American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins--Gynecology; ACOG Committee on Genetics; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 103: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:957-966. [PMID: 19305347 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0b013e3181a106d4]

Prevalence of pathogenic germline variants detected by multigene sequencing in unselected Japanese patients with ovarian cancer

Pathogenic germline BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA1/2), and several other gene variants predispose women to primary ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma (OC), although variant frequency and relevance information is scarce in Japanese women with OC. Using targeted panel sequencing, we screened 230 unselected Japanese women with OC from our hospital-based cohort for pathogenic germline variants in 75 or 79 OC-associated genes. Pathogenic variants of 11 genes were identified in 41 (17.8%) women: 19 (8.3%; BRCA1), 8 (3.5%; BRCA2), 6 (2.6%; mismatch repair genes), 3 (1.3%; RAD51D), 2 (0.9%; ATM), 1 (0.4%; MRE11A), 1 (FANCC), and 1 (GABRA6). Carriers of BRCA1/2 or any other tested gene pathogenic variants were more likely to be diagnosed younger, have first or second-degree relatives with OC, and have OC classified as high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). After adjustment for these variables, all 3 features were independent predictive factors for pathogenic variants in any tested genes whereas only the latter two remained for variants in BRCA1/2. Our data indicate similar variant prevalence in Japanese patients with OC and other ethnic groups and suggest that HGSC and OC family history may facilitate genetic predisposition prediction in Japanese patients with OC and referring high-risk patients for genetic counseling and testing.

Considerations in Testing for Inherited Breast Cancer Predisposition in the Era of Personalized Medicine

Technological advances realized through next-generation sequencing technologies coupled with the loss of the ability to patent genes have led to reduction in costs for genetic testing. As a result, more people are being identified with inherited breast cancer syndromes that may affect recommendations for surveillance and risk reduction. Surgeons, at the forefront for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer, must keep current with the changing landscape of genetics to continue to provide appropriate counsel and care. This article provides an overview of individuals at risk for inherited cancer predisposition and recommendations for surveillance and management.

Clinical utility of a self-administered questionnaire for assessment of hereditary gynecologic cancer

Background

A patient's medical history and familial cancer history are important information for assessing the risk of hereditary cancer. We have generated a self-administered questionnaire for patients with gynecologic cancer. This pilot study analyzed the usefulness of this questionnaire and the rates of patients that meet the Society of Gynecologic Oncology criteria in ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer patients.

Method

Ovarian or endometrial cancer patients were recruited for this study. After informed consent was obtained, participants completed the questionnaire. Genetic risks were assessed from the data of each patient's questionnaire by Society of Gynecologic Oncology guideline. Clinical and pathological findings were compared between the genetic risk groups.

Results

A total of 105 patients were identified with ovarian cancer and 56 patients with endometrial cancer eligible for this study. According to the Society of Gynecologic Oncology guideline, of the 105 ovarian cancer patients, 25 patients (23%) had a 20–25% risk and three patients (2.9%) had a 5–10% risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. A further 22 patients (21%) had a 5–10% risk of Lynch syndrome. Two patients (1.9%) met the Amsterdam criteria II. Of 56 endometrial cancer patients, 24 patients (42.9%) had a 5–10% risk of Lynch syndrome. The endometrial cancer patients with genetic risk of Lynch syndrome were younger (mean age: 47.79) at diagnosis compared to patients without a genetic risk of Lynch syndrome (mean age: 57.91).

Conclusions

In this study, we were able to show that the newly designed questionnaire is a useful tool for evaluating cancer family history along with Society of Gynecologic Oncology criteria or Amsterdam criteria II. When considering the risk of Lynch syndrome for a patient with ovarian cancer, it is important to collect a second and third relative's family history.

The frequency of cancer predisposition gene mutations in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients in Taiwan: From BRCA1/2 to multi-gene panels

An important role of genetic factors in the development of breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) in Taiwanese (ethnic Chinese) patients has been suggested. However, other than germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, which are related to hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC), cancer-predisposition genes have not been well studied in this population. The aim of the present study was to more accurately summarize the prevalence of genetic mutations in HBOC patients using various gene panels ranging in size from BRCA1/2 alone to multi-gene panels. Among 272 HBOC patients analyzed, the prevalence of BRCA1, BRCA2 and non-BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations was 7.7% (21/272), 6.8% (16/236) and 8.2% (13/159), respectively. The total mutation rate was 18.4% (50/272). Although no founder mutations were identified in this study, two recurrent mutations, BRCA1 (c.3607C>T) and BRCA2 (c.5164_5165 delAG), were found. The main pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations in non-BRCA1/2 genes included ATM, BRIP1, FANCI, MSH2, MUYTH, RAD50, RAD51C and TP53. The prevalence rate of gene mutations in HBOC patients did not differ with respect to whether BC or OC was the first diagnosis or they presented a family history of the disease or their age at diagnosis. HBOC patients with both BC and OC exhibited a higher prevalence rate of mutations (50.0%) than patients with OC (25.0%) or BC (8.6%) alone. In conclusion, evaluation of hereditary cancer risk in Taiwan HBOC patients, particularly individuals with double cancer, is strongly encouraged. Panel testing can yield additional genomic information, and widespread and well-designed panel testing will help in assessing more accurate mutational prevalence of risk genes.

Trends in utilization and costs of BRCA testing among women aged 18-64 years in the United States, 2003-2014

PurposeWe examined 12-year trends in BRCA testing rates and costs in the context of clinical guidelines, national policies, and other factors.MethodsWe estimated trends in BRCA testing rates and costs from 2003 to 2014 for women aged 18-64 years using private claims data and publicly reported revenues from the primary BRCA testing provider.ResultsThe percentage of women with zero out-of-pocket payments for BRCA testing increased during 2013-2014, after 7 years of general decline, coinciding with a clarification of Affordable Care Act coverage of BRCA genetic testing. Beginning in 2007, family history accounted for an increasing proportion of women with BRCA tests compared with personal history, coinciding with BRCA testing guidelines for primary care settings and direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns. During 2013-2014, BRCA testing rates based on claims grew at a faster rate than revenues, following 3 years of similar growth, consistent with increased marketplace competition. In 2013, BRCA testing rates based on claims increased 57%, compared with 11% average annual increases over the preceding 3 years, coinciding with celebrity publicity.ConclusionThe observed trends in BRCA testing rates and costs are consistent with possible effects of several factors, including the Affordable Care Act, clinical guidelines and celebrity publicity.

Should Patients With Cystic Lesions of the Pancreas Undergo Long-term Radiographic Surveillance?: Results of 3024 Patients Evaluated at a Single Institution

OBJECTIVE

In 2015, the American Gastroenterological Association recommended the discontinuation of radiographic surveillance after 5 years for patients with stable pancreatic cysts. The current study evaluated the yield of continued surveillance of pancreatic cysts up to and after 5 years of follow up.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained registry of patients evaluated for pancreatic cysts was queried (1995-2016). Patients who initially underwent radiographic surveillance were divided into those with <5 years and ≥5 years of follow up. Analyses for the presence of cyst growth (>5 mm increase in diameter), cross-over to resection, and development of carcinoma were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 3024 patients were identified, with 2472 (82%) undergoing initial surveillance. The ≥5 year group (n = 596) experienced a greater frequency of cyst growth (44% vs. 20%; P < 0.0001), a lower rate of cross-over to resection (8% vs 11%; P = 0.02), and a similar frequency of progression to carcinoma (2% vs 3%; P = 0.07) compared with the <5 year group (n = 1876). Within the ≥5 year group, 412 patients (69%) had demonstrated radiographic stability at the 5-year time point. This subgroup, when compared with the <5 year group, experienced similar rates of cyst growth (19% vs. 20%; P= 0.95) and lower rates of cross-over to resection (5% vs 11%; P< 0.0001) and development of carcinoma (1% vs 3%; P= 0.008). The observed rate of developing cancer in the group that was stable at the 5-year time point was 31.3 per 100,000 per year, whereas the expected national age-adjusted incidence rate for this same group was 7.04 per 100,000 per year.

CONCLUSION

Cyst size stability at the 5-year time point did not preclude future growth, cross-over to resection, or carcinoma development. Patients who were stable at 5 years had a nearly 3-fold higher risk of developing cancer compared with the general population and should continue long-term surveillance.

Antimüllerian hormone levels are lower in BRCA2 mutation carriers

OBJECTIVE

To compare antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels in women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer compared with healthy low-risk control women.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Reproductive-age women with a uterus and both ovaries were analyzed in four groups: BRCA1 mutation carriers, BRCA2 carriers, BRCA-negative women, and low-risk controls.

INTERVENTION(S)

Self-collected dried blood spot.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

AMH levels.

RESULT(S)

One hundred ninety-five women were included: 55 BRCA1 carriers, 50 BRCA2 carriers, 26 BRCA negative women, and 64 low-risk controls. After adjusting for confounders, BRCA2 carriers had AMH levels that were 33% lower than control women and an increased odds of having AMH <1 ng/mL. BRCA1 carriers and BRCA-negative women had AMH levels similar to control women. When analysis was restricted to regularly menstruating women younger than 40 years of age, BRCA2 carriers continued to demonstrate significantly lower AMH levels and increased likelihood of low AMH. Also, in this restricted group, BRCA-negative women demonstrated AMH levels that were 42% lower than control women. No difference in AMH was observed for BRCA1 carriers.

CONCLUSION(S)

We observed significantly lower AMH levels among BRCA2 carriers compared with low-risk control women. These results were stable across all models. BRCA-negative women also had lower AMH values, but only in models restricted to young regularly menstruating women. In contrast to earlier analyses, BRCA1 carriers had AMH values that were similar to low-risk control women, but this may be due to differences in the population studied.

Expanded Gene Panel Use for Women With Breast Cancer: Identification and Intervention Beyond Breast Cancer Risk

Background

Clinicians ordering multi-gene next-generation sequencing panels for hereditary breast cancer risk have a variety of test panel options. Many panels include lesser known breast cancer genes or genes associated with other cancers. The authors hypothesized that using broader gene panels increases the identification of clinically significant findings, some relevant and others incidental to the testing indication. They examined clinician ordering patterns and compared the yield of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in non-BRCA genes of female breast cancer patients.

Methods

This study analyzed de-identified personal and family histories in 1085 breast cancer cases with P/LP multi-gene panel findings in non-BRCA cancer genes and sorted them into three groups by the panel used for testing: group A (breast cancer genes only), group B (commonly assessed cancers: breast, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal), and group C (a more expanded set of tumors). The frequency of P/LP variants in genes with established management guidelines was compared and evaluated for consistency with personal and family histories.

Results

This study identified 1131 P/LP variants and compared variants in clinically actionable genes for breast and non-breast cancers. Overall, 91.5% of these variants were in genes with management guidelines. Nearly 12% were unrelated to personal or family history.

Conclusion

Broader panels were used for 85.6% of our cohort (groups B and C). Although pathogenic variants in non-BRCA genes are reportedly rare, the study found that most were in clinically actionable genes. Expanded panel testing improved the identification of hereditary cancer risk. Small, breast-limited panels may miss clinically relevant findings in genes associated with other heritable cancers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-017-5963-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Gynecological Cancer as a Second Malignancy in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for gynecological cancer as second malignancy (SM) after treatment of breast cancer (BC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between January 1985 and December 2007, a total of 2756 patients with BC were analyzed for gynecological cancers as an SM. Analysis was carried out for patient-, disease-, and treatment-related characteristics. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of gynecologic malignancies.

RESULTS

The median age at BC diagnosis was 49 years and median follow-up of 14 years. In total, 25 cases of gynecological cancer were noted with an incidence of 0.9%. We observed 9 ovarian and endometrium (0.3%) as well as 7 uterine cervix (0.25%) cancers. Family history of BC was the most significant risk factor for SM (relative risk, 7.4; 95% confidence interval, 3.03-18.28; P<0.001). Women with a family history of BC had a higher incidence of endometrial (12%) and ovarian (16%) cancer compared with those who have no family history (0.1%, P = 0.003). Statistically significant higher incidence of endometrial cancer was seen in patients undergoing hormonal therapy (0.4%) as compared with those who are not undergoing hormonal therapy (0.1%, P = 0.001). Most of the endometrial (88.9%) and cervical (71%) cancers were detected at an early stage but ovarian cancers (66.6%) in advanced stage. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy did not increase the risk of gynecological SM.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with BC are at risk of developing a second primary gynecological malignancy particularly of endometrium and ovary. Family history of BC was a high risk factor for gynecologic SM. These patients should be followed up for its early detection.

European/U.S. Comparison and Contrasts in Ovarian Cancer Screening and Prevention in a High-Risk Population

The history of screening and prevention of ovarian cancer among high-risk women in the United States and Europe is one of mutual inspiration, with researchers learning from each others' findings and insights and collaborating with investigators from both sides of the Atlantic ocean. Examples of simultaneous and joint development of knowledge and scientific points of view include the paradigm shift from ovarian to fallopian tube high-grade serous cancer and the cessation of simultaneous adoption of ovarian cancer screening by clinicians in both the United States and Europe. Examples of joint efforts with fruitful results include international collaboration in large population-based, genome-wide association studies and in epidemiologic database studies. Research in the field of hereditary ovarian cancer is a great example of mutual inspiration and joint efforts for the purpose of improving knowledge and health care for women with hereditary ovarian cancer.

A Resident's Perspective of Ovarian Cancer

Identifying, understanding, and curing disease is a lifelong endeavor for any medical practitioner. Equally as important is to be cognizant of the impact a disease has on the individual suffering from it, as well as on their family. Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancies. Symptoms are vague, and the disease is generally at an advanced stage at diagnosis. Efforts have been made to develop methods to identify ovarian cancer at earlier stages, thus improving overall mortality. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS), with and without laboratory tests, can be used to screen for ovarian cancer. For over thirty years, the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Ovarian Cancer Screening Program has been studying the efficacy of TVUS for detecting early stage ovarian cancer. After 285,000+ TVUS examinations provided to over 45,000 women, the program has demonstrated that regular TVUS examinations can detect ovarian cancer at early stages, and that survival is increased in those women whose ovarian cancer was detected with screening and who undergo standard treatment. These results demonstrate the utility of TVUS as an efficacious method of ovarian cancer screening.

Managing hereditary breast cancer risk in women with and without ovarian cancer

Current guidelines recommend that all women with ovarian cancer undergo germline genetic testing for BRCA1/2. Increasingly, genetic testing is being performed via panels that include other genes that confer a high or moderate risk of breast cancer. In addition, many women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer are not found to have a mutation, but may have increased risk of breast cancer for which surveillance and risk reduction strategies are indicated. This review discusses how to assess and manage an increased risk of breast cancer through surveillance, preventive medications, and risk-reducing surgery. Assessing and managing the increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer can be challenging. For the first few years after an ovarian cancer diagnosis, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a relatively low risk of breast cancer, and their prognosis is largely determined by the ovarian cancer. However, if these women remain in remission after two years, the risk of breast cancer becomes comparable with, and in some cases exceeds, their risk of ovarian cancer recurrence. For these women, breast cancer surveillance and risk reduction becomes important to their overall health. Specifically, for BRCA1/2 carriers who are diagnosed with early-stage ovarian cancer, we recommend regular breast cancer surveillance and consideration of risk reduction with medication and/or prophylactic mastectomy. For women with advanced ovarian cancer who do not achieve remission, breast cancer surveillance or prophylaxis is not of value. However, among carriers with more favorable advanced disease, it is reasonable to initiate breast cancer surveillance. Patients with less favorable advanced stage disease who achieve sustained remission (>2-5years) should also consider more aggressive strategies for breast cancer screening and prevention. For mutation carriers who remain in remission after five years, prophylactic mastectomy can be considered.

Risk-Reducing Strategies for Ovarian Cancer in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Balancing Act

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review the role of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation (mBRCA) carriers and alternative interventions in risk reduction of ovarian cancer (OC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library was conducted to identify studies of different strategies to prevent OC in mBRCA carriers, including bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy, intensive surveillance, and chemoprevention.

RESULTS

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is an effective intervention, but its associated morbidity is substantial and seems to curtail uptake rates among the target population. Although there is much interest and a strong theoretical basis for salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy, data on its clinical application are scarce with regard to screening, the use of an algorithmic protocol has recently shown favorable albeit indefinite results in average-risk postmenopausal women. Its incorporation into studies focused on high-risk women might help solidify a future role for screening as a bridge to surgery. The use of oral contraceptives for chemoprevention is well supported by epidemiologic studies. However, there is a lack of evidence for advocating any of the other agents proposed for this purpose, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin D, and retinoids.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are needed before salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy or intensive surveillance can be offered as acceptable, less morbid alternatives to upfront oophorectomy for mBRCA carriers. The Oncologist 2017;22:450-459 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is currently the most effective method for reducing the risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation (mBRCA) carriers. Unfortunately, it is associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity, stemming from reduced circulating estrogen. In recent years, much research has been devoted to evaluating less morbid alternatives, especially multimodal cancer screening and prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy. This review describes the present state of the art, with the aim of informing the counseling provided to mBRCA carriers on this complicated issue and encouraging additional research to facilitate the incorporation of such alternatives into routine practice.

Risk-reducing salpingectomy: Let us be opportunistic

Because there is no screening test for ovarian cancer, effective prevention strategies may be the best way to reduce the mortality of this most lethal gynecologic malignancy. Increasing evidence supports the hypothesis that the fallopian tube is the site of origin for the vast majority of high-grade serous carcinomas. Our growing understanding of the pathogenesis of this disease offers a rare opportunity to explore new preventive measures, such as bilateral salpingectomy, which may provide great benefit without compromising ovarian function. If the tubal paradigm is accurate, then the impact of bilateral salpingectomy could extend to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, high-risk noncarriers, and average-risk women. The authors present a review of the literature on the role of risk-reducing salpingectomy in all women and in high-risk groups, with a focus on morbidity, ovarian function, potential clinical applicability, and epidemiological considerations. Cancer 2017;123:1714-1720. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Georgia Primary Care Providers' Knowledge of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is an inherited condition associated with mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) genes. Identification of individuals with HBOC requires that primary care providers understand the genetic principles required to appropriately collect family history and refer individuals for genetic evaluation. A survey was developed and administered to primary care providers in Georgia to assess their existing knowledge of HBOC and direct targeted educational efforts.We found that Georgia providers demonstrate some knowledge of basic genetic principles but were unable to consistently identify individuals at risk for HBOC. Knowledge deficits included lack of understanding of inheritance patterns and failure to recognize the significance of ovarian cancer history. Strategies for improving identification of patients with HBOC include increasing provider knowledge and integrating HBOC risk assessment tools into practice. Identification of individuals at risk is the critical first step in the process of reducing incidence of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA mutations.

Cost Comparison of Genetic Testing Strategies in Women With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Purpose:

The advent of multigene panels has increased genetic testing options for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We designed a decision model to compare costs and probabilities of identifying a deleterious mutation or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) using different genetic testing strategies.

Methods:

A decision model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of two testing strategies for women with EOC: multigene testing (MGT) versus single-gene testing for BRCA1/2. Outcomes were mean cost and number of deleterious mutations and VUSs identified. Model inputs were obtained from published genetic testing data in EOC. One-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

No family history model: MGT cost $1,160 more on average than BRCA1/2 testing and identified an additional 3.8 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $30,812 and identified 5.4 additional VUSs. Family history model: MGT cost $654 more on average and identified an additional 7.0 deleterious mutations for every 100 women tested. For each additional deleterious mutation identified, MGT cost $9,909 and identified 2.6 additional VUSs.

Conclusion:

MGT was associated with a higher additional cost per deleterious mutation identified and a higher ratio of VUS burden to actionable information in women with no family history as compared with women with a family history. Family history should be considered when determining an initial genetic testing platform in women with EOC.

A Review of Laparoscopic Salpingo-Oophorectomy: Technique and Perioperative Considerations

Hysterectomy is the most frequently performed major gynecologic surgery in women in the United States. This procedure is often accompanied by unilateral or bilateral removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries. Although the overall incidence of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to be in a decreasing trend in recent years, it is possibly 1 of the most common scenarios that the gynecologic surgeon will encounter. As the field of minimally invasive surgery continues to expand, it is expected that most of these surgeries will be performed using a laparoscopic approach. In fact, data support that adnexal surgery is more likely to take place during a laparoscopic hysterectomy when compared with abdominal or vaginal routes. This article reviews the basic surgical principles and relevant anatomic relations that every pelvic surgeon should know and aims to serve as a guide for effectively and proficiently performing a salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy.

Oncofertility for women with gynecologic malignancies

The emerging field of oncofertility addresses fertility and the reproductive health needs for cancer patients, a key topic in cancer survivorship. Given that the standard treatment for gynecologic malignancies involves removal of reproductive organs, pelvic radiation, or chemotherapy, the effect of such treatment on fertility and options for fertility preservation are even more relevant than for other malignancies. In young women with new diagnoses of cervical, endometrial, or ovarian cancers, viable strategies for fertility preservation without compromising oncological outcome exist and should be considered. We present here a comprehensive review of the literature as it pertains to gynecologic malignancies on 1) the effects of radiation and chemotherapy on fertility, 2) fertility-sparing surgeries and the role of assisted reproductive technology, and 3) fertility preservation in adolescent girls and women with BRCA germline mutations.

Uterine Cancer After Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy Without Hysterectomy in Women With BRCA Mutations

IMPORTANCE

The link between BRCA mutations and uterine cancer is unclear. Therefore, although risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is standard treatment among women with BRCA mutations (BRCA+ women), the role of concomitant hysterectomy is controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk for uterine cancer and distribution of specific histologic subtypes in BRCA+ women after RRSO without hysterectomy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter prospective cohort study included 1083 women with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation identified from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2011, at 9 academic medical centers in the United States and the United Kingdom who underwent RRSO without a prior or concomitant hysterectomy. Of these, 627 participants were BRCA1+; 453, BRCA2+; and 3, both. Participants were prospectively followed up for a median 5.1 (interquartile range [IQR], 3.0-8.4) years after ascertainment, BRCA testing, or RRSO (whichever occurred last). Follow up data available through October 14, 2014, were included in the analyses. Censoring occurred at uterine cancer diagnosis, hysterectomy, last follow-up, or death. New cancers were categorized by histologic subtype, and available tumors were analyzed for loss of the wild-type BRCA gene and/or protein expression.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incidence of uterine corpus cancer in BRCA+ women who underwent RRSO without hysterectomy compared with rates expected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.

RESULTS

Among the 1083 women women who underwent RRSO without hysterectomy at a median age 45.6 (IQR: 40.9 - 52.5), 8 incident uterine cancers were observed (4.3 expected; observed to expected [O:E] ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.8-3.7; P = .09). No increased risk for endometrioid endometrial carcinoma or sarcoma was found after stratifying by subtype. Five serous and/or serous-like (serous/serous-like) endometrial carcinomas were observed (4 BRCA1+ and 1 BRCA2+) 7.2 to 12.9 years after RRSO (BRCA1: 0.18 expected [O:E ratio, 22.2; 95% CI, 6.1-56.9; P < .001]; BRCA2: 0.16 expected [O:E ratio, 6.4; 95% CI, 0.2-35.5; P = .15]). Tumor analyses confirmed loss of the wild-type BRCA1 gene and/or protein expression in all 3 available serous/serous-like BRCA1+ tumors.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the overall risk for uterine cancer after RRSO was not increased, the risk for serous/serous-like endometrial carcinoma was increased in BRCA1+ women. This risk should be considered when discussing the advantages and risks of hysterectomy at the time of RRSO in BRCA1+ women.

Reproductive Decision-Making in Women with BRCA1/2 Mutations

Expanded genetic testing of BRCA mutations has led to identification of more reproductive-aged women who test positive for the mutation which might impact attitudes and decisions about relationships, childbearing and the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND). A cross-sectional survey was administered to 1081 self-reported BRCA carriers to investigate how knowledge of BRCA status influences these issues. The mean age at BRCA test disclosure was 44 years and 36 % reported a personal history of cancer. Of 163 women who were unpartnered, 21.5 % felt more pressure to get married. Of 284 women whose families were not complete, 41 % reported that carrier status impacted their decision to have biological children. Women with a history of cancer were more likely to report that knowledge of BRCA+ status impacted their decision to have a child (OR 1.8, 95 % CI 1-3.2). Fifty-nine percent thought PGD should be offered to mutation carriers and 55.5 % thought PND should be offered. In conclusion, knowledge of BRCA status impacts attitudes regarding relationships and childbearing, and most carriers believe that PGD and PND should be offered to other carriers. This study suggests that BRCA carriers desire and would benefit from reproductive counseling after test disclosure.

[Factors influencing the quality of clinical practice guidelines in ovarian cancer]

OBJECTIVE

To identify the characteristics of the published clinical practice guidelines for the management of epithelial ovarian cancer that suggest a good methodological quality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature review was performed on 25 clinical practice guidelines for epithelial ovarian cancer that were identified in different databases (MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, National Guidelines Clearing house) published between 2007 and 2014. The quality of the guidelines was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed to assess the association between the quality of the guidelines and of some of their features and their developers.

RESULTS

Just under half (48%) of the guidelines were rated as low quality. Scientific societies or independent centres and private funding, or under-reporting the source of funding, were statistically associated with lower quality of clinical practice guidelines (P<.01). The guidelines developed by National Program Guidelines had a median of consistently higher scores in all domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II, with significant differences in the definition of scope and objectives, the participation of stakeholders, the methodological rigour of development, and applicability to the context.

CONCLUSIONS

Features such as the nature of the developer and funding of the guidelines are predictors of quality that should be taken into account prior to the use of the recommendations of a document.

Contribution of extended family history in assessment of risk for breast and colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Family history is important for identifying candidates for high risk cancer screening and referral for genetic counseling. We sought to determine the percentage of individuals who would be eligible for high risk cancer screening or genetic referral and testing if family history includes an extended (vs limited) family history.

METHODS

Family histories were obtained from 626 women at UVMMC associated mammography centers from 2001 to 2002. ACS guidelines were used to determine eligibility for high risk breast or colon cancer screening. Eligibility for referral for genetic counseling for hereditary breast and colon cancer was determined using the Referral Screening Tool and Amsterdam II screening criteria, respectively. All family histories were assessed for eligibility by a limited history (first degree relatives only) and extended history (first and second degree relatives).

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-nine histories were eligible for review. 18/282 (3.6 %) and 62/123 (12 %) individuals met criteria for high risk breast and colon cancer screening, respectively. 13/18 (72 %) in the high risk breast cancer screening group and 12/62 (19 %) in the high risk colon cancer screening group met criteria based upon an extended family history. 9/282 (1.8 %) and 31/123 (6.2 %) individuals met criteria for genetic counseling referral and testing for breast and colon cancer, respectively. 2/9 (22 %) of individuals in the genetic breast cancer screening group and 21/31 (68 %) individuals in the genetic colon cancer screening group met criteria based upon extended family history.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to suggest that first degree family history alone is not adequate for identification of candidates for high risk screening and referral for genetic counseling for hereditary breast and colon cancer syndromes. A larger population is needed to further validate this data.

Evolution of Hereditary Breast Cancer Genetic Services: Are Changes Reflected in the Knowledge and Clinical Practices of Florida Providers?

AIMS

We describe practitioner knowledge and practices related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in an evolving landscape of genetic testing.

METHODS

A survey was mailed in late 2013 to Florida providers who order HBOC testing. Descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize participants' responses.

RESULTS

Of 101 respondents, 66% indicated either no genetics education or education through a commercial laboratory. Although 79% of respondents were aware of the Supreme Court ruling resulting in the loss of Myriad Genetics' BRCA gene patent, only 19% had ordered testing from a different laboratory. With regard to pretest counseling, 78% of respondents indicated they usually discuss 11 of 14 nationally recommended elements for informed consent. Pretest discussion times varied from 3 to 120 min, with approximately half spending <20 min. Elements not routinely covered by >40% of respondents included (1) possibility of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) and (2) issues related to life/disability insurance. With regard to genetic testing for HBOC, 88% would test an unaffected sister of a breast cancer patient identified with a BRCA VUS.

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the need to identify whether variability in hereditary cancer service delivery impacts patient outcomes. Findings also reveal opportunities to facilitate ongoing outreach and education.

Germline BRCA1/2 mutation testing is indicated in every patient with epithelial ovarian cancer: A systematic review

The presence of a germline BRCA1/2 mutation improves options for tailored risk-reducing strategies and treatment in both breast and ovarian cancer patients and their relatives. Currently, referral for germline BRCA1/2 mutation testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) varies widely, based on different criteria, such as age of onset, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and histological type of EOC. The overall probability of a germline BRCA1/2 mutation in women with EOC is above 10%, and a substantial part of the germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is missed when applying these criteria for referral. Therefore, we strongly recommend referral of all women with EOC for genetic counselling and DNA analysis.

Ovarian Cancer and BRCA1/2 Testing: Opportunities to Improve Clinical Care and Disease Prevention

Without prevention or screening options available, ovarian cancer is the most lethal malignancy of the female reproductive tract. High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most common histologic subtype, and the role of germline BRCA1/2 mutation in predisposition and prognosis is established. Given the targeted treatment opportunities with PARP inhibitors, a predictive role for BRCA1/2 mutation has emerged. Despite recommendations to provide BRCA1/2 testing to all women with histologically confirmed HGSOC, uniform implementation remains challenging. The opportunity to review and revise genetic screening and testing practices will identify opportunities, where universal adoption of BRCA1/2 mutation testing will impact and improve treatment of women with ovarian cancer. Improving education and awareness of genetic testing for women with cancer, as well as the broader general community, will help focus much-needed attention on opportunities to advance prevention and screening programs in ovarian cancer. This is imperative not only for women with cancer and those at risk of developing cancer but also for their first-degree relatives. In addition, BRCA1/2 testing may have direct implications for patients with other types of cancers, many of which are now being found to have BRCA1/2 involvement.

Implications of multigene testing for hereditary breast cancer in primary care

Approximately 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer during their lifetime and the risk factors include age, family history, and reproductive factors. In women with a family history of breast cancer, there is a proportion in which a gene mutation can be the cause of the predisposition for breast cancer. A careful assessment of family and clinical history should be performed in these women in order to determine if a genetic counseling referral is indicated. In cases of hereditary breast cancer, genetic testing with a multigene panel can identify specific genetic mutations in over 100 genes. The most common genes mutated in hereditary breast cancer are the high-penetrance BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. In addition, other mutations in high-penetrance genes in familial cancer syndromes and mutations in DNA repair genes can cause hereditary breast cancer. Mutations in low-penetrance genes and variants of uncertain significance may play a role in breast cancer development, but the magnitude and scope of risk in these cases remain unclear, thus the clinical utility of testing for these mutations is uncertain. In women with high-penetrance genetic mutations or lifetime risk of breast cancer > 20%, risk-reducing interventions, such as intensive screening, surgery, and chemoprevention, can decrease the incidence and mortality of breast cancer.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families

An estimated 10% of breast cancer cases exhibit a higher familial incidence, and functional mutations in BRCA (breast cancer-gene) 1 or 2 are responsible for the development of malignant tumors in approximately half of these cases. Women with a germline mutation in either of the two genes have a lifetime risk of up to 85% to develop breast cancer, and of up to 60% risk to develop ovarian cancer. This clinical practice guideline defines the individual and familial tumor constellations that represent an indication for BRCA germline testing. It also describes the therapeutic options (early detection programme vs prophylactic surgery) that arise from the result of a BRCA mutational analysis. This guideline further includes recommendations regarding the use of multigene panels and therapeutic aspects that arise from the selective use of poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with known BRCA1 or 2 mutations. It replaces the previous version of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention and Early Detection of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families" which was published in 2012.

Surveillance and Care of the Gynecologic Cancer Survivor

BACKGROUND

Care of the gynecologic cancer survivor extends beyond cancer treatment to encompass promotion of sexual, cardiovascular, bone, and brain health; management of fertility, contraception, and vasomotor symptoms; and genetic counseling.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of the data and guidelines regarding care and surveillance of the gynecologic cancer survivor. We searched databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus using the search terms gynecologic cancer, cancer surveillance, and cancer survivor and reached a consensus for articles chosen for inclusion in the review based on availability in the English language and publication since 2001, as well as key older articles, consensus statements, and practice guidelines from professional societies. However, we did not undertake an extensive systematic search of the literature to identify all potentially relevant studies, nor did we utilize statistical methods to summarize data. We offer clinical recommendations for the management of gynecologic cancer survivors based on review of evidence and our collective clinical experience.

RESULTS

Key messages include the limitations of laboratory studies, including CA-125, and imaging in the setting of gynecologic cancer surveillance, hormonal and non-hormonal management of treatment-related vasomotor symptoms and genitourinary syndrome of menopause, as well as recommendations for general health screening, fertility preservation, and contraception.

CONCLUSIONS

A holistic approach to care extending beyond cancer treatment alone benefits gynecologic cancer survivors. In addition to surveillance for cancer recurrence and late treatment side effects, survivors benefit from guidance on hormonal, contraceptive, and fertility management and promotion of cardiovascular, bone, brain, and sexual health.

Menopause and Cancers

Cancer is a disease of aging, and therefore is more prevalent after menopause. Menopausal symptoms resulting from cancer treatments are an important survivorship issue in cancer care. This article reviews the preventive strategies, utilization of health resources, and management of menopausal symptoms after cancer treatment. Preventive screening as informed by genetic and lifestyle risk, and lifestyle modification, may mitigate the risk of cancer and cancer mortality. Despite potential benefits to quality of life, hormone replacement is rarely prescribed to survivors of gynecologic malignancies. Special considerations are needed for the treatment and supportive care of menopausal symptoms in cancer survivors.

Clinical management of patients at inherited risk for gynecologic cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As more women with an inherited increased risk of gynecologic cancer are identified, the clinician will be challenged to counsel these women on risk-reducing strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although there are some recent studies that show potential for ovarian cancer surveillance strategies, there remains no definitive evidence that surveillance leads to a stage shift or a reduction in mortality. Recent studies support the following conclusions: first, oral contraceptive use reduces ovarian cancer risk without significantly increasing breast cancer risk, second, salpingo-oophorectomy leads to a reduction in ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and overall mortality for women who are carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and third, the 'ovarian cancers' associated with BRCA mutations actually include fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer and may have a precursor lesion in the fallopian tube; this observation has prompted the provocative suggestion of removing the fallopian tube to reduce ovarian cancer risk.

SUMMARY

Because of the interplay between the hormonal impact of ovarian function on breast cancer risk, the risk reduction associated with oophorectomy, and the impact of early menopause on other health outcomes, an integrated multidisciplinary approach is required to aid in the increasingly complex decisions faced by women with high inherited risk of developing gynecologic cancers.

Development and Validation of a Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variants for the Clinical Laboratory

The objective of this study was to design and validate a next-generation sequencing assay (NGS) to detect BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. We developed an assay using random shearing of genomic DNA followed by RNA bait tile hybridization and NGS sequencing on both the Illumina MiSeq and Ion Personal Gene Machine (PGM). We determined that the MiSeq Reporter software supplied with the instrument could not detect deletions greater than 9 base pairs. Therefore, we developed an alternative alignment and variant calling software, Quest Sequencing Analysis Pipeline (QSAP), that was capable of detecting large deletions and insertions. In validation studies, we used DNA from 27 stem cell lines, all with known deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, and DNA from 67 consented control individuals who had a total of 352 benign variants. Both the MiSeq/QSAP combination and PGM/Torrent Suite combination had 100% sensitivity for the 379 known variants in the validation series. However, the PGM/Torrent Suite combination had a lower intra- and inter-assay precision of 96.2% and 96.7%, respectively when compared to the MiSeq/QSAP combination of 100% and 99.4%, respectively. All PGM/Torrent Suite inconsistencies were false-positive variant assignments. We began commercial testing using both platforms and in the first 521 clinical samples MiSeq/QSAP had 100% sensitivity for BRCA1/2 variants, including a 64-bp deletion and a 10-bp insertion not identified by PGM/Torrent Suite, which also suffered from a high false-positive rate. Neither the MiSeq nor PGM platform with their supplied alignment and variant calling software are appropriate for a clinical laboratory BRCA sequencing test. We have developed an NGS BRCA1/2 sequencing assay, MiSeq/QSAP, with 100% analytic sensitivity and specificity in the validation set consisting of 379 variants. The MiSeq/QSAP combination has sufficient performance for use in a clinical laboratory.

Committee opinion no. 634: Hereditary cancer syndromes and risk assessment

A hereditary cancer syndrome is a genetic predisposition to certain types of cancer, often with onset at an early age, caused by inherited mutations in one or more genes. Cases of cancer commonly encountered by obstetrician-gynecologists or other obstetric-gynecologic providers--such as breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and endometrial cancer--are features of specific hereditary cancer syndromes. The most common hereditary cancer syndromes related to gynecologic cancer include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, Lynch syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Cowden syndrome, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. A hereditary cancer risk assessment is the key to identifying patients and families who may be at increased risk of developing certain types of cancer. Screening should include, at minimum, a personal cancer history and a first- and second-degree relative cancer history that includes a description of the type of primary cancer, the age of onset, and the lineage (paternal versus maternal) of the family member. In addition, a patient's ethnic background can influence her genetic risk. If a hereditary cancer risk assessment suggests an increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome, referral to a specialist in cancer genetics or a health care provider with expertise in genetics is recommended for expanded gathering of family history information, risk assessment, education, and counseling, which may lead to genetic testing.

Should the annual pelvic examination go the way of annual cervical cytology?

The value of pelvic examination for healthy asymptomatic women has been called into question given the lack of benefit for ovarian and endometrial cancer screening, the ability to screen for sexually transmitted infections without a pelvic examination, and the uncoupling of the procurement of contraception with a pelvic examination. Still, there are indications for performing pelvic examinations in symptomatic women and in some high risk women. How do we as clinicians apply current evidence and expert opinion to our medical practice? Our recommendation to consider a pelvic examination at 3-5-year intervals with cervical cancer screening to elicit gynecologic and sexual health concerns offers a compromise between continuation of unnecessary annual pelvic examinations and complete elimination of these examinations.

Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for referral to cancer genetic professionals

OBJECTIVE

Genetic predisposition is responsible for 5-10% of breast cancer, 10% of ovarian cancer and 2-5% of uterine cancer. The study objective was to compare genetic counseling and testing referral rates among women with breast cancer that met NCCN referral guidelines to the referral rates among women with gynecologic cancers and determine predictors of referral.

METHODS

Utilizing an institutional tumor registry database, patients from an academic women's oncology program were identified who met a subset of NCCN guidelines for genetic referral between 2004 and 2010. Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer, breast cancer ≤50years of age, or uterine cancer <50years of age were included. A retrospective electronic chart review was conducted to evaluate for a genetic referral and uptake of genetic testing.

RESULTS

820 women were included (216 uterine, 314 breast, and 290 ovarian cancer). The overall genetic referral rate was 21.7%. 34% of eligible breast cancer patients were referred compared to 13.4% of uterine cancer and 14.5% of ovarian cancer patients (p<0.0001). Younger age, breast cancer diagnosis, family history and earlier stage were all significant referral predictors. The odds of being referred increased with the number of affected family members. 70.8% of referred patients, consulted with genetics. Among those who consulted with genetics, 95.2% underwent testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although increasing, genetic counseling remains underutilized across cancer diagnosis. Women with breast cancer are more likely to be referred than women with gynecologic cancers. Younger age, earlier stage and positive family history appear to be predictive of referral for genetic evaluation.

Factors associated with genetic counseling and BRCA testing in a population-based sample of young Black women with breast cancer

Concerns about the potential for genomic advances to increase health disparities have been raised. Thus, it is important to assess referral and uptake of genetic counseling (GC) and testing in minority populations at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Black women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer ≤age 50 in 2009-2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry 6-18 months following diagnosis and completed a baseline questionnaire. Summary statistics, Chi-square tests, and path modeling were conducted to examine which demographic and clinical variables were associated with referral and access to genetic services. Of the 440 participants, all met national criteria for GC, yet only 224 (51 %) were referred for or received GC and/or HBOC testing. Variables most strongly associated with healthcare provider referral for GC included having a college education (OR 2.1), diagnosis at or below age 45 (OR 2.0), and triple negative tumor receptor status (OR 1.7). The strongest association with receipt of GC and/or HBOC testing was healthcare provider referral (OR 7.9), followed by private health insurance at diagnosis (OR 2.8), and household income greater than $35,000 in the year prior to diagnosis (OR 2.0). Study findings suggest efforts are needed to improve genetic services access among a population-based sample of high-risk Black women. These results indicate that socioeconomic factors and physician referral patterns contribute to disparities in access to genetic services within this underserved minority population.

The sooner the better: Genetic testing following ovarian cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

As treatment based genetic testing becomes a reality, it is important to assess the attitudes and preferences of women newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer regarding genetic testing. The objective of this study was to determine when women with a diagnosis of high grade serous ovarian cancer would prefer to undergo genetic testing and factors that influence this preference.

METHODS

Women over 18years of age with a known diagnosis of high grade serous ovarian cancer diagnosed between October 2010-2013 were identified via the Princess Margaret Cancer Center Registry. Participants completed a questionnaire, which obtained preferences and attitudes towards genetic testing, cancer history, and demographic information.

RESULTS

120 of the 355 women identified (33.8%) completed the questionnaires. The median age at time of ovarian cancer diagnosis was 57years (range 35-84). The majority of participants in this study were offered (94.6%) and pursued (84.8%) genetic testing. In this cohort, testing was most frequently offered at diagnosis (41.8%) or during treatment (19.1%). In this study, women with high grade serous ovarian cancer felt that genetic testing should be offered before or at the time of diagnosis (67.8%). Having a family history of breast or ovarian cancer was significantly (p=0.012) associated with preferring genetic testing at an earlier time point in the disease course.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that women with high grade serous ovarian cancer acknowledge the personal and clinical utility of genetic testing and support test implementation at the time of cancer diagnosis.

Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: an incidental finding at the time of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

Background. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) is a precursor lesion for high-grade pelvic serous carcinoma. The incidence of STIC is estimated to occur in 0.6% to 6% of women who are BRCA positive or have a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Case. A 56-year-old woman underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy, rectocele repair, and concurrent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for recurrent stage 3 pelvic organ prolapse and reported family history of ovarian cancer. Histopathologic examination of her left fallopian tube revealed STIC. Conclusion. We report this rare occurrence of STIC in a patient undergoing surgery primarily for pelvic organ prolapse and having a family history of ovarian cancer. Possible management options include observation with annual physical exam and CA-125, surgical staging, or empiric chemotherapy. However, due to the lack of consensus regarding management options, referral to a gynecologic oncologist is recommended.