Breast ultrasonography (BU) in the screening protocol for women at hereditary-familial risk of breast cancer: has the time come to rethink the role of BU according to different risk categories?

The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition

This article provides updates to readers based on the newly published Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 2022 Edition. These guidelines incorporate the latest evaluation of evidence from studies of diagnostic accuracy. For each clinical question, outcomes for benefits and harms were established, and qualitative or quantitative systematic reviews were conducted. Recommendations were determined through voting by a multidisciplinary group, and guidelines were documented to facilitate shared decision-making among patients and medical professionals. The guidelines address screening, surveillance, and pre- and postoperative diagnosis of breast cancer. In an environment that demands an integrated approach, decisions are needed on how to utilize modalities, such as mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and PET/CT. Additionally, it is vital to understand the appropriate use of new technologies, such as tomosynthesis, elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and to consider how best to adapt these methods for individual patients.

Potential Role of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy as a Screening Approach for Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and its spread involves a succession of clinical and pathological stages. Screening is predominantly based on mammography, which has critical limitations related to the effectiveness and production of false-positive or false-negative results, generating discomfort and low adherence. In this context, infrared with attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared (ATR FT-IR) spectroscopy emerges as a non-destructive sample tool, which is non-invasive, label-free, has a low operating-cost, and requires only a small amount of sample, including liquid plasma samples. We sought to evaluate the clinical applicability of ATR FT-IR in breast cancer screening. ATR FT-IR spectroscopy through its highest potential spectral biomarker could distinguish, by liquid plasma biopsy, breast cancer patients and healthy controls, obtaining a sensitivity of 97%, specificity of 93%, a receiver operating characteristic ROC curve of 97%, and a prediction accuracy of 94%. The main variance between the groups was mainly in the band 1511 cm^-1 of the control group, 1502 and 1515 cm^-1 of the cancer group, which are the peaks of the bands referring to proteins and amide II. ATR FT-IR spectroscopy has demonstrated to be a promising tool for breast cancer screening, given its time efficiency, cost of approach, and its high ability to distinguish between the liquid plasma samples of breast cancer patients and healthy controls.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Based on Breast Density

Mammography remains the only validated screening tool for breast cancer, however, there are limitations to mammography. One of the limitations of mammography is the variable sensitivity based on breast density. Supplemental screening may be considered based on the patient's risk level and breast density. For average-risk women with nondense breasts, the sensitivity of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening is high; additional supplemental screening is not warranted in this population. For average-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced mammography, screening ultrasound (US), breast MRI, or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women, there is emerging evidence suggesting that women in this population may benefit from breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI. In intermediate-risk women with dense breasts, given the decreased sensitivity of mammography/DBT, this population may benefit from additional supplemental screening with contrast-enhancedmammography or screening US. There is strong evidence supporting screening high-risk women with breast MRI regardless of breast density. Contrast-enhanced mammography, whole breast screening US, or abbreviated breast MRI may be also considered. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

The Distinct Performances of Ultrasound, Mammograms, and MRI in Detecting Breast Cancer in Patients With Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes

A proportion of up to 10% of breast cancer resulted from hereditary germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in cancer predisposition genes (CPGs), which been demonstrated distinct clinical features and imaging manifestations. However, the performance of imaging modalities for breast cancer surveillance in CPG mutation-carriers is still unclear, especially in Asian women. A population of 3002 breast cancer patients who received germline genetic testing of CPGs was enrolled from three hospitals in China. In total, 343 (11.6%) patients were found to harbor GPVs in CPGs, including 137 (4.6%) in BRCA1 and 135 (4.6%) in BRCA2. We compared the performances of ultrasound, mammograms, MRI, and the combining strategies in CPG mutation carriers and non-carriers. As a result, the ultrasound showed a higher detection rate compared with mammograms regardless of the mutation status. However, its detection rate was lower in CPG mutation carriers than in non-carriers (93.2% vs 98.0%, P=2.1×10^-4), especially in the BRCA1 mutation carriers (90.9% vs 98.0%, P=2.0×10^-4). MRI presented the highest sensitivity (98.5%) and the lowest underestimation rate (14.5%) in CPG mutation carriers among ultrasound, mammograms, and their combination. Supplemental ultrasound or mammograms would add no significant value to MRI for detecting breast cancer (P>0.05). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the family or personal cancer history could not replace the mutation status as the impact factor for the false-negative result and underestimation. In summary, clinicians and radiologists should be aware of the atypical imaging presentation of breast cancer in patients with GPVs in CPGs.

Enhancing the Screening Efficiency of Breast Cancer by Combining Conventional Medical Imaging Examinations With Circulating Tumor Cells

PURPOSE

Ultrasound (US) and mammogram (MMG) are the two most common breast cancer (BC) screening tools. This study aimed to assess how the combination of circulating tumor cells (CTC) with US and MMG would improve the diagnostic performance.

METHODS

CTC detection and imaging examinations, US and MMG, were performed in 238 treatment-naive BC patients, 217 patients with benign breast diseases (BBD), and 20 healthy females. Correlations of CTC, US and MMG with patients' clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated. Diagnostic performances of CTC, US and MMG were estimated by the receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

CTC, US and MMG could all distinguish BC patients from the control (p < 0.0001). Area under curve (AUC) of CTC, US and MMG are 0.855, 0.861 and 0.759, respectively. While US has the highest sensitivity of 0.79, CTC and MMG have the same specificity of 0.92. Notably, CTC has the highest accuracy of 0.83. Combination with CTC increases the AUC of US and MMG to 0.922 and 0.899, respectively. Combining MMG with CTC or US increases the sensitivity of MMG to 0.87, however "CTC + MMG" has a higher specificity of 0.85. "CTC + US" performs the best in BC diagnosis, followed by "CTC + MMG" and then "US + MMG".

CONCLUSION

CTC can be used as a diagnostic aid for BC screening. Combination with CTC increases the diagnostic potency of conventional BC screening imaging examinations, US and MMG, in BC diagnosis, especially for MMG.

An Overview of PARP Inhibitors for the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Loss-of-function mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are detected in at least 5% of unselected patients with breast cancer (BC). These BC susceptibility genes encode proteins critical for DNA homologous recombination repair (HRR). This review provides an update on oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for the treatment of BC. Olaparib and talazoparib are PARP inhibitors approved as monotherapies for deleterious/suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative BC. Olaparib is approved in the USA for metastatic BC and in Europe for locally advanced/metastatic BC. Talazoparib is approved for locally advanced/metastatic BC in the USA and Europe. In phase 3 trials, olaparib and talazoparib monotherapies demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefits compared with chemotherapy. Common toxicities were effectively managed by supportive treatment and dose interruptions/reductions. Veliparib combined with platinum-based chemotherapy has also shown promise for locally advanced/metastatic BC in a phase 3 trial. Differences in efficacy and safety across PARP inhibitors (olaparib, talazoparib, veliparib, niraparib, rucaparib) may relate to differences in potency of PARP trapping on DNA and cytotoxic specificity. PARP inhibitors are being investigated in early BC, in novel combinations, and in patients without germline BRCA mutations, including those with somatic BRCA mutations and other HRR gene mutations. Ongoing phase 2/3 studies include PARP inhibitors combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of triple-negative BC. Wider access to testing for BRCA and other mutations, and to genetic counseling, are required to identify patients who could benefit from PARP inhibitor therapy. The advent of PARP inhibitors has potential benefits for BC treatment beyond the locally advanced/metastatic setting.

Clinicopathologic Profile of Breast Cancer in Germline ATM and CHEK2 Mutation Carriers

The most common breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 are ATM and CHEK2. For the purpose of exploring the clinicopathologic characteristics of BC developed by ATM or CHEK2 mutation carriers, we reviewed the archive of our Family Cancer Clinic. Since 2018, 1185 multi-gene panel tests have been performed. Nineteen ATM and 17 CHEK2 mutation carriers affected by 46 different BCs were identified. A high rate of bilateral tumors was observed in ATM (26.3%) and CHEK2 mutation carriers (41.2%). While 64.3% of CHEK2 tumors were luminal A-like, 56.2% of ATM tumors were luminal B-like/HER2-negative. Moreover, 21.4% of CHEK2-related invasive tumors showed a lobular histotype. About a quarter of all ATM-related BCs and a third of CHEK2 BCs were in situ carcinomas and more than half of ATM and CHEK2-related BCs were diagnosed at stage I-II. Finally, 63.2% of ATM mutation carriers and 64.7% of CHEK2 mutation carriers presented a positive BC family history. The biological and clinical characteristics of ATM and CHEK2-related tumors may help improve diagnosis, prognostication and targeted therapeutic approaches. Contralateral mastectomy should be considered and discussed with ATM and CHEK2 mutation carriers at the first diagnosis of BC.

Secondary Prevention in Hereditary Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer Syndromes Other Than BRCA

BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are among the best-known and most extensively studied hereditary cancer syndromes. Nevertheless, many patients who proved negative at BRCA genetic testing bring pathogenic mutations in other suppressor genes and oncogenes associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers. These genes include TP53 in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, PTEN in Cowden syndrome, mismatch repair (MMR) genes in Lynch syndrome, CDH1 in diffuse gastric cancer syndrome, STK11 in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and NF1 in neurofibromatosis type 1 syndrome. To these, several other genes can be added that act jointly with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the double-strand break repair system, such as PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D. Management of primary and secondary cancer prevention in these hereditary cancer syndromes is crucial. In particular, secondary prevention by screening aims to discover precancerous lesions or cancers at their initial stages because early detection could allow for effective treatment and a full recovery. The present review aims to summarize the available literature and suggest proper screening strategies for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer syndromes other than BRCA.

Screening in patients with increased risk of breast cancer (part 2). Where are we now? Actual MRI screening controversies

For women with a high risk of breast cancer, early detection plays an important role. Due to the high incidence of breast cancer, and at a younger age than in the general population, screening begins earlier, and there is considerable evidence that magnetic resonance is the most sensitive diagnostic tool, and the principal American and European guidelines agree on the recommendation to perform annual magnetic resonance (with supplemental annual mammography) as an optimal mode of screening. In addition to the absence of current consensus on which patients should be included in the recommendation for magnetic resonance screening (widely discussed in the introduction of part 1 of this work), there are other aspects that are different between guidelines, that are not specified, or that are susceptible to change based on the evidence of several years of experience, that we have called «controversies», such as the age to begin screening, the possible advisability of using a different strategy in different subgroups, performing alternate versus synchronous magnetic resonance and mammography, the age at which to terminate the two techniques, or how to follow up after risk reduction surgery.The aim of the second part of the paper is, by reviewing the literature, to provide an update in relation to some of the main «controversies» in high risk screening with magnetic resonance. And finally, based on all this, to propose a possible model of optimal and updated screening protocol.

BRCA Detection Rate in an Italian Cohort of Luminal Early-Onset and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Patients without Family History: When Biology Overcomes Genealogy

NCCN Guidelines recommend BRCA genetic testing in individuals with a probability >5% of being a carrier. Nonetheless, the cost-effectiveness of testing individuals with no tumor family history is still debated, especially when BRCA testing is offered by the national health service. Our analysis evaluated the rate of BRCA pathogenic or likely-pathogenic variants in 159 triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients diagnosed ≤60 years, and 109 luminal-like breast cancer (BC) patients diagnosed ≤35 without breast and/or ovarian family histories. In TNBC patients, BRCA mutation prevalence was 22.6% (21.4% BRCA1). Mutation prevalence was 64.2% ≤30 years, 31.8% in patients aged 31–40, 16.1% for those aged 41–50 and 7.9% in 51–60 s. A total of 40% of patients with estrogen receptors (ER) 1–9% were BRCA1 carriers. BRCA detection rate in early-onset BCs was 6.4% (4.6% BRCA2). Mutation prevalence was 0% between 0–25 years, 9% between 26–30 years and 6% between 31–35 years. In conclusion, BRCA testing is recommended in TNBC patients diagnosed ≤60 years, regardless of family cancer history or histotype, and by using immunohistochemical staining <10% for both ER and/PR. In luminal-like early-onset BC, a lower BRCA detection rate was observed, suggesting a role for other predisposing genes along with BRCA genetic testing.

A regional population-based hereditary breast cancer screening tool in Italy: First 5-year results

Background

Up to 10% of individuals with breast cancer (BC) belong to families with hereditary syndromes. The aim of this study was to develop an instrument to identify individuals/families at high‐hereditary risk for BC and offer dedicated surveillance programs according to different risks.

Methods

The instrument consisted of a primary questionnaire collecting history of BC and ovarian cancer (OC). This questionnaire was applied to women enrolled in the Emilia‐Romagna Breast Cancer Screening Program. General practitioners (GPs) and specialists could propose the same questionnaire too. Women with a score of ≥ 2, were invited to complete an oncogenetic counseling. According to the Tyrer‐Cuzick evaluation, women considered at high risk were invited to involve the most representative alive individual of the family affected with BC/OC for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

Results

Since January 2012 and December 2016, 660 040 women were evaluated by the regional screening program, of which 22 289 (3.5%) were invited to the Spoke evaluation, but only 5615 accepted (25.2%). Totally, also considering women sent by GPs and specialists, 11 667 were assessed and 5554 were sent to the Hub evaluation. Finally, 2342 (42.8%) women fulfilled the criteria for genetic testing, and 544 (23.2%) resulted BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first regional population‐based multistep model that is aimed to identify individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations and to offer an intensive surveillance program for hereditary‐high risk women. This tool is feasible and effective, even if more efforts must be performed to increase the acceptance of multiple assessments by the study population.

BRCA Mutation Carriers: Breast and Ovarian Cancer Screening Guidelines and Imaging Considerations

Patients who carry the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations have an underlying genetic predisposition for breast and ovarian cancers. These deleterious genetic mutations are the most common genes implicated in hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. This monograph summarizes the evidence behind current screening recommendations, reviews imaging protocols specific to this patient population, and illustrates some of the imaging nuances of breast and ovarian cancers in this clinical setting.