The American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with magnetic resonance imaging: an argument for genetic testing

BACKGROUND.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines for screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) recommend MRI for women who have a lifetime risk ≥20% of developing breast cancer. Genetic testing for breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutations is offered to women who have a risk ≥10% of carrying a mutation. The objectives of the current study were 1) to identify the number of women in a breast cancer screening population who had ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk and, thus, were candidates for screening MRI; and 2) to determine the number of women who had ≥10% risk of BRCA mutation yet had <20% lifetime risk of breast cancer and, thus, may not have been identified as candidates for MRI screening.

METHODS.

From 2003 to 2005, women who underwent screening mammography completed a self‐administered questionnaire regarding breast cancer risk factors. For each patient, the lifetime breast cancer risk and the risk of BRCA mutation was determined by using the computerized BRCAPRO breast cancer risk‐assessment model.

RESULTS.

Of 18,190 women, 78 (0.43%) had ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, all of whom had ≥10% risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. An additional 374 women (2.06%) had <20% lifetime breast cancer risk but ≥10% risk of mutation. Overall, there were 183 (1%) predicted mutation carriers, 27 women (0.15%) who had ≥20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, and 62 women (0.34%) who had ≥10% risk of mutation but <20% lifetime breast cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS.

The ACS guidelines for breast MRI screening may systematically exclude MRI screening for many women who have a substantial risk for BRCA mutation. The current results demonstrated a need for greater awareness of breast cancer risk factors in the screening mammography population, so that high‐risk women can be identified and given access to genetic testing and counseling regarding all risk‐reducing interventions. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.     

Poly(ADP-Ribose) Inhibition: Exploring a New Approach to Breast Cancer Prevention in <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1/2</Emphasis> Mutation Carriers

Carriers of deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations face an elevated risk of developing breast cancer. This risk warrants consideration of prevention interventions. Currently, the only proven prevention intervention for BRCA mutation carriers is risk-reducing surgery. Inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) are a new class of drugs that appear to be effective in treating BRCA mutation–associated cancers and triple-negative breast cancers. PARP inhibitors may offer a new approach to breast cancer prevention in BRCA mutation carriers. This article reviews current breast cancer prevention interventions for BRCA mutation carriers and discusses the rationale for investigating new chemoprevention agents in this population. The mechanism of action of PARP inhibitors and the rationale for studying them in BRCA mutation carriers is reviewed. Published clinical trials regarding PARP inhibitors and ongoing research regarding PARP inhibitors and breast cancer prevention are reviewed.     

Earlier age of onset of BRCA mutation-related cancers in subsequent generations

BACKGROUND:

Women who are diagnosed with a deleterious mutation in either breast cancer (BRCA) gene have a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers at young ages. In this study, the authors assessed age at diagnosis in 2 generations of families with known mutations to investigate for earlier onset in subsequent generations.

METHODS:

Of the 132 BRCA‐positive women with breast cancer who participated in a high‐risk protocol at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Gen 2), 106 women could be paired with a family member in the previous generation (Gen 1) who was diagnosed with a BRCA‐related cancer (either breast cancer or ovarian cancer). Age at diagnosis, location of the mutation, and year of birth were recorded. A previously published parametric anticipation model was applied in these genetically predisposed families.

RESULTS:

The median age of cancer diagnosis was 42 years (range, 28‐55 years) in Gen 2 and 48 years (range, 30‐72 years) in Gen 1 (P < .001). In the parametric model, the estimated change in the expected age at onset for the entire cohort was 7.9 years (P < .0001). Statistically significant earlier ages at diagnosis also were observed within subgroups of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, maternal inheritance, paternal inheritance, breast cancer only, and breast cancer‐identified and ovarian cancer‐identified families.

CONCLUSIONS:

Breast and ovarian cancers in BRCA mutation carriers appeared to be diagnosed at an earlier age in later generations. The authors concluded that patients who are younger at the onset of BRCA‐related cancers should continue to be tracked to offer appropriate screening modalities at appropriate ages. Cancer 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

A prior diagnosis of breast cancer is a risk factor for breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers

Background

The risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is influenced by factors other than the genetic mutation itself. Modifying factors include a woman’s reproductive history and family history of cancer. Risk factors are more likely to be present in women with breast cancer than in women without breast cancer, and therefore the risk of cancer in the two breasts should not be independent. It is not clear to what extent modifying factors influence the risk of a first primary or a contralateral breast cancer in BRCA carriers.

Methods

We conducted a matched case–control study of breast cancer among 3920 BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. We asked whether a past history of breast cancer in the contralateral breast was a risk factor for breast cancer.

Results

After adjustment for age, country of residence, and cancer treatment, a previous cancer of the right breast was found to be a significant risk factor for cancer of the left breast among BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers (relative risk: 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 3.0; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In a woman with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who is diagnosed with breast cancer, the risk of cancer in the contralateral breast depends on the first diagnosis. That observation supports the hypothesis that there are important genetic or non-genetic modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA carriers. Discovering risk modifiers might lead to greater personalization of risk assessment and management recommendations for BRCA-positive patients.     

The risk of primary and contralateral breast cancer after ovarian cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers

BACKGROUND:

The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of primary breast cancer (PBC) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) in patients who had BRCA1/BRCA2‐associated epithelial ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS:

From the database of the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic, patients who had BRCA‐associated OC without a history of unilateral breast cancer (BC) (at risk of PBC; n = 79) or with a history of unilateral BC (at risk of CBC; n = 37) were selected. The control groups consisted of unaffected BRCA mutation carriers (n = 351) or mutation carriers who had a previous unilateral BC (n = 294), respectively. The risks of PBC and CBC were calculated using the Kaplan‐Meier survival method with death considered as a competing risk event.

RESULTS:

Women with BRCA‐associated OC had lower 2‐year, 5‐year, and 10‐year risks of PBC (3%, 6%, and 11%, respectively) compared with unaffected mutation carriers (6%, 16%, and 28%, respectively; P = .03), although they had a considerably higher mortality rate at similar time points (13%, 33%, and 61%, respectively, vs 1%, 2%, and 2%, respectively; P < .001). In BRCA mutation carriers with a previous unilateral BC, the 2‐year, 5‐year, and 10‐year risks of CBC were nonsignificantly lower in patients with OC than in those without OC (0%, 7%, and 7%, respectively, vs 6%, 16%, and 34%, respectively; P = .06), whereas the mortality rate was higher in patients with OC (19%, 34%, and 55%, respectively, vs 4%, 11%, and 21%, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients with BRCA‐associated OC had a lower risk of developing a subsequent PBC or CBC than mutation carriers without OC, whereas the risk of dying from OC was greater than the risk of developing BC. These data may facilitate more tailored counseling for this patient subgroup, although confirmative studies are warranted. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

The incidence of cardiomyopathy in <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA1</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">BRCA2</Emphasis> mutation carriers after anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy

Purpose

Breast cancer remains the fourth-leading cause of death in the United States. Nearly 10% of breast cancers are hereditary, with deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes being the leading cause. Anthracycline chemotherapy, used commonly for breast cancer, carries cardiotoxicity risk. Recent studies demonstrated anthracycline-induced cardiac failure in homozygous BRCA2-deficient mice and increased rates of heart failure in homozygous BRCA1-deficient mice following ischemic insult. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to determine the rates of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy in breast cancer patients with germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes compared to age-matched patients without a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation.

Methods

The primary endpoint was to determine the rate of cardiomyopathy defined as either congestive heart failure or asymptomatic decline in ejection fraction to <50%. A total of 102 breast cancer patients who were BRCA gene mutation carriers (55 BRCA1, 45 BRCA2, and two with both), who received anthracycline-based chemotherapy were compared to a matched cohort of breast cancer patients with wild-type BRCA gene status.

Results

We found a 4.9% rate of cardiomyopathy in the BRCA mutation carriers and 5.2% in the matched controls (p = 0.99). Cox proportional hazards model showed that only trastuzumab and hypertension were significantly associated with the development of cardiomyopathy in both groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Given the limitations of a retrospective study, we saw no increased risk of cardiotoxicity among breast cancer patients with BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 gene mutations treated with standard doses of anthracycline compared to the general population.

     

Cost‐effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers

BACKGROUND:

Current clinical guidelines recommend earlier, more intensive breast cancer screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography for women with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. Unspecified details of screening schedules are a challenge for implementing guidelines.

METHODS:

A Markov Monte Carlo computer model was used to simulate screening in asymptomatic women who were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Three dual‐modality strategies were compared with digital mammography (DM) alone: 1) DM and MRI alternating at 6‐month intervals beginning at age 25 years (Alt25), 2) annual MRI beginning at age 25 years with alternating DM added at age 30 years (MRI25/Alt30), and 3) DM and MRI alternating at 6‐month intervals beginning at age 30 years (Alt30). Primary outcomes were quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs (in 2010 US dollars), and incremental cost‐effectiveness (dollars per QALY gained). Additional outcomes included potential harms of screening, and lifetime costs stratified into component categories (screening and diagnosis, treatment, mortality, and patient time costs).

RESULTS:

All 3 dual‐modality screening strategies increased QALYs and costs. Alt30 screening had the lowest incremental costs per additional QALY gained (BRCA1, $74,200 per QALY; BRCA2, $215,700 per QALY). False‐positive test results increased substantially with dual‐modality screening and occurred more frequently in BRCA2 carriers. Downstream savings in both breast cancer treatment and mortality costs were outweighed by increases in up‐front screening and diagnosis costs. The results were influenced most by estimates of breast cancer risk and MRI costs.

CONCLUSIONS:

Alternating MRI and DM screening at 6‐month intervals beginning at age 30 years was identified as a clinically effective approach to applying current guidelines, and was more cost‐effective in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers compared with BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Diabetes and breast cancer among women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

BACKGROUND:

Hyperinsulinemia and the metabolic syndrome are both risk factors for breast cancer. It is not clear if diabetes is associated with the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

METHODS:

The authors reviewed the medical histories of 6052 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, half of whom had been diagnosed with breast cancer. They estimated the odds ratio for breast cancer, given a self‐report of diabetes. They then estimated the hazard ratio for a new diagnosis of diabetes associated with a history of breast cancer.

RESULTS:

There was no excess of diabetes in the period before the diagnosis of breast cancer, compared with controls with no diagnosis of breast cancer. The risk of diabetes was doubled among BRCA carriers in the 15‐year period after the diagnosis of breast cancer (relative risk, 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4‐2.8; P = .0001), compared with carriers without cancer. The risk was particularly high for women with a body mass index (BMI) >25.0 kg/m² (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 4.0‐8.6; P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS:

After a diagnosis of breast cancer, women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation face a 2‐fold increase in the risk of diabetes, which is exacerbated by a high BMI. Cancer 2011. © 2010 American Cancer Society.     

Perception of screening and risk reduction surgeries in patients tested for a BRCA deleterious mutation

BACKGROUND:

Women at a high risk for breast cancer are offered choices for screening or prophylactic surgeries. The aim of this study was to evaluate opinions regarding screening and surgical strategies in high‐risk women.

METHODS:

Women at the authors' institution who received BRCA1 of 2 testing before July 2005 were sent a follow‐up patient survey. The authors compared responses of women who tested positive for a deleterious mutation with those who tested negative. For those who expressed an opinion (agree vs disagree), a 2‐sided Fisher exact test was used to compare responses.

RESULTS:

A total of 540 surveys were sent, and 312 were returned (58%). Of these, 217 had breast cancer, and 86 women tested positive for a mutation. No BRCA+ women felt mammograms were difficult to get because of discomfort, whereas 5.4% of the BRCA? group did (P = .039). Seventy percent of BRCA+ women agreed that prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is the most effective means for reducing risk, compared with 40% of BRCA? women (P < .001). PM was felt to be the only way to reduce worry in 64.7% of BRCA+ and in 34.4% of BRCA? women (P < .001). PM was felt to be too drastic for 36.1% of BRCA+ and 40.5% of BRCA? women (P = .562). Difficulty in deciding between screening and PM occurred in 23.9% of BRCA+ and 12.5% of BRCA? women (P = .046). After excluding women with bilateral breast cancers, 81.0% of women who agreed that PM was best to reduce risk underwent a PM versus 19.1% of those who disagreed (P < .001). Of women who felt PM was the only way to reduce worry, 84.2% underwent PM. Only 15.8% of women who did not believe that it was the only way to decrease worry underwent PM (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS:

BRCA mutation carriers were more likely to believe PM to be the best way to reduce both risk and worry of breast cancer. High‐risk women who agreed that PM was more likely to reduce risk and worry of breast cancer were more likely to proceed with this intervention. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

BRCAPRO 6.0 Model Validation in Male Patients Presenting for BRCA Testing

Background.

BRCAPRO is a risk assessment model to estimate the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. BRCA mutation carriers are at higher risk of developing breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. BRCAPRO was developed for women and found to be superior to other risk assessment models. The present study evaluated the validity of BRCAPRO at predicting the risk of male patients carrying a BRCA mutation.

Patients and Methods.

A total of 146 men who presented for genetic counseling and testing from February1997 to September 2011, and their test results were included in the present study. BRCAPRO risk assessment for all patients was calculated using the BRCAPRO clinical CancerGene assessment software.

Results.

The mean age at presentation was 57 years. Of the 146 patients, 48 had breast cancer, 18 had pancreatic cancer, 39 had prostate cancer, 27 had other primary cancers, and 37 had no cancer. Fifty patients (34%) tested positive for a BRCA mutation (22 BRCA1, 27 BRCA2, and 1 BRCA1 and BRCA2). The mean BRCAPRO score for all patients was 24.96%. The BRCAPRO score was significantly higher for patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation (46.19% vs. 13.9%, p < .01). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.83 for all patients for the BRCAPRO score to predict the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. At a cutoff point of 30.02%, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.74, 0.81, 0.67, and 0.86, respectively.

Conclusion.

BRCAPRO appears to be a valid risk assessment tool for determining the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation in men.

Implications for Practice:

Men carrying genetic mutations in the BRCA gene have a greater risk than the general population of developing certain types of cancer, including breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. BRCAPRO is a risk assessment model that predicts the risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. The present study aimed at validating BRCAPRO for use with men seen for genetic counseling, whether affected by cancer or not. The data available for 146 patients revealed that BRCAPRO was effective at identifying patients at risk of BRCA mutation. These findings could help in identifying a subset of high-risk patients who should proceed to genetic testing.     

Risk of metachronous breast cancer after BRCA mutation–associated ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND:

This study sought to estimate the risk of breast cancer (BC) after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC) associated with mutation of the BRCA1/2 (breast cancer, early onset) genes (BRCA‐OC).

METHODS:

The Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center and the University of Pennsylvania, clinical genetics databases were searched to identify women with BRCA‐OC who participated in genetic testing and follow‐up studies from 1995 to 2009. The primary objective was to determine the risk of developing BC after BRCA‐OC. Overall survival (OS) and BC‐free survival (BCFS) were determined by the Kaplan‐Meier method; patients were censored at the time of last follow‐up.

RESULTS:

A total of 164 patients had BRCA‐OC (115 with BRCA1; 49 with BRCA2). Of these 164 patients, 152 developed OC prior to BRCA testing (median time to testing, 2.4 years [0.01‐55 years]). Median follow‐up from OC for those not developing BC was 5.8 years (0.25‐55.6 years). There were 46 deaths, but none were due to BC. The 5‐ and 10‐year OS were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78, 0.90) and 68% (95% CI = 0.59, 0.76), respectively. There were 18 metachronous BC diagnoses. The 5‐ and 10‐year BCFS were 97% (95% CI = 0.92, 0.99) and 91% (95% CI = 0.82, 0.95), respectively. A subset of 64 women were tested either before or within 12 months of BRCA‐OC. In this pseudo‐incident subset, 5‐ and 10‐ year OS was 71% (95% CI = 0.53, 0.83) and 62% (95% CI = 0.44, 0.75), respectively, and 5‐ and 10‐year BCFS were 100% and 87% (95% CI = 0.56, 0.96), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

OS was dominated by OC deaths. Metachronous BC risk was lower than reported for unaffected BRCA mutation carriers. These results support nonsurgical management of BC risk in women with BRCA‐OC. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Breast tumors from <Emphasis Type="Italic">CHEK2 1100delC-</Emphasis> mutation carriers: genomic landscape and clinical implications

Introduction  

Checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) is a moderate penetrance breast cancer risk gene, whose truncating mutation 1100delC increases the risk about twofold. We investigated gene copy-number aberrations and gene-expression profiles that are typical for breast tumors of CHEK2 1100delC-mutation carriers.     

Associations between BRCA Mutations in High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients and Familial Cancers Other than Breast or Ovary

Purpose

We investigated the relationship between BRCA mutations and the distribution of familial cancers other than breast or ovary in high-risk breast cancer patients.

Methods

Patients with breast cancer who had at least one of the following risk factors were enrolled: reported family history of breast or ovarian cancer; 40 years of age or younger age at diagnosis; bilateral breast cancer; or male gender. Genetic testing for BRCA mutation and questionnaires about personal and family histories of malignancies were performed.

Results

Among the 238 eligible patients, 49 (20.6%) patients had BRCA1/2 mutations, which were more frequent in patients with multiple risk factors (p<0.0001). There were 271 members of 156 (65.5%) families who had histories of other primary cancer. The distribution of the families was 119 (63.0%) and 37 (75.5%) in the BRCA-negative and positive group, respectively (p=0.0996). Multiple familial cancers occurred in 70 families, which were significantly more frequent in BRCA-positive families (p=0.0034). By ordinal logistic regression, the occurrence of multiple familial cancers was associated with BRCA mutations (p=0.0045), not with other risk factors. The most common site of disease was the stomach, which is the most common in nationwide. And the proportional incidence of pancreatic cancer (6.8%) was significantly higher than that of nationwide cancer statistics (2.4%, p=0.0137).

Conclusion

BRCA mutations in high-risk breast cancer patients were associated with multiple risk factors and multiple family members with other primary cancers. Genetic counseling based on accurate information should be provided to families with BRCA mutation carriers.     

Epigenetic silencing and deletion of the BRCA1 gene in sporadic breast cancer

Introduction  

BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Tumour cells from germline mutation carriers have frequently lost the wild-type allele. This is predicted to result in genomic instability where cell survival depends upon dysfunctional checkpoint mechanisms. Tumorigenic potential could then be acquired through further genomic alterations. Surprisingly, somatic BRCA mutations are not found in sporadic breast tumours. BRCA1 methylation has been shown to occur in sporadic breast tumours and to be associated with reduced gene expression. We examined the frequency of BRCA1 methylation in 143 primary sporadic breast tumours along with BRCA1 copy number alterations and tumour phenotype.     

Accuracy of the BRCAPRO model among women with bilateral breast cancer

BACKGROUND:

The likelihood of identifying a BRCA mutation was often calculated using the BRCAPRO model. A previous study suggested that this model may overestimate the chance of detecting a BRCA mutation among women diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer. Studies also suggested that few patients with bilateral breast cancer whose age at first diagnosis is >40 years were mutation carriers. The objectives of this study were to determine the accuracy of the BRCAPRO model among women with bilateral breast cancer and to determine whether their mutation status was dependent on their age at first diagnosis.

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review was performed. Women who were diagnosed with bilateral or unilateral breast cancer and who had undergone comprehensive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1997 and 2006 were included in the study.

RESULTS:

For individuals with pre‐test carrier probabilities >31%, the proportion of positive tests was significantly lower than predicted by the BRCAPRO model (P < .05). In addition, the carrier rate of BRCA mutations was significantly higher (P = .002, Fisher exact test) in women with bilateral breast cancer whose age at first diagnosis was ≤40 years compared with those diagnosed >40 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

The BRCAPRO model was overestimating the relative contribution bilateral breast cancer had on the likelihood of detecting a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Bilateral breast cancer did not appear to be a good indicator of mutation status, particularly for women whose age at first diagnosis is >40 years. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Risk of breast cancer in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review

Introduction

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominantly inherited disorder of cancer susceptibility caused by germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Mutation carriers have a substantial burden of increased risks of cancers of the colon, rectum, endometrium and several other organs which generally occur at younger ages than for the general population. The issue of whether breast cancer risk is increased for MMR gene mutation carriers has been debated with evidence for and against this association.

Methods

Using the PUBMED, we identified all relevant studies of breast cancer associated with Lynch syndrome that were published by 15 December 2012. In the review, we included: (i) molecular studies that reported microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry in breast cancer tumors of MMR gene mutation carriers; and (ii) risk studies that investigated risk of breast cancer for confirmed MMR gene mutation carriers or families or clinically and/or pathologically defined Lynch syndrome families.

Results

We identified 15 molecular studies and, when combined, observed 62 of 122 (51%; 95% CI 42 to 60%) breast cancers in MMR gene mutation carriers were MMR-deficient. Of the 21 risk studies identified, 13 did not observe statistical evidence for an association of breast cancer risk with Lynch syndrome while 8 studies found an increased risk of breast cancer ranging from 2- to 18-fold compared with the general population (or non-carriers). There is only one prospective study demonstrating an elevated risk of breast cancer for MMR gene mutation carriers compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio 3.95; 95% CI 1.59, 8.13).

Conclusions

Since breast cancer is a relatively common disease in the general population, more precise estimates of risk and gene-specific risks will need to utilize large prospective cohort studies with a long follow-up. While current data are inconclusive at a population level, individual tumor testing results suggest that MMR deficiency is involved with breast cancers in some individuals with Lynch syndrome.     

Clinical implications of germline mutations in breast cancer: <Emphasis Type="Italic">TP53</Emphasis>

Purpose

This review describes the prevalence of germline TP53 mutations, the risk of breast cancer and other cancers in mutation carriers and management implications for women with breast cancer and unaffected women.

Methods

Literature review of English language papers available through PubMed.

Results

Women who carry germline mutations in the TP53 gene have a very high risk of breast cancer of up to 85% by age 60 years. Most of these breast cancers are early onset with a median age at diagnosis of 34 years. Approximately 5–8% of women presenting with breast cancer under 30 years old have a germline TP53 gene mutation. Breast cancers in women with TP53 mutations are more likely to be hormone receptor positive and/or Her2 positive. Mastectomy is recommended over lumpectomy in TP53 mutation carriers who have breast cancer so that adjuvant breast radiotherapy can be avoided. Risk-reducing surgery should be considered due to the high contralateral breast cancer risk. Mutation carriers are at high risk of various childhood and adult-onset cancers with a very lifetime risk of malignancy, the commonest malignancies being breast cancer and soft tissue sarcoma. In unaffected female mutation carriers, MRI breast screening or risk-reducing surgery is recommended. The optimal surveillance for other cancers is currently unclear and should ideally be performed as part of a clinical trial.

Conclusions

Identifying a TP53 mutation in a gene panel test is a challenging result for the patient and clinician due to the high risk of second primaries and the lack of consensus about surveillance.

     

The association between smoking and cancer incidence in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Tobacco smoke is an established carcinogen, but the association between tobacco smoking and cancer risk in BRCA mutation carriers is not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the association between tobacco smoking and cancer incidence in a cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. The study population consisted of unaffected BRCA mutation carriers. Information on lifestyle including smoking histories, reproductive factors, and past medical histories was obtained through questionnaires. Incident cancers were updated biennially via follow‐up questionnaires. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using time‐dependent Cox regression models. There were 700 incident cancers diagnosed over 26,711 person‐years of follow‐up. The most frequent cancers seen in BRCA mutation carriers were breast (n = 428; 61%) and ovarian (n = 109; 15%) cancer. Compared to nonsmokers, (ever) smoking was associated with a modest increased risk of all cancers combined (HR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.01–1.37). Women in the highest group of total pack‐years (4.3–9.8) had an increased risk of developing any cancer (HR = 1.27; 95%CI 1.04–1.56), breast cancer (HR = 1.33, 95%CI 1.02–1.75), and ovarian cancer (HR = 1.68; 95%CI 1.06–2.67) compared to never smokers. The associations between tobacco smoking and cancer did not differ by BRCA mutation type or by age at diagnosis. This prospective study suggests that tobacco smoking is associated with a modest increase in the risks of breast and ovarian cancer among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.     

Consideration of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in BRCA mutation‐negative familial ovarian cancers

BACKGROUND:

Inherited mutations account for approximately 10% of all epithelial ovarian cancers. Breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRACA2) gene mutations are responsible for up to 85% of inherited breast and/or ovarian cancer. Another condition that has been associated with ovarian cancer is hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC), which carries a lifetime risk of up to 13% for ovarian cancer. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of HNPCC‐related gene mutations in patients with familial ovarian cancer who previously tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations.

METHODS:

Seventy‐seven probands were identified who had familial ovarian cancer and negative BRCA gene mutation testing. Their pedigrees were analyzed for HNPCC syndrome. DNA samples underwent gene sequencing and Southern blot analysis for mutations in the 3 most common HNPCC‐associated genes: mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) and mutS homolog 2 (MSH2) with reflex testing for MSH6 if tests for the first 2 genes were negative.

RESULTS:

None of the probands met Amsterdam criteria for the clinical diagnosis of HNPCC. DNA testing revealed 2 patients (2.6%) with deleterious mutations in the MSH2 gene. An additional 8 patients (10.4%) had substitutions in either the MLH1 gene or the MSH2 gene that were classified as variants of uncertain significance. If Amsterdam criteria were expanded to include ovarian cancer, then 15 of 77 patients (19.5%) would have met these expanded criteria. One deleterious mutation was noted in this group, yielding a mutation incidence of 6.7%. This percentage may be even higher if any of the identified variants of uncertain significance are confirmed to be deleterious.

CONCLUSIONS:

HNPCC should be considered when evaluating patients with suspected hereditary ovarian cancer who have had negative BRCA mutation testing. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND:

Although breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for breast cancer‐susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, there is no current consensus on the optimal screening regimen.

METHODS:

The authors used a computer simulation model to compare 6 annual screening strategies (film mammography [FM], digital mammography [DM], FM and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or DM and MRI contemporaneously, and alternating FM/MRI or DM/MRI at 6‐month intervals) beginning at ages 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years, and 2 strategies of annual MRI with delayed alternating DM/FM versus clinical surveillance alone. Strategies were evaluated without and with mammography‐induced breast cancer risk using 2 models of excess relative risk. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, publicly available databases, and calibration.

RESULTS:

Without radiation risk effects, alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years provided the highest life expectancy (BRCA1, 72.52 years, BRCA2, 77.63 years). When radiation risk was included, a small proportion of diagnosed cancers was attributable to radiation exposure (BRCA1, <2%; BRCA2, <4%). With radiation risk, alternating DM/MRI at age 25 years or annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years was the most effective, depending on the radiation risk model used. Alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years also produced the highest number of false‐positive screens per woman (BRCA1, 4.5 BRCA2, 8.1).

CONCLUSIONS:

Annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years is probably the most effective screening strategy in BRCA mutation carriers. Screening benefits, associated risks, and personal acceptance of false‐positive results should be considered in choosing the optimal screening strategy for individual women. Cancer 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society.