The frequency and outcome of breast cancer risk-reducing surgery in Finnish BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Multicentric breast cancer with heterogeneous histopathology: a multidisciplinary review

Multiple synchronous (multifocal or multicentric) ipsilateral breast cancers with heterogeneous histopathology are a rare clinical occurrence, however, their incidence is increasing due to the use of MRI for breast cancer screening and staging. Some studies have demonstrated poorer clinical outcomes for this pattern of breast cancer, but there is no evidence to guide clinical practice. In this multidisciplinary review, we reflect on pathology and molecular characteristics, imaging findings, surgical management including conservation and reconstructive options and approach to the axilla, and the role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Multidisciplinary discussions appear decisive in planning an appropriate surgical choice and defining the correct systemic treatment tailored to each clinical condition.

Hereditary lobular breast cancer with an emphasis on E-cadherin genetic defect

Recent studies have reported germline CDH1 mutations in cases of lobular breast cancer (LBC) not associated with the classical hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome. A multidisciplinary workgroup discussed genetic susceptibility, pathophysiology and clinical management of hereditary LBC (HLBC). The team has established the clinical criteria for CDH1 screening and results' interpretation, and created consensus guidelines regarding genetic counselling, breast surveillance and imaging techniques, clinicopathological findings, psychological and decisional support, as well as prophylactic surgery and plastic reconstruction. Based on a review of current evidence for the identification of HLBC cases/families, CDH1 genetic testing is recommended in patients fulfilling the following criteria: (A) bilateral LBC with or without family history of LBC, with age at onset <50 years, and (B) unilateral LBC with family history of LBC, with age at onset <45 years. In CDH1 asymptomatic mutant carriers, breast surveillance with clinical examination, yearly mammography, contrast-enhanced breast MRI and breast ultrasonography (US) with 6-month interval between the US and the MRI should be implemented as a first approach. In selected cases with personal history, family history of LBC and CDH1 mutations, prophylactic mastectomy could be discussed with an integrative group of clinical experts. Psychodecisional support also plays a pivotal role in the management of individuals with or without CDH1 germline alterations. Ultimately, the definition of a specific protocol for CDH1 genetic screening and ongoing coordinated management of patients with HLBC is crucial for the effective surveillance and early detection of LBC.

Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent progress in understanding the genetic basis of breast cancer and widely publicized reports of celebrities undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) have increased interest in RRM as a method of preventing breast cancer. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2006 and 2010.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To determine whether risk-reducing mastectomy reduces death rates from any cause in women who have never had breast cancer and in women who have a history of breast cancer in one breast, and (ii) to examine the effect of risk-reducing mastectomy on other endpoints, including breast cancer incidence, breast cancer mortality, disease-free survival, physical morbidity, and psychosocial outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this Review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 July 2016. We included studies in English.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Participants included women at risk for breast cancer in at least one breast. Interventions included all types of mastectomy performed for the purpose of preventing breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently abstracted data from each report. We summarized data descriptively; quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity of study designs and insufficient reporting. We analyzed data separately for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). Four review authors assessed the methodological quality to determine whether or not the methods used sufficiently minimized selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, and attrition bias.

MAIN RESULTS

All 61 included studies were observational studies with some methodological limitations; randomized trials were absent. The studies presented data on 15,077 women with a wide range of risk factors for breast cancer, who underwent RRM.Twenty-one BRRM studies looking at the incidence of breast cancer or disease-specific mortality, or both, reported reductions after BRRM, particularly for those women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Twenty-six CRRM studies consistently reported reductions in incidence of contralateral breast cancer but were inconsistent about improvements in disease-specific survival. Seven studies attempted to control for multiple differences between intervention groups and showed no overall survival advantage for CRRM. Another study showed significantly improved survival following CRRM, but after adjusting for bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (BRRSO), the CRRM effect on all-cause mortality was no longer significant.Twenty studies assessed psychosocial measures; most reported high levels of satisfaction with the decision to have RRM but greater variation in satisfaction with cosmetic results. Worry over breast cancer was significantly reduced after BRRM when compared both to baseline worry levels and to the groups who opted for surveillance rather than BRRM, but there was diminished satisfaction with body image and sexual feelings.Seventeen case series reporting on adverse events from RRM with or without reconstruction reported rates of unanticipated reoperations from 4% in those without reconstruction to 64% in participants with reconstruction.In women who have had cancer in one breast, removing the other breast may reduce the incidence of cancer in that other breast, but there is insufficient evidence that this improves survival because of the continuing risk of recurrence or metastases from the original cancer. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention, when considering RRM.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While published observational studies demonstrated that BRRM was effective in reducing both the incidence of, and death from, breast cancer, more rigorous prospective studies are suggested. BRRM should be considered only among those at high risk of disease, for example, BRCA1/2 carriers. CRRM was shown to reduce the incidence of contralateral breast cancer, but there is insufficient evidence that CRRM improves survival, and studies that control for multiple confounding variables are recommended. It is possible that selection bias in terms of healthier, younger women being recommended for or choosing CRRM produces better overall survival numbers for CRRM. Given the number of women who may be over-treated with BRRM/CRRM, it is critical that women and clinicians understand the true risk for each individual woman before considering surgery. Additionally, thought should be given to other options to reduce breast cancer risk, such as BRRSO and chemoprevention when considering RRM.