1
|
Brantley KD, Rosenberg SM, Collins LC, Ruddy KJ, Tamimi RM, Schapira L, Borges VF, Warner E, Come SE, Zheng Y, Kirkner GJ, Snow C, Winer EP, Partridge AH. Second Primary Breast Cancer in Young Breast Cancer Survivors. JAMA Oncol 2024; 10:718-725. [PMID: 38602683 PMCID: PMC11009864 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0286] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 12/07/2023] [Indexed: 04/12/2024]
Abstract
Importance Among women diagnosed with primary breast cancer (BC) at or younger than age 40 years, prior data suggest that their risk of a second primary BC (SPBC) is higher than that of women who are older when they develop a first primary BC. Objective To estimate cumulative incidence and characterize risk factors of SPBC among young patients with BC. Design, Setting, and Participants Participants were enrolled in the Young Women's Breast Cancer Study, a prospective study of 1297 women aged 40 years or younger who were diagnosed with stage 0 to III BC from August 2006 to June 2015. Demographic, genetic testing, treatment, and outcome data were collected by patient surveys and medical record review. A time-to-event analysis was used to account for competing risks when determining cumulative incidence of SPBC, and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to evaluate associations between clinical factors and SPBC risk. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures The 5- and 10- year cumulative incidence of SPBC. Results In all, 685 women with stage 0 to III BC (mean [SD] age at primary BC diagnosis, 36 [4] years) who underwent unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as the primary surgery for BC were included in the analysis. Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 10.0 (7.4-12.1) years, 17 patients (2.5%) developed an SPBC; 2 of these patients had cancer in the ipsilateral breast after lumpectomy. The median (IQR) time from primary BC diagnosis to SPBC was 4.2 (3.3-5.6) years. Among 577 women who underwent genetic testing, the 10-year risk of SPBC was 2.2% for women who did not carry a pathogenic variant (12 of 544) and 8.9% for carriers of a pathogenic variant (3 of 33). In multivariate analyses, the risk of SPBC was higher among PV carriers vs noncarriers (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 5.27; 95% CI, 1.43-19.43) and women with primary in situ BC vs invasive BC (sHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70). Conclusions Findings of this cohort study suggest that young BC survivors without a germline pathogenic variant have a low risk of developing a SPBC in the first 10 years after diagnosis. Findings from germline genetic testing may inform treatment decision-making and follow-up care considerations in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen D. Brantley
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Shoshana M. Rosenberg
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Laura C. Collins
- Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kathryn J. Ruddy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Rulla M. Tamimi
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Lidia Schapira
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California
| | | | - Ellen Warner
- Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Steven E. Come
- Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Yue Zheng
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Craig Snow
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Ann H. Partridge
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Breast Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Singh P, Agnese D, Amin M, Barrio AV, Botty Van den Bruele A, Burke E, Danforth DN, Dirbas FM, Eladoumikdachi F, Kantor O, Kumar S, Lee MC, Matsen C, Nguyen TT, Ozmen T, Park KU, Plichta JK, Reyna C, Showalter SL, Styblo T, Tranakas N, Weiss A, Laronga C, Boughey J. Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Site Working Group Statement on Contralateral Mastectomy: Indications, Outcomes, and Risks. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:2212-2223. [PMID: 38261126 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-14893-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
Rates of contralateral mastectomy (CM) among patients with unilateral breast cancer have been increasing in the United States. In this Society of Surgical Oncology position statement, we review the literature addressing the indications, risks, and benefits of CM since the society's 2017 statement. We held a virtual meeting to outline key topics and then conducted a literature search using PubMed to identify relevant articles. We reviewed the articles and made recommendations based on group consensus. Patients consider CM for many reasons, including concerns regarding the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), desire for improved cosmesis and symmetry, and preferences to avoid ongoing screening, whereas surgeons primarily consider CBC risk when making a recommendation for CM. For patients with a high risk of CBC, CM reduces the risk of new breast cancer, however it is not known to convey an overall survival benefit. Studies evaluating patient satisfaction with CM and reconstruction have yielded mixed results. Imaging with mammography within 12 months before CM is recommended, but routine preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging is not; there is also no evidence to support routine postmastectomy imaging surveillance. Because the likelihood of identifying an occult malignancy during CM is low, routine sentinel lymph node surgery is not recommended. Data on the rates of postoperative complications are conflicting, and such complications may not be directly related to CM. Adjuvant therapy delays due to complications have not been reported. Surgeons can reduce CM rates by encouraging shared decision making and informed discussions incorporating patient preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Puneet Singh
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | | | | | - Andrea V Barrio
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, NY, USA
| | | | - Erin Burke
- University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | | | | | - Olga Kantor
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Shicha Kumar
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | | | | | | | - Tolga Ozmen
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ko Un Park
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Anna Weiss
- University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhu J, Min N, Zhang Y, Wu H, Hong C, Geng R, Wei Y, Guan Q, Zheng Y, Li X. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer in Chinese female population: a retrospective cohort study. Gland Surg 2023; 12:1668-1685. [PMID: 38229836 PMCID: PMC10788567 DOI: 10.21037/gs-23-384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 11/09/2023] [Indexed: 01/18/2024]
Abstract
Background Due to differences in socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, the characteristics and prognosis of Asian female patients choosing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are likely to be different from Western patients. To fill the research gap of CPM in Asian populations, this study aims to explore the application trend, survival benefits, decision-making factors, and satisfaction of CPM based on the Chinese patients undergoing CPM. Methods The 0-III stage unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients who received breast surgery in the Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2005 to 2017 were selected. The surgical procedures included simple mastectomy (SM), nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), breast conserving surgery (BCS), and CPM. Cox proportional regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier (KM) curve were performed to compare the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates between CPM group and unilateral mastectomy (UM) group. Proportional propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:1 ratio was used to match the two groups and secondary survival analysis was performed. Logistic regression models were used to test predictive factors related to patients' CPM surgical decision-making. Results Four thousand two hundred and seventy-six patients were included in the study, with 73 patients receiving CPM, 3,567 receiving SM, 151 receiving NSM, and 485 receiving BCS. CPM surgery was first used in 2007, with a peak application rate of 3.02% in 2016. Three thousand seven hundred and ninety-one patients were included in the survival analysis, with a median follow-up time of 66.60 months. Compared to UM patients, neither the KM survival curve nor Cox regression hazard analyses of CPM showed better OS (P=0.963; P=0.834). After PSM, CPM also did not exhibit significant survival benefits in OS (P=0.335) and DFS (P=0.409). The logistic regression analyses showed that NSM surgery and lower tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage were independent factors to promote the CPM decision-making of patients. The CPM group showed high overall satisfaction (84.9%) and relatively low appearance satisfaction (69.9%). Conclusions CPM was practiced for the first time since 2007 in our hospital. CPM does not provide any OS and DFS benefits compared to UM and the appearance satisfaction procedure was relatively low. Therefore, clinicians should fully communicate with patients before surgery and be more cautious in giving CPM recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingjin Zhu
- School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ningning Min
- School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yanjun Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Huan Wu
- Medical Big Data Research Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Chenyan Hong
- School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Rui Geng
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yufan Wei
- School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Qingyu Guan
- School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yiqiong Zheng
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xiru Li
- School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China
- Department of General Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Watt GP, Smith SA, Howell RM, Pérez-Andújar A, Reiner AS, Cerviño L, McCormick B, Hess D, Knight JA, Malone KE, John EM, Bernstein L, Lynch CF, Mellemkjær L, Shore RE, Liang X, Woods M, Boice JD, Dauer LT, Bernstein JL. Trends in Radiation Dose to the Contralateral Breast During Breast Cancer Radiation Therapy. Radiat Res 2023; 200:331-339. [PMID: 37590492 PMCID: PMC10684055 DOI: 10.1667/rade-23-00014.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 07/31/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023]
Abstract
Over 4 million survivors of breast cancer live in the United States, 35% of whom were treated before 2009. Approximately half of patients with breast cancer receive radiation therapy, which exposes the untreated contralateral breast to radiation and increases the risk of a subsequent contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Radiation oncology has strived to reduce unwanted radiation dose, but it is unknown whether a corresponding decline in actual dose received to the untreated contralateral breast has occurred. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in unwanted contralateral breast radiation dose to inform risk assessment of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast for long-term survivors of breast cancer. Individually estimated radiation absorbed doses to the four quadrants and areola central area of the contralateral breast were estimated for 2,132 women treated with radiation therapy for local/regional breast cancers at age <55 years diagnosed between 1985 and 2008. The two inner quadrant doses and two outer quadrant doses were averaged. Trends in dose to each of the three areas of the contralateral breast were evaluated in multivariable models. The population impact of reducing contralateral breast dose on the incidence of radiation-associated CBC was assessed by estimating population attributable risk fraction (PAR) in a multivariable model. The median dose to the inner quadrants of the contralateral breast was 1.70 Gy; to the areola, 1.20 Gy; and to the outer quadrants, 0.72 Gy. Ninety-two percent of patients received ≥1 Gy to the inner quadrants. For each calendar year of diagnosis, dose declined significantly for each location, most rapidly for the inner quadrants (0.04 Gy/year). Declines in dose were similar across subgroups defined by age at diagnosis and body mass index. The PAR for CBC due to radiation exposure >1 Gy for women <40 years of age was 17%. Radiation dose-reduction measures have reduced dose to the contralateral breast during breast radiation therapy. Reducing the dose to the contralateral breast to <1 Gy could prevent an estimated 17% of subsequent radiation-associated CBCs for women treated under 40 years of age. These dose estimates inform CBC surveillance for the growing number of breast cancer survivors who received radiation therapy as young women in recent decades. Continued reductions in dose to the contralateral breast could further reduce the incidence of radiation-associated CBC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gordon P. Watt
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Susan A. Smith
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Rebecca M. Howell
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Anne S. Reiner
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Beryl McCormick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Julia A. Knight
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kathleen E. Malone
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Esther M. John
- Departments of Epidemiology & Population Health and of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Leslie Bernstein
- Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California
| | | | | | - Roy E. Shore
- Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Xiaolin Liang
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Meghan Woods
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John D. Boice
- National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | | | - Jonine L. Bernstein
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schmidt MK, Kelly JE, Brédart A, Cameron DA, de Boniface J, Easton DF, Offersen BV, Poulakaki F, Rubio IT, Sardanelli F, Schmutzler R, Spanic T, Weigelt B, Rutgers EJT. EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Eur J Cancer 2023; 181:79-91. [PMID: 36641897 PMCID: PMC10326619 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.11.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 11/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
After a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer, increasing numbers of patients are requesting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the surgical removal of the healthy breast after diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. It is important for the community of breast cancer specialists to provide meaningful guidance to women considering CPM. This manifesto discusses the issues and challenges of CPM and provides recommendations to improve oncological, surgical, physical and psychological outcomes for women presenting with unilateral breast cancer: (1) Communicate best available risks in manageable timeframes to prioritise actions; better risk stratification and implementation of risk-assessment tools combining family history, genetic and genomic information, and treatment and prognosis of the first breast cancer are required; (2) Reserve CPM for specific situations; in women not at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), ipsilateral breast-conserving surgery is the recommended option; (3) Encourage patients at low or intermediate risk of CBC to delay decisions on CPM until treatment for the primary cancer is complete, to focus on treating the existing disease first; (4) Provide patients with personalised information about the risk:benefit balance of CPM in manageable timeframes; (5) Ensure patients have an informed understanding of the competing risks for CBC and that there is a realistic plan for the patient; (6) Ensure patients understand the short- and long-term physical effects of CPM; (7) In patients considering CPM, offer psychological and surgical counselling before surgery; anxiety alone is not an indication for CPM; (8) Eliminate inequality between countries in reimbursement strategies; CPM should be reimbursed if it is considered a reasonable option resulting from multidisciplinary tumour board assessment; (9) Treat breast cancer patients at specialist breast units providing the entire patient-centred pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Anne Brédart
- Institut Curie, Paris, France; Psychology Institute, Psychopathology and Health Process Laboratory UR4057, Paris City University, Paris, France
| | - David A Cameron
- Edinburgh University Cancer Centre, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Jana de Boniface
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Breast Unit, Capio St. Göran's Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - 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
| | - Birgitte V Offersen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital - Aarhus University, Aarhus N, Denmark
| | - Fiorita Poulakaki
- Breast Surgery Department, Athens Medical Center, Athens, Greece; Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy
| | - Isabel T Rubio
- Breast Surgical Oncology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy; Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Tanja Spanic
- Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy; Europa Donna Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Britta Weigelt
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Emiel J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Austin PC, Giardiello D, van Buuren S. Impute-then-exclude versus exclude-then-impute: Lessons when imputing a variable used both in cohort creation and as an independent variable in the analysis model. Stat Med 2023; 42:1525-1541. [PMID: 36807923 DOI: 10.1002/sim.9685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2022] [Revised: 10/18/2022] [Accepted: 02/03/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2023]
Abstract
We examined the setting in which a variable that is subject to missingness is used both as an inclusion/exclusion criterion for creating the analytic sample and subsequently as the primary exposure in the analysis model that is of scientific interest. An example is cancer stage, where patients with stage IV cancer are often excluded from the analytic sample, and cancer stage (I to III) is an exposure variable in the analysis model. We considered two analytic strategies. The first strategy, referred to as "exclude-then-impute," excludes subjects for whom the observed value of the target variable is equal to the specified value and then uses multiple imputation to complete the data in the resultant sample. The second strategy, referred to as "impute-then-exclude," first uses multiple imputation to complete the data and then excludes subjects based on the observed or filled-in values in the completed samples. Monte Carlo simulations were used to compare five methods (one based on "exclude-then-impute" and four based on "impute-then-exclude") along with the use of a complete case analysis. We considered both missing completely at random and missing at random missing data mechanisms. We found that an impute-then-exclude strategy using substantive model compatible fully conditional specification tended to have superior performance across 72 different scenarios. We illustrated the application of these methods using empirical data on patients hospitalized with heart failure when heart failure subtype was used for cohort creation (excluding subjects with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction) and was also an exposure in the analysis model.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter C Austin
- ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Daniele Giardiello
- Institute for Biomedicine (affiliated with the University of Lübeck), Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Stef van Buuren
- University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sun J, Chu F, Pan J, Zhang Y, Yao L, Chen J, Hu L, Zhang J, Xu Y, Wang X, Cao W, Xie Y. BRCA-CRisk: A Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for BRCA Carriers. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:991-999. [PMID: 36480783 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.00833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The absolute cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) for patients with BRCA1/2 variants is unknown. The purpose of this study was to develop a CBC risk prediction model for assessing CBC risk for BRCA1/2 carriers. METHODS The primary cohort of 491 patients with BRCA1/2 variants was derived from a large series of unselected patients with breast cancer. A nomogram was established on the basis of the results of a multivariate Cox regression analysis from this cohort. This model, named BRCA-CRisk, was further validated by an independent cohort of 205 patients with BRCA1/2 variants. Discrimination and calibration of the model were assessed. RESULTS In the primary cohort of 491 patients, 66 developed contralateral breast cancer after a median follow-up of 7.0 years. Four variables were significantly associated with risk of CBC and were incorporated in the establishment of the BRCA-CRisk prediction model: younger age at first breast cancer (with continuous variable, P = .002), positive first-degree family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.16 to 3.08; P = .011), variant located near the 3' region of BRCA (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.23 to 3.30; P = .006), and endocrine therapy (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.88; P = .013). The area under the time-dependent curves for the 5- and 10-year cumulative risks of CBC were 0.775 and 0.702, respectively. The model was well validated in the independent cohort of 205 BRCA1/2 carriers, with area under the curves of 0.750 and 0.691 for 5 and 10 years, respectively. CONCLUSION BRCA-CRisk model provides a useful tool for assessing the absolute cumulative risk of CBC for BRCA1/2 carriers and may help carriers and clinicians optimally select risk-reducing strategies on the basis of individual CBC risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Sun
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Futao Chu
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Jiani Pan
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine (ICBM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, P. R. China.,Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Yaxin Zhang
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Lu Yao
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Jiuan Chen
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Li Hu
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Juan Zhang
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Ye Xu
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China
| | - Xiaojia Wang
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine (ICBM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Wenming Cao
- Department of Breast Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine (ICBM), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hangzhou, P. R. China
| | - Yuntao Xie
- Familial & Hereditary Cancer Center, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, P. R. China.,Department of Breast Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, P. R. China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Coopey SB. Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Average Risk Women: Who Can Choose This Wisely? Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:4-5. [PMID: 36264517 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12702-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
9
|
Lawson MB, Herschorn SD, Sprague BL, Buist DSM, Lee SJ, Newell MS, Lourenco AP, Lee JM. Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2022; 219:854-868. [PMID: 35544374 PMCID: PMC9691521 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.22.27635] [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] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marissa B Lawson
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave E, LG-200, Seattle, WA 98040
| | - Sally D Herschorn
- Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT
| | - Brian L Sprague
- Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
| | - Diana S M Buist
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA
| | - Su-Ju Lee
- Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH
| | - Mary S Newell
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Ana P Lourenco
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI
| | - Janie M Lee
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave E, LG-200, Seattle, WA 98040
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Gail MH, Jatoi I. Tools for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Decision Making. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:3653-3659. [PMID: 35759730 PMCID: PMC9622574 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2021] [Revised: 03/25/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly opting for the removal of not only the involved breast, but also for the removal of the opposite uninvolved breast (contralateral prophylactic mastectomy [CPM]), although the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) has decreased in recent years. Models to predict the absolute risk of CBC can help a woman decide whether to undergo CPM. Our objective is to illustrate that a better decision can be made if the patient and doctor also have estimates of the absolute risks of regional and distant recurrences and mortality from non-breast cancer causes. MATERIALS AND METHODS We based our analyses on two published models for CBC and published information on the hazards of regional and distant recurrences and non-breast cancer mortality. Assuming that CPM eliminates CBC but has no effect on other events, we calculated how much CPM reduces a woman's CBC risk and total risk from all these events for 10 hypothetical women with various subtypes of breast cancer and risk factors. RESULTS The risk of CBC and total risk vary greatly, depending on the breast cancer subtype. In some cases, a decision for or against CPM can be based on CBC risk alone, but in others, additional consideration of total risk may cause a woman to decline CPM. CONCLUSION There is a potential to develop more informative tools for deciding on CPM. Realizing this potential will require more and better data to validate existing models of absolute CBC risk and to characterize the hazards of regional and distant recurrences and deaths from non-breast cancer causes for women with various subtypes of breast cancers and risk factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mitchell H. Gail
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD
| | - Ismail Jatoi
- Division of Surgical Oncology and Endocrine Surgery, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Giardiello D, Hooning MJ, Hauptmann M, Keeman R, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Becher H, Blomqvist C, Bojesen SE, Bolla MK, Camp NJ, Czene K, Devilee P, Eccles DM, Fasching PA, Figueroa JD, Flyger H, García-Closas M, Haiman CA, Hamann U, Hopper JL, Jakubowska A, Leeuwen FE, Lindblom A, Lubiński J, Margolin S, Martinez ME, Nevanlinna H, Nevelsteen I, Pelders S, Pharoah PDP, Siesling S, Southey MC, van der Hout AH, van Hest LP, Chang-Claude J, Hall P, Easton DF, Steyerberg EW, Schmidt MK. PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH : BCR 2022; 24:69. [PMID: 36271417 PMCID: PMC9585761 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-022-01567-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prediction of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk is challenging due to moderate performances of the known risk factors. We aimed to improve our previous risk prediction model (PredictCBC) by updated follow-up and including additional risk factors. METHODS We included data from 207,510 invasive breast cancer patients participating in 23 studies. In total, 8225 CBC events occurred over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. In addition to the previously included risk factors, PredictCBC-2.0 included CHEK2 c.1100delC, a 313 variant polygenic risk score (PRS-313), body mass index (BMI), and parity. Fine and Gray regression was used to fit the model. Calibration and a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years were assessed to determine the performance of the models. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of PredictCBC-2.0 and previous PredictCBC models. RESULTS The discrimination of PredictCBC-2.0 at 10 years was higher than PredictCBC with an AUC of 0.65 (95% prediction intervals (PI) 0.56-0.74) versus 0.63 (95%PI 0.54-0.71). PredictCBC-2.0 was well calibrated with an observed/expected ratio at 10 years of 0.92 (95%PI 0.34-2.54). Decision curve analysis for contralateral preventive mastectomy (CPM) showed the potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-2.0 between thresholds of 4 and 12% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSIONS Additional genetic information beyond BRCA1/2 germline mutations improved CBC risk prediction and might help tailor clinical decision-making toward CPM or alternative preventive strategies. Identifying patients who benefit from CPM, especially in the general breast cancer population, remains challenging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Giardiello
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Institute of Biomedicine, EURAC Research Affiliated Institute of the University of Lübeck, Bolzano, Italy
| | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Brandenburg Medical School, Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Renske Keeman
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Heiko Becher
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Carl Blomqvist
- Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.,Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Stig E Bojesen
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nicola J Camp
- Department of Internal Medicine and Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Kamila Czene
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Diana M Eccles
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Peter A Fasching
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany
| | - Jonine D Figueroa
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.,Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.,Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Henrik Flyger
- Department of Breast Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Montserrat García-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Department of Health and Human Services, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Ute Hamann
- Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - John L Hopper
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Anna Jakubowska
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.,Independent Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetic Diagnostics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Floor E Leeuwen
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Annika Lindblom
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jan Lubiński
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Sara Margolin
- Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Maria Elena Martinez
- Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.,Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Heli Nevanlinna
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Ines Nevelsteen
- Department of Oncology, Leuven Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, Louven, Belgium
| | - Saskia Pelders
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - 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
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of HealthTechnology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Melissa C Southey
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.,Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Annemieke H van der Hout
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Liselotte P van Hest
- Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Cancer Epidemiology Group, University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - 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
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Schmitz RSJM, Wilthagen EA, van Duijnhoven F, van Oirsouw M, Verschuur E, Lynch T, Punglia RS, Hwang ES, Wesseling J, Schmidt MK, Bleiker EMA, Engelhardt EG, PRECISION Consortium GC. Prediction Models and Decision Aids for Women with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Systematic Literature Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14133259. [PMID: 35805030 PMCID: PMC9265509 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14133259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2022] [Revised: 06/30/2022] [Accepted: 06/30/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a potential precursor to invasive breast cancer (IBC). Although in many women DCIS will never become breast cancer, almost all women diagnosed with DCIS undergo surgery with/without radiotherapy. Several studies are ongoing to de-escalate treatment for DCIS. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to aid women with DCIS in selecting the best treatment option for their specific goals. The aim of this study was to identify these decision support tools and evaluate their quality and clinical utility. Thirty-three studies were reviewed, in which four decision aids and six prediction models were described. While some of these models might be promising, most lacked important qualities such as tools to help women discuss their options or good quality validation studies. Therefore, the need for good quality, well validated decision support tools remains unmet. Abstract Even though Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) can potentially be an invasive breast cancer (IBC) precursor, most DCIS lesions never will progress to IBC if left untreated. Because we cannot predict yet which DCIS lesions will and which will not progress, almost all women with DCIS are treated by breast-conserving surgery +/− radiotherapy, or even mastectomy. As a consequence, many women with non-progressive DCIS carry the burden of intensive treatment without any benefit. Multiple decision support tools have been developed to optimize DCIS management, aiming to find the balance between over- and undertreatment. In this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and added value of such tools. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline(ovid), Embase(ovid), Scopus and TRIP. Following the PRISMA guidelines, publications were selected. The CHARMS (prediction models) or IPDAS (decision aids) checklist were used to evaluate the tools’ methodological quality. Thirty-three publications describing four decision aids and six prediction models were included. The decision aids met at least 50% of the IPDAS criteria. However, most lacked tools to facilitate discussion of the information with healthcare providers. Five prediction models quantify the risk of an ipsilateral breast event after a primary DCIS, one estimates the risk of contralateral breast cancer, and none included active surveillance. Good quality and external validations were lacking for all prediction models. There remains an unmet clinical need for well-validated, good-quality DCIS risk prediction models and decision aids in which active surveillance is included as a management option for low-risk DCIS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Renée S. J. M. Schmitz
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (R.S.J.M.S.); (J.W.); (M.K.S.)
| | - Erica A. Wilthagen
- Department of Scientific Information Service, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | | | - Marja van Oirsouw
- Borstkanker Vereniging Nederland, 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands; (M.v.O.); (E.V.)
| | - Ellen Verschuur
- Borstkanker Vereniging Nederland, 3511 DT Utrecht, The Netherlands; (M.v.O.); (E.V.)
| | - Thomas Lynch
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA; (T.L.); (E.S.H.)
| | - Rinaa S. Punglia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA;
| | - E. Shelley Hwang
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA; (T.L.); (E.S.H.)
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (R.S.J.M.S.); (J.W.); (M.K.S.)
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Nethelands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K. Schmidt
- Department of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (R.S.J.M.S.); (J.W.); (M.K.S.)
| | - Eveline M. A. Bleiker
- Department of Psycho-Oncology and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
- Correspondence:
| | - Ellen G. Engelhardt
- Department of Psycho-Oncology and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Dettwyler SA, Thull DL, McAuliffe PF, Steiman JG, Johnson RR, Diego EJ, Mai PL. Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 194:393-401. [PMID: 35596825 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06619-y] [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: 12/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/25/2022] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Genetic testing (GT) can identify individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, who may consider contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). We report on CRRM rates in young women newly diagnosed with BC who received GT through a multidisciplinary clinic. METHODS Clinical data were reviewed for patients seen between November 2014 and June 2019. Patients with non-metastatic, unilateral BC diagnosed at age ≤ 45 and completed GT prior to surgery were included. Associations between surgical intervention and age, BC stage, family history, and GT results were evaluated. RESULTS Of the 194 patients, 30 (15.5%) had a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, NBN, NF1), with 66.7% in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Of 164 (84.5%) uninformative results, 132 (68%) were negative and 32 (16.5%) were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 67 (34.5%) had CRRM, including 25/30 (83.3%) PV/LPV carriers and 42/164 (25.6%) non-carriers. A positive test result (p < 0.01) and significant family history were associated with CRRM (p = 0.02). For the 164 with uninformative results, multivariate analysis showed that CRRM was not associated with age (p = 0.23), a VUS, (p = 0.08), family history (p = 0.10), or BC stage (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION In this cohort of young women with BC, the identification of a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene and a significant family history were associated with the decision to pursue CRRM. Thus, incorporation of genetic services in the initial evaluation of young patients with a new BC could contribute to the surgical decision-making process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shenin A Dettwyler
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Cancer Genetics Program), Pittsburgh, PA, USA. .,Currently at NYU Langone Health (The Pancreatic Cancer Center), New York, NY, USA.
| | - Darcy L Thull
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Cancer Genetics Program), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Jennifer G Steiman
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee-Womens Surgical Associates), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Ronald R Johnson
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee-Womens Surgical Associates), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Emilia J Diego
- UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital (Magee-Womens Surgical Associates), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Phuong L Mai
- University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (Center for Clinical Genetics and Genomics), Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
CBCRisk-Black: a personalized contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model for black women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 194:179-186. [PMID: 35562619 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06612-5] [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: 01/02/2022] [Accepted: 04/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Black breast cancer (BC) survivors have a higher risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC) than Whites. Existing CBC risk prediction tools are developed based on mostly White women. To address this racial disparity, it is crucial to develop tools tailored for Black women to help them inform about their actual risk of CBC. METHODS We propose an absolute risk prediction model, CBCRisk-Black, specifically for Black BC patients. It uses data on Black women from two sources: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER). First, a matched lasso logistic regression model for estimating relative risks (RR) is developed. Then, it is combined with relevant hazard rates and attributable risks to obtain absolute risks. Six-fold cross-validation is used to internally validate CBCRisk-Black. We also compare CBCRisk-Black with CBCRisk, an existing CBC risk prediction model. RESULTS The RR model uses data from BCSC on 744 Black women (186 cases). CBCRisk-Black has four risk factors (RR compared to baseline): breast density (2.13 for heterogeneous/extremely dense), family history of BC (2.28 for yes), first BC tumor size (2.14 for T3/T4, 1.56 for TIS), and age at first diagnosis of BC (1.41 for < 40). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for 3- and 5-year predictions are 0.72 and 0.65 for CBCRisk-Black while those are 0.65 and 0.60 for CBCRisk. CONCLUSION CBCRisk-Black may serve as a useful tool to clinicians in counseling Black BC patients by providing a more accurate and personalized CBC risk estimate.
Collapse
|
15
|
Akdeniz D, van Barele M, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Steyerberg EW, Hauptmann M, van de Beek I, van Engelen K, Wevers MR, Gómez García EB, Ausems MGEM, Berger LPV, van Asperen CJ, Adank MA, Collée MJ, Stommel-Jenner DJ, Jager A, Schmidt MK, Hooning MJ. Effects of chemotherapy on contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A nationwide cohort study. Breast 2022; 61:98-107. [PMID: 34929424 PMCID: PMC8693290 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2021] [Revised: 12/09/2021] [Accepted: 12/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Aim BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with primary breast cancer (PBC) are at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). In a nationwide cohort, we investigated the effects of chemotherapeutic agents given for PBC on CBC risk separately in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Patients and methods BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with an invasive PBC diagnosis from 1990 to 2017 were selected from a Dutch cohort. We estimated cumulative CBC incidence using competing risks analysis. Hazard ratios (HR) for the effect of neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and different chemotherapeutic agents on CBC risk were estimated using Cox regression. Results We included 1090 BRCA1 and 568 BRCA2 mutation carriers; median follow-up was 8.9 and 8.4 years, respectively. Ten-year cumulative CBC incidence for treatment with and without chemotherapy was 6.7% [95%CI: 5.1–8.6] and 16.7% [95%CI: 10.8–23.7] in BRCA1 and 4.8% [95%CI: 2.7–7.8] and 16.0% [95%CI: 9.3–24.4] in BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. Chemotherapy was associated with reduced CBC risk in BRCA1 (multivariable HR: 0.46, 95%CI: 0.29–0.74); a similar trend was observed in BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.29–1.39). In BRCA1, risk reduction was most pronounced in the first 5 years (HR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.17–0.61). Anthracyclines and the combination of anthracyclines with taxanes were associated with substantial CBC risk reduction in BRCA1 carriers (HR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.17–0.68 and HR: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.08–0.62, respectively). Conclusion Risk-reducing effects of chemotherapy are substantial for at least 5 years and may be used in personalised CBC risk prediction in any case for BRCA1 mutation carriers. Contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk is high in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Chemotherapy for primary breast cancer results in decreased CBC risk in BRCA1. Anthracyclines with/without taxanes show the largest CBC risk reduction in BRCA1. For BRCA2 similar trends are observed as in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Chemotherapy must be considered in personalised CBC risk models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Delal Akdeniz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mark van Barele
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuroppin, Germany
| | - Irma van de Beek
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Klaartje van Engelen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marijke R Wevers
- Department for Clinical Genetics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | | | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Division of Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Lieke P V Berger
- Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Muriel A Adank
- Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Margriet J Collée
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Denise J Stommel-Jenner
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Li L, Chen S, Li J, Rong G, Yang J, Li Y. Characterization of m6A-related lncRNA signature in neuroblastoma. Front Pediatr 2022; 10:927885. [PMID: 36324814 PMCID: PMC9618704 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.927885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Accepted: 09/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
N6-methyladenosine (m6A) constitutes one of the most common modifications in mRNA, rRNA, tRNA, microRNA, and long-chain noncoding RNA. The influence of modifications of m6A on the stability of RNA depends upon the expression of methyltransferase ("writer") and demethylase ("eraser") and m6A binding protein ("reader"). In this study, we identified a set of m6A-related lncRNA expression profiles in neuroblastoma (NBL) based on the Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatments (TARGET) program. Thereupon, we identified two subgroups of neuroblastoma (high-risk group and low-risk group) by applying consensus clustering to m6A RNA methylation regulators ("Readers,", "Writer," and "Erase"). Relative to the low-risk group, the high-risk group correlates with a poorer prognosis. Moreover, the present study also revealed that the high-risk group proves to be significantly positively enriched in the tumor-related signaling pathways, including the P53 signaling pathway, cell cycle, and DNA repair. This finding indicates that these molecular prognostic markers may also be potentially valuable in early diagnosis, which provides a new research direction for the study of molecular mechanisms underlying the development of NBL. In conclusion, this study constructed a new model of NBL prognosis based on m6a-associated lncRNAs. Ultimately, this model is helpful for stratification of prognosis and development of treatment strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liming Li
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, GuiPing People's Hospital, Guangxi, China
| | - Sisi Chen
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, GuiPing People's Hospital, Guangxi, China
| | - Jianhong Li
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, GuiPing People's Hospital, Guangxi, China
| | - Guochou Rong
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, GuiPing People's Hospital, Guangxi, China
| | - Juchao Yang
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, GuiPing People's Hospital, Guangxi, China
| | - Yunquan Li
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, GuiPing People's Hospital, Guangxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Lopes Cardozo JMN, Byng D, Drukker CA, Schmidt MK, Binuya MA, van 't Veer LJ, Cardoso F, Piccart M, Smorenburg CH, Poncet C, Rutgers EJT. Outcome without any adjuvant systemic treatment in stage I ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients included in the MINDACT trial. Ann Oncol 2021; 33:310-320. [PMID: 34861376 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.11.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2021] [Revised: 10/26/2021] [Accepted: 11/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adjuvant systemic treatments (AST) reduce mortality, but have associated short- and long-term toxicities. Careful selection of patients likely to benefit from AST is needed. We evaluated outcome of low-risk breast cancer patients of the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial who received no AST. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, lymph node-negative tumors ≤2 cm who received no AST were matched 1 : 1 to patients with similar tumor characteristics treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), using propensity score matching and exact matching on age, genomic risk (70-gene signature) and grade. In a post hoc analysis, distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and hazard ratios (HR) by Cox regression. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) were assessed with competing risk analyses. RESULTS At 8 years, DMFI rates were 94.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7% to 96.9%] in 509 patients receiving no AST, and 97.3% (95% CI 95.8% to 98.8%) in 509 matched patients who received only ET [absolute difference: 2.5%, HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.30-1.03)]. No statistically significant difference was seen in 8-year OS rates, 95.4% (95% CI 93.5% to 97.4%) in patients receiving no AST and 95.6% (95% CI 93.8% to 97.5%) in patients receiving only ET [absolute difference: 0.2%, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.53-1.41)]. Cumulative incidence rates of LRR and CBC were 4.7% (95% CI 3.0% to 7.0%) and 4.6% (95% CI 2.9% to 6.9%) in patients receiving no AST versus 1.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 2.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.1%) in patients receiving only ET. CONCLUSIONS In patients with stage I low-risk breast cancer, the effect of ET on DMFI was limited, but overall significantly fewer breast cancer events were observed in patients who received ET, after the relatively short follow-up of 8 years. These benefits and side-effects of ET should be discussed with all patients, even those at a very low risk of distant metastasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M N Lopes Cardozo
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - D Byng
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C A Drukker
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M A Binuya
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - L J van 't Veer
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, USA
| | - F Cardoso
- Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Center/Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - M Piccart
- Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - C H Smorenburg
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C Poncet
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium
| | - E J T Rutgers
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Giannakeas V, Lim DW, Narod SA. The risk of contralateral breast cancer: a SEER-based analysis. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:601-610. [PMID: 34040177 PMCID: PMC8368197 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01417-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2020] [Revised: 03/26/2021] [Accepted: 04/22/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We sought to estimate the annual risk and 25-year cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with stage 0-III unilateral breast cancer. METHODS We identified 812,851 women with unilateral breast cancer diagnosed between 1990 and 2015 in the SEER database and followed them for contralateral breast cancer for up to 25 years. Women with a known bilateral mastectomy were excluded. We calculated the annual risk of contralateral breast cancer by age at diagnosis, by time since diagnosis and by current age. We compared risks by ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive disease, by race and by oestrogen receptor (ER) status of the first cancer. RESULTS There were 25,958 cases of contralateral invasive breast cancer diagnosed (3.2% of all patients). The annual risk of contralateral breast cancer over the 25-year follow-up period was 0.37% and the 25-year actuarial risk of contralateral invasive breast cancer was 9.9%. The annual risk varied to a small degree by age of diagnosis, by time elapsed since diagnosis and by current age. The 25-year actuarial risk was similar for DCIS and invasive breast cancer patients (10.1 versus 9.9%). The 25-year actuarial risk was higher for black women (12.7%) than for white women (9.7%) and was lower for women with ER-positive breast cancer (9.5%) than for women with ER-negative breast cancer (11.2%). CONCLUSIONS Women with unilateral breast cancer experience an annual risk of contralateral breast cancer ~0.4% per year, which persists over the 25-year follow-up period.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Adult
- Age Factors
- Aged
- Aged, 80 and over
- Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology
- Breast Neoplasms/metabolism
- Breast Neoplasms/pathology
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/epidemiology
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/metabolism
- Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology
- Female
- Humans
- Middle Aged
- Neoplasm Staging
- Neoplasms, Second Primary/epidemiology
- Neoplasms, Second Primary/metabolism
- Neoplasms, Second Primary/pathology
- Receptors, Estrogen/metabolism
- Risk Factors
- SEER Program
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vasily Giannakeas
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- ICES, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - David W Lim
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - 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.
- Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Patuleia SIS, Hagenaars SC, Moelans CB, Ausems MGEM, van Gils CH, Tollenaar RAEM, van Diest PJ, Mesker WE, van der Wall E. Lessons Learned from Setting Up a Prospective, Longitudinal, Multicenter Study with Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2021; 30:441-449. [PMID: 33082203 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2020] [Revised: 07/30/2020] [Accepted: 10/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Women identified with an increased risk of breast cancer due to mutations in cancer susceptibility genes or a familial history of breast cancer undergo tailored screening with the goal of detecting tumors earlier, when potential curative interventions are still possible. Ideally, screening would identify signs of carcinogenesis even before a tumor is detectable by imaging. This could be achieved by timely signaling of altered biomarker levels for precancerous processes in liquid biopsies. Currently, the Nipple Aspirate Fluid (NAF) and the Trial Early Serum Test BREAST cancer (TESTBREAST), both ongoing, prospective, multicenter studies, are investigating biomarkers in liquid biopsies to improve breast cancer screening in high-risk women. The NAF study focuses on changes over time in miRNA expression levels both in blood and NAF samples, whereas the TESTBREAST study analyzes changes in protein levels in blood samples at sequential interval timepoints. These within-subject changes are studied in relation to later occurrence of breast cancer using a nested case-control design. These longitudinal studies face their own challenges in execution, such as hindrances in logistics and in sample processing that were difficult to anticipate. This article offers insight into those challenges and concurrently aims to provide useful strategies for the set-up of similar studies.See related commentary by Sauter, p. 429.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susana I S Patuleia
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Sophie C Hagenaars
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Cathy B Moelans
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Carla H van Gils
- Department of Epidemiology of the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Rob A E M Tollenaar
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Paul J van Diest
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Wilma E Mesker
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Elsken van der Wall
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Lim DW, Metcalfe KA, Narod SA. Bilateral Mastectomy in Women With Unilateral Breast Cancer: A Review. JAMA Surg 2021; 156:569-576. [PMID: 33566074 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.6664] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Rates of bilateral mastectomy continue to increase in average-risk women with unilateral in situ and invasive breast cancer. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates increased from 5% to 12% of all operations for breast cancer in the US from 2004 to 2012. Among women having mastectomy, rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy have increased from less than 2% in 1998 to 30% in 2012. Observations The increased use of breast magnetic resonance imaging and genetic testing has marginally increased the number of candidates for bilateral mastectomy. Most bilateral mastectomies are performed on women who are at no special risk for contralateral cancer. The true risk of contralateral breast cancer is not associated with the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy; rather, the clinical factors associated with the probability of distant recurrence are associated with bilateral mastectomy. Several changes in society and health care delivery appear to act concurrently and synergistically. First, the anxiety engendered by a fear of cancer recurrence is focused on the contralateral cancer because this is most easily conceptualized and provides a ready target that can be acted upon. Second, the modern woman with breast cancer is supported by the surgeon and the social community of breast cancer survivors. Surgeons want to respect patient autonomy, despite guidelines discouraging bilateral mastectomy, and most women have their expenses covered by a third-party payer. Satisfaction with the results is high, but the association with improved psychosocial well-being remains to be fully understood. Conclusions and Relevance Reducing the use of medically unnecessary contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with nonhereditary, unilateral breast cancer requires a social change that addresses patient-, physician-, cultural-, and systems-level enabling factors. Such a transformation begins with educating clinicians and patients. The concerns of women who want preventive contralateral mastectomy must be explored, and women need to be informed of the anticipated benefits (or lack thereof) and risks. Areas requiring further study are considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David W Lim
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kelly A Metcalfe
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Steven A Narod
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Scheepens JCC, Veer LV', Esserman L, Belkora J, Mukhtar RA. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A narrative review of the evidence and acceptability. Breast 2021; 56:61-69. [PMID: 33621798 PMCID: PMC7907889 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 02/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
The uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased steadily over the last twenty years in women of all age groups and breast cancer stages. Since contralateral breast cancer is relatively rare and the breast cancer guidelines only recommend CPM in a small subset of patients with breast cancer, the drivers of this trend are unknown. This review aims to evaluate the evidence for and acceptability of CPM, data on patient rationales for choosing CPM, and some of the factors that might impact patient preferences. Based on the evidence, future recommendations will be provided. First, data on contralateral breast cancer risk and CPM rates and trends are addressed. After that, the evidence is structured around four main patient rationales for CPM formulated as questions that patients might ask their surgeon: Will CPM reduce mortality risk? Will CPM reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer? Can I avoid future screening with CPM? Will I have better breast symmetry after CPM? Also, three different guidelines regarding CPM will be reviewed. Studies indicate a large gap between patient preferences for radical risk reduction with CPM and the current approaches recommended by important guidelines. We suggest a strategy including shared decision-making to enhance surgeons’ communication with patients about contralateral breast cancer and treatment options, to empower patients in order to optimize the use of CPM incorporating accurate risk assessment and individual patient preferences. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates have increased over the last 20 years. Patients may want CPM to reduce risk of contralateral breast cancer and mortality. Patients do not always have the tools available to make a well-informed decision. Patient and surgeon’s shared decision-making could optimize the use of CPM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Josien C C Scheepens
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Laboratory Medicine, 2340 Sutter St., Box 0808, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA
| | - Laura van 't Veer
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Laboratory Medicine, 2340 Sutter St., Box 0808, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA
| | - Laura Esserman
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Surgery, 1825 4th Street, 3rd Floor, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1710, USA
| | - Jeff Belkora
- University of California, San Francisco, Institute for Health Policy Studies and Department of Surgery, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA
| | - Rita A Mukhtar
- University of California, San Francisco, Department of Surgery, 1825 4th Street, 3rd Floor, Box 1710, San Francisco, CA, 94143-1710, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Eysenbach G. Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23:e23318. [PMID: 33492238 PMCID: PMC7870349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 11/19/2020] [Accepted: 12/19/2020] [Indexed: 10/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Internet-based risk assessment tools offer a potential avenue for people to learn about their cancer risk and adopt risk-reducing behaviors. However, little is known about whether internet-based risk assessment tools adhere to scientific evidence for what constitutes good risk communication strategies. Furthermore, their quality may vary from a user experience perspective. OBJECTIVE This study aims to understand the extent to which current best practices in risk communication have been applied to internet-based cancer risk assessment tools. METHODS We conducted a search on August 6, 2019, to identify websites that provided personalized assessments of cancer risk or the likelihood of developing cancer. Each website (N=39) was coded according to standardized criteria and focused on 3 categories: general website characteristics, accessibility and credibility, and risk communication formats and strategies. RESULTS Some best practices in risk communication were more frequently adhered to by websites. First, we found that undefined medical terminology was widespread, impeding comprehension for those with limited health literacy. For example, 90% (35/39) of websites included technical language that the general public may find difficult to understand, yet only 23% (9/39) indicated that medical professionals were their intended audience. Second, websites lacked sufficient information for users to determine the credibility of the risk assessment, making it difficult to judge the scientific validity of their risk. For instance, only 59% (23/39) of websites referenced the scientific model used to calculate the user's cancer risk. Third, practices known to foster unbiased risk comprehension, such as adding qualitative labels to quantitative numbers, were used by only 15% (6/39) of websites. CONCLUSIONS Limitations in risk communication strategies used by internet-based cancer risk assessment tools were common. By observing best practices, these tools could limit confusion and cultivate understanding to help people make informed decisions and motivate people to engage in risk-reducing behaviors.
Collapse
|
23
|
Völkel V, Hueting TA, Draeger T, van Maaren MC, de Munck L, Strobbe LJA, Sonke GS, Schmidt MK, van Hezewijk M, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Siesling S. Improved risk estimation of locoregional recurrence, secondary contralateral tumors and distant metastases in early breast cancer: the INFLUENCE 2.0 model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2021; 189:817-826. [PMID: 34338943 PMCID: PMC8505302 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06335-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To extend the functionality of the existing INFLUENCE nomogram for locoregional recurrence (LRR) of breast cancer toward the prediction of secondary primary tumors (SP) and distant metastases (DM) using updated follow-up data and the best suitable statistical approaches. METHODS Data on women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive breast cancer were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 13,494). To provide flexible time-dependent individual risk predictions for LRR, SP, and DM, three statistical approaches were assessed; a Cox proportional hazard approach (COX), a parametric spline approach (PAR), and a random survival forest (RSF). These approaches were evaluated on their discrimination using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) statistic and on calibration using the Integrated Calibration Index (ICI). To correct for optimism, the performance measures were assessed by drawing 200 bootstrap samples. RESULTS Age, tumor grade, pT, pN, multifocality, type of surgery, hormonal receptor status, HER2-status, and adjuvant therapy were included as predictors. While all three approaches showed adequate calibration, the RSF approach offers the best optimism-corrected 5-year AUC for LRR (0.75, 95%CI: 0.74-0.76) and SP (0.67, 95%CI: 0.65-0.68). For the prediction of DM, all three approaches showed equivalent discrimination (5-year AUC: 0.77-0.78), while COX seems to have an advantage concerning calibration (ICI < 0.01). Finally, an online calculator of INFLUENCE 2.0 was created. CONCLUSIONS INFLUENCE 2.0 is a flexible model to predict time-dependent individual risks of LRR, SP and DM at a 5-year scale; it can support clinical decision-making regarding personalized follow-up strategies for curatively treated non-metastatic breast cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vinzenz Völkel
- Tumor Center Regensburg/University of Regensburg, Institute for Quality Control and Health Services Research, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Tom A Hueting
- Evidencio, medical Decision Support, Haaksbergen, The Netherlands
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, POBox 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands
| | - Teresa Draeger
- Tumor Center Regensburg/University of Regensburg, Institute for Quality Control and Health Services Research, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Marissa C van Maaren
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, POBox 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), POBox 19079, Utrecht, 3501 DB, The Netherlands
| | - Linda de Munck
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), POBox 19079, Utrecht, 3501 DB, The Netherlands
| | - Luc J A Strobbe
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Gabe S Sonke
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, POBox 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, POBox 217, Enschede, 7500 AE, The Netherlands.
- Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), POBox 19079, Utrecht, 3501 DB, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Qian X, Jia H, Zhang Y, Ma B, Qin G, Wu Z. Risk factors and prediction of second primary cancer in primary female non-metastatic breast cancer survivors. Aging (Albany NY) 2020; 12:19628-19640. [PMID: 33049710 PMCID: PMC7732282 DOI: 10.18632/aging.103939] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2020] [Accepted: 08/01/2020] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of second primary cancer among female breast cancer (BC) survivors, with emphasis on the prediction of the individual risk conditioned on the patient's characteristics. We identified 208,474 BC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2010 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Subdistribution proportional hazard model and competing-risk nomogram were used to explore the risk factors of second primary BC and non-BC, and to predict the 5- and 10-year probabilities of second primary BC. Model performance was evaluated via calibration curves and decision curve analysis. The overall 3-, 5-, and 10-year cumulative incidences for second primary BC were 0.9%, 1.6% and 4.4%, and for second primary non-BC were 2.3%, 3.9%, and 7.8%, respectively. Age over 70 years at diagnosis, black race, tumor size over 2 cm, negative hormone receptor, mixed histology, localized tumor, lumpectomy alone, and surgeries plus radiotherapy were significantly associated with increased risk of second BC. The risk of second non-BC was only related to age, race and tumor size. The proposed risk model as well as its nomogram was clinically beneficial to identify patients at high risk of developing second primary breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiwen Qian
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety and Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Huixun Jia
- Clinical Research Center, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Yue Zhang
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety and Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Bingqing Ma
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety and Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Guoyou Qin
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety and Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhenyu Wu
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety and Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Giardiello D, Hauptmann M, Steyerberg EW, Adank MA, Akdeniz D, Blom JC, Blomqvist C, Bojesen SE, Bolla MK, Brinkhuis M, Chang-Claude J, Czene K, Devilee P, Dunning AM, Easton DF, Eccles DM, Fasching PA, Figueroa J, Flyger H, García-Closas M, Haeberle L, Haiman CA, Hall P, Hamann U, Hopper JL, Jager A, Jakubowska A, Jung A, Keeman R, Koppert LB, Kramer I, Lambrechts D, Le Marchand L, Lindblom A, Lubiński J, Manoochehri M, Mariani L, Nevanlinna H, Oldenburg HSA, Pelders S, Pharoah PDP, Shah M, Siesling S, Smit VTHBM, Southey MC, Tapper WJ, Tollenaar RAEM, van den Broek AJ, van Deurzen CHM, van Leeuwen FE, van Ongeval C, Van't Veer LJ, Wang Q, Wendt C, Westenend PJ, Hooning MJ, Schmidt MK. Prediction of contralateral breast cancer: external validation of risk calculators in 20 international cohorts. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 181:423-434. [PMID: 32279280 PMCID: PMC8380991 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05611-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2019] [Accepted: 03/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Three tools are currently available to predict the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC). We aimed to compare the performance of the Manchester formula, CBCrisk, and PredictCBC in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). METHODS We analyzed data of 132,756 patients (4682 CBC) from 20 international studies with a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Prediction performance included discrimination, quantified as a time-dependent Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary BC, and calibration, quantified as the expected-observed (E/O) ratio at 5 and 10 years and the calibration slope. RESULTS The AUC at 10 years was: 0.58 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57-0.59) for CBCrisk; 0.60 (95% CI 0.59-0.61) for the Manchester formula; 0.63 (95% CI 0.59-0.66) and 0.59 (95% CI 0.56-0.62) for PredictCBC-1A (for settings where BRCA1/2 mutation status is available) and PredictCBC-1B (for the general population), respectively. The E/O at 10 years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.51-1.32) for CBCrisk; 1.53 (95% CI 0.63-3.73) for the Manchester formula; 1.28 (95% CI 0.63-2.58) for PredictCBC-1A and 1.35 (95% CI 0.65-2.77) for PredictCBC-1B. The calibration slope was 1.26 (95% CI 1.01-1.50) for CBCrisk; 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-1.02) for PredictCBC-1A; 0.81 (95% CI 0.63-0.99) for PredictCBC-1B, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.34-0.43) for the Manchester formula. CONCLUSIONS Current CBC risk prediction tools provide only moderate discrimination and the Manchester formula was poorly calibrated. Better predictors and re-calibration are needed to improve CBC prediction and to identify low- and high-CBC risk patients for clinical decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Giardiello
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Hauptmann
- Brandenburg Medical School, Institute of Biostatistics and Registry Research, Neuruppin, Germany
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ewout W Steyerberg
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Muriel A Adank
- Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Delal Akdeniz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jannet C Blom
- Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Carl Blomqvist
- Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Oncology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Stig E Bojesen
- Copenhagen General Population Study, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mariël Brinkhuis
- Laboratory for Pathology, East-Netherlands, Hengelo, The Netherlands
| | - Jenny Chang-Claude
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Cancer Epidemiology, University Cancer Center Hamburg (UCCH), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Kamila Czene
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Alison M Dunning
- 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
| | - Diana M Eccles
- Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Peter A Fasching
- David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California At Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- University Hospital Erlangen, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center ER-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Jonine Figueroa
- The University of Edinburgh Medical School, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, Edinburgh, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, Edinburgh, UK
- Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Henrik Flyger
- Department of Breast Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Montserrat García-Closas
- Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Lothar Haeberle
- University Hospital Erlangen, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center ER-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Christopher A Haiman
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ute Hamann
- Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anna Jakubowska
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
- Independent Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetic Diagnostics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Audrey Jung
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Renske Keeman
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Linetta B Koppert
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Iris Kramer
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Diether Lambrechts
- VIB Center for Cancer Biology, Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory for Translational Genetics, Department of Human Genetics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Loic Le Marchand
- Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA
| | - Annika Lindblom
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jan Lubiński
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Mehdi Manoochehri
- Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Luigi Mariani
- Unit of Clinical Epidemiology and Trial Organization, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Heli Nevanlinna
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Hester S A Oldenburg
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Saskia Pelders
- Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul D P 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
| | - Mitul Shah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sabine Siesling
- Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Vincent T H B M Smit
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Melissa C Southey
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
- Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | | | - Rob A E M Tollenaar
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Alexandra J van den Broek
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Chantal van Ongeval
- Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven Multidisciplinary Breast Center, Department of Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Laura J Van't Veer
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Qin Wang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Camilla Wendt
- Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Maartje J Hooning
- Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|