Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: A Step-Wise Approach for Primary Care Providers on the Front Lines of Shared Decision Making

Identification of barriers at the primary care provider level to improve inflammatory breast cancer diagnosis and management

The purpose of this study, based in the United States, was to evaluate knowledge gaps and barriers related to diagnosis and care of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare but lethal breast cancer subtype, amongst Primary Care Providers (PCP) as they are often the first point of contact when patients notice initial symptoms. PCP participants in the Duke University Health System, federally qualified health center, corporate employee health and community practices, nearby academic medical center, Duke physician assistant and advanced practice nurse leadership program alumni were first selected in a convenience sample and for semi-structured interviews (n = 11). Based on these data, an online survey tool was developed and disseminated (n = 78) to assess salient measures of IBC diagnosis, health disparity factors, referral and care coordination practices, COVID-19 impact, and continuing medical education (CME). PCP reported access to care and knowledge gaps in symptom recognition (mean = 3.3, range 1-7) as major barriers. Only 31 % reported ever suspecting IBC in a patient. PCP (n = 49) responded being challenged with referral delays in diagnostic imaging. Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic started, 63 % reported breast cancer referral delays, and 33 % reported diagnosing less breast cancer. PCP stated interest in CME in their practice for improved diagnosis and patient care, which included online (53 %), lunch time or other in-service training (33 %), patient and provider-facing websites (32 %). Challenges communicating rare cancer information, gaps in confidence in diagnosing IBC, and timely follow-up with patients and specialists underscores the need for developing PCP educational modules to improve guideline-concordant care.

Screening Programs for Breast Cancer: Toward Individualized, Risk-Adapted Strategies of Early Detection

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) comprises two approaches: screening of asymptomatic women in a specified target population at risk (usually a target age range for women at average risk), and early diagnosis for women with BC signs and symptoms. Screening for BC is a key health intervention for early detection. While population-based screening programs have been implemented for age-selected women, the pivotal clinical trials have not addressed the global utility nor the improvement of screening performance by utilizing more refined parameters for patient eligibility, such as individualized risk stratification. In addition, with the exception of the subset of women known to carry germline pathogenetic mutations in (high- or moderately-penetrant) cancer predisposition genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, there has been less success in outreach and service provision for the unaffected relatives of women found to carry a high-risk mutation (i.e., "cascade testing") as it is in these individuals for whom such actionable information can result in cancers (and/or cancer deaths) being averted. Moreover, even in the absence of clinical cancer genetics services, as is the case for the immediate and at least near-term in most countries globally, the capacity to stratify the risk of an individual to develop BC has existed for many years, is available for free online at various sites/platforms, and is increasingly being validated for non-Caucasian populations. Ultimately, a precision approach to BC screening is largely missing. In the present chapter, we aim to address the concept of risk-adapted screening of BC, in multiple facets, and understand if there is a value in the implementation of adapted screening strategies in selected women, outside the established screening prescriptions, in the terms of age-range, screening modality and schedules of imaging.

Assessing Knowledge and Barriers at the Primary Care Provider Level that Contribute to Disparities in Inflammatory Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate knowledge gaps and barriers related to diagnosis and care of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare but most lethal breast cancer subtype, amongst Primary Care Providers (PCP) as they are often the first point of contact when patients notice initial symptoms.

Methods

PCP participants within Duke University Health System, federally qualified health center, corporate employee health and community practices, nearby academic medical center, Duke physician assistant, and nurse leadership program alumni were first selected in a convenience sample (n=11) for semi-structured interviews (n=11). Based on these data, an online survey tool was developed and disseminated (n=78) to assess salient measures of IBC diagnosis, health disparity factors, referral and care coordination practices, COVID impact, and continued medical education (CME).

Results

PCP reported access to care and knowledge gaps in symptom recognition (mean = 3.3, range 1-7) as major barriers. Only 31% reported ever suspecting IBC in a patient. PCP (n=49) responded being challenged with referral delays in diagnostic imaging. Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic started, 63% reported breast cancer referral delays, and 33% reported diagnosing less breast cancer. PCP stated interest in CME in their practice for improved diagnosis and patient care, which included online (53%), lunch time or other in-service training (33%), patient and provider-facing websites (32%).

Conclusions

Challenges communicating rare cancer information, gaps in confidence in diagnosing IBC, and timely follow-up with patients and specialists underscores the need for developing PCP educational modules to improve guideline-concordant care.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Primary care physician referral practices regarding BRCA1/2 genetic counseling in a major health system

PURPOSE

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends primary care physicians refer patients at high risk for BRCA1/2 mutations to genetic testing when appropriate. The objective of our study was to describe referrals for BRCA1/2 testing in a large integrated health system and to assess factors associated with referral.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes female patients between 18 and 50 years who had a primary care visit in the Cleveland Clinic Health System between 2010 and 2019. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate differences in the odds of a woman being referred for BRCA1/2 testing by patient factors and referring physician specialty. We also assessed variation in referrals by physicians.

RESULTS

Among 279,568 women, 5% were high risk. Of those, 22% were referred for testing. Black patients were significantly less likely to be referred than white patients (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77, 0.98) and Jewish patients were more likely to be referred than non-Jewish patients (aOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.68, 2.70). Patients primarily managed by OB/GYN were significantly more likely to be referred than those cared for via Internal/Family Medicine (aOR 1.45; 95% CI 1.30, 1.61). Less than a quarter of primary care physicians ever referred a patient for testing.

CONCLUSION

The majority of primary care patients at high risk for a BRCA1/2 mutation were not referred for testing, and over a decade, most physicians never referred a single patient. Internal/Family Medicine physicians, in particular, need support in identifying and referring women who could benefit from testing.

Aberrant epigenetic and transcriptional events associated with breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND

Genome-wide association studies have identified several breast cancer susceptibility loci. However, biomarkers for risk assessment are still missing. Here, we investigated cancer-related molecular changes detected in tissues from women at high risk for breast cancer prior to disease manifestation. Disease-free breast tissue cores donated by healthy women (N = 146, median age = 39 years) were processed for both methylome (MethylCap) and transcriptome (Illumina's HiSeq4000) sequencing. Analysis of tissue microarray and primary breast epithelial cells was used to confirm gene expression dysregulation.

RESULTS

Transcriptomic analysis identified 69 differentially expressed genes between women at high and those at average risk of breast cancer (Tyrer-Cuzick model) at FDR < 0.05 and fold change ≥ 2. Majority of the identified genes were involved in DNA damage checkpoint, cell cycle, and cell adhesion. Two genes, FAM83A and NEK2, were overexpressed in tissue sections (FDR < 0.01) and primary epithelial cells (p < 0.05) from high-risk breasts. Moreover, 1698 DNA methylation changes were identified in high-risk breast tissues (FDR < 0.05), partially overlapped with cancer-related signatures, and correlated with transcriptional changes (p < 0.05, r ≤ 0.5). Finally, among the participants, 35 women donated breast biopsies at two time points, and age-related molecular alterations enhanced in high-risk subjects were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Normal breast tissue from women at high risk of breast cancer bears molecular aberrations that may contribute to breast cancer susceptibility. This study is the first molecular characterization of the true normal breast tissues, and provides an opportunity to investigate molecular markers of breast cancer risk, which may lead to new preventive approaches.

Variation in Breast Cancer Risk Model Estimates Among Women in Their 40s Seen in Primary Care

Background: The Gail, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are recommended for use in primary care. Calculating breast cancer risk is particularly important for women in their 40s when deciding on mammography, with some guidelines recommending screening for those with 5-year risk similar to women age 50 (≥1.1%). Yet, little is known about risk estimate agreement among models for these women. Materials and Methods: Four hundred nine Boston-area women 40-49 years of age completed a risk questionnaire before a primary care visit to compute their breast cancer risk. The kappa statistic was used to examine when (1) Gail and BCSC agreed on 5-year risk ≥1.1%; (2) Gail estimated 5-year risk ≥1.7% and Tyrer-Cuzick estimated 10-year risk ≥5% (guideline thresholds for recommending prevention medications); and when (3) Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick agreed on lifetime risk ≥20% (threshold for breast MRI using Tyrer-Cuzick). Results: Participant mean age was 44.1 years, 56.7% were non-Hispanic white, and 7.8% had a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Of 266 with breast density information to estimate both Gail and BCSC, the models agreed on 5-year risk being ≥1.1% for 36 women, kappa = 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.45). Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick estimates led to agreement about prevention medications for 8 women, kappa 0.41 (0.20-0.61), and models agreed on lifetime risk ≥20% for 3 women, kappa 0.08 (-0.01 to 0.16). Conclusions: There is weak agreement on breast cancer risk estimates generated by risk models recommended for primary care. Using different models may lead to different clinical recommendations for women in their 40s.

Screening Mammography Recovery After COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Closures: Associations of Facility Access and Racial and Ethnic Screening Disparities

Background: Screening mammography facilities closed during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. Recovery of screening volumes has varied across patient subgroups and facilities. Objective: We compared screening mammography volumes, as well as patient and facility characteristics, between pre-COVID-19 periods and early and later post-closure recovery periods. Methods: This retrospective study included screening mammograms performed in the same 2-month period (May 26-July 26) in 2019 (pre-COVID-19), 2020 (early recovery) and 2021 (late recovery, following targeted interventions to expand access), across multiple facility types (urban, suburban, community health center). Suburban sites had highest proportion of White patients as well as greatest scheduling flexibility and expanded appointments during initial reopening. Findings were compared across years. Results: For White patients, volumes decreased 36.6% from 6550 in 2019 to 4384 in 2020, and then increased 61.0% to 6579 in 2021; for patients with races other than White, volumes decreased 53.9% from 1321 in 2019 to 609 in 2020, and then increased 136.8% to 1442 in 2021. Percentage of mammograms in patients with races other than White was 16.9% in 2019, 12.2% in 2020, and 18.0% in 2021. Proportion performed at the urban center was 55.3% in 2019, 42.2% in 2020, and 45.9% in 2021; proportion at suburban sites was 34.0% in 2019, 49.2% in 2020, and 43.5% in 2021. Pre-COVID-19 volumes were reached by the sixth week after reopening for suburban sites, but not reached during early recovery for other sites. Proportion performed on Saturdays for suburban sites was similar across periods, while for the urban site was 7.6% in 2019, 5.3% in 2020, and 8.8% in 2021; the community health center did not offer Saturday appointments during recovery. Conclusion: After reopening, screening shifted from urban to suburban settings, with disproportionate screening decrease in patients with races other than White. Initial delayed access at facilities serving underserved populations exacerbated disparities. Interventions to expand access resulted in late recovery volumes exceeding prepandemic volumes in patients with races other than White. Clinical Impact: Interventions to support equitable access across facilities serving diverse patient populations may mitigate potential widening disparities in breast cancer diagnosis during the pandemic.

Family history of breast cancer as a second primary malignancy in relatives: a nationwide cohort study

Background

With the increasing number of breast cancer (BC) diagnosed as a second primary malignancy after a first primary non-breast cancer (BCa-2), it is unclear about the familial risk of BC among women with a first-degree relative (FDR, parents or siblings) affected by a BCa-2.

Methods

In this Swedish nationwide cohort study, 5315 women with a FDR affected by BCa-2 and 115,048 women with a FDR affected by BC as the first primary cancer (BCa-1) were followed for the first primary invasive BC diagnosis. Relative risk (RR) of BC was estimated through Poisson regression by using 2,743,777 women without a family history of cancer as reference. The risk was stratified by the diagnostic age of BC in FDR, proband type, the time interval between the first primary cancer and BCa-2 in FDR as well as the site of first primary cancer diagnosed in FDR before BCa-2. We also calculated the cumulative incidence of BC from birth to a specific age for the three groups.

Results

The cumulative incidence from birth to age 70 was 10% among women with a family history of BCa-2. The RR of BC with a family history of BCa-2 (RR, 1.68, 95%CI, 1.49 to 1.88) was comparable to that with BCa-1 (1.68, 1.63 to 1.73). The risk was largely consistent irrespective of proband type. The age of onset of BCa-2 in FDR (RR _early-onset, 1.72 vs. RR _late-onset 1.67) had less influence on the risk compared to BCa-1 in FDR (1.89 vs. 1.63). In the analysis stratified by the time between the first primary cancer and BCa-2 in relatives, the risks were largely similar. For the site of first primary cancer diagnosed in FDR before BCa-2, the increased BC risk was found in women whose FDRs were diagnosed with first primary gastric, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, nervous system and endocrine gland cancers, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Conclusions

Women with a family history of BCa-2 have a similar overall BC risk as those with a family history of BCa-1. The risk varied according to the site of first primary cancer diagnosed in FDR before BCa-2.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08925-y.