Cancer risks for Australian women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation

One of the primary purposes of genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in patients with familial breast/ovarian cancer has been to provide accurate advice to at-risk relatives. The provision of such advice has been hampered by a lack of appropriate data regarding the cancer risks. Chen and colleagues recently provided precise estimates of the relative risks of breast and ovarian cancer in almost 2000 kindreds with such mutations ascertained through familial cancer clinics across USA. The baseline incidence of breast cancer is lower in Australia than in North America. The relative risks derived from the study have been combined with Australian baseline incidence data to estimate the absolute short-term and long-term risks of breast and ovarian cancers for Australian carriers of different ages. The results are presented as a series of graphs that may be useful in counselling an unaffected carrier of a specified age. It is of note that the incidence of breast cancer in carriers is high in premenopausal women, but approaches the population incidence in postmenopausal women. Conversely, the incidence of ovarian cancer continues to increase from the age of 40 years. Among carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, the cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 50-60% and the equivalent risk of ovarian cancer is 20-40%. An unaffected carrier aged 60 years is at greater risk of developing ovarian cancer than breast cancer. These observations have important implications for genetic counselling and decisions regarding prophylactic surgery.     

Relationship Between Relative Risk of Developing Breast Cancer and Absolute Risk in a Population of Rural, Older African American Women

Abstract: Relative risks computed from known breast cancer risk factors can be used to quantitate a woman's individual risk of developing breast cancer. However, among older women the absolute risk of developing breast cancer over a specified time interval may be more useful in risk-benefit counseling. The objective of this investigation is to characterize the relationships between relative risks and absolute risks of breast cancer among a population of rural, older African American women. Among 224 African American women aged 50–91 years, relative risks were computed from historical information on age at menarche, number of previous biopsies, age at first birth, and number of first-degree relatives with breast cancer. These estimates, combined with the woman's current age, average remaining life expectancy, age-specific mortality, and breast cancer incidence rates, were used to estimate lifetime probabilities of developing breast cancer. Most women in the cohort (72.8%) had weak relative risks of 1.01–1.5 and only 3.5% of the women had relative risks of greater than 3.0. The majority of the women (87.5%) had lifetime probabilities of developing breast cancer that were less than 5%. Although there is a marked increase in age-specific breast cancer incidence with age, the probability of developing breast cancer in this population is low, primarily due to the low relative risks and the effects of competing mortality at older ages. Screening mammography should be directed toward women with high risks who are not receiving regular screening mammograms.     

Cross‐sectional Study to Assess the Association of Population Density with Predicted Breast Cancer Risk

The Gail and CARE models estimate breast cancer risk for white and African‐American (AA) women, respectively. The aims of this study were to compare metropolitan and nonmetropolitan women with respect to predicted breast cancer risks based on known risk factors, and to determine if population density was an independent risk factor for breast cancer risk. A cross‐sectional survey was completed by 15,582 women between 35 and 85 years of age with no history of breast cancer. Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan women were compared with respect to risk factors, and breast cancer risk estimates, using general linear models adjusted for age. For both white and AA women, tisk factors used to estimate breast cancer risk included age at menarche, history of breast biopsies, and family history. For white women, age at first childbirth was an additional risk factor. In comparison to their nonmetropolitan counterparts, metropolitan white women were more likely to report having a breast biopsy, have family history of breast cancer, and delay childbirth. Among white metropolitan and nonmetropolitan women, mean estimated 5‐year risks were 1.44% and 1.32% (p < 0.001), and lifetime risks of breast cancer were 10.81% and 10.01% (p < 0.001), respectively. AA metropolitan residents were more likely than those from nonmetropolitan areas to have had a breast biopsy. Among AA metropolitan and nonmetropolitan women, mean estimated 5‐year risks were 1.16% and 1.12% (p = 0.039) and lifetime risks were 8.94%, and 8.85% (p = 0.344). Metropolitan residence was associated with higher predicted breast cancer risks for white women. Among AA women, metropolitan residence was associated with a higher predicted breast cancer risk at 5 years, but not over a lifetime. Population density was not an independent risk factor for breast cancer.     

Underutilisation of breast cancer prevention medication in Australia

Increased implementation of proven prevention strategies is required to combat rising breast cancer incidence. We assessed use of risk reducing medication (RRMed) by Australian women at elevated breast cancer risk. Only 2.4% had ever used RRMed. Higher breast cancer risk was statistically significantly associated with use of RRMed (OR 1.82, 95%CI: 1.08–3.07, p = 0.02 for ≥30% lifetime risk compared with 16%–29% lifetime risk), but parity, education level and family history of breast cancer were not. Breast cancer prevention medications are underutilised. Efforts are needed to incorporate breast cancer risk assessment and risk management discussions into routine health assessments for women.     

Family history of breast cancer,mammographic breast density and breast cancer risk: Findings from a cohort study of Korean women

BackgroundThis study investigated whether the association between family history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives and breast cancer risk varies by breast density.MethodsWomen aged 40 years and older who underwent screening between 2009 and 2010 were followed up until 2020. Family history was assessed using a self-reported questionnaire. Using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), breast density was categorized into dense breast (heterogeneously or extremely dense) and non-dense breast (almost entirely fatty or scattered areas of fibro-glandular). Cox regression model was used to assess the association between family history and breast cancer risk.ResultsOf the 4,835,507 women, 79,153 (1.6%) reported having a family history of breast cancer and 77,238 women developed breast cancer. Family history led to an increase in the 5-year cumulative incidence in women with dense- and non-dense breasts. Results from the regression model with and without adjustment for breast density yielded similar HRs in all age groups, suggesting that breast density did not modify the association between family history and breast cancer. After adjusting for breast density and other factors, family history of breast cancer was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in all three age groups (age 40–49 years: aHR 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85–2.08; age 50–64 years: aHR 1.70, 95% CI 1.58–1.82, and age ≥65 years: aHR 1.95, 95% CI 1.78–2.14).ConclusionFamily history of breast cancer and breast density are independently associated with breast cancer. Both factors should be carefully considered in future risk prediction models of breast cancer.     

Age effects on survival from early breast cancer in clinical settings in Australia

Background: The study aim was to determine whether age is an independent risk factor for survival from early invasive breast cancer in contemporary Australian clinical settings. Methods: The study included 31?493 breast cancers diagnosed in 1998-2005. Risk of death from breast cancer was compared by age, without and with adjustment for clinical risk factors, using Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: Risk of breast cancer death was elevated for cancers of larger size, higher grade, positive nodal status, oestrogen receptor negative status, vascular invasion and multiple foci. Ductal lesions presented a higher risk than other lesions. Adjusting for these factors, the relative risk of breast cancer death (95% confidence limits) was lower for 40-49-year-olds at 0.80 (0.66, 0.96) than for the reference category under 40 years, but higher for 70-79-year-olds at 1.64 (1.36, 1.98) and women aged 80 years or more at 2.19 (1.79, 2.69). The risk for 50-69-year-olds and women under 40 years was similar. Risk-factor adjustment reduced the difference in risk between the reference category under 40 years and 40-49-year-olds, largely eliminated the lower relative risk for 50-69-year-olds, and increased the relative risks for women aged 70-79 years and older. Discussion: Survivals in women under 40 and over 70 years of age are poorer than for 40-69-year-olds. Research is needed into the best treatment modalities for younger women and older women with co-morbidity.     

Risk of cancer death in first-degree relatives of patients with hereditary non-polyposis cancer syndrome (Lynch type II): a study of 130 kindreds in the United Kingdom

To estimate the relative risks of cancer in first-degree relatives of index patients, 130 pedigrees of dominantly inherited Lynch type II cancer family syndrome have been analysed. The risk of death from all causes was significantly increased in women over 45 years of age and the overall liability to cancer in women was greater than for men. A sevenfold increase in risk of colon cancer was found in both sexes. In female relatives the risk of breast cancer was increased fivefold and lifetime risk of breast cancer was 1 in 3.7. A screening programme based on estimated risks could be offered to first-degree relatives of index patients with Lynch type II cancer family syndrome.     

Prevalence of family history of breast and ovarian cancer in a single primary care practice using a self-administered questionnaire

Women at high risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer require specific management strategies for cancer prevention and early detection. The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of familial breast and ovarian cancer among patients in a primary care practice. Questionnaires were mailed to the 608 women less than 81 years of age in a single primary care practice. Additional mailings and phone calls were used for nonresponders. Data were analyzed by bloodline, the degree of relative, age of diagnosis and cancer type. Women were grouped into three categories of breast/ovarian family history: "no family history,"insignificant family history," and "significant potentially high-risk family history" (women with two or more relatives in a single bloodline with breast and/or ovarian cancer, a single individual with bilateral breast cancer or breast and ovarian cancer, or breast and/or ovarian cancer at less than 40 years of age). A pedigree analysis of women categorized as "significant potentially high-risk family history" further classified these women as to the likelihood of being at risk for hereditary cancer. Data were obtained from 567 women (93%); 27 patients with a personal diagnosis of breast and/or ovarian cancer were excluded. Of the 540 remaining respondents, 351 (65%) had no family history of cancer, 138 (25.6%) had an insignificant family history, and 51 (9.4%) had a significant family history. Based on pedigree analysis of these 51 patients, 19 were unlikely to be at high risk for hereditary cancer, and 32 (6%) were likely to be at significant risk and warrant intensive evaluation. The large proportion of women identified with a significant family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer has major implications regarding the magnitude of a population-based process to identify and manage high-risk individuals.     

Hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer risk in California

Numerous studies have documented increased breast cancer risks with hormone replacement therapy (HRT), but these do not give a woman her specific absolute risk for the remainder of her life. This article estimates the magnitude of the effect of HRT on breast cancer incidence in California and calculates a woman's cumulative risk of breast cancer with different formulations and durations of HRT use. The effects of HRT on the underlying breast cancer incidence were estimated using the attributable fraction method, applying HRT prevalence data from the 2001 California Health Interview Survey and published rates of higher relative risk (RR) from HRT use from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study and Million Women's Survey (MWS). The annual number of breast cancers potentially attributable to HRT in California was estimated, along with individual cumulative risk of breast cancer for various ages to 79 years according to HRT use, duration, and formulation. Using the WHI data, 829 of 19,000 breast cancers (4.3%) in California may be attributable to HRT. This figure increases to 3401 (17.4%) when the MWS RRs are applied. Use of estrogen-only HRT or short-term (approximately 5 years) use of combined HRT has a minimal effect on the cumulative risk calculated to the age of 79 years; application of the MWS data to a Californian woman commencing HRT at the age of 50 years (no HRT, 8.5%; estrogen only, 8.6%; combined, 9.1%). Prolonged (approximately 10 years) use of combined HRT increases the cumulative risk to 10.3%. This article demonstrates that HRT will generate a small additional risk of breast cancer in an individual. The reduction in perimenopausal symptoms may be considered sufficient to warrant this extra risk. However, this view needs to be balanced because the small increases in individual risk will be magnified, producing a noticeable change in population cancer caseload where HRT use is high.     

Mammographic screening of the high-risk woman

Annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 is recommended for the general population. For some women at high risk for developing breast cancer at a younger age, annual screening may be appropriate starting at an earlier age. These women include those with a personal history of breast cancer, nontherapeutic radiation to the breasts especially for Hodgkin's disease, BRCA positive women, women with a family history of a first-degree relative with breast cancer at a young age, and women with a biopsy diagnosis of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical ductal hyperplasia. Women with a biopsy diagnosis of atypical lobular hyperplasia develop breast cancer after age 40 and do not need earlier screening, unless they have a family history of breast cancer. Although increasing a woman's risk for breast cancer, radial scar does not increase risk for women younger than 40 years old and therefore does not require screening at a young age.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial prostate cancer risk

OBJECTIVE: To identify published studies quantifying familial prostate cancer risks in relatives of prostate cancer cases and, by meta-analysis, obtain more precise estimates of familial risk according to the family history. METHODS: Thirteen case-control and cohort studies were identified which have reported risks of prostate cancer in relatives of prostate cancer cases. Pooled estimates of risk for various categories of family history were obtained by calculating the weighted average of the log relative risk (RR) estimates from studies. RESULTS: The pooled RR (95% confidence interval) in first-degree relatives was 2.5 (2.2-2.8). There was evidence that this was highest in relatives of cases diagnosed before age 60 years and that RRs declined with age. The risk for the few men with two affected relatives was increased 3.5-fold (2.6-4.8). RRs to sons of cases appeared to be lower than in brothers; a complete explanation of this observation is uncertain. CONCLUSION: Men with a family history of prostate cancer have a significantly greater risk of developing prostate cancer than those with no such history. Risks are greatest for relatives of cases diagnosed when young and those with more than one relative affected.     

Evidence from data searches and life-table analyses for gender-related differences in absolute risk of hip fracture after Colles' or spine fracture: Colles' fracture as an early and sensitive marker of skeletal fragility in white men.

Based on data searches and life-table analyses, we determined the long-term (remaining lifetime) and short-term (10- and 5-year) absolute risks of hip fracture after sustaining a Colles' or spine fracture and searched for potential gender-related differences. In aging men, Colles' fractures carry a higher absolute risk for hip fracture than spinal fractures in contrast to women. These findings support the concept that forearm fracture is an early and sensitive marker of male skeletal fragility. INTRODUCTION: Colles' fracture occurrence has been largely ignored in public health approaches to identify target populations at risk for hip fracture. The aim of this study was to estimate the long-term and short-term absolute risks of hip fracture after sustaining a Colles' or spine fracture and to search for potential gender-related differences in the relationship between fracture history and future fracture risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the long-term (remaining lifetime) and short-term (10- and 5-year) absolute risks of hip fracture, we applied life-table methods using U.S. age- and sex-specific hip fracture incidence rates, U.S. age-specific mortality rates for white women and men, pooled hazard ratios for mortality after Colles' and spine fracture, and pooled relative risks for hip fracture after Colles' and spine fracture, estimated from cohort studies by standard meta-analytic methods. RESULTS: Our results indicate that the estimated remaining lifetime risks are dependent on age in both genders. In women, remaining lifetime risks increase until the age of 80 years, when they start to decline because of the competing probabilities of fracture and death. The same pattern is found in men until the age of 85 years, the increment in lifetime risk being even more pronounced. As expected, the risk of sustaining a hip fracture was found to be higher in postmenopausal women with a previous spine fracture compared with those with a history of Colles' fracture. In men, on the other hand, the prospective association between fracture history and subsequent hip fracture risk seemed to be strongest for Colles' fracture. At the age of 50, for example, the remaining lifetime risk was 13% in women with a previous Colles' fracture compared with 15% in the context of a previous spine fracture and 9% among women of the general population. In men at the age of 50 years, the corresponding risk estimates were 8%, 6%, and 3%, respectively. Similar trends were observed when calculating 5- and 10-year risks. CONCLUSIONS: In aging men, Colles' fractures carry a higher absolute risk for hip fracture than spinal fractures in contrast to women. These findings support the concept that forearm fracture is an early and sensitive marker of male skeletal fragility. The gender-related differences reported in this analysis should be taken into account when designing screening and treatment strategies for prevention of hip fracture in men.     

Management of women at high risk for breast cancer: new imaging beyond mammography

The management of women with an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer is a difficult task. This is especially true for women with a documented mutation in a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA), and also for those who tested negative for a mutation, but have a family history that is suggestive of familial breast cancer. Primary prevention by prophylactic mastectomy has been shown to reduce breast cancer incidence in these women, but this intervention is still not considered a "first-line" option in the majority of guidelines. Instead, secondary prevention (intensified surveillance) is recommended. However, due to the early onset of familial breast cancer, screening must start at a substantially younger age than in women at average risk. This, together with the fact that familial breast cancers may differ from sporadic cancers in many aspects, will have a significant impact on the design and on the success rates of surveillance protocols. This article describes the different management options that exist for women at increased genetic risk and provides a survey of the current evidence regarding mammographic and non-mammographic imaging techniques. The conclusion is that mammographic screening, with or without concomitant ultrasound and clinical breast examination, is probably not sufficient to ensure an early diagnosis of familial breast cancer. If MRI is integrated in surveillance programs, early diagnosis seems to be possible. Still, the efficacy of screening even with MRI is unclear in terms of morbidity and mortality, and this lack of evidence must be communicated to women at high genetic risk.     

Screening Magnetic Resonance Imaging Recommendations and Outcomes in Patients at High Risk for Breast Cancer

The purpose of this study was to determine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening recommendations and the subsequent outcomes in women with increased risk for breast cancer evaluated by oncology subspecialists at an academic center. Patients evaluated between 1/1/2007 and 3/1/2011 under diagnosis codes for family history of breast or ovarian cancer, genetic syndromes, lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia were included. Patients with a history of breast cancer were excluded. Retrospective review of prospectively acquired demographics, lifetime risk of breast cancer, and screening recommendations were obtained from the medical record. Retrospective review of the results of prospectively interpreted breast imaging examinations and image‐guided biopsies were analyzed. 282 women were included. The majority of patients were premenopausal with a median age of 43. Most (69%) were referred due to a family history of breast or ovarian cancers. MRI was recommended for 84% of patients based on a documented lifetime risk >20%. Most women referred for MRI screening (88%) were compliant with this recommendation. A total of 299 breast MRI examinations were performed in 146 patients. Biopsy was performed for 32 (11%) exams and 10 cancers were detected for a positive predictive value (PPV) of 31% (based on biopsy performed) and an overall per exam cancer yield of 3.3%. Three cancers were detected in patients who did not undergo screening MRI. The 13 cancers were Stage 0–II; all patients were without evidence of disease with a median follow‐up of 22 months. In a cohort of women seen by breast subspecialty providers, screening breast MRI was recommended according to guidelines, and used primarily in premenopausal women with a family history or genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Adherence to MRI screening recommendations was high and cancer yield from breast MRI was similar to that in clinical trials.     

The risk of a contralateral breast cancer among women diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast carcinoma in situ: data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry

BACKGROUND: Women diagnosed with breast carcinoma in situ are at increased risk for developing a contralateral breast cancer. The magnitude of this risk and the relationship between this risk and age, time since diagnosis, histologic subtype, and treatment for the first breast cancer is continuing to be defined. METHODS: The risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer is examined among 4198 women diagnosed with breast carcinoma in situ and reported to the Connecticut Tumor Registry (CTR) between January 1, 1975 and March 14, 1998 using Kaplan-Meier estimation. A Cox proportional hazards model is used to assess the effect of surgical treatment, radiation therapy, age at diagnosis, race, histology, marital status, anatomic location within the breast, and time since diagnosis upon this risk. RESULTS: The cumulative 5- and 10-year probabilities of being diagnosed with a contralateral breast cancer among women initially diagnosed with a ductal breast carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were 4.3% (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.0%) and 6.8% (95% confidence interval, 5.5-8.2%), respectively. These risks are 3.35 times greater than those for women without a history of breast cancer but are similar to those for women diagnosed with non-metastatic invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast. The cumulative 5- and 10-year probabilities of being diagnosed with a contralateral breast cancer among women initially diagnosed with a lobular breast carcinoma in situ (LCIS) were 11.9% (95% confidence interval, 9.5-14.3%) and 13.9% (95% confidence interval, 11.0-16.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Women diagnosed with LCIS were 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-3.4%) times more likely than women with DCIS to be diagnosed with a contralateral breast cancer within the first six months of the first breast primary. The risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer more than 6 months after the initial breast cancer was independent of surgical or radiation therapy, time since diagnosis, age at diagnosis, histology, race, marital status, or anatomic location of the cancer within the breast.     

Rating the risk factors for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE: To update and summarize evidence of risk factors for breast cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Women who are at high risk for breast cancer have a variety of options available to them, including watchful waiting, prophylactic surgery, and chemoprevention. It is increasingly important to accurately assess a patient's risk profile to ensure that the cost/benefit ratio of the selected treatment is favorable. METHODS: Estimates of relative risk for documented risk factors were obtained from seminal papers identified in previous reviews. These estimates were updated where appropriate with data from more recent reports using large sample sizes or presenting meta-analyses of previous studies. These reports were identified from a review of the Medline database from 1992 to 2002. RESULTS: Risk factors that have received a great deal of publicity (hormone use, alcohol consumption, obesity, nulliparity) present a relatively modest relative risk for breast cancer (<2). Factors associated with a prior history of neoplastic disease or atypical hyperplasia and factors associated with a genetic predisposition significantly affect the risk of breast cancer, with relative risks ranging from 3 (for some cases of positive family history) to 200 (for premenopausal women positive for a BRCA mutation). CONCLUSIONS: More precise tools, based on techniques of molecular biology such as microarray analysis, will be needed to assess individual risk for breast cancer.     

Limitations of the Gail model in the specialized breast cancer risk assessment clinic

The Gail model is a risk assessment tool that is accurate for general breast cancer risk screening. Because of the limited way that this model incorporates family history information, however, there are concerns that it may underestimate risk for many women attending specialized breast cancer risk assessment clinics. We collected comprehensive breast cancer risk factor information for 213 women attending a specialized breast cancer risk assessment clinic using a modified version of the CancerGene software. Breast cancer risk was calculated using the models of Gail and Claus as well as BRCAPRO and the tables of Bodian (for women with lobular neoplasia). Eighty-six percent of the women had a family history of breast cancer. Although 74% of women had risk factor histories that are thought to confound the Gail model (family history of breast cancer in second-degree relatives, family history of breast cancer before the age of 50, family history of bilateral breast cancer, family history of ovarian cancer, or personal history of lobular neoplasia), the inclusion of other models increased the risk level assignment in only 13% of the cases. We conclude that the Gail model is an appropriate risk assessment tool for most women attending specialized clinics, although the inclusion of models better able to account for family history information and personal history of lobular neoplasia is required to accommodate all women.     

Position Paper of the American Council on Science and Health on Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: Established, Speculated, and Unsupported

Abstract: This article provides the position of the American Council on Science and Health regarding how breast cancer is defined and classified; the magnitude of the public health problem of breast cancer among women; the implications of variation in incidence of breast cancer internationally and with migration; access to health care as a factor in slight differences in incidence and mortality rates among African-American and white women; and the evidence concerning various proposed human-breast-cancer risk factors. The article classifies risk factors as either established, speculated, or unsupported on the basis of available evidence. Specific genes have been identified that may explain as much as 5–10% of new breast cancer cases. Inherited predispositions may be characterized by family history of breast or ovarian cancer, young age at diagnosis, breast cancer diagnosed in both breasts, and male breast cancer. Benign breast disease (BBD), particularly the subtypes of BBD involving atypical hyperplasia, and exposure early in life to ionizing radiation is an established risk factor for breast cancer. Several reproductive characteristics are established as risk factors for breast cancer: early age at menarche, first full-term pregnancy after age 35 years of late age, and late age of menopause. Obesity and low physical activity are established as risk factors for breast cancer and are modifiable. Speculated risk factors for breast cancer that are gaining scientific support include nulliparity, oral contraceptive use, and postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy. Speculated risk factors for which there is conflicting or preliminary support include not breast feeding, postmenopausal estrogen/progestogen replacement therapy, prescribed diethylstilbestrol, low consumption of phytoestrogens, specific dietary practices, alcohol consumption, not using nonsteroidal antinflammatory drugs, abortion, and breast augmentation. Unsupported risk factors include higher than average consumption of phytoestrogens, premenopausal obesity, electromagnetic fields, and low-dose ionizing radiation after 40 years of age. There is only limited support for xenoestrogens and large breast size as risk factors for breast cancer.     

Establishing a Family Risk Assessment Clinic for Breast Cancer

Abstract:  Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting European women and the leading cause of cancer-related death. A total of 15–20% of women who develop breast cancer have a family history and 5–10% a true genetic predisposition. The identification and screening of women at increased risk may allow early detection of breast cancer and improve prognosis. We established a family risk assessment clinic in May 2005 to assess and counsel women with a family history of breast cancer, to initiate surveillance, and to offer risk-reducing strategies for selected high-risk patients. Patients at medium or high risk of developing breast cancer according to NICE guidelines were accepted. Family history was determined by structured questionnaire and interview. Lifetime risk of developing breast cancer was calculated using Claus and Tyrer-Cuzick scoring. Risk of carrying a breast cancer-related gene mutation was calculated using the Manchester system. One thousand two hundred and forty-three patients have been referred. Ninety-two percent were at medium or high risk of developing breast cancer. Formal assessment of risk has been performed in 368 patients, 73% have a high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, and 72% a Manchester score ≥16. BRCA1/2 mutations have been identified in 14 patients and breast cancer diagnosed in two. Our initial experience of family risk assessment has shown there to be a significant demand for this service. Identification of patients at increased risk of developing breast cancer allows us to provide individuals with accurate risk profiles, and enables patients to make informed choices regarding their follow-up and management.     

Lifetime and Five-Year Age-Specific Risks of First and Subsequent Osteoporotic Fractures in Postmenopausal Women

We examined the incidence of fragility fractures in Australian women 50 years of age and over using a Markov process with Monte Carlo simulations. The lifetime risks and the risks of sustaining first and subsequent clinically diagnosed fractures at osteoporotic sites were estimated according to age, nursing home entry and mortality rates. Hip and spine fractures were evaluated individually and fractures of humerus, forearm, wrist, ribs, pelvis, upper leg (excluding proximal femur) and tibia/fibula were considered in combination. The model predicted that 42.1% of women aged 50 years will sustain at least one fracture in their remaining lifetime, of whom half are expected to sustain multiple fractures. The lifetime risks of sustaining hip, clinical spine and other fractures were 17.0%, 9.6% and 30.4%, with the risks of multiple fractures at these sites estimated at 19.5%, 39.7% and 35.7% respectively. The proportion of women expected to sustain their first fracture increased from 1.9% of the population under 55 years of age up to 49.1% of women over 89 years of age. The 5-year age-specific risks of sustaining any subsequent fractures increased from 2.8% of women under the age of 55 years to 61.6% for women age 89 years and over. The increased risks of new fractures following a first fracture lead to a considerable burden of multiple fractures. Received: 2 February 2000 / Accepted: 5 June 2000