Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis

Predictors of knowledge and knowledge gain after decision aid use among women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors contributing to baseline knowledge in women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) and knowledge gain after decision aid (DA) use.

METHODS

Women with PVs in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG) receiving DAs or a control group (CG). Of the total sample, 417 completed the baseline survey and were included in this analysis. Two multiple regression analyses were conducted: baseline data on socio-demographic, medical, decision-related and psychological variables were used to identify predictors for (1) baseline knowledge within the total group and (2) knowledge gain within the IG after DA use three months post study inclusion.

RESULTS

At baseline, higher education status, no breast cancer history, and lower decisional conflict related to higher knowledge within the total group. After DA use within the IG, higher baseline scores for decisional conflict predicted higher knowledge gain, and higher baseline scores for depression and intrusion predicted lower knowledge gain.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified predictors of baseline knowledge and knowledge gain after DA use in women with BRCA1/2 PVs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Awareness of facilitating and hindering factors on these women's knowledge can improve understanding of their health literacy and enable further targeted support interventions.

A pilot randomized controlled study to determine the effectiveness of video educational tool in BRCA1/2 pre-test counseling for Japanese breast cancer patients

BRCA1/2 genetic testing has become clinically important in breast cancer care, but increasing demand may put a burden on the shortage of healthcare professionals. We performed a single-center, pilot randomized controlled study to assess the effectiveness of employing a video educational tool that included standard pre-test genetic counseling elements related to BRCA1/2. Patients with operable breast cancer who met the criteria for genetic testing based on age, sex, subtype, and family history were recruited. Sixty consenting participants were randomized 1:1 and placed in groups that received either traditional face-to-face pre-test counseling or video-viewing and face-to-face decisional support. To assess decisional conflict in the participants, surveys based on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were administered two times, once immediately after intervention and again 2-4 weeks later. The time taken for counseling and confirmation of whether the participants had undergone testing were also recorded. The difference in the total DCS scores between the two groups was not significantly different for either of the survey periods, and there was no significant difference in the number of participants who underwent testing (23/30 [76.7%] vs. 26/30 [86.7%]; p = 0.51). However, the "effective decision" subscale score was significantly higher in the video group 2-4 weeks after counseling (31.01 ± 16.82 vs. 21.43 ± 16.09; p = 0.04 [mean ± SD]). The time taken for counseling was significantly shorter in the video group (8.00 ± 4.5 vs. 27.00 ± 7.61 min; p < 0.001 [median ± SD]). Our findings indicate the potential benefit of the video educational tool for providing BRCA1/2-related information. These tools may also enable healthcare professionals to spend more time supporting psychological issues. Notably, after some time, patients may question whether their decision was appropriate. Therefore, it is necessary to identify those in conflict and provide them with proper support.

Genetic counseling and genetic testing for pathogenic germline mutations among high-risk patients previously diagnosed with breast cancer: a traceback approach

Genetic counseling and testing are more accessible than ever due to reduced costs, expanding indications and public awareness. Nonetheless, many patients missed the opportunity of genetic counseling and testing due to barriers that existed at that time of their cancer diagnoses. Given the identified implications of pathogenic mutations on patients' treatment and familial outcomes, an opportunity exists to utilize a 'traceback' approach to retrospectively examine their genetic makeup and provide consequent insights to their disease and treatment. In this study, we identified living patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) between July 2007 and January 2022 who would have been eligible for testing, but not tested. Overall, 422 patients met the eligibility criteria, 282 were reached and invited to participate, and germline testing was performed for 238, accounting for 84.4% of those invited. The median age (range) was 39.5 (24-64) years at BC diagnosis and 49 (31-75) years at the date of testing. Genetic testing revealed that 25 (10.5%) patients had pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants; mostly in BRCA2 and BRCA1. We concluded that long overdue genetic referral through a traceback approach is feasible and effective to diagnose P/LP variants in patients with history of BC who had missed the opportunity of genetic testing, with potential clinical implications for patients and their relatives.

Variants in BRCA1/2 in a hospital-based cohort in Chile and national literature review

Purpose

The aim was to assess the diagnostic yield of next generation sequencing (NGS) multi-gene panels for breast and ovarian cancer in a high-complexity cancer centre in Chile. Additionally, our goal was to broaden the genotypic spectrum of BRCA variants already identified in Chilean families.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the genetic test results of 722 individuals from Fundación Arturo López Pérez's genetic counselling unit between 2016 and 2021. A comprehensive literature review encompassing articles analysing the frequency of germinal pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 within the Chilean population was undertaken.

Results

23.5% of the panels had positive results, with 60% due to pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes. Seven previously unreported variants in BRCA1 from Chilean studies were identified.One or more variants of uncertain significance were detected in 31% of the results, and 11.5% of the families in this cohort presented copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1/2.8 studies analysed the frequency of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 in the Chilean population between 2006 and 2023, with a frequency between 7.1% and 17.1%.51 BRCA1 variants in 149 families have been reported in Chile and 38 BRCA2 variants in 132 families. Nine founder pathogenic variants identified by one study were present in 51.9% of the total Chilean families reported.

Conclusion

Our findings advocate for the integration of NGS multi-gene panel testing as a primary strategy within our population. This approach allows for the comprehensive assessment of single nucleotide variants and CNVs in BRCA1/2, alongside other high and moderately penetrant genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer.

Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer affecting women globally. Genetic testing serves as a prevention and treatment strategy for managing BC. This study aims to systematically review economic evaluations and the quality of selected studies involving genetic screening strategies for BC in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

A search was performed to identify related articles that were published up to April 2023 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Only English-language LMIC studies were included. Synthesis of studies characteristics, methodological and data input variations, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist) were performed.

RESULTS

This review found five pertinent studies, mainly focusing on economic evaluations of germline genetic testing in upper-middle-income countries (Upper MICs) like Malaysia, China, and Brazil. Only one study covered multiple countries with varying incomes, including lower-middle-income nations (Lower MICs) like India. The ICERs values in various screening scenarios for early-stage BC, HER2 negative BC patients, and healthy women with clinical or family history criteria were ranging from USD 2214/QALY to USD 36,342/QALY. Multigene testing for all breast cancer patients with cascade testing was at USD 7729/QALY compared to BRCA alone. Most studies adhered to the CHEERS 2022 criteria, signifying high methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Germline testing could be considered as cost-effective compared to no testing in Upper MICs (e.g., Malaysia, China, Brazil) but not in Lower MICs (e.g., India) based on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold set by each respective study. Limitations prevent a definite conclusion about cost-effectiveness across LMICs. More high-quality studies are crucial for informed decision-making and improved healthcare practices in these regions.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: from genes to molecular targeted therapies

Hereditary familial tumors constitute 10-15% of all malignancies and present opportunities for the identification of therapeutic approaches against specific germline genetic defects. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome, which is linked to the pathogenic mutations of the breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) genes, is an important research model for personalized therapeutic approaches for specific germline mutations. HBOC is characterized by multiple cases of breast and ovarian carcinoma in association with other tumors (prostate, pancreas and stomach carcinoma) within the same family branch, a young age of onset (<36 years), bilaterality and an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. Counseling, evaluation of the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of HBOC, and the performance of genetic testing allow for the identification of subjects with BRCA1/2 mutations and provide crucial information for clinical and therapeutic management. The identification of a BRCA gene mutation has therapeutic implications for women with metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer. In the therapeutic setting of BRCA+ breast cancer, treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which keep cancer cells from repairing their damaged DNA and cause cell death, is remarkable. This review summarizes the evidence demonstrating the value of BRCA1/2 status as a diagnostic and prognostic tool and as a predictive biomarker in the personalized approach to hereditary BRCA + cancers.

Primary Prevention and Early Detection of Hereditary Breast Cancer

Background

Primary prevention and early detection of hereditary breast cancer has been one of the main topics of breast cancer research in recent decades. The knowledge of risk factors for breast cancer has been increasing continuously just like the recommendations for risk management. Pathogenic germline variants (mutations, class 4/5) of risk genes are significant susceptibility factors in healthy individuals. At the same time, germline mutations serve as biomarkers for targeted therapy in breast cancer treatment. Therefore, management of healthy mutation carriers to enable primary prevention is in the focus as much as the consideration of pathogenic germline variants for therapeutic decisions. Since 1996, the German Consortium has provided quality-assured care for counselees and patients with familial burden of breast and ovarian cancer.

Summary

Currently, there are 23 university centers with over 100 cooperating DKG-certified breast and gynecological cancer centers. These centers provide standardized, evidence-based, and knowledge-generating care, which includes aspects of primary as well as secondary and tertiary prevention. An important aspect of quality assurance and development was the inclusion of the HBOC centers in the certification system of the German Cancer Society (GCS). Since 2020, the centers have been regularly audited and their quality standards continuously reviewed according to quality indicators adapted to the current state of research. The standard of care at GC-HBOC' centers involves the evaluation as well as evolution of various aspects of care like inclusion criteria, identification of new risk genes, management of variants of unknown significance (class 3), evaluation of risk-reducing options, intensified surveillance, and communication of risks. Among these, the possibility of intensified surveillance in the GC-HBOC for early detection of breast cancer is an important component of individual risk management for many counselees. As has been shown in recent years, in carriers of pathogenic variants in high-risk genes, this approach enables the detection of breast cancer at very early, more favorable stages although no reduction of mortality has been demonstrated yet. The key component of the intensified surveillance is annual contrast-enhanced breast MRI, supplemented by up to biannual breast ultrasound and mammography usually starting at age 40.

Key Messages

Apart from early detection, the central goal of care is the prevention of cancer. By utilizing individualized risk calculation, the optimal timeframe for risk-reducing surgery can be estimated, and counselees can be supported in reaching preference-sensitive decisions.

Health inequity in genomic personalized medicine in underrepresented populations: a look at the current evidence

Improvements in sequencing technology coupled with dramatic declines in the cost of genome sequencing have led to a proportional growth in the size and number of genetic datasets since the release of the human genetic sequence by The Human Genome Project (HGP) international consortium. The HGP was undeniably a significant scientific success, a turning point in human genetics and the beginning of human genomics. This burst of genetic information has led to a greater understanding of disease pathology and the potential of employing this data to deliver more precise patient care. Hence, the recognition of high-penetrance disease-causing mutations which encode drivers of disease has made the management of most diseases more specific. Nonetheless, while genetic scores are becoming more extensively used, their application in the real world is expected to be limited due to the lack of diversity in the data used to construct them. Underrepresented populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and those living in rural areas, often experience greater health disparities and worse health outcomes compared to the general population. These disparities are often the result of systemic barriers, such as poverty, discrimination, and limited access to healthcare. Addressing health inequity in underrepresented populations requires addressing the underlying social determinants of health and implementing policies and programs which promoted health equity and reduce disparities. This can include expanding access to affordable healthcare, addressing poverty and unemployment, and promoting policies that combat discrimination and racism.

Returning individual genomic results to population-based cohort study participants with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in human genome research have provided evidence for genotype-phenotype associations, pathogenicity, and clinical actionability of variants and genomic risk prediction of disease. However, the return of individual genomic results to healthy individuals is fraught with ethical and practical complexity.

METHODS

Individual genomic results were returned to BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers of the Tohoku Medical Megabank cohort study participants with an information on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). One hundred and eighty participants, including 9 BRCA1/2 PV carriers, were asked about their willingness to receive individual genomic results, without revealing the gene name and related disorders, prior to the study. Of the 142 participants who responded, 103 showed willingness to know their genomic information. Each of the six BRCA1/2 PV carriers who consented to participate in the study received information about HBOC in person and underwent validation testing with blood resampling.

RESULTS

All participants were in their 60s or 70s; of the four females and two males, two had a history of breast cancer and five had a family history of HBOC-related cancers. All participants appreciated the information, without remarkable negative psychological impact of the return, and intended to undergo clinical risk surveillance. Five participants were accompanied by family members while receiving the results, and three first-degree female relatives wished to undergo genomic testing at the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that returning actionable genomic information to participants in a population-based genome cohort study is beneficial for preventing or providing early-stage intervention for associated diseases.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy among Women with Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1/2: Overall Survival, Racial, and Ethnic Differences

Background

Patients with unilateral breast cancer carrying pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 have the option to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). However, differences in CPM use and survival outcomes following CPM are poorly understood in this high-risk population, in part due to a lack of data from contemporary clinical cohorts. The objective of this study was to evaluate post-CPM overall survival (OS) and related racial/ethnic differences in a contemporary clinical cohort.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of women with a personal history of unilateral breast cancer carrying pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 who were diagnosed between 1996 and 2012. Genetic test results, self-reported demographic characteristics, and clinical factors were abstracted from electronic medical records.

Results

Of 144 BRCA-positive patients, the majority were White (79.2%, n = 114). Overall, 56.1% (n = 81) of all BRCA1/2 carriers chose to undergo CPM, with no racial/ethnic difference in CPM election (p = 0.78). Of 81 patients who underwent CPM, there is strong evidence of a difference in survival between the racial/ethnic groups, with White patients having the highest OS compared to non-White patients (p = 0.001). Of the 63 patients who did not undergo CPM, there is no racial/ethnic difference in overall survival (p = 0.61). In multivariable cox regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, OS was significantly lower among non-Whites than in Whites (HR = 0.39, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Evaluation of a contemporary clinical cohort of BRCA-positive women with unilateral breast cancer showed no racial/ethnic difference in CPM use, but there was a significant difference in post-CPM overall survival.

Effectiveness of Secondary Risk-Reducing Strategies in Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer With Pathogenic Variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Subjected to Breast-Conserving Surgery: Evidence-Based Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Approximately 62% of patients with breast cancer with a pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2) undergo primary breast-conserving therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to develop a personalized risk management decision support tool for carriers of a pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2) who underwent breast-conserving therapy for unilateral early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

We developed a Bayesian network model of a hypothetical cohort of carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 diagnosed with stage I/II unilateral breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving treatment who underwent subsequent second primary cancer risk-reducing strategies. Using event dependencies structured according to expert knowledge and conditional probabilities obtained from published evidence, we predicted the 40-year overall survival rate of different risk-reducing strategies for 144 cohorts of women defined by the type of pathogenic variants (BRCA1 or BRCA2), age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype, stage of primary breast cancer, and presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Absence of adjuvant chemotherapy was the most powerful factor that was linked to a dramatic decline in survival. There was a negligible decline in the mortality in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, who received no chemotherapy and underwent any secondary risk-reducing strategy, compared with surveillance. The potential survival benefit from any risk-reducing strategy was more modest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who received chemotherapy compared with patients with luminal breast cancer. However, most patients with triple-negative breast cancer in stage I benefited from bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or just risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Most patients with luminal stage I/II unilateral breast cancer benefited from bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. The impact of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with luminal breast cancer in stage I/II increased with age. Most older patients with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in exons 12-24/25 with luminal breast cancer may gain a similar survival benefit from other risk-reducing strategies or surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that it is mandatory to consider the complex interplay between the types of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype and stage, and received systemic treatment. As no prospective study results are available at the moment, our simulation model, which will integrate a decision support system in the near future, could facilitate the conversation between the health care provider and patient and help to weigh all the options for risk-reducing strategies leading to a more balanced decision.

PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients

BACKGROUND

Prediction of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk is challenging due to moderate performances of the known risk factors. We aimed to improve our previous risk prediction model (PredictCBC) by updated follow-up and including additional risk factors.

METHODS

We included data from 207,510 invasive breast cancer patients participating in 23 studies. In total, 8225 CBC events occurred over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. In addition to the previously included risk factors, PredictCBC-2.0 included CHEK2 c.1100delC, a 313 variant polygenic risk score (PRS-313), body mass index (BMI), and parity. Fine and Gray regression was used to fit the model. Calibration and a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years were assessed to determine the performance of the models. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of PredictCBC-2.0 and previous PredictCBC models.

RESULTS

The discrimination of PredictCBC-2.0 at 10 years was higher than PredictCBC with an AUC of 0.65 (95% prediction intervals (PI) 0.56-0.74) versus 0.63 (95%PI 0.54-0.71). PredictCBC-2.0 was well calibrated with an observed/expected ratio at 10 years of 0.92 (95%PI 0.34-2.54). Decision curve analysis for contralateral preventive mastectomy (CPM) showed the potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-2.0 between thresholds of 4 and 12% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional genetic information beyond BRCA1/2 germline mutations improved CBC risk prediction and might help tailor clinical decision-making toward CPM or alternative preventive strategies. Identifying patients who benefit from CPM, especially in the general breast cancer population, remains challenging.

Risk‐reducing mastectomy decisions among women with mutations in high‐ and moderate‐ penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes

Background

Women harboring mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes are at increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and are faced with decisions about risk management, including whether to undergo high‐risk screening or risk‐reducing mastectomy (RRM). National guidelines recommend BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers consider RRM, but that carriers of moderate penetrance mutations (e.g., ATM or CHEK2) should be managed based on family history. We aimed to investigate determinants of decision for RRM, and hypothesized that mutation status, age, family history, partner status, and breast cancer would impact RRM decision making.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study assessing RRM decisions for 279 women.

Results

Women with BRCA and moderate penetrance gene mutations, a personal history of breast cancer, or a first degree relative with a history of breast cancer were more likely to undergo RRM. Breast cancer status and age showed an interaction effect such that women with breast cancer were less likely to undergo RRM with increasing age.

Conclusion

Although national guidelines do not recommend RRM for moderate penetrance carriers, the rates of RRM for this population approached those for BRCA mutation carriers. Further insights are needed to better support RRM decision‐making in this population.

Satisfaction and Quality of Life of Healthy and Unilateral Diseased BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Reconstruction Using the BREAST-Q Questionnaire

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is the most efficient form of breast cancer (BC) risk reduction in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (pV) carriers. However, this intervention in physical integrity is associated with significant morbidity. We assessed long-term perception of satisfaction and health-related quality of life (QoL) after bilateral RRM and reconstruction using the validated BREAST-Q. We searched the prospective database of the Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Cologne for previvors and survivors who underwent bilateral RRM from 1994 to 2015 and evaluated the results of their BREAST-Q scores. The study enrolled 43 previvors and 90 survivors after a mean follow-up of 46.3 ± 45.3 months after RRM. Satisfaction and QoL were independent of the technique of RRM or type of reconstruction but depended on the time of RRM. Compared to survivors, previvors had significantly higher mean satisfaction scores in their psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being (chest) in both modules. Among previvors and survivors, higher psychological well-being correlated with a higher satisfaction with information and higher satisfaction with outcome. As psychological well-being correlated with satisfaction with information and outcome, we developed decision aids to improve shared decision making and long-term satisfaction with the decision and the postoperative outcome.

Functions of Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes: Implications for Clinical Management

Approximately 5–10% of all breast cancer (BC) cases are caused by germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in various cancer predisposition genes (CPGs). The most common contributors to hereditary BC are BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D have also been recognized as CPGs with a high to moderate risk of BC. Primary and secondary cancer prevention strategies have been established for HBOC patients; however, optimal preventive strategies for most hereditary BCs have not yet been established. Most BC-associated CPGs participate in DNA damage repair pathways and cell cycle checkpoint mechanisms, and function jointly in such cascades; therefore, a fundamental understanding of the disease drivers in such cascades can facilitate the accurate estimation of the genetic risk of developing BC and the selection of appropriate preventive and therapeutic strategies to manage hereditary BCs. Herein, we review the functions of key BC-associated CPGs and strategies for the clinical management in individuals harboring the GPVs of such genes.

Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action.

SUMMARY

Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept.

Impact of BRCA mutation on the survival and risk of contralateral breast cancer in Asian breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is increasing around the globe, including Asia. We aimed to examine the survival and risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) in Asian breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations.

METHODS

A total of 128 breast cancer patients with germline BRCA mutations and 4,754 control breast cancer patients were enrolled. Data on clinical-pathologic characteristics, survival, and CBC were collected from the medical record. The rates of survival and CBC were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The mean age of onset in BRCA mutation carriers was significantly younger than control patients (BRCA vs. Non-BRCA: 43.9 vs. 53.2 years old). BRCA mutation carriers had a higher proportion of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (52%) than control patients (12%, p < 0.001). The risk of CBC was significantly higher in BRCA mutation patients than in control cases (hazard ratio (HR) = 3.95, 95% CI 2.71-5.75); when stratified by genotype, the HRs (95%CI) were 4.84 (3.00-7.82) for BRCA1 and 3.13 (1.78-5.49) for BRCA2 carriers, respectively. Moreover, BRCA1 mutation patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) as their first breast cancer had the highest risk of CBC (HR = 5.55, 95% CI 3.29-9.34). However, we did not observe any differences in relapse-free survival and overall survival between mutation carriers and control patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggest that BRCA patients had a significantly higher risk of developing CBC, particularly for BRCA1 mutation carriers with TNBC as the first breast cancer.

Survey on Physicians' Knowledge and Training Needs in Genetic Counseling in Germany

Background

In recent years, germline testing of women with a risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer has increased rapidly. This is due to lower costs for new high-throughput sequencing technologies and the manifold preventive and therapeutic options for germline mutation carriers. The growing demand for genetic counseling meets a shortfall of counselors and illustrates the need to involve the treating clinicians in the genetic testing process. This survey was undertaken to assess their state of knowledge and training needs in the field of genetic counseling and testing.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey within the European Bridges Study (Breast Cancer Risk after Diagnostic Gene Sequencing) was conducted among physician members (n = 111) of the German Cancer Society who were primarily gynecologists. It was designed to examine their experience in genetic counseling and testing.

Results

Overall, the study revealed a need for training in risk communication and clinical recommendations for persons at risk. One-third of respondents communicated only relative disease risks (31.5%) instead of absolute disease risks in manageable time spans. Moreover, almost one-third of the respondents (31.2%) communicated bilateral and contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy as an option for healthy women and unilateral-diseased breast cancer patients without mutations in high-risk genes (e.g. BRCA1 or BRCA2). Most respondents expressed training needs in the field of risk assessment models, the clinical interpretation of genetic test results, and the decision-making process.

Conclusion

The survey demonstrates a gap of genetic and risk literacy in a relevant proportion of physicians and the need for appropriate training concepts.

Revisitando la indicación de la mastectomía profiláctica contralateral en pacientes con Síndrome de Li-Fraumeni y cáncer de mama. Reporte de un caso

Objetivo: describir el caso de una paciente con Síndrome de Li-Fraumeni (SLF) y cáncer de mama, en quien se cuestionó el beneficio en la supervivencia de la mastectomía profiláctica contralateral (MPC); asimismo, se pretende hacer una discusión crítica acerca de la evidencia que soporta este procedimiento en esta población. Presentación del caso: mujer de 37 años con cáncer de mama y múltiples antecedentes familiares de cánceres de temprana aparición del espectro del SLF, en quien, durante la adyuvancia hormonal, se confirmó una variante patogénica en el gen TP53. La paciente fue presentada en la Junta Multidisciplinaria del Servicio de Mama de un Centro Oncológico de referencia en Colombia, con el fin de discutir el beneficio de la MPC. La decisión de la junta fue no realizar la MPC. Después de 30 meses de seguimiento la paciente se encuentra libre de enfermedad. Conclusión: no existe evidencia que analice, de forma particular, el impacto de la MPC en la supervivencia de las pacientes con SLF y cáncer de mama. Sin embargo, a la luz del conocimiento actual no es posible generalizar la conducta de omitir esta cirugía profiláctica. Es importante reportar los casos en los que se decida realizar u omitir este procedimiento con el fin de incrementar el cuerpo de la evidencia, dado que existen limitaciones para construir grandes cohortes o estudios experimentales exclusivos para esta alteración genética.

Contralateral risk-reducing local therapy in breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations: systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unilateral breast cancer (UBC) patients with germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants have a higher risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and need contralateral risk-reducing local treatments, including contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) and prophylactic irradiation (CPI). The aim of our study was to systematically explore the efficacy of CRRM and CPI in reducing CBC risk and increasing survival.

METHODS

A search was done, and eligible randomized trials and cohort studies should include and compare UBC patients with germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants who have and have not received contralateral risk-reducing local treatment. Random-effects meta-analysis was used in this study. Primary outcomes of the studies included overall survival (OS) and the incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), and secondary outcomes included breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

RESULTS

A total of five studies with 1769 UBC patients with germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants were enrolled in our meta-analysis. CRRM was correlated with a lower risk of CBC in UBC patients with germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants (summary RR = 0.07; 95%CI 0.03-0.13, I2 = 3%), a significantly increased OS (summary RR, 1.15; 95%CI 1.04-1.26, I2 = 26%) and a significantly increased BCSS (summary RR, 1.18; 95%CI 1.07-1.31, I2 = 64%) compared with surveillance. CPI also decreased the risk of CBC (RR 0.02; 95%CI 0.05-0.88) but did not significantly improve OS (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.90-1.05) and BCSS (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.90-1.05) compared with surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

CRRM reduces CBC risk and increases OS and BCSS in UBC patients with germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants, and could be offered as a risk-reducing local treatment. For those who oppose CRRM, CPI could be offered for CBC-risk reduction, while its survival benefit is still uncertain.

DNA methylation mediated down-regulation of ANGPTL4 promotes colorectal cancer metastasis by activating the ERK pathway

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes significant health burden and is increasing in incidence. NGPTL4 has been implicated in the development of CRC. The present study aimed to investigate the molecular mechanisms by which ANGPTL4 expression might regulate epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and the tumor microenvironment in CRC.

Methods: CRC and para-carcinoma tissues were collected from 67 CRC patients. ANGPTL4 expression levels and DNA methylation of ANGPTL4 promoter region were determined. Next, the migration and invasion capacities of CRC cells were assessed. Immunofluorescence and Western blot were used to identify the signaling pathways by which ANGPTL4 mediated tumor metastasis. A tumorigenesis mice model with transplanted fibroblast cells and ANGPTL4 overexpressed CRC cells was established to investigate the effects of ANGPTL4 on the metastasis of cancer cells in vivo.

Results: ANGPTL4 was significantly decreased in CRC tissues and DNA hypermethylation was involved in the regulation of ANGPTL4. Mechanistically, ANGPTL4 induced activation of cancer-associated fibroblasts in the tumor microenvironment and promoted EMT in CRC cells through the ERK signaling pathway. In vivo, the overexpression of ANGPTL4 was found to inhibit the metastasis of tumor cells in lung tissues.

Conclusion: DNA hypermethylation induced ANGPTL4 downregulation promoted the activation of cancer-associated fibroblasts and epithelial mesenchymal transformation of CRC cells via the ERK signaling pathway, thereby promoting invasion and metastasis in CRC.

Preoperative diagnosis of BRCA1/2 mutation impacts decision-making for risk-reducing mastectomy in breast cancer patients

Decision to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) needs to consider several factors, including patient's preference, surgeon's preference, family history, and genetic predisposition. The aim of this study was to examine whether preoperative diagnosis of BRCA1/2 mutation status could influence surgical decision-making in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. We retrospectively reviewed ipsilateral breast cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutation who underwent primary surgery between January 2008 and November 2019 at a single institution in Korea. Of 344 eligible patients, 140 (40.7%) patients were aware of their mutation status 'prior to surgery', while 204 (59.3%) did not. Contralateral RRM rate was significantly higher in the group with BRCA1/2 mutation status identified 'prior to surgery' compared to the group with mutation status identified 'after surgery' [45.0% (63/140) vs. 2.0% (4/204)] (p < 0.001). Reduced turnaround time of BRCA1/2 testing (p < 0.001) and the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001) were associated with BRCA1/2 mutation status identified prior to surgery. Although not statistically significant, higher incidence of developing contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent ipsilateral surgery-only compared to those who underwent contralateral RRM was observed [12.1% (95% CI: 7.7-17.7%)] (p = 0.1618). Preoperative diagnosis of BRCA1/2 mutation could impact surgical decision-making for breast cancer patients to undergo risk-reducing surgery at the time of initial surgery.

Development of decision aids for female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in Germany to support preference-sensitive decision-making

BACKGROUND

Women with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations possess a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. They face difficult choices when considering preventive options. This study presents the development process of the first decision aids to support this complex decision-making process in the German healthcare system.

METHODS

A six-step development process based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards was used, including a systematic literature review of existing decision aids, a topical medical literature review, preparation of the decision aids, focus group discussions with women with BRCA1/2 mutations, internal and external reviews by clinical and self-help experts, and user tests. All reviews were followed by iterative revisions.

RESULTS

No existing decision aids were transferable to the German setting. The medical research revealed a need to develop separate decision aids for women with BRCA1/2 mutations (A) without a history of cancer (previvors) and (B) with a history of unilateral breast cancer (survivors). The focus group discussions confirmed a high level of approval for the decision aids from both target groups. Additionally, previvors requested more information on risk-reducing breast surgery, risk-reducing removal of both ovaries and Fallopian tubes, and psychological aspects; survivors especially wanted more information on breast cancer on the affected side (e.g. biological parameters, treatment, and risk of recurrence).

CONCLUSIONS

In a structured process, two target-group-specific DAs for previvors/survivors with BRCA1/2 mutations were developed to support decision-making on risk-adapted preventive options. These patient-oriented tools offer an important addition to existing specialist medical care in Germany.

Breast-Gynaecological & Immuno-Oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) Consensus and Recommendations for the Management of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: The management of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is challenging with several controversies and unmet needs. During the 12th Breast-Gynaecological & Immuno-oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) Egypt, 2020, a panel of 35 breast cancer experts from 13 countries voted on consensus guidelines for the clinical management of TNBC. The consensus was subsequently updated based on the most recent data evolved lately. Methods: A consensus conference approach adapted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was utilized. The panellists voted anonymously on each question, and a consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer. The final consensus was later circulated to the panellists for critical revision of important intellectual content. Results and conclusion: These recommendations represent the available clinical evidence and expert opinion when evidence is scarce. The percentage of the consensus votes, levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are presented for each statement. The consensus covered all the aspects of TNBC management starting from defining TNBC to the management of metastatic disease and highlighted the rapidly evolving landscape in this field. Consensus was reached in 70% of the statements (35/50). In addition, areas of warranted research were identified to guide future prospective clinical trials.

Nomogram Predicts the Role of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Male Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer Based on SEER Database: A Competing Risk Analysis

Background

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in female breast cancer (FBC) is supported by multiple clinical studies and consensus guidelines, but knowledge of preventive contralateral mastectomy in male breast cancer (MaBC) is very limited and its benefits are still controversial.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was enrolled with 4,405 MaBC patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy (UM) or CPM from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 1998 to 2015. A nomogram was built based on the corresponding parameters by competing risks regression to predict the 3-year, 5-year, and 8-year probabilities of BCSD (breast cancer-specific death). C-index and calibration curves were chosen for validation. Net reclassification index (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to estimate the nomogram’s clinical utility.

Results

A total of 4,197 patients received UM and 208 patients received CPM, with 63-months median follow-up. In the competing risks regression, six variables (surgery, marital status, T-stage, N-stage, histology, tumor grade) were significantly associated with BCSD. Based on these independent prognosis factors, a nomogram model was constructed. The C-index 0.75 (95%CI: 0.73-0.77) in the training cohort and 0.73 (95%CI: 0.71-0.74) in the internal validation group suggested robustness of the model. In addition, the calibration curves exhibited favorably. The NRI values (training cohort: 0.54 for 3-year, 0.55 for 5-year, and 0.49 for 8-year BCSD prediction; validation cohort: 0.51 for 3-year, 0.45 for 5-year, and 0.33 for 8-year BCSD prediction) and IDI values (training cohort: 0.02 for 3-year, 0.03 for 5-year, and 0.04 for 8-year BCSD prediction; validation cohort: 0.02 for 3-year, 0.04 for 5-year, and 0.04 for 8-year BCSD prediction) indicated that the model performed better than the AJCC criteria-based tumor staging alone.

Conclusions

The administration of CPM was associated with the decrease in risk of BCSD in patients with MaBC. The nomogram could provide a precise and personalized prediction of the cumulative risk in patients with MaBC after CPM.

Management of patients with BRCA mutation from the point of view of a breast surgeon

Germ-line mutation in BRCA (BReast CAncer gene) 1 or BRCA2 are found in 3–4% of all women with breast cancer. These patients have a significant increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. They are often younger when diagnosed with the mutation, and the possible breast cancer they get is often aggressive with inferior outcome. There are risk reducing strategies, and the most powerful strategy is risk reducing surgery, both risk reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRM) and risk reducing bilateral salpino-oophorectomy (PBSO). This review is meant to address breast surgery in patients with germline BRCA mutation. The guidelines and techniques applied is under continuous change and it is important for the clinicians to be well informed to provide the patient with the information needed for them to make an informed decision on what risk strategy to choose.

•

Patients with germ-line mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a significant increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

•

There are different risk reducing strategies and the most powerful strategy is risk-reducing surgery, both risk reducing bilateral mastectomy and risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

•

Guidelines and techniques for the risk reducing surgery of the breast are under continuous change and improvement.

•

Breast conserving therapy is not associated with worse survival and is a good option for a BRCA mutation carrier diagnosed with breast cancer. Risk-reducing mastectomy can be performed in a later setting.

•

The management of BRCA mutation carriers, both affected and unaffected, should be performed in a multidisciplinary team. Physicians need to be systematically educated and updated on the most recent literature.

The Angelina Jolie effect: Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy trends in patients at increased risk of breast cancer

Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) rates have tripled over the last 2 decades. Reasons for this are multi-factorial, with those harbouring a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 gene having the greatest survival benefit. On May 14th, 2013, Angelina Jolie shared the news of her bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM), on the basis of her BRCA1 pathogenic variant status. We evaluated the impact of this news on rates of CRRM in women with increased risk for developing breast cancer after being diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. The prospective cohort study included all women with at least a moderate lifetime risk of developing breast cancer who attended our family history clinic (1987–2019) and were subsequently diagnosed with unilateral breast cancer. Rates of CRRM were then compared between patients diagnosed with breast cancer before and after Angelina Jolie’s announcement (pre- vs. post-AJ). Of 386 breast cancer patients, with a mean age at diagnosis of 48 ± 8 years, 268 (69.4%) were diagnosed in the pre-AJ period, and 118 (30.6%) in the post-AJ period. Of these, 123 (31.9%) underwent CRRM, a median 42 (interquartile range: 11–54) days after the index cancer surgery. Rates of CRRM doubled following AJ’s news, from 23.9% pre-AJ to 50.0% post AJ (p < 0.001). Rates of CRRM were found to decrease with increasing age at breast cancer (p < 0.001) and tumour TNM stage (p = 0.040), and to increase with the estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer (p < 0.001) and tumour grade (p = 0.015) on univariable analysis. After adjusting for these factors, the step-change increase in CRRM rates post-AJ remained significant (odds ratio: 9.61, p < 0.001). The AJ effect appears to have been associated with higher rates of CRRM amongst breast cancer patients with increased cancer risk. CRRM rates were highest amongst younger women and those with the highest lifetime risk profile. Clinicians need to be aware of how media news can impact on the delivery of cancer related services. Communicating objective assessment of risk is important when counselling women on the merits of risk-reducing surgery.

Surgical and Systemic Treatment of Hereditary Breast Cancer: A Mini-Review With a Focus on BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations

Hereditary breast cancer accounts for 5%-10% of breast cancer cases. The majority of familial cases have been linked to germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, though other high penetrance susceptibility genes have also been identified through genomic testing advances. Optimal surgical treatment for these patients, who are of a younger age, has several challenges as it usually involves aggressive therapeutic and risk reducing interventions. At the same time, the therapeutic armamentarium for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers apart from platinum salts, has been enriched with the addition of poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with promising outcomes. In this review we provide a succinct and comprehensive overview of the surgical and systemic treatment options for patients with BRCA1/2 mutation related breast cancer and an update on the most recent systemic treatment advances.

Risk for breast cancer and management of unaffected individuals with non-BRCA hereditary breast cancer

About 5%-10% of breast cancer is hereditary with BRCA1 and BRCA2 being the most common genes associated with hereditary breast cancer (HBC). Several additional genes have recently been associated with HBC. These genes can be classified as highly or moderately penetrant genes with lifetime risk >30% or 17%-30%, respectively. Highly penetrant genes associated with HBC include TP53, PTEN, CDH1, STK11, and PALB2. While, moderately penetrant genes include CHEK2, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, NBN, NF1, RAD51D, and MSH6. Breast cancer risk and recommendations for screening and risk-reduction vary by gene. In general, screening breast MRI is recommended for women at >20% lifetime risk, which includes women with mutations in highly penetrant genes and the majority (but not all) moderately penetrant genes. Consideration of chemoprevention is recommended for women with mutations in high and moderately penetrant genes. Risk-reducing mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast cancer to the greatest extent and can be considered for women with highly penetrant genes. However, this procedure is associated with significant morbidities that should be considered, especially given the benefit of using screening breast MRI for high-risk women. BSO is only recommended for women with mutations in genes associate with increased risk for ovarian cancer and not as a breast cancer risk-reducing strategy. As more women undergo testing, additional genes may be identified and risk estimates for current genes and management recommendations may be modified.

Contralateral Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in Breast Cancer Patients Who Undergo Multigene Panel Testing

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of breast cancer patients are undergoing expanded genetic testing and are being identified as germline mutation carriers. We sought to determine rates of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) in patients with various germline mutations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All women ≥ 18 years of age with unilateral breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing between January 1, 2014 and August 1, 2019 at our academic institution were identified. Demographic, tumor, and treatment variables were identified from the medical record. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare factors associated with performance of CRRM.

RESULTS

We identified 1613 patients, of whom 28.1% had a pathogenic variant and 40.1% had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 420 patients (26.0%) underwent a CRRM. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with CRRM included age < 50 years (OR 3.8, 95% CI 3.0, 5.0), race (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.7 and OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.7 for Black and Asian women, respectively, versus White women), and the presence of any germline mutation or VUS (OR 13.2, 95% CI 8.7, 20.2 for BRCA1/2; OR 3.9, 95% CI 2.7, 5.8 for non-BRCA germline mutation; and OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3, 2.6 for VUS).

CONCLUSIONS

In breast cancer patients who undergo multigene panel testing, a sizeable number of women with pathogenic non-BRCA germline findings are opting for CRRM. Given that the risk of contralateral breast cancer in women with most pathogenic mutations other than BRCA1/2 remains poorly characterized, these data have implications for risk counseling and for ascertaining the true risks of contralateral breast cancer in this population.

Differences in physician opinions about controversial issues surrounding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM): A survey of physicians from accredited breast centers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Indications and insurance coverage for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and CPM as a quality measure are controversial. Few studies have examined physician opinions on these issues.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of multi-specialty physicians at the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers from 2017-2018 examined opinions on insurance coverage for CPM, CPM as a quality measure, and indications for CPM. A multivariate logistic regression was used to assess physician and facility factors associated with likelihood to recommend CPM.

RESULTS

Of 2412 physicians, 1226 responded from 382 facilities for a physician response rate of 50.8%. There were 300 (24.5%) medical oncologists, 316 (25.8%) radiation oncologists, 248 (20.2%) plastic surgeons, and 322 (26.3%) oncologic or general surgeons. Three hundred and ninety-eight (37%) physicians favor insurance coverage for all patients and 520 (46.6%) for patients at average CBC risk. Four hundred and fifty (40%) of all physicians felt physician specific rates of CPM should be a hospital quality measure. BRCA deleterious mutation carrier status was the most common indication to recommend CPM (n = 1043; 92%) and 684 (60.2%) physicians discourage CPM for average contralateral risk (CBC) patients. After adjusting for physician and facility factors, the only significant predictor of higher likelihood to recommend CPM for average CBC risk patients were plastics surgeons (OR = 8.3 (95%CI 2.4-29.1)) P = .0009).

CONCLUSION

There is consensus among physicians on the most appropriate indication for CPM but opinions vary on CPM as a quality measure and insurance coverage for CPM. These findings can help guide discussions on CPM among a multidisciplinary team of physicians.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Women with Unilateral Breast Cancer Who Are Genetic Carriers, Have a Strong Family History or Are just Young at Presentation

The uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is rising with increasing trends that are possibly highest in the USA. Whilst its role is generally accepted in carriers of recognized high-risk predisposition genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 when the affected individual is premenopausal, controversy surrounds the benefit in less understood risk-profile clinical scenarios. This comprehensive review explores the current evidence underpinning the role of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and its impact on contralateral breast cancer risk and survival in three distinct at-risk groups affected by unilateral breast cancer: known genetic carriers, those with strong familial risk but no demonstrable genetic mutation and women who are of young age at presentation. The review supports the role of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in “high risk” groups where the evidence suggests a reduction in contralateral breast cancer risk. However, this benefit is less evident in women who are just young at presentation or those who have strong family history but no demonstrable genetic mutation. A multidisciplinary and personalized approach to support individuals in a shared-decision making process is recommended.

Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in genetically high risk newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Recent trends indicate increased use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, particularly those who test positive for a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1/2 genes. However, the rate of CPM among patients who test negative or choose not to be tested is surprisingly high. We aimed to identify patient predictors of CPM following breast cancer diagnosis among such patients.

METHODS

As part of a randomized controlled trial of rapid genetic counseling and testing vs. usual care, breast cancer patients completed a baseline survey within 6 weeks of diagnosis and before definitive surgery. Analyses focused on patients who opted against testing (n = 136) or who received negative BRCA1/2 test results (n = 149). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the associations between sociodemographic, clinical- and patient-reported factors with use of CPM.

RESULTS

Among patients who were untested or who received negative test results, having discussed CPM with one's surgeon at the time of diagnosis predicted subsequent CPM. Patients who were not candidates for breast-conserving surgery and those with higher levels of cancer-specific intrusive thoughts were also more likely to obtain a CPM.

CONCLUSION

The strongest predictors of CPM in this population were objective clinical factors and discussion with providers. However, baseline psychosocial factors were also independently related to the receipt of CPM. Thus, although CPM decisions are largely guided by relevant clinical factors, it is important to attend to psychosocial factors when counseling newly diagnosed breast cancer patients about treatment options.

The changing surgical treatment of breast cancer in the United States: The tipping point

The surgical management of breast cancer began to change in the middle of the last decade. The use of unilateral mastectomy decreased while the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral cancer increased sixfold from 1998 to 2011. The use of immediate breast reconstruction increased from 30% in 2005 to 45% in 2012. Four changes came together in the middle of the last decade to cause this paradigm shift in the surgical management of early breast cancer. (a) Breast MRI would be available in nearly 75% of breast imaging centers. (b) Genetic counseling would become a standard of care for patients with potential hereditary breast cancer. (c) In 2006, the FDA would approve the use of silicone-gel implants. (d) Nipple-sparing mastectomy would become a standard of care in the treatment of early breast cancer.

Current Update of Laboratory Molecular Diagnostics Advancement in Management of Colorectal Cancer (CRC)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to be one of the most common cancers globally. The incidence has increased in developing countries in the past few decades, this could be partly attributed to aging populations and unhealthy lifestyles. While the treatment of CRC has seen significant improvement since the advent of target-specific therapies and personalized medicine, CRC is oftentimes detected at late or advanced stages, thereby reducing the efficacy of treatment. Hence, screening for early detection is still the key to combat CRC and to increase overall survival (OS). Considering that the field of medical diagnostics is moving towards molecular diagnostics, CRC can now be effectively screened and diagnosed with high accuracy and sensitivity. Depending on the tumor genotype and genetic profile of the individual, personalized treatments including tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and immunotherapy can be administered. Notably, there can be no one single treatment that is effective for all CRC patients due to the variation in tumor genetics, which highlights the importance of molecular diagnostics. This review provides insights on therapeutic modalities, molecular biomarkers, advancement of diagnostic technologies, and current challenges in managing CRC.

Prediction and clinical utility of a contralateral breast cancer risk model

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survivors are at risk for contralateral breast cancer (CBC), with the consequent burden of further treatment and potentially less favorable prognosis. We aimed to develop and validate a CBC risk prediction model and evaluate its applicability for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We included data of 132,756 invasive non-metastatic breast cancer patients from 20 studies with 4682 CBC events and a median follow-up of 8.8 years. We developed a multivariable Fine and Gray prediction model (PredictCBC-1A) including patient, primary tumor, and treatment characteristics and BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, accounting for the competing risks of death and distant metastasis. We also developed a model without BRCA1/2 mutation status (PredictCBC-1B) since this information was available for only 6% of patients and is routinely unavailable in the general breast cancer population. Prediction performance was evaluated using calibration and discrimination, calculated by a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years after diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and an internal-external cross-validation procedure. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of the model to quantify clinical utility.

RESULTS

In the multivariable model, BRCA1/2 germline mutation status, family history, and systemic adjuvant treatment showed the strongest associations with CBC risk. The AUC of PredictCBC-1A was 0.63 (95% prediction interval (PI) at 5 years, 0.52-0.74; at 10 years, 0.53-0.72). Calibration-in-the-large was -0.13 (95% PI: -1.62-1.37), and the calibration slope was 0.90 (95% PI: 0.73-1.08). The AUC of Predict-1B at 10 years was 0.59 (95% PI: 0.52-0.66); calibration was slightly lower. Decision curve analysis for preventive contralateral mastectomy showed potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-1A between thresholds of 4-10% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a reasonably calibrated model to predict the risk of CBC in women of European-descent; however, prediction accuracy was moderate. Our model shows potential for improved risk counseling, but decision-making regarding contralateral preventive mastectomy, especially in the general breast cancer population where limited information of the mutation status in BRCA1/2 is available, remains challenging.

Breast reconstruction after risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA mutation carriers

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction is a favorable option for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (BRCA1/2^Mut+) who undergo risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). We assessed characteristics of patients who underwent RRM, with or without breast reconstruction.

METHODS

We included 46 patients with BRCA1/2^Mut+ who underwent RRM from July 2011 to December 2017.

RESULTS

Among the 46 patients who underwent RRM, 3 had not been diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) and 43 had cancer in a single breast; 33 patients (71.7%) underwent breast reconstruction with RRM; and 13 patients (28.3%) did not undergo breast reconstruction. All of 3 patients who had not been diagnosed with BC underwent bilateral RRM with breast reconstruction. There was no significant difference of clinical characteristic between patients undergoing RRM with and without breast reconstruction. However, patients who decided to undergo RRM with the current diagnosis of BC had significantly higher rates of RRM with breast reconstruction than that of patients with a past history of BC (P = 0.043). The rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in patients with breast reconstruction was significantly higher (28 of the 37 breasts, 75.7%) than that in patients without reconstruction (3 of the 14 breasts, 21.4%) (P < 0.001). Two patients who had complications underwent RRM with breast reconstruction, and one of them had a history of irradiation after lumpectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

For BRCA1/2^Mut+ patients, the decision of taking RRM with the diagnosis of current BC might affect whether they undergo immediate breast reconstruction with RRM. These patients who undergo RRM with breast reconstruction preferred NSM to skin-sparing mastectomies.

Five screening-detected breast cancer cases in initially disease-free BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers

Individuals carrying pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations have an increased lifetime risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The incidence of breast cancer amongst disease-free BRCA mutation carriers under surveillance and the clinical and pathological characteristics of those who subsequently develop the disease remain unclear in Japan. We reviewed the records of 155 individuals with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations identified by genetic testing between January 2000 and December 2016. At the time of genetic testing, 26 individuals with one of these mutations had no history of breast cancer and were therefore enrolled in a surveillance program that included biannual ultrasonography, clinical breast examination, annual mammography, and conditional magnetic resonance imaging for the early detection of primary breast cancer. During the surveillance period, 5 individuals with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were diagnosed with primary breast cancer. The mean surveillance duration until breast cancer diagnosis was 48 months. The incidence of primary breast cancer during surveillance in initially disease-free BRCA mutation carriers was 4.23%/year. In two cases, the tumors were only detectable on MRI. The case 5 patient who presented with a tumor that was detected by self-examination, which then grew rapidly, had stage IIB triple-negative breast cancer. In conclusion, our results show that some challenges exist in the early detection of breast cancers in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. There are also some difficulties in approaching those individuals in Japanese society.

Patient-Reported Satisfaction after Prophylactic Operations of the Breast

Background

Prophylactic mastectomies in carriers of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are becoming increasingly more accepted. We investigated the outcome after prophylactic mastectomy, especially regarding satisfaction with the procedure, in a monocenter study.

Methods

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers with elevated pedigree-based cancer risk were followed prospectively in a structured surveillance program between 2000 and 2017. A retrospective telephone survey was conducted among all patients with documented prophylactic mastectomy. Complications and satisfaction with the decision for prophylactic mastectomy were recorded.

Results

39 patients who opted for a prophylactic mastectomy (38 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 1 non-carrier) were interviewed. Mostly nipple-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction was performed (87%). Half of the patients (22/39; 56.4%) had a history of unilateral breast cancer. The median time since prophylactic mastectomy was 5.6 years. While 61.5% did not report any complications, flap loss was seen in 15% (3/20) and moderate limitations in everyday life were present in 20% (7/35). An improvement in quality of life was noticed by 82% after prophylactic mastectomy and no patient expressed regret with regard to the decision.

Conclusions

Prophylactic mastectomy is a procedure with risk for long-term complications in some cases. Our results confirm high satisfaction with the decision and improved quality of life.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 1 with Recommendations for the Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy of Breast Cancer

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Methods The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.

Genetic Diagnosis before Surgery has an Impact on Surgical Decision in BRCA Mutation Carriers with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The first aim of our study was to evaluate surgical decision-making by BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer based on the timing of knowledge of their BRCA mutation status. The second aim was to evaluate breast cancer outcome following surgical treatment.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 164 patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, tested for BRCA mutation, and treated with primary surgery between 2004 and 2015 at Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We reviewed types of surgery and timing of the BRCA test result. We compared surgical decision- making of BRCA carriers with breast cancer based on the timing of knowledge of their BRCA mutation status.

RESULTS

Only 15 (9.1%) patients knew their BRCA test results before their surgery, and 149 (90.9%) knew the results after surgery. In patients with unilateral cancer, there was a significant difference between groups whose BRCA mutation status known before surgery and groups whose BRCA status unknown before surgery regarding the choice of surgery (p = 0.017). No significant difference was observed across surgery types of risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (p = 0.765) and contralateral breast cancer (p = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Genetic diagnosis before surgery has an impact on surgical decision choosing unilateral mastectomy or bilateral mastectomy in BRCA mutation carriers with breast cancer. Knowledge about BRCA mutation status after initial surgery led to additional surgeries for patients with BCS. Thus, providing genetic counseling and genetic testing before surgical choice and developing treatment strategies for patients with a high risk of breast cancer are important.

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations

BACKGROUND

The presence of deleterious mutations in breast cancer 1 gene (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2 gene (BRCA2) significantly increases the risk of developing some cancers, such as breast and high-grade serous cancer (HGSC) of ovarian, tubal and peritoneal origin. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is usually recommended to BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers after completion of childbearing. Despite prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the role of RRSO in reducing the mortality and incidence of breast, HGSC and other cancers, RRSO is still an area of debate and it is unclear whether RRSO differs in effectiveness by type of mutation carried.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of RRSO in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and trial registries, with no language restrictions up to July 2017. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised trials (NRS), prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case series that used statistical adjustment for baseline case mix using multivariable analyses comparing RRSO versus no RRSO in women without a previous or coexisting breast, ovarian or fallopian tube malignancy, in women with or without hysterectomy, and in women with a risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) before, with or after RRSO.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To assess bias in the studies, we used the ROBINS-I 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We quantified inconsistency between studies by estimating the I² statistic. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled effect estimates.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 cohort studies, comprising 8087 participants (2936 (36%) surgical participants and 5151 (64%) control participants who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. All the studies compared RRSO with or without RRM versus no RRSO (surveillance). The certainty of evidence by GRADE assessment was very low due to serious risk of bias. Nine studies, including 7927 women, were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period ranged from 0.5 to 27.4 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES

overall survival was longer with RRSO compared with no RRSO (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2548 women; very low-certainty evidence). HGSC cancer mortality (HR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; I² = 69%; P < 0.0001; 3 studies, 2534 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breast cancer mortality (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88; I² = 65%; P = 0.009; 7 studies, 7198 women; very low-certainty evidence) were lower with RRSO compared with no RRSO. None of the studies reported bone fracture incidence. There was a difference in favour of RRSO compared with no RRSO in terms of ovarian cancer risk perception quality of life (MD 15.40, 95% CI 8.76 to 22.04; P < 0.00001; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported adverse events.Subgroup analyses for main outcomes: meta-analysis showed an increase in overall survival among women who had RRSO versus women without RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.52; P < 0001; I² = 23%; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.01; I² = 0%; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis showed a decrease in HGSC cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41; I² = 54%; P = 0.001; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but uncertain for BRCA2 mutation carriers due to low frequency of HGSC cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers. There was a decrease in breast cancer mortality among women with RRSO versus no RRSO who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; P < 0.0001; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), but not for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study showed a difference in favour of RRSO versus no RRSO in improving quality of life for ovarian cancer risk perception in women who were BRCA1 mutation carriers (MD 10.70, 95% CI 2.45 to 18.95; P = 0.01; 98 women; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (MD 13.00, 95% CI 3.59 to 22.41; P = 0.007; very low-certainty evidence). Data from one study showed a difference in favour of RRSO and RRM versus no RRSO in increasing overall survival (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), but no difference for breast cancer mortality (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.19; P = 0.25; very low-certainty evidence). The risk estimates for breast cancer mortality according to age at RRSO (50 years of age or less versus more than 50 years) was not protective and did not differ for BRCA1 (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I² = 16%; P = 0.23; very low-certainty evidence) and BRCA2 carriers (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I² = 63%; P = 0.75; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-certainty evidence that RRSO may increase overall survival and lower HGSC and breast cancer mortality for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that RRSO reduces the risk of death from HGSC and breast cancer in women with BRCA1 mutations. Evidence for the effect of RRSO on HGSC and breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers was very uncertain due to low numbers. These results should be interpreted with caution due to questionable study designs, risk of bias profiles, and very low-certainty evidence. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding bone fracture incidence, quality of life, or severe adverse events for RRSO, or for effects of RRSO based on type and age at risk-reducing surgery. Further research on these outcomes is warranted to explore differential effects for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of Breast Cancer Patients with Genetic Risk in a University Hospital: Before and After the Implementation of a Heredofamilial Cancer Unit

The identification of patients at risk for breast cancer by genetic testing has proven to reduce breast cancer mortality. In 2010, due to a lack of systematization in hereditary cancer assistance in our center, we implemented a multidisciplinary Heredofamilial Cancer Unit (HFCU). We analyze if the HFCU improved the rates of referrals and preventive management of breast cancer patients with genetic risk. We retrospectively compared family history records, referrals of high-risk patients to genetic counseling, and detection and management of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations in two cohorts of breast cancer patients diagnosed before (first period: 2007-2010) and after the creation of the HFCU (second period: 2010-2013). In the first period, 893 patients were included, and 902 were included in the second. Due to the inability to establish their genetic risk, 142 patients (15.9%) vs. 70 (7.8%) were excluded from analysis (p < 0.001). Among the evaluable patients, 194 (25.8%) vs. 223 (26.8%) fulfilled one or more risk criteria (p = 0.65). Family history documentation in patient's medical records (92.4 vs. 97.8%, p < 0.001) and referral rate (26.3 vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) significantly increased in the second period. Eight BRCA1/2 mutations were detected among patients referred in the first period and 17 among those referred to the HFCU. The rate of preventive surgeries in patients with BRCA mutations significantly increased in the second period (25 vs. 76.5%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, there was a clear improvement in family history records, referrals, and preventive surgeries in breast cancer patients with genetic risk after the implementation of the HFCU.

Prophylactic Surgery: For Whom, When and How?

Risk-reducing surgery has proved to be a reasonable procedure in healthy women with a definitely elevated risk of developing cancer. Here we consider the elevated risk of breast and ovarian cancer. There is a clear indication for such surgery in healthy women with a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation. For these patients, a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy leads to a verifiable reduction in mortality from breast cancer, particularly for young patients. In most cases, surgery is combined with breast reconstruction. The pros and cons of surgical treatment and the different surgical techniques have to be explained to and carefully considered with the patient. As yet, no unequivocal data for the benefits of intensifying early detection have been ascertained with respect to mortality from breast carcinoma. In index patients with a BRCA mutation, the surgical treatment should depend on the prognosis of the primary disease. A lower age at onset and a better prognosis of the primary disease make a contralateral mastectomy (CPM) more reasonable. In the case of BRCA mutation-related cancer, a reduction of mortality through CPM has been proven. A risk-reducing adnexectomy is basically recommended for BRCA mutation carriers. Healthy premenopausal women need a subsequent hormone replacement therapy. The prognosis of the patients is dominated by the ovarian carcinoma. This can be prevented by risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in 95% of the cases.

Is Mastectomy Oncologically Safer than Breast-Conserving Treatment in Early Breast Cancer?

AIM

To describe and discuss the evidence for oncological safety of different procedures in oncological breast surgery, i.e. breast-conserving treatment versus mastectomy.

METHODS

Literature review and discussion.

RESULTS

Oncological safety in breast cancer surgery has many dimensions. Breast-conserving treatment has been established as the standard surgical procedure for primary breast cancer and fits to the preferences of most breast cancer patients concerning oncological safety and aesthetic outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast-conserving treatment is safe. Nonetheless, the preferences of the individual patients in their consideration of breast conservation versus mastectomy should be integrated into routine treatment decisions.

Management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome represents 5-10% of all breast cancers. In Japan, the HBOC syndrome is frequently diagnosed in patients with breast cancer. Therefore, a treatment strategy combining a plan for existing breast cancer and for reduction of future breast and ovarian cancer risk is necessary. Breast cancer risk-reducing management involves three options-surveillance, chemoprevention, and risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). RRM can prevent >90% of new breast cancers. Ovarian cancer risk management options are more limited, and risk-reduction salpingo-oophorectomy is the only option since there is no proven effective early detection method available. The local recurrence rate following breast-conserving surgery in BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancer is not significantly higher than that in sporadic breast cancer. Furthermore, there is no difference in prognosis between surgical methods. Clinicians should inform patients that there are no data on long-term monitoring and fully discuss risks of re-developing breast cancer with patients when choosing the surgical method. In HBOC, BRCA1/2 mutations lead to failure of double-strand DNA break repair, with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) playing an important role in single-strand DNA nick repair. Use of PARP inhibitors in HBOC prevents DNA repair (synthetic lethality) leading to cell death. This review summarizes management of the HBOC syndrome based on recent evidence.