1
|
Goldfeld EI, Kelly BE, Ring KL. What About the Others? Clinical Management of Gynecologic Cancer Risk in Patients With Moderate-Risk Hereditary Cancer Genes ( ATM , BRIP1 , RAD51C , RAD51D , and PALB2 ). Clin Obstet Gynecol 2024; 67:696-701. [PMID: 39324947 DOI: 10.1097/grf.0000000000000897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/27/2024]
Abstract
Hereditary cancer syndromes associated with gynecologic malignancies account for up to 18% of all cases of ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancers, and identification of these syndromes has implications for cancer screening and risk reduction techniques in affected patients. The associated cancer risks with moderate-penetrance genes are rapidly evolving and present variable risks for the provider counseling the patient. In this review, we detail the cancer risk and management of patients with germline PV in the moderate-risk hereditary cancer genes ATM , BRIP1 , RAD51C , RAD51D , and PALB2 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ester I Goldfeld
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yang X, Wu Y, Ficorella L, Wilcox N, Dennis J, Tyrer J, Carver T, Pashayan N, Tischkowitz M, Pharoah PDP, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Validation of the BOADICEA model for epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction in UK Biobank. Br J Cancer 2024; 131:1473-1479. [PMID: 39294438 PMCID: PMC11519606 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-024-02851-z] [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: 03/10/2024] [Revised: 09/03/2024] [Accepted: 09/06/2024] [Indexed: 09/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The clinical validity of the multifactorial BOADICEA model for epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) risk prediction has not been assessed in a large sample size or over a longer term. METHODS We evaluated the model discrimination and calibration in the UK Biobank cohort comprising 199,429 women (733 incident EOCs) of European ancestry without previous cancer history. We predicted 10-year EOC risk incorporating data on questionnaire-based risk factors (QRFs), family history, a 36-SNP polygenic risk score and pathogenic variants (PV) in six EOC susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2). RESULTS Discriminative ability was maximised under the multifactorial model that included all risk factors (AUC = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.66-0.70). This model was well calibrated in deciles of predicted risk with calibration slope=0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.01). Discriminative ability was similar in women younger or older than 60 years. The AUC was higher when analyses were restricted to PV carriers (0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.82). Using relative risk (RR) thresholds, the full model classified 97.7%, 1.7%, 0.4% and 0.2% women in the RR < 2.0, 2.0 ≤ RR < 2.9, 2.9 ≤ RR < 6.0 and RR ≥ 6.0 categories, respectively, identifying 9.1 of incident EOC among those with RR ≥ 2.0. DISCUSSION BOADICEA, implemented in CanRisk ( www.canrisk.org ), provides valid 10-year EOC risks and can facilitate clinical decision-making in EOC risk management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Yang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - Yujia Wu
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lorenzo Ficorella
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Naomi Wilcox
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Joe Dennis
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jonathan Tyrer
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim Carver
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Department of Computational Biomedicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Taylor A, Clement K, Hillard T, Sassarini J, Ratnavelu N, Baker-Rand H, Bowen R, Davies MC, Edey K, Fernandes A, Ghaem-Maghami S, Gomes N, Gray S, Hughes E, Hudson A, Manchanda R, Manley K, Nicum S, Phillips A, Richardson A, Morrison J. British Gynaecological Cancer Society and British Menopause Society guidelines: Management of menopausal symptoms following treatment of gynaecological cancer. Post Reprod Health 2024:20533691241286666. [PMID: 39394654 DOI: 10.1177/20533691241286666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/13/2024]
Abstract
These guidelines have been developed jointly by the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and British Menopause Society to provide information for all healthcare professionals managing women treated for gynaecological cancer. Menopausal symptoms can have a significant impact on quality of life for women. Cancer therapies, including surgery, pelvic radiotherapy, chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, can all affect ovarian function. The benefits and risks of using hormone replacement therapy are considered by cancer type with guidance on the type of HRT and optimal time of commencement after cancer treatment. Vaginal estrogens can be very effective for improving urogenital symptoms and are safe for the majority of women, including those for whom systemic HRT is contraindicated with rare exceptions. Alternative options to HRT are reviewed including pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra Taylor
- Department of Gynaecology Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Kathryn Clement
- Department of Gynaecology, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
| | - Timothy Hillard
- Department of Gynaecology, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK
| | - Jenifer Sassarini
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - Nithya Ratnavelu
- Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Gateshead, UK
| | - Holly Baker-Rand
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Grace Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
| | - Rebecca Bowen
- Department of Oncology, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
- University of Bath, Bath, UK
| | - Melanie C Davies
- Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Katherine Edey
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Devon University NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - Andreia Fernandes
- Department of Gynaecology Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London University, London, UK
| | - Nana Gomes
- Department of Gynaecology Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | | | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Kristyn Manley
- Department of Gynaecology, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Shibani Nicum
- Department of Medical Oncology, University College Hospital, London, UK
- University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Phillips
- Derby Gynaecological Cancer Centre, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
| | - Alison Richardson
- Derby Gynaecological Cancer Centre, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
| | - Jo Morrison
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Grace Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
- Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ring KL. The Intersection of Endometriosis and Ovarian Cancer Prevention. JAMA Surg 2024; 159:1103-1105. [PMID: 39141359 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.2974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/15/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Kari L Ring
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Oxley SG, Wei X, Sideris M, Blyuss O, Kalra A, Sia JJY, Ganesan S, Fierheller CT, Sun L, Sadique Z, Jin H, Manchanda R, Legood R. Utility Scores for Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Mapping to EQ-5D. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1358. [PMID: 38611036 PMCID: PMC11010846 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071358] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2024] [Revised: 03/27/2024] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are the most effective breast and ovarian cancer preventive interventions. EQ-5D is the recommended tool to assess the quality of life and determine health-related utility scores (HRUSs), yet there are no published EQ-5D HRUSs after these procedures. These are essential for clinicians counselling patients and for health-economic evaluations. METHODS We used aggregate data from our published systematic review and converted SF-36/SF-12 summary scores to EQ-5D HRUSs using a published mapping algorithm. Study control arm or age-matched country-specific reference values provided comparison. Random-effects meta-analysis provided adjusted disutilities and utility scores. Subgroup analyses included long-term vs. short-term follow-up. RESULTS Four studies (209 patients) reported RRM outcomes using SF-36, and five studies (742 patients) reported RRSO outcomes using SF-12/SF-36. RRM is associated with a long-term (>2 years) disutility of -0.08 (95% CI -0.11, -0.04) (I2 31.4%) and a utility of 0.92 (95% CI 0.88, 0.95) (I2 31.4%). RRSO is associated with a long-term (>1 year) disutility of -0.03 (95% CI -0.05, 0.00) (I2 17.2%) and a utility of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94, 0.99) (I2 34.0%). CONCLUSIONS We present the first HRUSs sourced from patients following RRM and RRSO. There is a need for high-quality prospective studies to characterise quality of life at different timepoints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel G. Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Xia Wei
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child´s Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Sechenov University, Moscow 119991, Russia
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Jacqueline J. Y. Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Subhasheenee Ganesan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Zia Sadique
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| | - Haomiao Jin
- School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7YH, UK;
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Rosa Legood
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.G.O.); (X.W.); (M.S.); (O.B.); (A.K.); (J.J.Y.S.); (S.G.); (C.T.F.)
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (L.S.); (Z.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sideris M, Menon U, Manchanda R. Screening and prevention of ovarian cancer. Med J Aust 2024; 220:264-274. [PMID: 38353066 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.52227] [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: 02/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
Ovarian cancer remains the most lethal gynaecological malignancy with 314 000 cases and 207 000 deaths annually worldwide. Ovarian cancer cases and deaths are predicted to increase in Australia by 42% and 55% respectively by 2040. Earlier detection and significant downstaging of ovarian cancer have been demonstrated with multimodal screening in the largest randomised controlled trial of ovarian cancer screening in women at average population risk. However, none of the randomised trials have demonstrated a mortality benefit. Therefore, ovarian cancer screening is not currently recommended in women at average population risk. More frequent surveillance for ovarian cancer every three to four months in women at high risk has shown good performance characteristics and significant downstaging, but there is no available information on a survival benefit. Population testing offers an emerging novel strategy to identify women at high risk who can benefit from ovarian cancer prevention. Novel multicancer early detection biomarker, longitudinal multiple marker strategies, and new biomarkers are being investigated and evaluated for ovarian cancer screening. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) decreases ovarian cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended for women at over a 4-5% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Pre-menopausal women without contraindications to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) undergoing RRSO should be offered HRT until 51 years of age to minimise the detrimental consequences of premature menopause. Currently risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) should only be offered to women at increased risk of ovarian cancer within the context of a research trial. Pre-menopausal early salpingectomy is associated with fewer menopausal symptoms and better sexual function than bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A Sectioning and Extensively Examining the Fimbria (SEE-FIM) protocol should be used for histopathological assessment in women at high risk of ovarian cancer who are undergoing surgical prevention. Opportunistic salpingectomy may be offered at routine gynaecological surgery to all women who have completed their family. Long term prospective opportunistic salpingectomy studies are needed to determine the effect size of ovarian cancer risk reduction and the impact on menopause.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Usha Menon
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
- Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wei X, Sun L, Slade E, Fierheller CT, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sia J, Sideris M, McCluggage WG, Bromham N, Dworzynski K, Rosenthal AN, Brentnall A, Duffy S, Evans DG, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention Strategies for Ovarian and Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2355324. [PMID: 38334999 PMCID: PMC10858404 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/16/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) confer an increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk, with BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D PVs also conferring an elevated breast cancer (BC) risk. Risk-reducing surgery, medical prevention, and BC surveillance offer the opportunity to prevent cancers and deaths, but their cost-effectiveness for individual CSGs remains poorly addressed. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for OC and BC among individuals carrying PVs in the previously listed CSGs. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and, where relevant, risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) compared with nonsurgical interventions (including BC surveillance and medical prevention for increased BC risk) from December 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. The analysis took a UK payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. The simulated cohort consisted of women aged 30 years who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. Appropriate sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Exposures CSG-specific interventions, including RRSO at age 35 to 50 years with or without BC surveillance and medical prevention (ie, tamoxifen or anastrozole) from age 30 or 40 years, RRM at age 30 to 40 years, both RRSO and RRM, BC surveillance and medical prevention, or no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. OC and BC cases and deaths were estimated. Results In the simulated cohort of women aged 30 years with no cancer, undergoing both RRSO and RRM was most cost-effective for individuals carrying BRCA1 (RRM at age 30 years; RRSO at age 35 years), BRCA2 (RRM at age 35 years; RRSO at age 40 years), and PALB2 (RRM at age 40 years; RRSO at age 45 years) PVs. The corresponding ICERs were -£1942/QALY (-$2680/QALY), -£89/QALY (-$123/QALY), and £2381/QALY ($3286/QALY), respectively. RRSO at age 45 years was cost-effective for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PV carriers compared with nonsurgical strategies. The corresponding ICERs were £962/QALY ($1328/QALY), £771/QALY ($1064/QALY), and £2355/QALY ($3250/QALY), respectively. The most cost-effective preventive strategy per 1000 PV carriers could prevent 923 OC and BC cases and 302 deaths among those carrying BRCA1; 686 OC and BC cases and 170 deaths for BRCA2; 464 OC and BC cases and 130 deaths for PALB2; 102 OC cases and 64 deaths for RAD51C; 118 OC cases and 76 deaths for RAD51D; and 55 OC cases and 37 deaths for BRIP1. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated both RRSO and RRM were most cost-effective in 96.5%, 89.2%, and 84.8% of simulations for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PVs, respectively, while RRSO was cost-effective in approximately 100% of simulations for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PVs. Conclusions and Relevance In this cost-effectiveness study, RRSO with or without RRM at varying optimal ages was cost-effective compared with nonsurgical strategies for individuals who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. These findings support personalizing risk-reducing surgery and guideline recommendations for individual CSG-specific OC and BC risk management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eric Slade
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - W. Glenn McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Nathan Bromham
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Adam N. Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Women’s Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wei X, Oxley S, Sideris M, Kalra A, Brentnall A, Sun L, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Quality of life after risk-reducing surgery for breast and ovarian cancer prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 229:388-409.e4. [PMID: 37059410 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the impact of risk-reducing surgery for breast cancer and ovarian cancer prevention on quality of life. We considered risk-reducing mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, and risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy. DATA SOURCES We followed a prospective protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42022319782) and searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We followed a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design) framework. The population included women at increased risk of breast cancer or ovarian cancer. We focused on studies reporting quality of life outcomes (health-related quality of life, sexual function, menopause symptoms, body image, cancer-related distress or worry, anxiety, or depression) after risk-reducing surgery, including risk-reducing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer. METHODS We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for study appraisal. Qualitative synthesis and fixed-effects meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS A total of 34 studies were included (risk-reducing mastectomy: 16 studies; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: 19 studies; risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy: 2 studies). Health-related quality of life was unchanged or improved in 13 of 15 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=986) and 10 of 16 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1617), despite short-term deficits (N=96 after risk-reducing mastectomy and N=459 after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy). Sexual function (using the Sexual Activity Questionnaire) was affected in 13 of 16 studies (N=1400) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in terms of decreased sexual pleasure (-1.21 [-1.53 to -0.89]; N=3070) and increased sexual discomfort (1.12 [0.93-1.31]; N=1400). Hormone replacement therapy after premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with an increase (1.16 [0.17-2.15]; N=291) in sexual pleasure and a decrease (-1.20 [-1.75 to -0.65]; N=157) in sexual discomfort. Sexual function was affected in 4 of 13 studies (N=147) after risk-reducing mastectomy, but stable in 9 of 13 studies (N=799). Body image was unaffected in 7 of 13 studies (N=605) after risk-reducing mastectomy, whereas 6 of 13 studies (N=391) reported worsening. Increased menopause symptoms were reported in 12 of 13 studies (N=1759) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with a reduction (-1.96 [-2.81 to -1.10]; N=1745) in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Endocrine Symptoms. Cancer-related distress was unchanged or decreased in 5 of 5 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=365) and 8 of 10 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1223). Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (2 studies, N=413) led to better sexual function and menopause-specific quality of life. CONCLUSION Risk-reducing surgery may be associated with quality of life outcomes. Risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy reduce cancer-related distress, and do not affect health-related quality of life. Women and clinicians should be aware of body image problems after risk-reducing mastectomy, and of sexual dysfunction and menopause symptoms after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy may be a promising alternative to mitigate quality of life-related risks of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Karapanagiotis S, Benedetto U, Mukherjee S, Kirk PDW, Newcombe PJ. Tailored Bayes: a risk modeling framework under unequal misclassification costs. Biostatistics 2022; 24:85-107. [PMID: 34363680 PMCID: PMC9748575 DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxab023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2020] [Revised: 03/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk prediction models are a crucial tool in healthcare. Risk prediction models with a binary outcome (i.e., binary classification models) are often constructed using methodology which assumes the costs of different classification errors are equal. In many healthcare applications, this assumption is not valid, and the differences between misclassification costs can be quite large. For instance, in a diagnostic setting, the cost of misdiagnosing a person with a life-threatening disease as healthy may be larger than the cost of misdiagnosing a healthy person as a patient. In this article, we present Tailored Bayes (TB), a novel Bayesian inference framework which "tailors" model fitting to optimize predictive performance with respect to unbalanced misclassification costs. We use simulation studies to showcase when TB is expected to outperform standard Bayesian methods in the context of logistic regression. We then apply TB to three real-world applications, a cardiac surgery, a breast cancer prognostication task, and a breast cancer tumor classification task and demonstrate the improvement in predictive performance over standard methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Solon Karapanagiotis
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, UK and The Alan Turing Institute, UK
| | | | - Sach Mukherjee
- German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Bonn, Germany and MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Cost-Effectiveness of Risk-Reducing Surgery for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14246117. [PMID: 36551605 PMCID: PMC9776851 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14246117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2022] [Revised: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Policymakers require robust cost-effectiveness evidence of risk-reducing-surgery (RRS) for decision making on resource allocation for breast cancer (BC)/ovarian cancer (OC)/endometrial cancer (EC) prevention. We aimed to summarise published data on the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM)/risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO)/risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) for BC/OC prevention in intermediate/high-risk populations; hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) in Lynch syndrome women; and opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy (OBS) for OC prevention in baseline-risk populations. Major databases were searched until December 2021 following a prospective protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42022338008). Data were qualitatively synthesised following a PICO framework. Twenty two studies were included, with a reporting quality varying from 53.6% to 82.1% of the items scored in the CHEERS checklist. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/incremental cost-utility ratio and cost thresholds were inflated and converted to US$2020, using the original currency consumer price index (CPI) and purchasing power parities (PPP), for comparison. Eight studies concluded that RRM and/or RRSO were cost-effective compared to surveillance/no surgery for BRCA1/2, while RRESDO was cost-effective compared to RRSO in one study. Three studies found that hysterectomy with BSO was cost-effective compared to surveillance in Lynch syndrome women. Two studies showed that RRSO was also cost-effective at ≥4%/≥5% lifetime OC risk for pre-/post-menopausal women, respectively. Seven studies demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of OBS at hysterectomy (n = 4), laparoscopic sterilisation (n = 4) or caesarean section (n = 2). This systematic review confirms that RRS is cost-effective, while the results are context-specific, given the diversity in the target populations, health systems and model assumptions, and sensitive to the disutility, age and uptake rates associated with RRS. Additionally, RRESDO/OBS were sensitive to the uncertainty concerning the effect sizes in terms of the OC-risk reduction and long-term health impact. Our findings are relevant for policymakers/service providers and the design of future research studies.
Collapse
|
11
|
Lee A, Mavaddat N, Cunningham A, Carver T, Ficorella L, Archer S, Walter FM, Tischkowitz M, Roberts J, Usher-Smith J, Simard J, Schmidt MK, Devilee P, Zadnik V, Jürgens H, Mouret-Fourme E, De Pauw A, Rookus M, Mooij TM, Pharoah PP, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on RAD51C, RAD51D, BARD1 updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence. J Med Genet 2022; 59:1206-1218. [PMID: 36162851 PMCID: PMC9691826 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2022-108471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors. METHODS BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous. RESULTS BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010. CONCLUSIONS These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nasim Mavaddat
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alex Cunningham
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim Carver
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lorenzo Ficorella
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fiona M Walter
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics and National Institute for Health Research, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jonathan Roberts
- Department of Medical Genetics and National Institute for Health Research, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Juliet Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jacques Simard
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Vesna Zadnik
- Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Hannes Jürgens
- Clinic of Hematology and Oncology, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia
| | | | | | - Matti Rookus
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Thea M Mooij
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Pd Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hanson H, Kulkarni A, Loong L, Kavanaugh G, Torr B, Allen S, Ahmed M, Antoniou AC, Cleaver R, Dabir T, Evans DG, Golightly E, Jewell R, Kohut K, Manchanda R, Murray A, Murray J, Ong KR, Rosenthal AN, Woodward ER, Eccles DM, Turnbull C, Tischkowitz M, Lalloo F. UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2. J Med Genet 2022; 60:417-429. [PMID: 36411032 PMCID: PMC10176381 DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Hanson
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Anjana Kulkarni
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Lucy Loong
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Grace Kavanaugh
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Bethany Torr
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Sophie Allen
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ruth Cleaver
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - Tabib Dabir
- Northern Ireland Regional Genetics Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Ellen Golightly
- Lothian Menopause Service, Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Rosalyn Jewell
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Kelly Kohut
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Murray
- All Wales Medical Genomics Services, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Jennie Murray
- South East Scotland Clinical Genetics Service, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Kai-Ren Ong
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam N Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Roisin Woodward
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Diana M Eccles
- Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Fiona Lalloo
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Ovarian cancer risk of Chinese women with BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants. J Hum Genet 2022; 67:639-642. [PMID: 35864222 DOI: 10.1038/s10038-022-01065-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2022] [Revised: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Estimating the lifetime risk of ovarian cancer in Chinese women with BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants (PVs) is of great importance for the clinical management of BRCA1/2 carriers. This cohort study recruited 9903 unselected Chinese breast cancer patients whose BRCA1/2 status was determined. Of these, 3984 probands completed family history questionnaires, which investigated the health status of their relatives, including 11,997 female first-degree relatives. The ovarian cancer risk of BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic carriers was estimated using the ovarian cancer history of proband first-degree female relatives via the Kin-cohort method. Of the 3984 probands, 126 (3.2%) carried BRCA1 PVs, and 183 (4.6%) carried BRCA2 PVs. The estimated cumulative risks of ovarian cancer by age 70 were 15.3% (95% CI 8.4-18.6%) for BRCA1 carriers, 5.5% (95% CI 2.0-10.2%) for BRCA2 carriers, and 0.4% (95% CI 0.3-0.7%) for noncarriers. The cumulative risks of ovarian cancer were very low before the age of 40 for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and were an increase up to age 45. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk of BRCA1 carriers was approximately three times higher than that of BRCA2 carriers, and BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers had 38- and 14-fold higher risks than non-BRCA carriers, respectively. The findings indicate that Chinese women with BRCA1/2 PVs have high risks of ovarian cancer in their lifetime, especially BRCA1 carriers. These results are useful for devising optimal strategies to reduce ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers.
Collapse
|
14
|
Lee A, Yang X, Tyrer J, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Mavaddat N, Cunningham AP, Carver T, Archer S, Leslie G, Kalsi J, Gaba F, Manchanda R, Gayther S, Ramus SJ, Walter FM, Tischkowitz M, Jacobs I, Menon U, Easton DF, Pharoah P, Antoniou AC. Comprehensive epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and epidemiological risk factors. J Med Genet 2022; 59:632-643. [PMID: 34844974 PMCID: PMC9252860 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107904] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) has high mortality partly due to late diagnosis. Prevention is available but may be associated with adverse effects. A multifactorial risk model based on known genetic and epidemiological risk factors (RFs) for EOC can help identify women at higher risk who could benefit from targeted screening and prevention. METHODS We developed a multifactorial EOC risk model for women of European ancestry incorporating the effects of pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D and BRIP1, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) of arbitrary size, the effects of RFs and explicit family history (FH) using a synthetic model approach. The PRS, PV and RFs were assumed to act multiplicatively. RESULTS Based on a currently available PRS for EOC that explains 5% of the EOC polygenic variance, the estimated lifetime risks under the multifactorial model in the general population vary from 0.5% to 4.6% for the first to 99th percentiles of the EOC risk distribution. The corresponding range for women with an affected first-degree relative is 1.9%-10.3%. Based on the combined risk distribution, 33% of RAD51D PV carriers are expected to have a lifetime EOC risk of less than 10%. RFs provided the widest distribution, followed by the PRS. In an independent partial model validation, absolute and relative 5-year risks were well calibrated in quintiles of predicted risk. CONCLUSION This multifactorial risk model can facilitate stratification, in particular among women with FH of cancer and/or moderate-risk and high-risk PVs. The model is available via the CanRisk Tool (www.canrisk.org).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Xin Yang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jonathan Tyrer
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andy Ryan
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nasim Mavaddat
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alex P Cunningham
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim Carver
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Goska Leslie
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jatinder Kalsi
- Department of Women's Cancer, University College London Institute for Women's Health, London, UK
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London Research, London, UK
| | - Faiza Gaba
- CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- CRUK Barts Cancer Centre, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
- Department of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Simon Gayther
- Center for Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Susan J Ramus
- University of New South Wales, School of Women's and Children's Health, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Adult Cancer Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Fiona M Walter
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women's Cancer, University College London Institute for Women's Health, London, UK
- University of New South Wales, School of Women's and Children's Health, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Usha Menon
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gynecologic Cancer Risk and Genetics: Informing an Ideal Model of Gynecologic Cancer Prevention. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:4632-4646. [PMID: 35877228 PMCID: PMC9322111 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29070368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Individuals with proven hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have elevated rates of ovarian, breast, and other cancers. If these high-risk people can be identified before a cancer is diagnosed, risk-reducing interventions are highly effective and can be lifesaving. Despite this evidence, the vast majority of Canadians with HCS are unaware of their risk. In response to this unmet opportunity for prevention, the British Columbia Gynecologic Cancer Initiative convened a research summit “Gynecologic Cancer Prevention: Thinking Big, Thinking Differently” in Vancouver, Canada on 26 November 2021. The aim of the conference was to explore how hereditary cancer prevention via population-based genetic testing could decrease morbidity and mortality from gynecologic cancer. The summit invited local, national, and international experts to (1) discuss how genetic testing could be more broadly implemented in a Canadian system, (2) identify key research priorities in this topic and (3) outline the core essential elements required for such a program to be successful. This report summarizes the findings from this research summit, describes the current state of hereditary genetic programs in Canada, and outlines incremental steps that can be taken to improve prevention for high-risk Canadians now while developing an organized population-based hereditary cancer strategy.
Collapse
|
16
|
Gaba F, Oxley S, Liu X, Yang X, Chandrasekaran D, Kalsi J, Antoniou A, Side L, Sanderson S, Waller J, Ahmed M, Wallace A, Wallis Y, Menon U, Jacobs I, Legood R, Marks D, Manchanda R. Unselected Population Genetic Testing for Personalised Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction: A Qualitative Study Using Semi-Structured Interviews. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:1028. [PMID: 35626184 PMCID: PMC9139231 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12051028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2022] [Revised: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessments combining genetic, epidemiological and hormonal data have not previously been undertaken. We aimed to understand the attitudes, experiences and impact on the emotional well-being of women from the general population who underwent unselected population genetic testing (PGT) for personalised OC risk prediction and who received low-risk (<5% lifetime risk) results. This qualitative study was set within recruitment to a pilot PGT study using an OC risk tool and telephone helpline. OC-unaffected women ≥ 18 years and with no prior OC gene testing were ascertained through primary care in London. In-depth, semi-structured and 1:1 interviews were conducted until informational saturation was reached following nine interviews. Six interconnected themes emerged: health beliefs; decision making; factors influencing acceptability; effect on well-being; results communication; satisfaction. Satisfaction with testing was high and none expressed regret. All felt the telephone helpline was helpful and should remain optional. Delivery of low-risk results reduced anxiety. However, care must be taken to emphasise that low risk does not equal no risk. The main facilitators were ease of testing, learning about children’s risk and a desire to prevent disease. Barriers included change in family dynamics, insurance, stigmatisation and personality traits associated with stress/worry. PGT for personalised OC risk prediction in women in the general population had high acceptability/satisfaction and reduced anxiety in low-risk individuals. Facilitators/barriers observed were similar to those reported with genetic testing from high-risk cancer clinics and unselected PGT in the Jewish population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Xinting Liu
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
| | - Xin Yang
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (X.Y.); (A.A.)
| | - Dhivya Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Jatinderpal Kalsi
- Department of Women’s Cancer, University College London, Gower St, Bloomsbury, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Antonis Antoniou
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (X.Y.); (A.A.)
| | - Lucy Side
- Department of Clinical Genetics, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Rd, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK;
| | - Saskia Sanderson
- Early Disease Detection Research Project UK (EDDRP UK), 2 Redman Place, London E20 1JQ, UK;
| | - Jo Waller
- Cancer Prevention Group, King’s College London, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK;
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Unit, Department Clinical Genetics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK;
| | - Andrew Wallace
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, 6th Floor Saint Marys Hospital, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9WL, UK;
| | - Yvonne Wallis
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK;
| | - Usha Menon
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK;
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women’s Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia;
| | - Rosa Legood
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (R.L.); (D.M.)
| | - Dalya Marks
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (R.L.); (D.M.)
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (S.O.); (X.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK;
- Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; (R.L.); (D.M.)
- Department of Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Simões Corrêa Galendi J, Kautz-Freimuth S, Stock S, Müller D. Uptake Rates of Risk-Reducing Surgeries for Women at Increased Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Applied to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Scoping Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:1786. [PMID: 35406563 PMCID: PMC8997187 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14071786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2021] [Revised: 03/23/2022] [Accepted: 03/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
The cost-effectiveness of genetic screen-and-treat strategies for women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer often depends on the women's willingness to make use of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). To explore the uptake rates of RRM and RRSO applied in health economic modeling studies and the impact of uptake rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), we conducted a scoping literature review. In addition, using our own model, we conducted a value of information (VOI) analysis. Among the 19 models included in the review, the uptake rates of RRM ranged from 6% to 47% (RRSO: 10% to 88%). Fifty-seven percent of the models applied retrospective data obtained from registries, hospital records, or questionnaires. According to the models' deterministic sensitivity analyses, there is a clear trend that a lower uptake rate increased the ICER and vice versa. Our VOI analysis showed high decision uncertainty associated with the uptake rates. In the future, uptake rates should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies. Prospective studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women's preferences for preventive surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Simões Corrêa Galendi
- Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany; (S.K.-F.); (S.S.)
| | | | | | - Dirk Müller
- Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany; (S.K.-F.); (S.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Hermens M, van Altena AM, Bulten J, van Vliet HAAM, Siebers AG, Bekkers RLM. Incidence of ovarian cancer after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with histologically proven endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2022; 117:938-945. [PMID: 35300832 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.01.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2021] [Revised: 01/16/2022] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the incidence of ovarian cancer in women with histologically proven endometriosis after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). DESIGN Retrospective nationwide cohort study. SETTING Dutch pathology database. PATIENT(S) Women with histologically proven endometriosis who had undergone BSO between 1990 and 2015 (n = 7,984). This study consists of 2 control cohorts: women with histologically proven endometriosis without BSO (n = 42,633) and women with a benign dermal nevus (n = 132,535). INTERVENTION(S) Observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Number of histologic diagnoses of (extra-)ovarian cancers. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated for (extra-)ovarian cancer. The number needed to treat was calculated. RESULT(S) We identified 9 (0.1%) (extra-)ovarian cancers in the BSO cohort and 170 (0.4%) and 444 (0.3%) ovarian cancers in the endometriosis and nevus control cohorts, respectively. We found an age-adjusted IRR of 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.76) when the BSO cohort was compared with the endometriosis cohort. Comparing the BSO cohort with the nevus control cohort resulted in an age-adjusted IRR of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.17-0.85). The number needed to treat when the BSO cohort was compared with the endometriosis control cohort was 351 (95% CI, 272-591). CONCLUSION(S) In this nationwide study, we found that the (extra-)ovarian cancer incidence in women with histologically proven endometriosis decreased to less than the background population risk after BSO. Additionally, we found a significant reduction of the incidence of ovarian cancer when compared with women with histologically proven endometriosis without BSO. Endometriosis surgery could in the future be a preventive strategy in women with endometriosis and a high-risk profile for ovarian cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marjolein Hermens
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Anne M van Altena
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Johan Bulten
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Huib A A M van Vliet
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Albert G Siebers
- Dutch Nationwide Registry of Histopathology and Cytopathology-Pathologisch Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief (PALGA), Houten, the Netherlands
| | - Ruud L M Bekkers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Garrett AA, Mahdi H. Prophylactic Salpingo-Opphorectomy in Patients With Hereditary Predisposition Genes for Ovarian Cancer. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18:e846-e848. [PMID: 35258991 DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Alison A Garrett
- Magee Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Haider Mahdi
- Magee Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.,Magee Women's Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.,Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Liu YL, Breen K, Catchings A, Ranganathan M, Latham A, Goldfrank DJ, Grisham RN, Long Roche K, Frey MK, Chi DS, Abu-Rustum N, Aghajanian C, Offit K, Stadler ZK. Risk-Reducing Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy for Ovarian Cancer: A Review and Clinical Guide for Hereditary Predisposition Genes. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18:201-209. [PMID: 34582274 PMCID: PMC8932494 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Pathogenic germline variants underlie up to 20% of ovarian cancer (OC) and are associated with varying degrees of risk for OC. For mutations in high-penetrance genes such as BRCA1/2, the role of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in cancer prevention is well-established and improves mortality. However, in moderate-penetrance genes where the degree of risk for OC is less precisely defined, the role of RRSO is more controversial. Although national guidelines have evolved to incorporate gene-specific recommendations, studies demonstrate significant variations in practice. Given this, our multidisciplinary group has reviewed the available literature on risk estimates for genes associated with OC, incorporated levels of evidence, and set thresholds for consideration of RRSO. We found that the benefit of RRSO is well-established for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 as well as BRIP1 and RAD51C/D where the risk of OC is elevated beyond our threshold for RRSO. In PALB2, RRSO is particularly controversial as newer studies consistently demonstrate an increased risk of OC that is dependent on family history, making uniform recommendations challenging. Additionally, new guidelines for Lynch syndrome provide gene-specific risks, questioning the role of RRSO, and even hysterectomy, for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers. Given these uncertainties, shared decision making should be used around RRSO with discussion of individual risk factors, family history, and adverse effects of surgery and premature menopause. Herein, we provide a clinical guide and counseling points.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ying L. Liu
- Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY,Ying L. Liu, MD, MPH, Gynecologic Medical Oncology Clinical Genetics Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 East 66th St, 1309 New York, NY 10065; e-mail:
| | - Kelsey Breen
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Amanda Catchings
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Megha Ranganathan
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Alicia Latham
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY,General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Deborah J. Goldfrank
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Rachel N. Grisham
- Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Kara Long Roche
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Melissa K. Frey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Dennis S. Chi
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Nadeem Abu-Rustum
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Gynecologic Medical Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Kenneth Offit
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| | - Zsofia K. Stadler
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY,Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Zhang Y, Yi S, Trace CB, Williams-Brown MY. Understanding the Information Needs of Patients With Ovarian Cancer Regarding Genetic Testing to Inform Intervention Design: Interview Study. JMIR Cancer 2022; 8:e31263. [PMID: 35133282 PMCID: PMC8864522 DOI: 10.2196/31263] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2021] [Revised: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 11/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Experts in gynecological cancer care recommend that all patients with invasive or high-grade ovarian cancer (OC) undergo genetic testing. However, even patients who intend to take or have taken genetic tests have many unaddressed information needs regarding genetic testing. Existing genetic counseling falls short of adequately addressing this challenge. Objective This study aims to investigate the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC to inform the design of interactive technology-based interventions that can enhance communication of genetic testing information to patients. Methods We interviewed 20 patients with OC who had taken genetic tests and gathered genetic testing–related messages from an active OC web-based community. The interview transcripts and web-based community messages were analyzed using the qualitative content analysis method. Results Data analyses produced a comprehensive taxonomy of the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC, which included five major topic clusters: knowledge of genetic testing as a medical test, genetic testing process, genetic testing implications for patients, implications for family members, and medical terminology. Findings indicated that patients wanted to receive information that was relevant, understandable, concise, usable, appropriate, sympathetic, and available when needed. They also preferred various channels to receive information, including internet-based technologies, print, and conversations with health care providers. Conclusions Patients with OC need a range of information to address the uncertainties and challenges that they encounter while taking genetic tests. Their preferences for channels to receive information vary widely. A multichannel information delivery solution that combines both provider-led and peer-to-peer education models is needed to supplement existing genetic counseling to effectively meet the genetic testing–related information needs of patients with OC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yan Zhang
- School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
- Center for Health Communication, Moody College of Communication and Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Siqi Yi
- School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Ciaran B Trace
- School of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
- Center for Health Communication, Moody College of Communication and Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| | - Marian Yvette Williams-Brown
- Department of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
- Department of Oncology, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Manchanda R, Gaba F, Talaulikar V, Pundir J, Gessler S, Davies M, Menon U. Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy and the Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy Below the Age of Natural Menopause: Scientific Impact Paper No. 66 October 2021: Scientific Impact Paper No. 66. BJOG 2022; 129:e16-e34. [PMID: 34672090 PMCID: PMC7614764 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16896] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
This paper deals with the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after the removal of fallopian tubes and ovaries to prevent ovarian cancer in premenopausal high risk women. Some women have an alteration in their genetic code, which makes them more likely to develop ovarian cancer. Two well-known genes which can carry an alteration are the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Examples of other genes associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer include RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 and Lynch syndrome genes. Women with a strong family history of ovarian cancer and/or breast cancer, may also be at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. Women at increased risk can choose to have an operation to remove the fallopian tubes and ovaries, which is the most effective way to prevent ovarian cancer. This is done after a woman has completed her family. However, removal of ovaries causes early menopause and leads to hot flushes, sweats, mood changes and bone thinning. It can also cause memory problems and increases the risk of heart disease. It may reduce libido or impair sexual function. Guidance on how to care for women following preventative surgery who are experiencing early menopause is needed. HRT is usually advisable for women up to 51 years of age (average age of menopause for women in the UK) who are undergoing early menopause and have not had breast cancer, to minimise the health risks linked to early menopause. For women with a womb, HRT should include estrogen coupled with progestogen to protect against thickening of the lining of the womb (called endometrial hyperplasia). For women without a womb, only estrogen is given. Research suggests that, unlike in older women, HRT for women in early menopause does not increase breast cancer risk, including in those who are BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and have preventative surgery. For women with a history of receptor-negative breast cancer, the gynaecologist will liaise with an oncology doctor on a case-by-case basis to help to decide if HRT is safe to use. Women with a history of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer are not normally offered HRT. A range of other therapies can be used if a woman is unable to take HRT. These include behavioural therapy and non-hormonal medicines. However, these are less effective than HRT. Regular exercise, healthy lifestyle and avoiding symptom triggers are also advised. Whether to undergo surgery to reduce risk or not and its timing can be a complex decision-making process. Women need to be carefully counselled on the pros and cons of both preventative surgery and HRT use so they can make informed decisions and choices.
Collapse
|
23
|
Reisel D, Baran C, Manchanda R. Preventive population genomics: The model of BRCA related cancers. ADVANCES IN GENETICS 2021; 108:1-33. [PMID: 34844711 DOI: 10.1016/bs.adgen.2021.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
Preventive population genomics offers the prospect of population stratification for targeting screening and prevention and tailoring care to those at greatest risk. Within cancer, this approach is now within reach, given our expanding knowledge of its heritable components, improved ability to predict risk, and increasing availability of effective preventive strategies. Advances in technology and bioinformatics has made population-testing technically feasible. The BRCA model provides 30 years of insight and experience of how to conceive of and construct care and serves as an initial model for preventive population genomics. Population-based BRCA-testing in the Jewish population is feasible, acceptable, reduces anxiety, does not detrimentally affect psychological well-being or quality of life, is cost-effective and is now beginning to be implemented. Population-based BRCA-testing and multigene panel testing in the wider general population is cost-effective for numerous health systems and can save thousands more lives than the current clinical strategy. There is huge potential for using both genetic and non-genetic information in complex risk prediction algorithms to stratify populations for risk adapted screening and prevention. While numerous strides have been made in the last decade several issues need resolving for population genomics to fulfil its promise and potential for maximizing precision prevention. Healthcare systems need to overcome significant challenges associated with developing delivery pathways, infrastructure expansion including laboratory services, clinical workforce training, scaling of management pathways for screening and prevention. Large-scale real world population studies are needed to evaluate context specific population-testing implementation models for cancer risk prediction, screening and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Reisel
- EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Chawan Baran
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, CRUK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, CRUK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Rocca WA, Mielke MM, Gazzuola Rocca L, Stewart EA. Premature or early bilateral oophorectomy: a 2021 update. Climacteric 2021; 24:466-473. [PMID: 33719814 PMCID: PMC8532166 DOI: 10.1080/13697137.2021.1893686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 02/09/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
In this invited review, we discuss some unresolved and controversial issues concerning premature (<40 years) or early (40-45 years) bilateral oophorectomy. First, we clarify the terminology. Second, we summarize the long-term harmful consequences of bilateral oophorectomy. Third, we discuss the restrictive indications for bilateral oophorectomy in premenopausal women to prevent ovarian cancer that are justified by the current scientific evidence. Fourth, we explain the importance of estrogen replacement therapy when bilateral oophorectomy is performed. Hormone replacement therapy is indicated after bilateral oophorectomy until the age of expected natural menopause like in premature or early primary ovarian insufficiency. Fifth, we discuss the relationship between adverse childhood experiences, adverse adult experiences, mental health, gynecologic symptoms and bilateral oophorectomy. The acceptance and popularity of bilateral oophorectomy over several decades, and its persistence even in the absence of supporting scientific evidence, suggest that non-medical factors related to sex, gender, reproduction, cultural beliefs and socioeconomic structure are involved. We discuss some of these non-medical factors and the need for more research in this area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W A Rocca
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Women's Health Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - M M Mielke
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Women's Health Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - L Gazzuola Rocca
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - E A Stewart
- Women's Health Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Chandrasekaran D, Sobocan M, Blyuss O, Miller RE, Evans O, Crusz SM, Mills-Baldock T, Sun L, Hammond RFL, Gaba F, Jenkins LA, Ahmed M, Kumar A, Jeyarajah A, Lawrence AC, Brockbank E, Phadnis S, Quigley M, El Khouly F, Wuntakal R, Faruqi A, Trevisan G, Casey L, Burghel GJ, Schlecht H, Bulman M, Smith P, Bowers NL, Legood R, Lockley M, Wallace A, Singh N, Evans DG, Manchanda R. Implementation of Multigene Germline and Parallel Somatic Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: SIGNPOST Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13174344. [PMID: 34503154 PMCID: PMC8431198 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13174344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2021] [Revised: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
We present findings of a cancer multidisciplinary-team (MDT) coordinated mainstreaming pathway of unselected 5-panel germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 and parallel somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in all women with epithelial-OC and highlight the discordance between germline and somatic testing strategies across two cancer centres. Patients were counselled and consented by a cancer MDT member. The uptake of parallel multi-gene germline and somatic testing was 97.7%. Counselling by clinical-nurse-specialist more frequently needed >1 consultation (53.6% (30/56)) compared to a medical (15.0% (21/137)) or surgical oncologist (15.3% (17/110)) (p < 0.001). The median age was 54 (IQR = 51-62) years in germline pathogenic-variant (PV) versus 61 (IQR = 51-71) in BRCA wild-type (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in distribution of PVs by ethnicity, stage, surgery timing or resection status. A total of 15.5% germline and 7.8% somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs were identified. A total of 2.3% patients had RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs. A total of 11% germline PVs were large-genomic-rearrangements and missed by somatic testing. A total of 20% germline PVs are missed by somatic first BRCA-testing approach and 55.6% germline PVs missed by family history ascertainment. The somatic testing failure rate is higher (23%) for patients undergoing diagnostic biopsies. Our findings favour a prospective parallel somatic and germline panel testing approach as a clinically efficient strategy to maximise variant identification. UK Genomics test-directory criteria should be expanded to include a panel of OC genes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dhivya Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Monika Sobocan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
- Divison for Gynaecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK;
- Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119991, Russia
- World-Class Research Center “Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare”, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119991, Russia
| | - Rowan E. Miller
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK; (R.E.M.); (S.M.C.)
| | - Olivia Evans
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
| | - Shanthini M. Crusz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK; (R.E.M.); (S.M.C.)
| | - Tina Mills-Baldock
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK; (T.M.-B.); (M.Q.); (F.E.K.)
| | - Li Sun
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK;
| | - Rory F. L. Hammond
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
| | - Lucy A. Jenkins
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK; (L.A.J.); (M.A.); (A.K.)
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK; (L.A.J.); (M.A.); (A.K.)
| | - Ajith Kumar
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK; (L.A.J.); (M.A.); (A.K.)
| | - Arjun Jeyarajah
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Alexandra C. Lawrence
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Elly Brockbank
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Saurabh Phadnis
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Mary Quigley
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK; (T.M.-B.); (M.Q.); (F.E.K.)
| | - Fatima El Khouly
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK; (T.M.-B.); (M.Q.); (F.E.K.)
| | - Rekha Wuntakal
- Department of Gynaecology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK;
| | - Asma Faruqi
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - Giorgia Trevisan
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - Laura Casey
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - George J. Burghel
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Helene Schlecht
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Michael Bulman
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Philip Smith
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Naomi L. Bowers
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK;
| | - Michelle Lockley
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK;
| | - Andrew Wallace
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Naveena Singh
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK;
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Fostira F, Papadimitriou M, Papadimitriou C. Current practices on genetic testing in ovarian cancer. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2021; 8:1703. [PMID: 33490215 PMCID: PMC7812194 DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-1422] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is probably the tumor type with the highest percentage of hereditary cases observed, irrespectively of selection criteria. A fourth to a fifth of unselected epithelial EOC patients carry pathogenic variants (PVs) in a number of genes, the majority of which encode for proteins involved in DNA repair pathways. BRCA1 and BRCA2 predisposing PVs were the first to be associated to ovarian cancer, with the advent in DNA sequencing technologies leading to the discovery and association of additional genes which compromise the homologous recombination (HR) pathway. In addition, PVs genes involved in mismatch repair (MMR) pathway, account for 10–15% of hereditary EOC. The identification of women with HR deficient ovarian cancers has significant clinical implications concerning chemotherapy regimen planning and development and use of targeted therapies as well. More specifically, in patients with BRCA1/2 PVs or HR deficiency maintenance treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, either in the first line setting or in recurrent disease, improves the progression-free survival. But also patients with HR proficient tumors show a benefit. Therefore, genetic testing in ovarian cancer has a prognostic and predictive value. In this review, we discuss which ovarian cancer patients should be referred for genetic counseling and how to perform genetic testing. We also discuss the timing of genetic testing and its clinical relevance to BRCA status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florentia Fostira
- InRaSTES, Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, National Centre for Scientific Research NCSR Demokritos, Athens, Greece
| | - Marios Papadimitriou
- Oncology Unit, Aretaieion University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece
| | - Christos Papadimitriou
- Oncology Unit, Aretaieion University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Yang X, Song H, Leslie G, Engel C, Hahnen E, Auber B, Horváth J, Kast K, Niederacher D, Turnbull C, Houlston R, Hanson H, Loveday C, Dolinsky JS, LaDuca H, Ramus SJ, Menon U, Rosenthal AN, Jacobs I, Gayther SA, Dicks E, Nevanlinna H, Aittomäki K, Pelttari LM, Ehrencrona H, Borg Å, Kvist A, Rivera B, Hansen TVO, Djursby M, Lee A, Dennis J, Bowtell DD, Traficante N, Diez O, Balmaña J, Gruber SB, Chenevix-Trench G, Investigators KC, Jensen A, Kjær SK, Høgdall E, Castéra L, Garber J, Janavicius R, Osorio A, Golmard L, Vega A, Couch FJ, Robson M, Gronwald J, Domchek SM, Culver JO, de la Hoya M, Easton DF, Foulkes WD, Tischkowitz M, Meindl A, Schmutzler RK, Pharoah PDP, Antoniou AC. Ovarian and Breast Cancer Risks Associated With Pathogenic Variants in RAD51C and RAD51D. J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112:1242-1250. [PMID: 32107557 PMCID: PMC7735771 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 105] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2019] [Revised: 02/07/2020] [Accepted: 02/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to estimate precise age-specific tubo-ovarian carcinoma (TOC) and breast cancer (BC) risks for carriers of pathogenic variants in RAD51C and RAD51D. METHODS We analyzed data from 6178 families, 125 with pathogenic variants in RAD51C, and 6690 families, 60 with pathogenic variants in RAD51D. TOC and BC relative and cumulative risks were estimated using complex segregation analysis to model the cancer inheritance patterns in families while adjusting for the mode of ascertainment of each family. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Pathogenic variants in both RAD51C and RAD51D were associated with TOC (RAD51C: relative risk [RR] = 7.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.60 to 10.19; P = 5 × 10-40; RAD51D: RR = 7.60, 95% CI = 5.61 to 10.30; P = 5 × 10-39) and BC (RAD51C: RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.39 to 2.85; P = 1.55 × 10-4; RAD51D: RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.72; P = .002). For both RAD51C and RAD51D, there was a suggestion that the TOC relative risks increased with age until around age 60 years and decreased thereafter. The estimated cumulative risks of developing TOC to age 80 years were 11% (95% CI = 6% to 21%) for RAD51C and 13% (95% CI = 7% to 23%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. The estimated cumulative risks of developing BC to 80 years were 21% (95% CI = 15% to 29%) for RAD51C and 20% (95% CI = 14% to 28%) for RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers. Both TOC and BC risks for RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers varied by cancer family history and could be as high as 32-36% for TOC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with TOC, or 44-46% for BC, for carriers with two first-degree relatives diagnosed with BC. CONCLUSIONS These estimates will facilitate the genetic counseling of RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variant carriers and justify the incorporation of RAD51C and RAD51D into cancer risk prediction models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Yang
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Honglin Song
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Goska Leslie
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Christoph Engel
- Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Eric Hahnen
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Bernd Auber
- Institute of Human Genetics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Judit Horváth
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Karin Kast
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Dieter Niederacher
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Richard Houlston
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Helen Hanson
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Chey Loveday
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | | | - Susan J Ramus
- School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of NSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Adult Cancer Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, University of NSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Usha Menon
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Adam N Rosenthal
- Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Women’s Cancer, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UK
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Simon A Gayther
- Center for Bioinformatics and Functional Genomics and the Cedars Sinai Genomics Core, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Ed Dicks
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Heli Nevanlinna
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Kristiina Aittomäki
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Liisa M Pelttari
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Hans Ehrencrona
- Department of Clinical Genetics and Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Office for Medical Services, Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Åke Borg
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Anders Kvist
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Barbara Rivera
- Gerald Bronfman Dept Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University and Lady Davis Institute, Montréal, QC, Canada
- Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Thomas V O Hansen
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Genetics Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Malene Djursby
- Department of Clinical Genetics Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Andrew Lee
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Joe Dennis
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - David D Bowtell
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum, Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nadia Traficante
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum, Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Orland Diez
- Oncogenetics Group, Vall dHebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
- Clinical and Molecular Genetics Area, University Hospital Vall dHebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Judith Balmaña
- Hereditary Cancer Genetics Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Stephen B Gruber
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Georgia Chenevix-Trench
- Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | | | - Allan Jensen
- Department of Virus, Lifestyle and Genes, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Susanne K Kjær
- Department of Virus, Lifestyle and Genes, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Gynaecology, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Estrid Høgdall
- Department of Virus, Lifestyle and Genes, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Pathology, Molecular Unit, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Laurent Castéra
- Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Normandy Centre for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, François Baclesse Center, Inserm U1245, Caen, France
| | - Judy Garber
- Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ramunas Janavicius
- Department of Molecular and Regenerative Medicine, Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine Center, Vilnius University Hospital Santariskiu Clinics, Vilnius, Lithuania
- State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Ana Osorio
- Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras, Madrid, Spain
- Human Cancer Genetics Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain
| | - Lisa Golmard
- Institut Curie, Paris Sciences Lettres Research University, Service de Génétique, Paris, France
| | - Ana Vega
- Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras, Madrid, Spain
- Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, SERGAS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Fergus J Couch
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Mark Robson
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Clinical Genetics Service, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jacek Gronwald
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Susan M Domchek
- Basser Center for BRCA, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Julie O Culver
- Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Miguel de la Hoya
- Molecular Oncology Laboratory CIBERONC, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos), Madrid, Spain
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - William D Foulkes
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
| | - Alfons Meindl
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Munich, Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany
| | - Rita K Schmutzler
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Integrated Oncology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Gallagher A, Waller J, Manchanda R, Jacobs I, Sanderson S. Women's Intentions to Engage in Risk-Reducing Behaviours after Receiving Personal Ovarian Cancer Risk Information: An Experimental Survey Study. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123543. [PMID: 33260928 PMCID: PMC7760356 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 11/11/2020] [Accepted: 11/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Risk stratification using genetic testing to identify women at increased risk of ovarian cancer may increase the number of patients to whom risk-reducing surgery (e.g., salpingo-oophorectomy) may be offered. However, little is known about public acceptability of such approaches. Our online experimental survey aimed to explore whether women aged 45–75 in the general population are willing to undergo ovarian cancer risk assessment, including genetic testing, and whether women’s potential acceptance of risk-reducing surgery differs depending on their estimated risk. We looked at whether psychological and cognitive factors mediated women’s decision-making. The majority of participants would be interested in having genetic testing. In response to our hypothetical scenarios, a substantial proportion of participants were open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased from 2% to 5 or 10%. Abstract Risk stratification using genetic and/or other types of information could identify women at increased ovarian cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine women’s potential reactions to ovarian cancer risk stratification. A total of 1017 women aged 45–75 years took part in an online experimental survey. Women were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions describing hypothetical personal results from ovarian cancer risk stratification, and asked to imagine they had received one of three results: (a) 5% lifetime risk due to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and lifestyle factors; (b) 10% lifetime risk due to SNPs and lifestyle factors; (c) 10% lifetime risk due to a single rare mutation in a gene. Results: 83% of women indicated interest in having ovarian cancer risk assessment. After receiving their hypothetical risk estimates, 29% of women stated they would have risk-reducing surgery. Choosing risk-reducing surgery over other behavioural responses was associated with having higher surgery self-efficacy and perceived response-efficacy, but not with perceptions of disease threat, i.e., perceived risk or severity, or with experimental condition. A substantial proportion of women age 45–75 years may be open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased to as little as 5 or 10%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailish Gallagher
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Jo Waller
- Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK;
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK;
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women’s Health, University of New South Wales, Australia, Level 1, Chancellery Building, Sydney 2052, Australia;
| | - Saskia Sanderson
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
- Early Disease Detection Research Project UK (EDDRP UK), 2 Redman Place, London E20 1JQ, UK
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Pavanello M, Chan IHY, Ariff A, Pharoah PDP, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ. Rare Germline Genetic Variants and the Risks of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E3046. [PMID: 33086730 PMCID: PMC7589980 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12103046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2020] [Revised: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
A family history of ovarian or breast cancer is the strongest risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Germline deleterious variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes confer EOC risks by age 80, of 44% and 17% respectively. The mismatch repair genes, particularly MSH2 and MSH6, are also EOC susceptibility genes. Several other DNA repair genes, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and PALB2, have been identified as moderate risk EOC genes. EOC has five main histotypes; high-grade serous (HGS), low-grade serous (LGS), clear cell (CCC), endometrioid (END), and mucinous (MUC). This review examines the current understanding of the contribution of rare genetic variants to EOC, focussing on providing frequency data for each histotype. We provide an overview of frequency and risk for pathogenic variants in the known susceptibility genes as well as other proposed genes. We also describe the progress to-date to understand the role of missense variants and the different breast and ovarian cancer risks for each gene. Identification of susceptibility genes have clinical impact by reducing disease-associated mortality through improving risk prediction, with the possibility of prevention strategies, and developing new targeted treatments and these clinical implications are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marina Pavanello
- School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia; (M.P.); (I.H.C.); (A.A.)
- Adult Cancer Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
| | - Isaac HY Chan
- School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia; (M.P.); (I.H.C.); (A.A.)
| | - Amir Ariff
- School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia; (M.P.); (I.H.C.); (A.A.)
- Adult Cancer Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
| | - Paul DP Pharoah
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK;
| | - Simon A. Gayther
- Center for Cancer Prevention and Translational Genomics, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA;
- Applied Genomics, Computation and Translational Core, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA
| | - Susan J. Ramus
- School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia; (M.P.); (I.H.C.); (A.A.)
- Adult Cancer Program, Lowy Cancer Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Manchanda R, Lieberman S, Gaba F, Lahad A, Levy-Lahad E. Population Screening for Inherited Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2020; 21:373-412. [DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The discovery of genes underlying inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer has revolutionized the ability to identify women at high risk for these diseases before they become affected. Women who are carriers of deleterious variants in these genes can undertake surveillance and prevention measures that have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, under current strategies, the vast majority of women carriers remain undetected until they become affected. In this review, we show that universal testing, particularly of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, fulfills classical disease screening criteria. This is especially true for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Ashkenazi Jews but is translatable to all populations and may include additional genes. Utilizing genetic information for large-scale precision prevention requires a paradigmatic shift in health-care delivery. To address this need, we propose a direct-to-patient model, which is increasingly pertinent for fulfilling the promise of utilizing personal genomic information for disease prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom;,
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, United Kingdom
| | - Sari Lieberman
- Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 9103102, Israel;,
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112102, Israel
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom;,
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, United Kingdom
| | - Amnon Lahad
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112102, Israel
- Clalit Health Services, Jerusalem 9548323, Israel
| | - Ephrat Levy-Lahad
- Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 9103102, Israel;,
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112102, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Gaba F, Blyuss O, Chandrasekaran D, Osman M, Goyal S, Gan C, Izatt L, Tripathi V, Esteban I, McNicol L, Ragupathy K, Crawford R, Evans DG, Legood R, Menon U, Manchanda R. Attitudes towards risk-reducing early salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer prevention: a cohort study. BJOG 2020; 128:714-726. [PMID: 32803845 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/13/2020] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (RRESDO) acceptability and effect of surgical prevention on menopausal sequelae/satisfaction/regret in women at increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk. DESIGN Multicentre, cohort, questionnaire study (IRSCTN:12310993). SETTING United Kingdom (UK). POPULATION UK women without OC ≥18 years, at increased OC risk, with/without previous RRSO, ascertained through specialist familial cancer/genetic clinics and BRCA support groups. METHODS Participants completed a 39-item questionnaire. Baseline characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Logistic/linear regression models analysed the impact of variables on RRESDO acceptability and health outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES RRESDO acceptability, menopausal sequelae, satisfaction/regret. RESULTS In all, 346 of 683 participants underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). Of premenopausal women who had not undergone RRSO, 69.1% (181/262) found it acceptable to participate in a research study offering RRESDO. Premenopausal women concerned about sexual dysfunction were more likely to find RRESDO acceptable (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9, 95% CI 1.2-7.7, P = 0.025). Women experiencing sexual dysfunction after premenopausal RRSO were more likely to find RRESDO acceptable in retrospect (OR = 5.3, 95% CI 1.2-27.5, P < 0.031). In all, 88.8% (143/161) premenopausal and 95.2% (80/84) postmenopausal women who underwent RRSO, respectively, were satisfied with their decision, whereas 9.4% (15/160) premenopausal and 1.2% (1/81) postmenopausal women who underwent RRSO regretted their decision. HRT uptake in premenopausal individuals without breast cancer (BC) was 74.1% (80/108). HRT use did not significantly affect satisfaction/regret levels but did reduce symptoms of vaginal dryness (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, P = 0.025). CONCLUSION Data show high RRESDO acceptability, particularly in women concerned about sexual dysfunction. Although RRSO satisfaction remains high, regret rates are much higher for premenopausal women than for postmenopausal women. HRT use following premenopausal RRSO does not increase satisfaction but does reduce vaginal dryness. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT RRESDO has high acceptability among premenopausal women at increased ovarian cancer risk, particularly those concerned about sexual dysfunction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.,Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - O Blyuss
- School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.,Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.,Department of Applied Mathematics, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
| | - D Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.,Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - M Osman
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
| | - S Goyal
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK
| | - C Gan
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - L Izatt
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - V Tripathi
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - I Esteban
- Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | - L McNicol
- Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK
| | | | - R Crawford
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - D G Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, MAHSC, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - R Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - U Menon
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - R Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Cancer Research UK, Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK.,Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.,MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Hermens M, van Altena AM, Nieboer TE, Schoot BC, van Vliet HAAM, Siebers AG, Bekkers RLM. Incidence of endometrioid and clear-cell ovarian cancer in histological proven endometriosis: the ENOCA population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:107.e1-107.e11. [PMID: 31981507 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2019] [Revised: 01/16/2020] [Accepted: 01/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several studies have suggested that endometriosis is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, especially for the clear-cell and endometrioid subtypes. However, previous studies lack sufficient power or diagnostic certainty. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to assess the association between histologically proven endometriosis and ovarian cancer in a large population-based cohort study. STUDY DESIGN We identified 131,450 women with a histological diagnosis of endometriosis between 1990 and 2015 from the Dutch nationwide registry of histopathology and cytopathology (PALGA). For the control cohort 132,654 women with a benign dermal nevus were matched on age and inclusion year with the endometriosis cases. Histological diagnoses of ovarian, fallopian tubes, and peritoneal cancers between January 1990 and July 2017 were retrieved. Incidence rate ratios were estimated for ovarian cancer and its subtypes for the whole follow-up period as well as for women with more than 1 person-year at risk. RESULTS We found a crude incidence rate ratio of 4.79 (95% confidence interval, 4.33-5.31) and an age-adjusted incidence rate ratio of 7.18 (95% confidence interval, 6.17-8.36) for ovarian cancer overall. Endometrioid and clear-cell ovarian cancer had the highest age-adjusted incidence rate ratio of 29.06 (95% confidence interval, 20.66-40.87) and 21.34 (95% confidence interval, 14.01-32.51), respectively. Median age at ovarian cancer diagnosis was 56 years (interquartile range, 49-63) for the endometriosis cohort and 60 years (interquartile range, 53-67) for the nevus cohort, (P < .05). After excluding women with less than 1 person-year at risk following an endometriosis diagnosis, we found a crude incidence rate ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.19) and an age-adjusted incidence rate ratio of 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.35) for ovarian cancer overall. However, statistically significant age-adjusted incidence rate ratios of 2.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.20) for clear-cell ovarian cancer and 2.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.47-4.47) for endometrioid ovarian cancer were found. CONCLUSION A significantly higher incidence of clear-cell and endometrioid ovarian cancer was found in women with histologically proven endometriosis. Additionally, we found an increased incidence of all ovarian cancer subtypes in histologically proven endometriosis; however, in many of these women, endometriosis and ovarian cancer were diagnosed synchronously after the average menopausal age, which may suggest that the risk of ovarian cancer in endometriosis patients remains, even when clinical endometriosis symptoms are no longer present.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marjolein Hermens
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Anne M van Altena
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Theodoor E Nieboer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Benedictus C Schoot
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Huib A A M van Vliet
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Albert G Siebers
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; PALGA (the nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in The Netherlands), Houten, The Netherlands
| | - Ruud L M Bekkers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Difficult decisions in women at high genetic risk for cancer: toward an individualized approach. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 27:727-729. [DOI: 10.1097/gme.0000000000001572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
34
|
Gaba F, Blyuss O, Liu X, Goyal S, Lahoti N, Chandrasekaran D, Kurzer M, Kalsi J, Sanderson S, Lanceley A, Ahmed M, Side L, Gentry-Maharaj A, Wallis Y, Wallace A, Waller J, Luccarini C, Yang X, Dennis J, Dunning A, Lee A, Antoniou AC, Legood R, Menon U, Jacobs I, Manchanda R. Population Study of Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction for Targeted Screening and Prevention. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E1241. [PMID: 32429029 PMCID: PMC7281662 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12051241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 05/01/2020] [Accepted: 05/06/2020] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessment combining genetic/epidemiology/hormonal data has not previously been undertaken. We aimed to perform a feasibility study of OC risk stratification of general population women using a personalised OC risk tool followed by risk management. Volunteers were recruited through London primary care networks. INCLUSION CRITERIA women ≥18 years. EXCLUSION CRITERIA prior ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer, previous genetic testing for OC genes. Participants accessed an online/web-based decision aid along with optional telephone helpline use. Consenting individuals completed risk assessment and underwent genetic testing (BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1, OC susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms). A validated OC risk prediction algorithm provided a personalised OC risk estimate using genetic/lifestyle/hormonal OC risk factors. Population genetic testing (PGT)/OC risk stratification uptake/acceptability, satisfaction, decision aid/telephone helpline use, psychological health and quality of life were assessed using validated/customised questionnaires over six months. Linear-mixed models/contrast tests analysed impact on study outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES feasibility/acceptability, uptake, decision aid/telephone helpline use, satisfaction/regret, and impact on psychological health/quality of life. In total, 123 volunteers (mean age = 48.5 (SD = 15.4) years) used the decision aid, 105 (85%) consented. None fulfilled NHS genetic testing clinical criteria. OC risk stratification revealed 1/103 at ≥10% (high), 0/103 at ≥5%-<10% (intermediate), and 100/103 at <5% (low) lifetime OC risk. Decision aid satisfaction was 92.2%. The telephone helpline use rate was 13% and the questionnaire response rate at six months was 75%. Contrast tests indicated that overall depression (p = 0.30), anxiety (p = 0.10), quality-of-life (p = 0.99), and distress (p = 0.25) levels did not jointly change, while OC worry (p = 0.021) and general cancer risk perception (p = 0.015) decreased over six months. In total, 85.5-98.7% were satisfied with their decision. Findings suggest population-based personalised OC risk stratification is feasible and acceptable, has high satisfaction, reduces cancer worry/risk perception, and does not negatively impact psychological health/quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (X.L.); (S.G.); (N.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK;
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK;
- Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119146, Russia
- Department of Applied Mathematics, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod 603098, Russia
| | - Xinting Liu
- Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (X.L.); (S.G.); (N.L.); (D.C.)
| | - Shivam Goyal
- Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (X.L.); (S.G.); (N.L.); (D.C.)
| | - Nishant Lahoti
- Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (X.L.); (S.G.); (N.L.); (D.C.)
| | - Dhivya Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (X.L.); (S.G.); (N.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK;
| | - Margarida Kurzer
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK;
| | - Jatinderpal Kalsi
- Department of Women’s Cancer, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London WC1E 6AU, UK; (J.K.); (A.L.)
| | - Saskia Sanderson
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Anne Lanceley
- Department of Women’s Cancer, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London WC1E 6AU, UK; (J.K.); (A.L.)
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- Department Clinical Genetics, North East Thames Regional Genetics Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK;
| | - Lucy Side
- Department of Clinical Genetics, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK;
| | - Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK; (A.G.-M.); (U.M.)
| | - Yvonne Wallis
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK;
| | - Andrew Wallace
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, 6th Floor Saint Marys Hospital, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9WL, UK;
| | - Jo Waller
- Cancer Prevention Group, King’s College London, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK;
| | - Craig Luccarini
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (C.L.); (X.Y.); (J.D.); (A.D.); (A.L.); (A.C.A.)
| | - Xin Yang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (C.L.); (X.Y.); (J.D.); (A.D.); (A.L.); (A.C.A.)
| | - Joe Dennis
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (C.L.); (X.Y.); (J.D.); (A.D.); (A.L.); (A.C.A.)
| | - Alison Dunning
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (C.L.); (X.Y.); (J.D.); (A.D.); (A.L.); (A.C.A.)
| | - Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (C.L.); (X.Y.); (J.D.); (A.D.); (A.L.); (A.C.A.)
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (C.L.); (X.Y.); (J.D.); (A.D.); (A.L.); (A.C.A.)
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK;
| | - Usha Menon
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK; (A.G.-M.); (U.M.)
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women’s Health, University of New South Wales, Australia, Level 1, Chancellery Building, Sydney 2052, Australia;
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (F.G.); (X.L.); (S.G.); (N.L.); (D.C.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK;
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, UK; (A.G.-M.); (U.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Sroczynski G, Gogollari A, Kuehne F, Hallsson LR, Widschwendter M, Pashayan N, Siebert U. A Systematic Review on Cost-effectiveness Studies Evaluating Ovarian Cancer Early Detection and Prevention Strategies. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2020; 13:429-442. [PMID: 32071120 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-19-0506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2019] [Revised: 01/01/2020] [Accepted: 02/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Ovarian cancer imposes a substantial health and economic burden. We systematically reviewed current health-economic evidence for ovarian cancer early detection or prevention strategies. Accordingly, we searched relevant databases for cost-effectiveness studies evaluating ovarian cancer early detection or prevention strategies. Study characteristics and results including quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were summarized in standardized evidence tables. Economic results were transformed into 2017 Euros. The included studies (N = 33) evaluated ovarian cancer screening, risk-reducing interventions in women with heterogeneous cancer risks and genetic testing followed by risk-reducing interventions for mutation carriers. Multimodal screening with a risk-adjusted algorithm in postmenopausal women achieved ICERs of 9,800-81,400 Euros/QALY, depending on assumptions on mortality data extrapolation, costs, test performance, and screening frequency. Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgery in mutation carriers ranged from cost-saving to 59,000 Euros/QALY. Genetic testing plus risk-reducing interventions for mutation carriers ranged from cost-saving to 54,000 Euros/QALY in women at increased mutation risk. Our findings suggest that preventive surgery and genetic testing plus preventive surgery in women at high risk for ovarian cancer can be considered effective and cost-effective. In postmenopausal women from the general population, multimodal screening using a risk-adjusted algorithm may be cost-effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gaby Sroczynski
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
| | - Artemisa Gogollari
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
- Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Felicitas Kuehne
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
| | - Lára R Hallsson
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria
- Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
| | | | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Uwe Siebert
- Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria.
- Division of Health Technology Assessment, ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
- Center for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Wynants L, van Smeden M, McLernon DJ, Timmerman D, Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B. Three myths about risk thresholds for prediction models. BMC Med 2019; 17:192. [PMID: 31651317 PMCID: PMC6814132 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1425-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 92] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2019] [Accepted: 09/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical prediction models are useful in estimating a patient's risk of having a certain disease or experiencing an event in the future based on their current characteristics. Defining an appropriate risk threshold to recommend intervention is a key challenge in bringing a risk prediction model to clinical application; such risk thresholds are often defined in an ad hoc way. This is problematic because tacitly assumed costs of false positive and false negative classifications may not be clinically sensible. For example, when choosing the risk threshold that maximizes the proportion of patients correctly classified, false positives and false negatives are assumed equally costly. Furthermore, small to moderate sample sizes may lead to unstable optimal thresholds, which requires a particularly cautious interpretation of results. MAIN TEXT We discuss how three common myths about risk thresholds often lead to inappropriate risk stratification of patients. First, we point out the contexts of counseling and shared decision-making in which a continuous risk estimate is more useful than risk stratification. Second, we argue that threshold selection should reflect the consequences of the decisions made following risk stratification. Third, we emphasize that there is usually no universally optimal threshold but rather that a plausible risk threshold depends on the clinical context. Consequently, we recommend to present results for multiple risk thresholds when developing or validating a prediction model. CONCLUSION Bearing in mind these three considerations can avoid inappropriate allocation (and non-allocation) of interventions. Using discriminating and well-calibrated models will generate better clinical outcomes if context-dependent thresholds are used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laure Wynants
- KU Leuven Department of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium. .,Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Maarten van Smeden
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - David J McLernon
- Medical Statistics Team, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Dirk Timmerman
- KU Leuven Department of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Ben Van Calster
- KU Leuven Department of Development and Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Domchek SM, Robson ME. Update on Genetic Testing in Gynecologic Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:2501-2509. [PMID: 31403865 PMCID: PMC6754232 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.00363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/23/2019] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
|
38
|
Li W, Shao D, Li L, Wu M, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, Guo F, Wang Z, Ye M. Germline and somatic mutations of multi-gene panel in Chinese patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective cohort study. J Ovarian Res 2019; 12:80. [PMID: 31472684 PMCID: PMC6717355 DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0560-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2019] [Accepted: 08/27/2019] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Multiple targeted gene sequencing is seldom performed in both germline and somatic testing for ovarian cancer. This study is to evaluate the specific genetic alterations, including both somatic and germline mutations, in Chinese patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in a prospective cohort study. Materials and methods Mutations in a customed 21-gene panel that included BRCA1, BRCA2, and 19 other tumor suppressor genes related to homologous recombination (HR) deficiency or non-HR deficiency were detected by targeted exon capture and next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology across all coding exons and exon-intron (±20 base pairs) boundaries. Patients were enrolled consecutively and unselectively without age or family history consideration. Sixty-two unselected patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in our study to be tested for paired somatic and germline mutations. All patients were tested using a 21-gene panel that included BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BRIP1, TP53, PTEN, STK11, CDH1, ATM, BARD1, MLH1, MRE11A, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, PMS1, PMS2, RAD50, and RAD51C. Results Mutation analysis revealed that 77.4% (48/62) of patients carried one or more of 64 identified genetic alterations, including 19 germline and 45 somatic deleterious mutations. Twelve individuals shared both germline and somatic mutations. BRCA mutants existed in 17 of 62 (27.4%) patients. Of the 64 mutations detected, 46 (74.2%) were in 7 other HR or non-HR genes, including TP53, PTEN, ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and STK11. In somatic mutation analysis, TP53 showed frequent pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations in 56.5% (35/62) of enrolled cases, among which six cases harbored a loss of heterozygosity. Conclusions This is the first report of multi-gene panel testing for germline and somatic mutations among Chinese EOC patients, which revealed a broader deleterious variants than only BRCA testing. Registration Registration No. NCT03015376, clinicaltrials.gov, registered on January 10, 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13048-019-0560-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenhui Li
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Di Shao
- BGI Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.,BGI-Guangzhou Medical Laboratory, BGI-Shenzhen, Guangzhou, 510006, China
| | - Lei Li
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
| | - Ming Wu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
| | - Shuiqing Ma
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Xianjie Tan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Sen Zhong
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Shuaifuyuan No. 1, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China
| | - Fengming Guo
- BGI Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.,BGI-Guangzhou Medical Laboratory, BGI-Shenzhen, Guangzhou, 510006, China
| | - Zhe Wang
- BGI Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China
| | - Mingzhi Ye
- BGI Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.,BGI-Guangzhou Medical Laboratory, BGI-Shenzhen, Guangzhou, 510006, China
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Manchanda R, Gaba F. A commentary on population genetic testing for primary prevention: changing landscape and the need to change paradigm. BJOG 2019; 126:686-689. [DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15657] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/02/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- R Manchanda
- Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London London UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology St Bartholomew's Hospital London UK
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL Faculty of Population Health Sciences Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology University College London London UK
| | - F Gaba
- Barts Cancer Institute Queen Mary University of London London UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology St Bartholomew's Hospital London UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Kwon JS, Tinker AV, Hanley GE, Pansegrau G, Sun S, Carey MS, Schrader I. BRCA mutation testing for first-degree relatives of women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 152:459-464. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2018] [Revised: 09/25/2018] [Accepted: 10/15/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
|
41
|
Rahman B, Side L, Gibbon S, Meisel SF, Fraser L, Gessler S, Wardle J, Lanceley A. Moving towards population-based genetic risk prediction for ovarian cancer. BJOG 2018; 124:855-858. [PMID: 28217902 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14603] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/12/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- B Rahman
- Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - L Side
- Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.,North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, London, UK
| | - S Gibbon
- UCL Anthropology, University College London, London, UK
| | - S F Meisel
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK
| | - L Fraser
- Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - S Gessler
- Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - A Lanceley
- Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Manchanda R, Gaba F. Population Based Testing for Primary Prevention: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10:cancers10110424. [PMID: 30400647 PMCID: PMC6266041 DOI: 10.3390/cancers10110424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2018] [Revised: 10/24/2018] [Accepted: 10/31/2018] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
The current clinical model for genetic testing is based on clinical-criteria/family-history (FH) and a pre-defined mutation probability threshold. It requires people to develop cancer before identifying unaffected individuals in the family to target prevention. This process is inefficient, resource intensive and misses >50% of individuals or mutation carriers at risk. Population genetic-testing can overcome these limitations. It is technically feasible to test populations on a large scale; genetic-testing costs are falling and acceptability and awareness are rising. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, CINAHL and PsychINFO databases were searched using free-text and MeSH terms; retrieved reference lists of publications were screened; additionally, web-based platforms, Google, and clinical-trial registries were searched. Quality of studies was evaluated using appropriate check-lists. A number of studies have evaluated population-based BRCA-testing in the Jewish population. This has been found to be acceptable, feasible, clinically-effective, safe, associated with high satisfaction rates and extremely cost-effective. Data support change in guidelines for population-based BRCA-testing in the Jewish population. Population panel testing for BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 gene mutations is the most cost-effective genetic-testing strategy in general-population women and can prevent thousands more breast and ovarian cancers than current clinical-criteria based approaches. A few ongoing studies are evaluating population-based genetic-testing for multiple cancer susceptibility genes in the general population but more implementation studies are needed. A future population-testing programme could also target other chronic diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7DN, UK.
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Old Anatomy Building, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Manchanda R, Legood R. Population based germline testing for primary cancer prevention. Oncotarget 2018; 9:33062-33063. [PMID: 30237851 PMCID: PMC6145693 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25995] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2018] [Accepted: 08/11/2018] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Ranjit Manchanda: Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
- Rosa Legood: Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Rosa Legood
- Ranjit Manchanda: Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, UK; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK; Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
- Rosa Legood: Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Yang X, Leslie G, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Intermaggio M, Lee A, Kalsi JK, Tyrer J, Gaba F, Manchanda R, Pharoah PDP, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Jacobs I, Menon U, Antoniou AC. Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for ovarian cancer risk prediction in a prospective cohort study. J Med Genet 2018; 55:546-554. [PMID: 29730597 PMCID: PMC6073911 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2018] [Revised: 04/04/2018] [Accepted: 04/17/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genome-wide association studies have identified >30 common SNPs associated with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We evaluated the combined effects of EOC susceptibility SNPs on predicting EOC risk in an independent prospective cohort study. METHODS We genotyped ovarian cancer susceptibility single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a nested case-control study (750 cases and 1428 controls) from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening trial. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were constructed and their associations with EOC risk were evaluated using logistic regression. The absolute risk of developing ovarian cancer by PRS percentiles was calculated. RESULTS The association between serous PRS and serous EOC (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.58, p=1.3×10-11) was stronger than the association between overall PRS and overall EOC risk (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.45, p=5.4×10-10). Women in the top fifth percentile of the PRS had a 3.4-fold increased EOC risk compared with women in the bottom 5% of the PRS, with the absolute EOC risk by age 80 being 2.9% and 0.9%, respectively, for the two groups of women in the population. CONCLUSION PRSs can be used to predict future risk of developing ovarian cancer for women in the general population. Incorporation of PRSs into risk prediction models for EOC could inform clinical decision-making and health management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Yang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Goska Leslie
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Andy Ryan
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Maria Intermaggio
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jatinderpal K Kalsi
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Tyrer
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Simon A Gayther
- Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Susan J Ramus
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Usha Menon
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Vogel RI, Niendorf K, Lee H, Petzel S, Lee HY, Geller MA. A qualitative study of barriers to genetic counseling and potential for mobile technology education among women with ovarian cancer. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2018; 16:13. [PMID: 29997716 PMCID: PMC6031189 DOI: 10.1186/s13053-018-0095-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2018] [Accepted: 06/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background National guidelines recommend genetic counseling for all ovarian cancer patients because up to 20% of ovarian cancers are thought to be due to hereditary cancer syndromes and effective cancer screening and prevention options exist for at-risk family members. Despite these recommendations, uptake of genetic counselling and testing is low. The goal of this study was to identify barriers to and motivators for receipt of genetic counseling along with preferences regarding potential use of a mobile application to promote genetic counseling. Methods Three focus groups were conducted including 14 women with a diagnosis of epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Topics included understanding of genetic counseling, perceived pros and cons, preferences for receiving health information, and familiarity with mobile phone technology. Transcripts were analyzed using standard procedures of qualitative thematic text analysis and descriptive coding techniques. Results Six major themes regarding barriers to and motivators of genetic counseling and use of mobile technology in promoting genetic counseling emerged: (1) need for information, (2) relevance, (3) emotional concerns, (4) family concerns, (5) practical concerns, and (6) mobile application considerations. Conclusions These data reiterate previously reported barriers to genetic counseling as observed in other populations. Participants were supportive of the use of mobile technology for promoting uptake of genetic counseling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Isaksson Vogel
- 1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Minnesota, MMC 395, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
| | - Kristin Niendorf
- 2Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA
| | - Heewon Lee
- 1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Minnesota, MMC 395, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
| | - Sue Petzel
- 1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Minnesota, MMC 395, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
| | - Hee Yun Lee
- 3School of Social Work, College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA
| | - Melissa A Geller
- 1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Minnesota, MMC 395, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS, Antoniou AC, Smith S, Lee A, Hopper JL, MacInnis RJ, Turnbull C, Ramus SJ, Gayther SA, Pharoah PDP, Menon U, Jacobs I, Legood R. Cost-effectiveness of Population-Based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 Mutation Testing in Unselected General Population Women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; 110:714-725. [PMID: 29361001 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 135] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2017] [Accepted: 11/20/2017] [Indexed: 02/11/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The cost-effectiveness of population-based panel testing for high- and moderate-penetrance ovarian cancer (OC)/breast cancer (BC) gene mutations is unknown. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 mutation testing compared with clinical criteria/family history (FH) testing in unselected general population women. Methods A decision-analytic model comparing lifetime costs and effects of criteria/FH-based BRCA1/BRCA2 testing is compared with BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 testing in those fulfilling clinical criteria/strong FH of cancer (≥10% BRCA1/BRCA2 probability) and all women age 30 years or older. Analyses are presented for UK and US populations. Identified carriers undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 carriers can opt for magnetic resonance imaging/mammography, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) enabled model uncertainty evaluation. Outcomes include OC, BC, and additional heart disease deaths. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), OC incidence, BC incidence, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The time horizon is lifetime and perspective is payer. Results Compared with clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA1/BRCA2 testing, clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 testing is cost-effective (ICER = £7629.65/QALY or $49 282.19/QALY; 0.04 days' life-expectancy gained). Population-based testing for BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 mutations is the most cost-effective strategy compared with current policy: ICER = £21 599.96/QALY or $54 769.78/QALY (9.34 or 7.57 days' life-expectancy gained). At £30 000/QALY and $100 000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds, population-based BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 panel testing is the preferred strategy in 83.7% and 92.7% of PSA simulations; criteria/FH-based panel testing is preferred in 16.2% and 5.8% of simulations, respectively. Population-based BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 testing can prevent 1.86%/1.91% of BC and 3.2%/4.88% of OC in UK/US women: 657/655 OC cases and 2420/2386 BC cases prevented per million. Conclusions Population-based BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 testing is more cost-effective than any clinical criteria/FH-based strategy. Clinical criteria/FH-based BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1/PALB2 testing is more cost-effective than BRCA1/BRCA2 testing alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, UK
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Shreeya Patel
- Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Vladimir S Gordeev
- Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Shantel Smith
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Robert J MacInnis
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Susan J Ramus
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Australia
| | | | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Usha Menon
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
- University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Kotsopoulos J, Gronwald J, Karlan B, Rosen B, Huzarski T, Moller P, Lynch HT, Singer CF, Senter L, Neuhausen SL, Tung N, Eisen A, Foulkes WD, Ainsworth P, Sun P, Lubinski J, Narod SA. Age-specific ovarian cancer risks among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 150:85-91. [PMID: 29793803 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2018] [Revised: 05/04/2018] [Accepted: 05/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES For women at high risk of developing ovarian cancer, it is important to provide an accurate recommendation for the optimal age for preventive surgery in order to maximize the preventative effect while delaying symptoms associated with early surgical menopause. The goal of the current study was to estimate age-specific incidence rates of ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS From our international registry, we identified 5689 women with no previous diagnosis of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer or preventive oophorectomy. Women were followed from the date of completion of the baseline questionnaire until either a diagnosis of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, prophylactic oophorectomy, death or last follow-up. The annual and cumulative incidence rates of ovarian cancer were estimated. RESULTS Over a mean follow-up period of 4.7 years (ranges 0-22.6), 195 incident ovarian or fallopian tube cancers were diagnosed (169 [86%] ovarian cancers, 22 [11%] fallopian tube cancers and four [2%] cancers that involved both the ovaries and fallopian tubes). Of these, 45 (23%) cancers were diagnosed at preventive surgery (occult cancers). The cumulative risk of ovarian cancer to age 80 was 49% for BRCA1 and 21% for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The mean age at diagnosis was 51.3 years (ranges 33-84) among women with a BRCA1 mutation and 61.4 years (ranges 44-80) among women with a BRCA2 mutation. CONCLUSION Based on a cumulative risk of 0.55% to age 35 for BRCA1 mutation carriers and of 0.56% to age 45 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, we recommend bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy before age 40, but ideally by age 35, for women with a BRCA1 mutation and by age 45 for those with a BRCA2 mutation to maximize prevention and to minimize adverse effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanne Kotsopoulos
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jacek Gronwald
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Beth Karlan
- Women's Cancer Program, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Barry Rosen
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Tomasz Huzarski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Pal Moller
- Inherited Cancer Research Group, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Department for Medical Genetics; and Department of Tumor Biology, Institute of Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Henry T Lynch
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Christian F Singer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Leigha Senter
- Division of Human Genetics, the Ohio State University Medical Center, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Susan L Neuhausen
- Division of Biomarkers of Early Detection and Prevention, Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Nadine Tung
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andrea Eisen
- Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - William D Foulkes
- Program in Cancer Genetics, Department of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Ping Sun
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Jan Lubinski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Steven A Narod
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Manchanda R, Legood R, Antoniou AC, Pearce L, Menon U. Commentary on changing the risk threshold for surgical prevention of ovarian cancer. BJOG 2018; 125:541-544. [PMID: 28548227 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- R Manchanda
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK
- Department of Women's Cancer, Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - R Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - A C Antoniou
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - L Pearce
- Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Department of Preventive Medicine, USC Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - U Menon
- Department of Women's Cancer, Gynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Dawson A, Fernandez ML, Anglesio M, Yong PJ, Carey MS. Endometriosis and endometriosis-associated cancers: new insights into the molecular mechanisms of ovarian cancer development. Ecancermedicalscience 2018; 12:803. [PMID: 29456620 PMCID: PMC5813919 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2018.803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Endometriosis is a fascinating disease that we strive to better understand. Molecular techniques are shedding new light on many important aspects of this disease: from pathogenesis to the recognition of distinct disease variants like deep infiltrating endometriosis. The observation that endometriosis is a cancer precursor has now been strengthened with the knowledge that mutations that are present in endometriosis-associated cancers can be found in adjacent endometriosis lesions. Recent genomic studies, placed in context, suggest that deep infiltrating endometriosis may represent a benign neoplasm that invades locally but rarely metastasises. Further research will help elucidate distinct aberrations which result in this phenotype. With respect to identifying those patients who may be at risk of developing endometriosis-associated cancers, a combination of molecular, pathological, and inheritance markers may define a high-risk group that might benefit from risk-reducing strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy Dawson
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2K8, Canada
| | - Marta Llauradó Fernandez
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2K8, Canada
| | - Michael Anglesio
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2K8, Canada.,Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 2B5, Canada
| | - Paul J Yong
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2K8, Canada
| | - Mark S Carey
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2K8, Canada.,Department of Surgical Oncology, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 1G1, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Setting the Threshold for Surgical Prevention in Women at Increased Risk of Ovarian Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2018; 28:34-42. [DOI: 10.1097/igc.0000000000001147] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
AbstractThe number of ovarian cancer cases is predicted to rise by 14% in Europe and 55% worldwide over the next 2 decades. The current absence of a screening program, rising drug/treatment costs, and only marginal improvements in survival seen over the past 30 years suggest the need for maximizing primary surgical prevention to reduce the burden of ovarian cancer. Primary surgical prevention through risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is well established as the most effective method for preventing ovarian cancer. In the UK, it has traditionally been offered to high-risk women (>10% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer) who have completed their family. The cost-effectiveness of RRSO in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers older than 35 years is well established. Recently, RRSO has been shown to be cost-effective in postmenopausal women at lifetime ovarian cancer risks of 5% or greater and in premenopausal women at lifetime risks greater than 4%. The acceptability, uptake, and satisfaction with RRSO at these intermediate-risk levels remain to be established. Prospective outcome data on risk-reducing salpingectomy and delayed-oophorectomy for preventing ovarian cancer is lacking, and hence, this is best offered for primary prevention within the context and safe environment of a clinical trial. An estimated 63% of ovarian cancers occur in women with greater than 4% lifetime risk and 53% in those with 5% or greater lifetime-risk. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy can be offered for primary surgical prevention to women at intermediate risk levels (4%–5% to 10%). This includes unaffected women who have completed their family and have RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 gene mutations; first-degree relatives of women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer; BRCA mutation–negative women from high-risk breast-and-ovarian cancer or ovarian-cancer-only families. In those with BRCA1, RAD51C/RAD51D/MMR mutations and the occasional families with a history of ovarian cancer in their 40s, surgery needs to be considered at younger than 45. In other moderate-risk gene mutation carriers and those with polygenic risk, RRSO needs be considered at 50. There is need for establishment/expansion of well-defined pathways to increase clinical access to RRSO. It is time to lower the risk threshold for RRSO to enable introduction of a targeted primary prevention approach, which could significantly impact the future burden of ovarian cancer.
Collapse
|