer is reduced by 95%, and the risk of dying of any cause is reduced by 77%. The risk of breast cancer is further reduced by prophylactic mastectomy. Prophylactic oophorectomy and prophylactic mastectomy pose several challenges within Jewish law that call into question the permissibility of surgery, including mutilation of a healthy organ, termination of fertility, self-wounding, and castration. A growing number of Jewish legal scholars have found grounds to permit prophylactic surgery among BRCA carriers, with some even obligating prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy.

CONCLUSION

Current data suggest a significant reduction in mortality from prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA carriers. While mutilation of healthy organs is intrinsically forbidden in Jewish law, the ability to preserve human life may contravene and even mandate prophylactic surgery.

BRCA1/2 testing in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients without prior genetic counselling: the DNA-BONus study

Germline BRCA1/2 testing of breast and ovarian cancer patients is growing rapidly as the result affects both treatment and cancer prevention in patients and relatives. Through the DNA-BONus study we offered BRCA1/2 testing and familial risk assessment to all new patients with breast (N=893) or ovarian (N=122) cancer diagnosed between September 2012 and April 2015, irrespective of family history or age, and without prior face-to-face genetic counselling. BRCA1/2 testing was accepted by 405 (45.4%) and 83 (68.0%) of the patients with breast or ovarian cancer, respectively. A pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant was found in 7 (1.7%) of the breast cancer patients and 19 (22.3%) of the ovarian cancer patients. In retrospect, all BRCA1/2 mutation carriers appeared to fulfill current criteria for BRCA1/2 testing. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores showed that the mean levels of anxiety and depression were comparable to those reported for breast and gynecological cancer patients in general, with a significant drop in anxiety symptoms during a 6-month follow-up period, during which the test result was forwarded to the patients. These results show that BRCA1/2 testing is well accepted in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients. Current test criteria based on age and family history are sufficient to identify most BRCA1/2 mutation carriers among breast cancer patients. We recommend germline BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer because of the high prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants.

Clinical management of women at high risk of breast cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the evidence that underpins breast cancer screening and prevention strategies for women at high risk of the disease, with a particular focus on evidence published in the last 18 months. The review is timely because the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have recently updated relevant guidelines that inform practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the recently published literature, there have been several important findings. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), along with the first results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II trial, further support the use of SERMs and aromatase inhibitors in the primary prevention of breast cancer. A large observational study has provided evidence that the SERM tamoxifen may be efficacious for breast cancer prevention in women who carry mutations in the breast cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Several observational studies have suggested that contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, following a diagnosis of breast cancer, may reduce mortality.

SUMMARY

Evidence regarding the optimal management of women at high risk of breast cancer continues to evolve and needs to be rapidly implemented into clinical practice.

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.

The evolution of cancer surgery and future perspectives

Surgery is the oldest oncological discipline, dating back thousands of years. Prior to the advent of anaesthesia and antisepsis 150 years ago, only the brave, desperate, or ill-advised patient underwent surgery because cure rates were low, and morbidity and mortality high. However, since then, cancer surgery has flourished, driven by relentless technical innovation and research. Historically, the mantra of the cancer surgeon was that increasingly radical surgery would enhance cure rates. The past 50 years have seen a paradigm shift, with the realization that multimodal therapy, technological advances, and minimally invasive techniques can reduce the need for, or the detrimental effects of, radical surgery. Preservation of form, function, and quality of life, without compromising survival, is the new mantra. Today's surgeons, no longer the uneducated technicians of history, are highly trained medical professionals and together with oncologists, radiologists, scientists, anaesthetists and nurses, have made cancer surgeries routine, safe, and highly effective. This article will review the major advances that have underpinned this evolution.