Rapid progression of prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Men with BRCA2 mutations have been found to be at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. There is a recent report that BRCA2 carriers with prostate cancer have poorer survival than noncarrier prostate cancer patients. In this study, we compared survival of men with a BRCA2 mutation and prostate cancer with that of men with a BRCA1 mutation and prostate cancer. We obtained the age at diagnosis, age at death or current age from 182 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA2 mutation and from 119 men with prostate cancer from families with a BRCA1 mutation. The median survival from diagnosis was 4.0 years for men with a BRCA2 mutation vs 8.0 years for men with a BRCA1 mutation, and the difference was highly significant (P<0.01). It may be important to develop targeted chemotherapies to treat prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation.

Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis.

HYPOTHESIS: Breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutation status affects patients' surgical decisions when genetic cancer risk assessment is offered at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, prior to definitive treatment. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Outcomes following genetic cancer risk assessment were studied for women newly diagnosed as having breast cancer who were prospectively enrolled in an institutional review board-approved hereditary cancer registry during a 1-year sampling frame. BRCA gene analysis was offered to subjects with a calculated mutation probability of 10% or higher. Review of medical records and telephone survey were used to document surgical treatment decisions following genetic cancer risk assessment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 233 women in the registry were enrolled at the time of a breast cancer diagnosis. The interval from diagnosis to genetic cancer risk assessment ranged from 3 to 60 days. The mean calculated probability of a BRCA gene mutation was 21% across the cohort. Two women were not tested because of low prior probabilities of mutation detection, and 3 declined owing to intercurrent psychological stressors. Of the remaining 32 patients, no BRCA gene mutation was detected in 22 (69%), 3 (9%) were found to carry a variant of uncertain significance, and 7 (22%) had a deleterious mutation. All 7 subjects with a deleterious mutation opted for bilateral mastectomy, whereas 20 of 22 patients with negative test results chose stage-appropriate treatment (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic cancer risk assessment at the time of breast cancer diagnosis significantly affected women's treatment decisions. Although need and feasibility are demonstrated, the logistics of genetic cancer risk assessment during breast cancer diagnosis prove challenging.

Beliefs and interest in cancer risk in an underserved Latino cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To measure beliefs about cancer causation, cancer screening behaviors, access to information about and resources for cancer screening, and interest in cancer genetics services in two underserved predominantly Latino communities. METHODS: An anonymous survey, in both English and Spanish, was distributed at the registration desk to all attendees of selected general medicine clinics in two underserved healthcare systems. RESULTS: There were a total of 312 respondents, representing 98% of eligible candidates. The reported data focus on 75.3% (n=235) of Latino respondents; mean age 43 years; 78% female; 72% less than high school education. Heredity was perceived as the most frequent cause of cancer, after smoking. Only 37% knew of free cancer screening programs. Over 85% expressed interest in obtaining information about personal cancer risk and motivation to participate in cancer genetics services. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey demonstrate an awareness of heredity as a potential cause of cancer. The observed high level of interest in cancer genetics services suggests the acceptability of cancer genetics services in this predominantly underserved Latino population. Furthermore, cancer genetics services would likely augment awareness and utilization of available cancer screening services in the community.

Development of a cancer genetics education program for clinicians.

BACKGROUND: There is a gap in knowledge about hereditary cancer and genetic testing among primary care practitioners. Education is needed to enable identification and management of patients at high risk for cancer. METHODS: A new cancer genetics curriculum was delivered through individual lectures and full-day conferences. Innovative marketing and conference organizational approaches were used to increase participation. RESULTS: The curriculum has been delivered to 7,400 health care professionals with diverse educational backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Conventional formats were successfully used to implement this new curriculum. CME evaluations indicated satisfaction with the programs and a clear need for and continued interest in cancer genetics applications.