The cancer-risk variant frequency among Polish population reported by the first national whole-genome sequencing study.

Introduction: Population-based cancer screening has raised many controversies in recent years, not only regarding the costs but also regarding the ethical nature and issues related to variant interpretation. Nowadays, genetic cancer screening standards are different in every country and usually encompass only individuals with a personal or family history of relevant cancer. Methods: Here we performed a broad genetic screening for cancer-related rare germline variants on population data from the Thousand Polish Genomes database based on 1076 Polish unrelated individuals that underwent whole genome sequencing (WGS). Results: We identified 19 551 rare variants in 806 genes related to oncological diseases, among them 89% have been located in non-coding regions. The combined BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic according to ClinVar allele frequency in the unselected population of 1076 Poles was 0.42%, corresponding to nine carriers. Discussion: Altogether, on the population level, we found especially problematic the assessment of the pathogenicity of variants and the relation of ACMG guidelines to the population frequency. Some of the variants may be overinterpreted as disease-causing due to their rarity or lack of annotation in the databases. On the other hand, some relevant variants may have been overseen given that there is little pooled population whole genome data on oncology. Before population WGS screening will become a standard, further studies are needed to assess the frequency of the variants suspected to be pathogenic on the population level and with reporting of likely benign variants.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for breast cancer screening and for assessment of screen-recalled findings: review of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) addresses some of the limitations of digital mammography (DM) by reducing the effect of overlapping tissue. Emerging data have shown that DBT increases breast cancer (BC) detection and reduces recall in BC screening programs. Studies have also suggested that DBT improves assessment of screen-recalled findings. Areas covered: Studies of DBT for population BC screening and those for assessment of screen-detected findings were reviewed to provide an up-to-date summary of the evidence on DBT in the screening setting. A systematic literature search was conducted for each of the topics; study-specific information and/or quantitative data on detection or accuracy were extracted and collated in tables. Expert commentary: The evidence on DBT for BC screening reinforces that DBT integrated with DM increases cancer detection rates compared to DM alone, although the extent of improved detection varied between studies. The effect of DBT on recall rates was heterogeneous with substantial reductions evident noticeably in retrospective comparative studies. The evidence on DBT for workup was sparse and those studies had limitations related to design and methods. Even though the majority showed improved specificity using DBT compared with conventional imaging, there was little evidence on how DBT impacts assessment outcomes.

Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: Increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D)-mammography (tomosynthesis) may improve breast cancer detection. We examined centre-specific effect of integrated 2D/3D mammography based on the STORM (screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography) trial. METHODS: Asymptomatic women who attended population-based screening through Trento and Verona screening centres were recruited into STORM, a prospective comparison of screen-reading in two sequential phases: 2D-mammography only and integrated 2D/3D mammography. Outcomes were the number and rates of detected cancers and of false positive recalls (FPR), and incremental cancer detection rate (CDR). Paired binary data were compared using Mc Nemar's test. RESULTS: Of 33 cancers detected in Trento, 21 were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D screening, 12 cancers were detected only with integrated 2D/3D screening compared with none detected at 2D-only screening (P < 0.001). Of the 26 cancers detected in Verona, 18 were detected at both 2D and 2D/3D screening, 8 cancers were detected only with integrated 2D/3D screening compared with none detected at 2D-only screening (P = 0.008). There were no differences between centres in baseline CDR, and incremental CDR attributable to 3D-mammography was similar for Trento (2.8/1000 screens) and for Verona (2.6/1000 screens). Trento had 239 FPR (5.7% of screens): 103 FPR at both screen-readings, 93 FPR only at 2D-mammography compared with 43 FPR only at 2D/3D-mammography (p < 0.001). Verona had 156 FPR (5.2% of screens): 78 FPR at both screen-readings, 48 FPR only at 2D-mammography compared with 30 FPR only at 2D/3D-mammography (p = 0.054). Estimated reduction in FPR proportion had recall been conditional to 2D/3D-mammography-positivity differed between centres (21.0% versus 11.5%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Integrated 2D/3D-mammography significantly increased cancer detection for both screening services; potential reduction in FPR is likely to differ between centres with those experiencing relatively higher FPR most likely to benefit from 2D/3D-mammography screening.