1
|
Tüchler A, De Pauw A, Ernst C, Anota A, Lakeman IMM, Dick J, van der Stoep N, van Asperen CJ, Maringa M, Herold N, Blümcke B, Remy R, Westerhoff A, Stommel-Jenner DJ, Frouin E, Richters L, Golmard L, Kütting N, Colas C, Wappenschmidt B, Rhiem K, Devilee P, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Schmutzler RK, Hahnen E. Clinical implications of incorporating genetic and non-genetic risk factors in CanRisk-based breast cancer risk prediction. Breast 2024; 73:103615. [PMID: 38061307 PMCID: PMC10749276 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.103615] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2023] [Revised: 11/24/2023] [Accepted: 11/26/2023] [Indexed: 12/28/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation with polygenic risk score (PRS) and non-genetic risk factor (NGRFs) data affects individual intensified breast surveillance (IBS) recommendations according to European guidelines. METHODS For 425 cancer-free women with cancer FH (mean age 40·6 years, range 21-74), recruited in France, Germany and the Netherlands, germline PV status, NGRFs, and a 306 variant-based PRS (PRS306) were assessed to calculate estimated lifetime risks (eLTR) and estimated 10-year risks (e10YR) using CanRisk. The proportions of women changing country-specific European risk categories for IBS recommendations, i.e. ≥20 % and ≥30 % eLTR, or ≥5 % e10YR were determined. FINDINGS Of the women with non-informative PV status, including PRS306 and NGRFs changed clinical recommendations for 31·0 %, (57/184, 20 % eLTR), 15·8 % (29/184, 30 % eLTR) and 22·4 % (41/183, 5 % e10YR), respectively whereas of the women tested negative for a PV observed in their family, clinical recommendations changed for 16·7 % (25/150), 1·3 % (2/150) and 9·5 % (14/147). No change was observed for 82 women with PVs in high-risk genes (BRCA1/2, PALB2). Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs identified BRCA1/2 PV carriers benefitting from IBS <30 years, and women tested non-informative/negative for whom IBS may be postponed. INTERPRETATION For women who tested non-informative/negative, PRS and NGRFs have a considerable impact on IBS recommendations. Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs allows personalizing IBS starting age. FUNDING Horizon 2020, German Cancer Aid, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Köln Fortune.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anja Tüchler
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Antoine De Pauw
- Institut Curie, Department of Genetics, Paris, France; Université PSL, Paris, France
| | - Corinna Ernst
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Amélie Anota
- Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Human and Social Sciences Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; French National Platform Quality of Life and Cancer, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Inge M M Lakeman
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Julia Dick
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nienke van der Stoep
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Monika Maringa
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Natalie Herold
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Britta Blümcke
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Robert Remy
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Anke Westerhoff
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Eléonore Frouin
- Université PSL, Paris, France; Clinical Bioinformatics Unit, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Lisa Richters
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lisa Golmard
- Institut Curie, Department of Genetics, Paris, France; Université PSL, Paris, France
| | - Nadine Kütting
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Chrystelle Colas
- Institut Curie, Department of Genetics, Paris, France; Université PSL, Paris, France; Institut Curie, Inserm U830, Paris, France
| | - Barbara Wappenschmidt
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Kerstin Rhiem
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet
- Institut Curie, Department of Genetics, Paris, France; Institut Curie, Inserm U830, Paris, France; Université Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Rita K Schmutzler
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Eric Hahnen
- Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian and Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Su YR, Sakoda LC, Jeon J, Thomas M, Lin Y, Schneider JL, Udaltsova N, Lee JK, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Peterse EF, Zauber AG, Zheng J, Zheng Y, Hauser E, Baron JA, Barry EL, Bishop DT, Brenner H, Buchanan DD, Burnett-Hartman A, Campbell PT, Casey G, Castellví-Bel S, Chan AT, Chang-Claude J, Figueiredo JC, Gallinger SJ, Giles GG, Gruber SB, Gsur A, Gunter MJ, Hampe J, Hampel H, Harrison TA, Hoffmeister M, Hua X, Huyghe JR, Jenkins MA, Keku TO, Le Marchand L, Li L, Lindblom A, Moreno V, Newcomb PA, Pharoah PDP, Platz EA, Potter JD, Qu C, Rennert G, Schoen RE, Slattery ML, Song M, van Duijnhoven FJB, Van Guelpen B, Vodicka P, Wolk A, Woods MO, Wu AH, Hayes RB, Peters U, Corley DA, Hsu L. Validation of a Genetic-Enhanced Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer in a Large Community-Based Cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023; 32:353-362. [PMID: 36622766 PMCID: PMC9992158 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-22-0817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2022] [Revised: 10/18/2022] [Accepted: 01/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Polygenic risk scores (PRS) which summarize individuals' genetic risk profile may enhance targeted colorectal cancer screening. A critical step towards clinical implementation is rigorous external validations in large community-based cohorts. This study externally validated a PRS-enhanced colorectal cancer risk model comprising 140 known colorectal cancer loci to provide a comprehensive assessment on prediction performance. METHODS The model was developed using 20,338 individuals and externally validated in a community-based cohort (n = 85,221). We validated predicted 5-year absolute colorectal cancer risk, including calibration using expected-to-observed case ratios (E/O) and calibration plots, and discriminatory accuracy using time-dependent AUC. The PRS-related improvement in AUC, sensitivity and specificity were assessed in individuals of age 45 to 74 years (screening-eligible age group) and 40 to 49 years with no endoscopy history (younger-age group). RESULTS In European-ancestral individuals, the predicted 5-year risk calibrated well [E/O = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-1.13] and had high discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.71-0.76). Adding the PRS to a model with age, sex, family and endoscopy history improved the 5-year AUC by 0.06 (P < 0.001) and 0.14 (P = 0.05) in the screening-eligible age and younger-age groups, respectively. Using a risk-threshold of 5-year SEER colorectal cancer incidence rate at age 50 years, adding the PRS had a similar sensitivity but improved the specificity by 11% (P < 0.001) in the screening-eligible age group. In the younger-age group it improved the sensitivity by 27% (P = 0.04) with similar specificity. CONCLUSIONS The proposed PRS-enhanced model provides a well-calibrated 5-year colorectal cancer risk prediction and improves discriminatory accuracy in the external cohort. IMPACT The proposed model has potential utility in risk-stratified colorectal cancer prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu-Ru Su
- Biostatistics Unit, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Lori C Sakoda
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA
- Department of Health Systems Science, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California, USA
| | - Jihyoun Jeon
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Minta Thomas
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Yi Lin
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jennifer L Schneider
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA
| | - Natalia Udaltsova
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA
| | - Jeffrey K Lee
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA
- Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elisabeth F.P. Peterse
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ann G Zauber
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jiayin Zheng
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Yingye Zheng
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Elizabeth Hauser
- VA Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - John A Baron
- Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Elizabeth L Barry
- Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA
| | - D Timothy Bishop
- Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Hermann Brenner
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Daniel D Buchanan
- Colorectal Oncogenomics Group, Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010 Australia
| | | | - Peter T Campbell
- Behavioral and Epidemiology Research Group, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| | - Graham Casey
- Center for Public Health Genomics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
| | - Sergi Castellví-Bel
- Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Clínic, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrew T Chan
- Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jane C Figueiredo
- Department of Medicine, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Steven J Gallinger
- Lunenfeld Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Graham G Giles
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephen B Gruber
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Andrea Gsur
- Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine I, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Marc J Gunter
- Nutrition and Metabolism Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Jochen Hampe
- Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden (TU Dresden), Dresden, Germany
| | - Heather Hampel
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Tabitha A Harrison
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Michael Hoffmeister
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Xinwei Hua
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jeroen R Huyghe
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Mark A Jenkins
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Temitope O Keku
- Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Li Li
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
| | - Annika Lindblom
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Victor Moreno
- Oncology Data Analytics Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology-IDIBELL, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Polly A Newcomb
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Elizabeth A Platz
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - John D Potter
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Conghui Qu
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Gad Rennert
- Department of Community Medicine and Epidemiology, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
| | - Robert E Schoen
- Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Martha L Slattery
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Mingyang Song
- Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Fränzel JB van Duijnhoven
- Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Bethany Van Guelpen
- Department of Radiation Sciences, Oncology Unit, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
- Wallenberg Centre for Molecular Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Pavel Vodicka
- Department of Molecular Biology of Cancer, Institute of Experimental Medicine of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
- Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Alicja Wolk
- Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Michael O Woods
- Memorial University of Newfoundland, Discipline of Genetics, St. John’s, Canada
| | - Anna H Wu
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Richard B Hayes
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ulrike Peters
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Douglas A Corley
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California, USA
| | - Li Hsu
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Epp J, Rajapakshe R. Breast cancer risk predictions by birth cohort and ethnicity in a population-based screening mammography program. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20211388. [PMID: 35762939 PMCID: PMC10162048 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211388] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2021] [Revised: 05/12/2022] [Accepted: 06/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To examine whether birth cohorts affect the risk of breast cancer for East Asian, First Nations, African, South Asian and Caucasian ethnicities in British Columbia (BC). METHODS We used Cox PH models adjusted for well-known risk factors, such as age, breast density, mammographic features on false positives, and family history, to examine risk of breast cancer among East Asian, First Nations, African and South Asian ethnicities, relative to Caucasian, across three birth cohorts. RESULTS There were 813,280 participants and 11,166 in situ and invasive breast cancer diagnoses. East Asians screened in BC were found to have a lower risk of breast cancer in the birth cohort born pre-1946 compared to Caucasian, but there was no statistically significant decrease for East Asians born after 1946. First Nations had an increased risk of breast cancer compared with Caucasian for all birth cohorts ranging from 1.1 to 2.0x the risk, which was statistically significant for those born after 1965. South Asians showed a statistically significant decrease in risk ranging from 0.58 to 0.81x lower compared with Caucasians for all birth cohorts. CONCLUSION Risk of breast cancer for South Asians living in BC was found to be lower than Caucasians for each birth cohort examined, while East Asians had a comparable risk of breast cancer, First Nations had a consistently higher risk than Caucasians. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE When accounting for birth cohort, compared to Caucasians, South Asians have a decreased risk, First Nations have an increased risk, and East Asians have a similar risk of breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joyce Epp
- BC Cancer – Kelowna, Kelowna, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lehman CD, Mercaldo S, Lamb LR, King TA, Ellisen LW, Specht M, Tamimi RM. Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:1355-1363. [PMID: 35876790 PMCID: PMC9552206 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2022] [Revised: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 07/01/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deep learning breast cancer risk models demonstrate improved accuracy compared with traditional risk models but have not been prospectively tested. We compared the accuracy of a deep learning risk score derived from the patient's prior mammogram to traditional risk scores to prospectively identify patients with cancer in a cohort due for screening. METHODS We collected data on 119 139 bilateral screening mammograms in 57 617 consecutive patients screened at 5 facilities between September 18, 2017, and February 1, 2021. Patient demographics were retrieved from electronic medical records, cancer outcomes determined through regional tumor registry linkage, and comparisons made across risk models using Wilcoxon and Pearson χ2 2-sided tests. Deep learning, Tyrer-Cuzick, and National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (NCI BCRAT) risk models were compared with respect to performance metrics and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS Cancers detected per thousand patients screened were higher in patients at increased risk by the deep learning model (8.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9 to 9.4) compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (4.4, 95% CI = 3.9 to 4.9) and NCI BCRAT (3.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 4.3) models (P < .001). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the deep learning model (0.68, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.70) was higher compared with Tyrer-Cuzick (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) and NCI BCRAT (0.57, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.60) models. Simulated screening of the top 50th percentile risk by the deep learning model captured statistically significantly more patients with cancer compared with Tyrer-Cuzick and NCI BCRAT models (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS A deep learning model to assess breast cancer risk can support feasible and effective risk-based screening and is superior to traditional models to identify patients destined to develop cancer in large screening cohorts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Constance D Lehman
- Correspondence to: Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General
Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Radiology, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA 02114 USA
(e-mail: )
| | - Sarah Mercaldo
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Radiology, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Leslie R Lamb
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Radiology, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Tari A King
- Harvard Medical School, Surgery, Boston, MA, USA,Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, MA,
USA
| | - Leif W Ellisen
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Michelle Specht
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA,Harvard Medical School, Surgery, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Weill Cornell Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health
Sciences, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kerlikowske K, Chen S, Golmakani MK, Sprague BL, Tice JA, Tosteson ANA, Rauscher GH, Henderson LM, Buist DSM, Lee JM, Gard CC, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:676-685. [PMID: 35026019 PMCID: PMC9086807 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djac008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2021] [Revised: 10/14/2021] [Accepted: 01/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Estimating advanced breast cancer risk in women undergoing annual or biennial mammography could identify women who may benefit from less or more intensive screening. We developed an actionable model to predict cumulative 6-year advanced cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) risk according to screening interval. METHODS We included 931 186 women aged 40-74 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium undergoing 2 542 382 annual (prior mammogram within 11-18 months) or 752 049 biennial (prior within 19-30 months) screening mammograms. The prediction model includes age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, breast density, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy subdivided by menopausal status and screening interval. We used fivefold cross-validation to internally validate model performance. We defined higher than 95th percentile as high risk (>0.658%), higher than 75th percentile to 95th or less percentile as intermediate risk (0.380%-0.658%), and 75th or less percentile as low to average risk (<0.380%). RESULTS Obesity, high breast density, and proliferative disease with atypia were strongly associated with advanced cancer. The model is well calibrated and has an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.682 (95% confidence interval = 0.670 to 0.694). Based on women's predicted advanced cancer risk under annual and biennial screening, 69.1% had low or average risk regardless of screening interval, 12.4% intermediate risk with biennial screening and average risk with annual screening, and 17.4% intermediate or high risk regardless of screening interval. CONCLUSION Most women have low or average advanced cancer risk and can undergo biennial screening. Intermediate-risk women may consider annual screening, and high-risk women may consider supplemental imaging in addition to annual screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karla Kerlikowske
- Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
- General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Shuai Chen
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
| | | | - Brian L Sprague
- Department of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Jeffrey A Tice
- Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Anna N A Tosteson
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA
- Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA
| | - Garth H Rauscher
- School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Louise M Henderson
- Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Diana S M Buist
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Janie M Lee
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Charlotte C Gard
- Department of Economics, Applied Statistics, and International Business, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
| | - Diana L Miglioretti
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sarki M, Ming C, Aissaoui S, Bürki N, Caiata-Zufferey M, Erlanger TE, Graffeo-Galbiati R, Heinimann K, Heinzelmann-Schwarz V, Monnerat C, Probst-Hensch N, Rabaglio M, Zürrer-Härdi U, Chappuis PO, Katapodi MC. Intention to Inform Relatives, Rates of Cascade Testing, and Preference for Patient-Mediated Communication in Families Concerned with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome: The Swiss CASCADE Cohort. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14071636. [PMID: 35406409 PMCID: PMC8997156 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14071636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Revised: 03/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Cascade screening for Tier 1 cancer genetic conditions is a significant public health intervention because it identifies untested relatives of individuals known to carry pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS). The Swiss CASCADE is a family-based, open-ended cohort, including carriers of HBOC- and LS-associated pathogenic variants and their relatives. This paper describes rates of cascade screening in relatives from HBOC- and LS- harboring families, examines carriers' preferences for communication of testing results, and describes theory-based predictors of intention to invite relatives to a cascade screening program. Information has been provided by 304 index cases and 115 relatives recruited from September 2017 to December 2021. On average, 10 relatives per index case were potentially eligible for cascade screening. Approximately 65% of respondents wanted to invite relatives to the cohort, and approximately 50% indicated a preference for patient-mediated communication of testing results, possibly with the assistance of digital technology. Intention to invite relatives was higher for first- compared to second- and third-degree relatives, but was not different between syndromes or based on relatives' gender. The family environment and carrying pathogenic variants predicts intention to invite relatives. Information helps optimize delivery of tailored genetic services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahesh Sarki
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; (M.S.); (C.M.)
| | - Chang Ming
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; (M.S.); (C.M.)
| | - Souria Aissaoui
- Breast Center, Cantonal Hospital Fribourg, 1752 Fribourg, Switzerland;
- GENESUPPORT, The Breast Centre, Hirslanden Clinique de Grangettes, 1224 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nicole Bürki
- Women’s Clinic, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland; (N.B.); (V.H.-S.)
| | - Maria Caiata-Zufferey
- Department of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, 6928 Manno, Switzerland;
| | | | | | - Karl Heinimann
- Institute for Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland;
- Research Group Human Genomics, Department of Biomedicine, University of Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
| | | | - Christian Monnerat
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital of Jura, 2800 Delemont, Switzerland;
| | - Nicole Probst-Hensch
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel, 4123 Allschwil, Switzerland;
| | - Manuela Rabaglio
- Department of Medical Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland;
| | - Ursina Zürrer-Härdi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland;
| | - Pierre Olivier Chappuis
- Unit of Oncogenetics, Division of Oncology, University Hospitals of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland;
- Division of Genetic Medicine, University Hospitals of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Maria C. Katapodi
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, 4055 Basel, Switzerland; (M.S.); (C.M.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +41-61-207-04-30
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kehm RD, MacInnis RJ, John EM, Liao Y, Kurian AW, Genkinger JM, Knight JA, Colonna SV, Chung WK, Milne R, Zeinomar N, Dite GS, Southey MC, Giles GG, McLachlan SA, Whitaker KD, Friedlander ML, Weideman PC, Glendon G, Nesci S, Phillips KA, Andrulis IL, Buys SS, Daly MB, Hopper JL, Terry MB. Recreational Physical Activity and Outcomes After Breast Cancer in Women at High Familial Risk. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkab090. [PMID: 34950851 PMCID: PMC8692829 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkab090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2021] [Revised: 09/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Recreational physical activity (RPA) is associated with improved survival after breast cancer (BC) in average-risk women, but evidence is limited for women who are at increased familial risk because of a BC family history or BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (BRCA1/2 PVs). Methods We estimated associations of RPA (self-reported average hours per week within 3 years of BC diagnosis) with all-cause mortality and second BC events (recurrence or new primary) after first invasive BC in women in the Prospective Family Study Cohort (n = 4610, diagnosed 1993-2011, aged 22-79 years at diagnosis). We fitted Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age at diagnosis, demographics, and lifestyle factors. We tested for multiplicative interactions (Wald test statistic for cross-product terms) and additive interactions (relative excess risk due to interaction) by age at diagnosis, body mass index, estrogen receptor status, stage at diagnosis, BRCA1/2 PVs, and familial risk score estimated from multigenerational pedigree data. Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results We observed 1212 deaths and 473 second BC events over a median follow-up from study enrollment of 11.0 and 10.5 years, respectively. After adjusting for covariates, RPA (any vs none) was associated with lower all-cause mortality of 16.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4% to 27.9%) overall, 11.8% (95% CI = -3.6% to 24.9%) in women without BRCA1/2 PVs, and 47.5% (95% CI = 17.4% to 66.6%) in women with BRCA1/2 PVs (RPA*BRCA1/2 multiplicative interaction P = .005; relative excess risk due to interaction = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.01 to 1.74). RPA was not associated with risk of second BC events. Conclusion Findings support that RPA is associated with lower all-cause mortality in women with BC, particularly in women with BRCA1/2 PVs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca D Kehm
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert J MacInnis
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Esther M John
- Department of Medicine and Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Yuyan Liao
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jeanine M Genkinger
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Julia A Knight
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sarah V Colonna
- Division of Medical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
- Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Roger Milne
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nur Zeinomar
- Cancer Epidemiology and Health Outcomes, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Gillian S Dite
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Melissa C Southey
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Graham G Giles
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sue-Anne McLachlan
- Department of Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Vincent’s Hospital, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kristen D Whitaker
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Michael L Friedlander
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Prue C Weideman
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Gord Glendon
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Stephanie Nesci
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kelly-Anne Phillips
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Irene L Andrulis
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Departments of Molecular Genetics and Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Saundra S Buys
- Department of Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Mary B Daly
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Li SX, Milne RL, Nguyen-Dumont T, English DR, Giles GG, Southey MC, Antoniou AC, Lee A, Winship I, Hopper JL, Terry MB, MacInnis RJ. Prospective Evaluation over 15 Years of Six Breast Cancer Risk Models. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:5194. [PMID: 34680343 PMCID: PMC8534072 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13205194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2021] [Revised: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 10/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Prospective validation of risk models is needed to assess their clinical utility, particularly over the longer term. We evaluated the performance of six commonly used breast cancer risk models (IBIS, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, BRCAPRO-BCRAT, BCRAT, and iCARE-lit). 15-year risk scores were estimated using lifestyle factors and family history measures from 7608 women in the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study who were aged 50-65 years and unaffected at commencement of follow-up two (conducted in 2003-2007), of whom 351 subsequently developed breast cancer. Risk discrimination was assessed using the C-statistic and calibration using the expected/observed number of incident cases across the spectrum of risk by age group (50-54, 55-59, 60-65 years) and family history of breast cancer. C-statistics were higher for BOADICEA (0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.62) and IBIS (0.57, 95% CI 0.54-0.61) than the other models (p-difference ≤ 0.04). No model except BOADICEA calibrated well across the spectrum of 15-year risk (p-value < 0.03). The performance of BOADICEA and IBIS was similar across age groups and for women with or without a family history. For middle-aged Australian women, BOADICEA and IBIS had the highest discriminatory accuracy of the six risk models, but apart from BOADICEA, no model was well-calibrated across the risk spectrum.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sherly X. Li
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne 3004, Australia; (S.X.L.); (R.L.M.); (D.R.E.); (G.G.G.); (M.C.S.)
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia;
- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Roger L. Milne
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne 3004, Australia; (S.X.L.); (R.L.M.); (D.R.E.); (G.G.G.); (M.C.S.)
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia;
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia;
| | - Tú Nguyen-Dumont
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia;
- Department of Clinical Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia
| | - Dallas R. English
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne 3004, Australia; (S.X.L.); (R.L.M.); (D.R.E.); (G.G.G.); (M.C.S.)
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia;
| | - Graham G. Giles
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne 3004, Australia; (S.X.L.); (R.L.M.); (D.R.E.); (G.G.G.); (M.C.S.)
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia;
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia;
| | - Melissa C. Southey
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne 3004, Australia; (S.X.L.); (R.L.M.); (D.R.E.); (G.G.G.); (M.C.S.)
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia;
- Department of Clinical Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (A.C.A.); (A.L.)
| | - Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (A.C.A.); (A.L.)
| | - Ingrid Winship
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne 3050, Australia;
- Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3050, Australia
| | - John L. Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia;
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA;
| | - Robert J. MacInnis
- Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne 3004, Australia; (S.X.L.); (R.L.M.); (D.R.E.); (G.G.G.); (M.C.S.)
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia;
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Pross T, Karsten MM, Blohmer JU, Speiser D. Role of Routine Peritoneal Biopsies During Risk Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy (RRSO). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81:1031-1038. [PMID: 34531609 PMCID: PMC8437580 DOI: 10.1055/a-1395-7715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 02/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective
The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the role of routine peritoneal biopsies during risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO).
Methods
Data of 204 women who underwent RRSO between January 1, 2014 and February 20, 2020 at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Mitte were retrospectively analyzed. RRSO was done according to the standard operating procedures of the German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) with peritoneal washing and several peritoneal biopsies. Specimen collected during RRSO were analyzed using the protocol for Sectioning and Extensively Examining the FIMbria (SEE-FIM). Perioperative complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo-Classification.
Results
147 women who underwent RRSO had peritoneal biopsies and pelvic washing, 44 women had none of that. 123 patients (64.4%) carried a pathologic variant in
gBRCA1
, 53 (27.7%) carried a pathologic variant in
gBRCA2
. Histopathological evaluation identified four patients (2.1%) with pathological findings. Neither peritoneal biopsies nor pelvic washings revealed additional information after histological examination. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rate between the two groups. The mean surgery time for RRSO without peritoneal biopsies was 64.3 minutes compared to 77.8 minutes with peritoneal biopsies. That shows a statistically significant prolongation of 16% (13.5 minutes, p = 0.0383).
Conclusions
The routine use of peritoneal biopsies during RRSO does not improve detection of occult ovarian cancer or STIC but prolongs the operation time significantly. By omitting peritoneal biopsies in RRSO not only perioperative risks are diminished but also costs could be reduced by shortening of surgery time as well as decreased number of pathological samples.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Therese Pross
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Gynecology and breast center, Berlin, Germany
| | - Maria Margarete Karsten
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Gynecology and breast center, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jens-Uwe Blohmer
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Gynecology and breast center, Berlin, Germany
| | - Dorothee Speiser
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Gynecology and breast center, Berlin, Germany.,Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Vaidyanathan A, Kaklamani V. Understanding the Clinical Implications of Low Penetrant Genes and Breast Cancer Risk. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2021; 22:85. [PMID: 34424438 DOI: 10.1007/s11864-021-00887-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/30/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT Since the 2013 Supreme Court declaration, panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has evolved into the gold standard for oncology germline genetic testing. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, competitive pricing, and developing therapeutic options, panel testing is now well integrated into breast cancer management and surveillance. Although many established syndromes have well-defined cancer risks and management strategies, several breast cancer genes are currently classified as limited-evidence genes by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Follow-up for individuals with mutations in these genes is a point of contention due to conflicting information in the literature. The most recent NCCN guidelines have stratified management based on gene-specific cancer risks indicating that expanding data will allow for better recommendations as research progresses. The evolving management for these genes emphasizes the clinicians' need for evidence-based understanding of low penetrance breast cancer genes and their implications for patient care. This article reviews current literature for limited evidence genes, detailing cancer risks, association with triple-negative breast cancer, and recommendations for surveillance. A brief review of the challenges and future directions is outlined to discuss the evolving nature of cancer genetics and the exciting opportunities that can impact management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anusha Vaidyanathan
- UT Health Science Center San Antonio, 7979 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, TX, 79229, USA.
| | - Virginia Kaklamani
- UT Health Science Center San Antonio, 7979 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, TX, 79229, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Etzioni R, Shen Y, Shih YCT. Identifying Preferred Breast Cancer Risk Predictors: A Holistic Perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:660-661. [PMID: 33301010 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Accepted: 11/02/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Yu Shen
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ya-Chen Tina Shih
- Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|