MRI and mammography surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer: recommendations using an evidence-based approach

High Risk Breast Cancer Screening is a Double Edged Sword: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on the Ontario High Risk Breast Cancer Screening Program

BACKGROUND

MRI-based breast cancer screening for high-risk women has been associated with false positives. This study explored the benefits and drawbacks of MRI-based screening using in-depth patient interviews.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study of interviews with women participating in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. Women enrolled at two centers who had completed at least one round of screening were invited to participate. Recruitment was suspended when thematic saturation was reached. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Emergent themes were identified and a coding framework established.

RESULTS

21 women (median age 41 years) participated in telephone interviews. Women had been in the program a median of 4 years (IQR 1-5), and 71% had experienced at least one abnormal screen. Eight participants (38%) had undergone biopsies. Six women (29%) were BRCA mutation carriers. MRIs were described as intimidating, uncomfortable, and claustrophobic. Participants were concerned about long-term exposure to gadolinium contrast. Compared to MRI, mammography alone was viewed as painful, less sensitive, and a "useless…waste of time." MRI provided a "psychological safety net" that outweighed the distress associated with abnormal screens. Many women accepted this trade-off as a "two-edged sword" that was "worth it" and provided a sense of control. Suggestions for improvement included more information regarding the risks of MRI, and access to counselling.

CONCLUSIONS

Women participating in MRI-based screening strongly value reassurance from a highly sensitive screening test. This outweighed the distress of abnormal screens. There are areas for improvement around patient communication and psychosocial support.

Psychological consequences of MRI-based screening among women with strong family histories of breast cancer

PURPOSE

MRI-based screening in women with a ≥ 25% lifetime risk of breast cancer , but no identifiable genetic mutations may be associated with false positives. This study examined the psychological impact of abnormal screens and biopsies in non-mutation carriers participating in high-risk screening with no personal history of breast cancer.

METHODS

Non-mutation carriers participating in the High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program at two sites were mailed demographic surveys, psychological scales, and chart review consent. Scales included the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer questionnaire, Lerman Breast Cancer Worry Scale, and Worry Interference Scale. Missing data were managed with multiple imputation. Multivariable regression was used to assess whether abnormal screens or biopsies were associated with adverse psychological effects.

RESULTS

After contacting 465 participants, 169 non-mutation carriers were included. Median age was 46 years (range 30-65). Over a median 3 years of screening, 63.9% of women experienced at least one abnormal screen, and 24.9% underwent biopsies. Statements relating to cancer worry/anxiety scored highest, with 19.5% indicating they worried "a lot". Higher scores among anxiety-related statements were strongly associated with higher dejection scores. Overall, coping and daily functioning were preserved. Women indicated some positive reactions to screening, including improved existential values and reassurance they do not have breast cancer. Abnormal screens and biopsies were not significantly associated with any psychological scale, even after adjustment for patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Non-mutation carriers undergoing MRI-based screening had considerable baseline anxiety and cancer worry, although daily functioning was not impaired. Abnormal screens and biopsies did not appear to have adverse psychological effects.

Abnormal screens among nonmutation carriers in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program

BACKGROUND

The Ontario Breast Screening Program was expanded in 2011 to offer annual MRI and mammography to women with high-risk genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2) and women with strong family histories and ≥25% estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer. Data to support high-risk screening is less clear in the nonmutation carrier group, as MRI has lower specificity among this population. The potential unintended consequences may be considerable and need to be explored. We aimed to describe the frequency of abnormal screens and biopsies.

METHODS

Demographic surveys and chart review consent were sent to a sample of 441 individuals enrolled in a high-risk screening program at two tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Retrospective cross-sectional chart review was undertaken for clinicopathologic data. The frequencies of abnormal screens and biopsies were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine nonmutation carriers were included. The majority were white, employed, and highly educated. The median International Breast Cancer Intervention Study lifetime risk of breast cancer was 28.0% (range 24.5%-89.0%). 108 individuals (64%) experienced at least 1 abnormal screen and 13 (8%) had 3 or more over a median 3 years of screening (range 1-6 years). Of 55 biopsies, 3 (5.5%) were malignant. The cancer detection rate was 8.4/1000 screens (95% CI 3.2-22.4).

CONCLUSIONS

An MRI-based screening program for nonmutation carriers was effective at diagnosing breast cancer. However, this population experienced a high rate of abnormal screens and intervention. Further research is needed to improve the performance of MRI-based screening in these women.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Problem-Solving MR Imaging for Equivocal Imaging Findings and Indeterminate Clinical Symptoms of the Breast

Breast MR imaging is commonly used for high-risk screening and for assessing the extent of disease in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, but its utility for assessing suspicious symptoms and equivocal imaging findings is less widely accepted. The authors review current literature and guidelines regarding the use of breast MR imaging for these indications. Overall, problem-solving breast MR imaging is best reserved for pathologic nipple discharge and sonographically occult architectural distortion with limited biopsy options. Further study is necessary to define the role of problem-solving MR imaging for calcifications, mammographic asymmetries, and surgical scarring.

The Potential Contribution of BRCA Mutations to Early Onset and Familial Breast Cancer in Uzbekistan

Introuduction:

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women and affects approximately 1 out of 8 females in the US. Risk of developing breast cancer is strongly influenced by genetic factors. Germ-line mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with 5–10% of breast cancer incidence. To reduce the risk of developing cancer and to increase the likelihood of early detection, carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are offered surveillance programs and effective preventive medical interventions. Identification of founder mutations of BRCA1/2 in high risk communities can have a significant impact on the management of hereditary cancer at the level of the national healthcare systems, making genetic testing more affordable and cost-effective. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in breast cancer patients have not been characterized in the Uzbek population. This pilot study aimed to investigate the contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation to early onset and familial cases of breast cancer in Uzbekistan.

Methods:

A total of 67 patients with breast cancer and 103 age-matched disease free controls were included in this study. Utilizing SYBR Green based real-time allele-specific PCR, we have analyzed DNA samples of patients with breast cancer and disease free controls to identify the following BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: BRCA1 5382insC, BRCA1 4153delA, BRCA1 185delAG, BRCA1 300T>G, BRCA2 6174delT.

Results:

Three unrelated samples (4.5%) were found to be positive for the heterozygous 5382insCBRCA1 mutation, representing a possible founder mutation in the Uzbek population, supporting the need for larger studies examining the contribution of this mutation to breast cancer incidence in Uzbekistan. We did not find BRCA1 4153delA, BRCA1 185delAG, BRCA1 300T>G, and BRCA2 6174delT mutations.

Conclusion:

This preliminary evidence suggests a potential contribution of BRCA1 5382insC mutation to breast cancer development in Uzbek population. Taking into account a high disease penetrance in carriers of BRCA1 mutation, it seems reasonable to recommend inclusion of the 5382insC mutation test in future research on the development of screening programs for breast cancer prevention in Uzbekistan.

Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) in cancer: Technique, analysis, and applications

Tissue mechanical properties are significantly altered with the development of cancer. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a noninvasive technique capable of quantifying tissue mechanical properties in vivo. This review describes the basic principles of MRE and introduces some of the many promising MRE methods that have been developed for the detection and characterization of cancer, evaluation of response to therapy, and investigation of the underlying mechanical mechanisms associated with malignancy.

Screening MR imaging versus screening ultrasound: pros and cons

Data support greater sensitivity of MR imaging compared with mammography and ultrasound in high-risk populations, in particular BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 carriers. Screening ultrasound improves cancer yield versus mammography alone in high-risk patients and in patients with dense breasts and is less expensive. Drawbacks include low positive predictive value, operator dependence, and significant physician time expenditure. Advances, such as refinement of automated whole-breast ultrasound, new outcomes data from ultrasound-detected masses in BI-RADS 3 and 4a categories, and development of new MR imaging sequences that allow rapid screening, potentially without use of contrast, will likely reveal the most appropriate tool over time.

Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial)

Interval cancers (ICs), defined as cancers detected between regular screening mammograms, have been shown to be of higher grade, larger size, and associated with lower survival, compared with screen-detected cancers (SDCs) and comprise 17% of cancers from population-based screening programs. We sought to determine the frequency of ICs in a study of locally advanced breast cancers, the I-SPY 1 TRIAL. Screening was defined as having a mammogram with 2 years, and the proportion of ICs at 1 and 2 years was calculated for screened patients. Differences in clinical characteristics for ICs versus SDCs and screened versus non-screened cancers were assessed. For the 219 evaluable women, mean tumor size was 6.8 cm. Overall, 80% of women were over 40 and eligible for screening; however, only 31% were getting screened. Among women screened, 85% were ICs, with 68% diagnosed within 1 year of a previously normal mammogram. ICs were of higher grade (49% vs. 10%) than SDCs. Among non-screened women, 28% (43/152) were younger than the recommended screening age of 40. Of the entire cohort, 12% of cancers were mammographically occult (MO); the frequency of MO cancers did not differ between screened (11%) and non-screened (15%). ICs were common in the I-SPY 1 TRIAL suggesting the potential need for new approaches beyond traditional screening to reduce mortality in women who present with larger palpable cancers.

Clinicogenetic care of women of BRCA mutation carrier women: prevention, diagnosis and therapy

Predictive genetics opens a considerable perspective in the diagnostics as well as the treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. Current recommendations and guidelines for the management of BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers are not based on controlled randomized trials, but on expert opinions. The existing options of prevention, early diagnosis and treatment must be clearly interpreted to the patient. In the context of a dedicated genetic counseling the participation of all involved professionals (geneticist, oncologist, surgeon, gynecologist) is required. The decision-making process concerning the possibilities of prevention, diagnosis and treatment is always deeply influenced by the patient’s own experience with the cancer occurred in the family, as well as by her values and expectations of life. The focused multidisciplinary approach, with the application of results from prospective studies in cohorts of BRCA mutation carriers allow the concerned individuals to benefit from this kind of approach of medical treatment. Orv. Hetil., 2011, 152, 913–918.

Significant differences among physician specialties in management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has published guidelines for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) management. Little data exist on compliance with these guidelines among different physician specialties. We performed an on-line case-based survey by randomly sampling physicians from five specialties, Family Medicine (FM), Obstetrics and Gynecology (OG), General Surgery (GS), Internal Medicine (IM), and Hematology and Oncology (HO). The physicians (n = 225) were asked to provide HBOCS management of healthy women ages 40-42 in the presence of a familial BRCA1 mutation. For women negative for the BRCA1 mutation, 59% of the physicians recommended appropriate surveillance although with significant differences among specialties; P = 0.01. Using an aggregate screening intensity score, physicians clearly recommended more intense screening for mutation positive than negative women (P < 0.0001), but only 16% of physicians followed NCCN guidelines for BRCA1-positive women. Seventy-six percent of all physicians recommended breast MRI with significant variation among specialties ranging from 62% of FM to 89% of OG (P = 0.0020). Similarly, 63% of physicians recommended prophylactic oophorectomy, with 76 and 78% of GS and OG compared to 38% of IM (P < 0.0001) and 57% recommended prophylactic mastectomy ranging from 84% of HO to 32% of FM (P < 0.0001). Independent of specialty, respondents with BRCA testing experience recommended more intense management than those without; P = 0.021. Management recommendations of BRCA1 mutation carriers are not consistent with NCCN guidelines and vary by medical specialty and genetic testing experience. Targeted education of physicians by specialty is needed, so that optimal management is offered to these high-risk women.

Risk-reducing strategies for women carrying BRCA1/2 mutations with a focus on prophylactic surgery

Background

Women who have inherited mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have substantially elevated risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Mutation carriers have various options, including extensive and regular surveillance, chemoprevention and risk-reducing surgery. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date analysis and to subsequently summarise the available literature in relation to risk-reducing strategies, with a keen focus on prophylactic surgery.

Methods

The literature review is facilitated by Medline and PubMed databases. The cross-referencing of the obtained articles was used to identify other relevant studies.

Results

Prophylactic surgery (bilateral mastectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or a combination of both procedures) has proved to be the most effective risk-reducing strategy. There are no randomised controlled trials able to demonstrate the potential benefits or harms of prophylactic surgery; therefore, the evidence has been derived from retrospective and short follow-up prospective studies, in addition to hypothetical mathematical models.

Based on the current knowledge, it is reasonable to recommend prophylactic oophorectomy for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers when childbearing is completed in order to reduce the risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. In addition, women should be offered the options of rigorous breast surveillance, chemoprevention with anti-oestrogens--especially for carriers of BRCA2--or bilateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Conclusion

The selection of the most appropriate risk-reducing strategy is not a straightforward task. The impact of risk-reducing strategies on cancer risk, survival, and overall quality of life are the key criteria considered for decision-making. Notably, various other factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating individual mutation carriers' individual circumstances, namely woman's age, morbidity, type of mutation, and individual preferences and expectations.

Although prospective randomised controlled trials concerned with examining the various interventions in relation to the woman's age and type of mutation are needed, randomisation is extremely difficult and rather deemed unethical given the current available evidence from retrospective studies.

The Clinical Significance of Unknown Sequence Variants in BRCA Genes

Germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes are responsible for a large proportion of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers. Many highly penetrant predisposition alleles have been identified and include frameshift or nonsense mutations that lead to the translation of a truncated protein. Other alleles contain missense mutations, which result in amino acid substitution and intronic variants with splicing effect. The discovery of variants of uncertain/unclassified significance (VUS) is a result that can complicate rather than improve the risk assessment process. VUSs are mainly missense mutations, but also include a number of intronic variants and in-frame deletions and insertions. Over 2,000 unique BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense variants have been identified, located throughout the whole gene (Breast Cancer Information Core Database (BIC database)). Up to 10-20% of the BRCA tests report the identification of a variant of uncertain significance. There are many methods to discriminate deleterious/high-risk from neutral/low-risk unclassified variants (i.e., analysis of the cosegregation in families of the VUS, measure of the influence of the VUSs on the wild-type protein activity, comparison of sequence conservation across multiple species), but only an integrated analysis of these methods can contribute to a real interpretation of the functional and clinical role of the discussed variants. The aim of our manuscript is to review the studies on BRCA VUS in order to clarify their clinical relevance.

Founder BRCA1/2 mutations in the Europe: implications for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer prevention and control

Detection of mutations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer-related BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is an effective method of cancer prevention and early detection. Different ethnic and geographical regions have different BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation spectrum and prevalence. Along with the emerging targeted therapy, demand and uptake for rapid BRCA1/2 mutations testing will increase in a near future. However, current patients selection and genetic testing strategies in most countries impose significant lag in this practice. The knowledge of the genetic structure of particular populations is important for the developing of effective screening protocol and may provide more efficient approach for the individualization of genetic testing. Elucidating of founder effect in BRCA1/2 genes can have an impact on the management of hereditary cancer families on a national and international healthcare system level, making genetic testing more affordable and cost-effective. The purpose of this review is to summarize current evidence about the BRCA1/2 founder mutations diversity in European populations.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group

The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rapidly increasing. EUSOMA organised a workshop in Milan on 20-21st October 2008 to evaluate the evidence currently available on clinical value and indications for breast MRI. Twenty-three experts from the disciplines involved in breast disease management - including epidemiologists, geneticists, oncologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons - discussed the evidence for the use of this technology in plenary and focused sessions. This paper presents the consensus reached by this working group. General recommendations, technical requirements, methodology, and interpretation were firstly considered. For the following ten indications, an overview of the evidence, a list of recommendations, and a number of research issues were defined: staging before treatment planning; screening of high-risk women; evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy; patients with breast augmentation or reconstruction; occult primary breast cancer; breast cancer recurrence; nipple discharge; characterisation of equivocal findings at conventional imaging; inflammatory breast cancer; and male breast. The working group strongly suggests that all breast cancer specialists cooperate for an optimal clinical use of this emerging technology and for future research, focusing on patient outcome as primary end-point.