Improving the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy by identifying the optimal risk cutoff.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society (ACS) suggests using a stratified strategy for breast cancer screening. The strategy includes assessing risk of breast cancer, screening women at high risk with both MRI and mammography, and screening women at low risk with mammography alone. The ACS chose their cutoff for high risk using expert consensus. METHODS: We propose instead an analytic approach that maximizes the diagnostic accuracy (AUC/ROC) of a risk-based stratified screening strategy in a population. The inputs are the joint distribution of screening test scores, and the odds of disease, for the given risk score. Using the approach for breast cancer screening, we estimated the optimal risk cutoff for two different risk models: the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model and a hypothetical model with much better discriminatory accuracy. Data on mammography and MRI test score distributions were drawn from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. RESULTS: A risk model with an excellent discriminatory accuracy (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) yielded a reasonable cutoff where only about 20% of women had dual screening. However, the BCSC risk model (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) lacked the discriminatory accuracy to differentiate between women who needed dual screening, and women who needed only mammography. CONCLUSION: Our research provides a general approach to optimize the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy in a population, and to assess whether risk models are sufficiently accurate to guide stratified screening. For breast cancer, most risk models lack enough discriminatory accuracy to make stratified screening a reasonable recommendation.

Outcome of ovarian cancer after breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether a history of breast cancer (BC) affects the outcome of BRCA1/2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). This was investigated in the current analysis. METHODS: We included 386 BRCA1/2-associated EOC patients diagnosed between 1980 and 2015. Progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free interval (PFI), overall survival (OS) and ovarian cancer-specific survival (OCSS) were compared between EOC patients with and without previous BC. RESULTS: BRCA-associated EOC patients with, vs without, a BC history had a significantly worse PFS and PFI (multivariate hazard ratio (HRmult) 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.08 and HRmult 1.43; 95% CI 1.01-2.03), and a non-significantly worse OS (HRmult 1.15; 95% CI 0.84-1.57) and OCSS (HRmult 1.18; 95% CI 0.85-1.62). Ovarian cancer-specific survival was significantly worse for the subgroup treated with adjuvant chemotherapy for BC (HRmult 1.99; 95% CI 1.21-3.31). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that BRCA1/2-associated EOC patients with a previous BC have a worse outcome than EOC patients without BC, especially when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.

The risk of primary and contralateral breast cancer after ovarian cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: Implications for counseling.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of primary breast cancer (PBC) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) in patients who had BRCA1/BRCA2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: From the database of the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic, patients who had BRCA-associated OC without a history of unilateral breast cancer (BC) (at risk of PBC; n = 79) or with a history of unilateral BC (at risk of CBC; n = 37) were selected. The control groups consisted of unaffected BRCA mutation carriers (n = 351) or mutation carriers who had a previous unilateral BC (n = 294), respectively. The risks of PBC and CBC were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier survival method with death considered as a competing risk event. RESULTS: Women with BRCA-associated OC had lower 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year risks of PBC (3%, 6%, and 11%, respectively) compared with unaffected mutation carriers (6%, 16%, and 28%, respectively; P = .03), although they had a considerably higher mortality rate at similar time points (13%, 33%, and 61%, respectively, vs 1%, 2%, and 2%, respectively; P < .001). In BRCA mutation carriers with a previous unilateral BC, the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year risks of CBC were nonsignificantly lower in patients with OC than in those without OC (0%, 7%, and 7%, respectively, vs 6%, 16%, and 34%, respectively; P = .06), whereas the mortality rate was higher in patients with OC (19%, 34%, and 55%, respectively, vs 4%, 11%, and 21%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BRCA-associated OC had a lower risk of developing a subsequent PBC or CBC than mutation carriers without OC, whereas the risk of dying from OC was greater than the risk of developing BC. These data may facilitate more tailored counseling for this patient subgroup, although confirmative studies are warranted.

Ovarian cancer susceptibility alleles and risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified six alleles associated with risk of ovarian cancer for women in the general population. We evaluated four of these loci as potential modifiers of ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs10088218 (at 8q24), rs2665390 (at 3q25), rs717852 (at 2q31), and rs9303542 (at 17q21), were genotyped in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 carriers, including 2,678 ovarian cancer cases. Associations were evaluated within a retrospective cohort approach. All four loci were associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers; rs10088218 per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.98) P-trend = 0.033, rs2665390 HR = 1.48 (95% CI: 1.21-1.83) P-trend = 1.8 × 10(-4), rs717852 HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42) P-trend = 6.6 × 10(-4), rs9303542 HR = 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02-1.33) P-trend = 0.026. Two loci were associated with ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers; rs10088218 per-allele HR = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81-0.99) P-trend = 0.029, rs2665390 HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42) P-trend = 6.1 × 10(-4). The HR estimates for the remaining loci were consistent with odds ratio estimates for the general population. The identification of multiple loci modifying ovarian cancer risk may be useful for counseling women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations regarding their risk of ovarian cancer.

Common variants at 12p11, 12q24, 9p21, 9q31.2 and in ZNF365 are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

INTRODUCTION: Several common alleles have been shown to be associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Recent genome-wide association studies of breast cancer have identified eight additional breast cancer susceptibility loci: rs1011970 (9p21, CDKN2A/B), rs10995190 (ZNF365), rs704010 (ZMIZ1), rs2380205 (10p15), rs614367 (11q13), rs1292011 (12q24), rs10771399 (12p11 near PTHLH) and rs865686 (9q31.2). METHODS: To evaluate whether these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, we genotyped these SNPs in 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers and analysed the associations with breast cancer risk within a retrospective likelihood framework. RESULTS: Only SNP rs10771399 near PTHLH was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.94, P-trend = 3 × 10-4). The association was restricted to mutations proven or predicted to lead to absence of protein expression (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 3.1 × 10-5, P-difference = 0.03). Four SNPs were associated with the risk of breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers: rs10995190, P-trend = 0.015; rs1011970, P-trend = 0.048; rs865686, 2df-P = 0.007; rs1292011 2df-P = 0.03. rs10771399 (PTHLH) was predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.90, P-trend = 4 × 10-5) and there was marginal evidence of association with ER-negative breast cancer for BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.00, P-trend = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings, in combination with previously identified modifiers of risk, will ultimately lead to more accurate risk prediction and an improved understanding of the disease etiology in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

The efficacy of taxane chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy of taxane chemotherapy in BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated patients compared with sporadic metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: Response rates (RRs) to and progression-free survival (PFS) after taxane chemotherapy of 35 BRCA1-associated and 13 BRCA2-associated metastatic breast cancer patients were compared with those outcomes in 95 matched (1:2) sporadic patients. Matching was performed for age at and year of diagnosis of primary breast cancer, year of metastatic disease, and line of therapy (first vs second or third). RESULTS: Among BRCA1-associated patients, the RR was worse (objective response [OR], 23% vs 38%; progressive disease [PD], 60% vs 19%; P < 0.001); and the median PFS shorter (2.2 vs 4.9 months; P = 0.04) compared with sporadic patients. In the subgroup of hormone receptor (HRec)-negative patients, BRCA1-associated patients (n = 20) had a worse RR (OR, 20% vs 42%, respectively; PD, 70% vs 26%, respectively; P = 0.03) and a shorter PFS (1.8 vs 3.8 months; P = 0.004) compared with sporadic patients (n = 19). These outcomes in HRec-positive patients were similar in BRCA1-associated (n = 11) and sporadic (n = 61) patients (OR, 36% vs 38%; PD, 28% vs 20%; median PFS, both 5.7 months). In BRCA2-associated patients, who were mainly HRec-positive, the OR was higher than in sporadic patients (89% vs 38%, respectively; P = 0.02), whereas the median PFS was not significantly different (7.1 vs 5.7 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1-associated, HRec-negative metastatic breast cancer patients were less sensitive to taxane chemotherapy than sporadic HRec-negative patients. HRec-positive BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated patients had a sensitivity to taxane chemotherapy similar to that of sporadic patients.

The association between cancer family history and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: can it be explained by the mutation position?

This observational study aimed to investigate whether the reported association between family history (FH) of breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) and OC risks in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers can be explained by mutation position on the gene. In total, 3310 female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers participating in a nationwide prospective cohort (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the Netherlands) were included. FH was classified according to cancer occurrence in first-degree relatives (BC only, OC only, both, neither) and mutations were classified according to their position on the gene (OC cluster region (OCCR), BC cluster region, neither). The main outcome was OC occurrence. Cox proportional-hazard models were applied to investigate the association between FH and OC risks before and after adjusting for mutation position. Of all women included, 202 were diagnosed with OC. A BC-only FH tended to be associated with lower OC risks when compared with a FH without BC/OC (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.52-1.17; HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.07 for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively) while an OC-only FH tended to be associated with higher risks (HR: 1.58, 95% CI: 0.90-2.77; HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 0.70-4.37 for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively). After adjusting for mutation position, association between FH and OC risks was slightly smaller in magnitude (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.55-1.30; HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.34-1.21 for BC-only FH in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively; HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.80-2.68; HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.44-4.02 for OC-only FH in BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively), indicating that mutation position explains only part of the association. Considering the magnitude of the observed trend, we do not believe FH should be used to change counseling regarding OC prevention.

The Influence of Number and Timing of Pregnancies on Breast Cancer Risk for Women With BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: Full-term pregnancy (FTP) is associated with a reduced breast cancer (BC) risk over time, but women are at increased BC risk in the immediate years following an FTP. No large prospective studies, however, have examined whether the number and timing of pregnancies are associated with BC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS: Using weighted and time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, we investigated whether reproductive events are associated with BC risk for mutation carriers using a retrospective cohort (5707 BRCA1 and 3525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and a prospective cohort (2276 BRCA1 and 1610 BRCA2 mutation carriers), separately for each cohort and the combined prospective and retrospective cohort. RESULTS: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was no overall association with parity compared with nulliparity (combined hazard ratio [HRc] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83 to 1.18). Relative to being uniparous, an increased number of FTPs was associated with decreased BC risk (HRc = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.91; HRc = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82; HRc = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.63, for 2, 3, and ≥4 FTPs, respectively, P trend < .0001) and increasing duration of breastfeeding was associated with decreased BC risk (combined cohort P trend = .0003). Relative to being nulliparous, uniparous BRCA1 mutation carriers were at increased BC risk in the prospective analysis (prospective hazard ration [HRp] = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.62). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, being parous was associated with a 30% increase in BC risk (HRc = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.69), and there was no apparent decrease in risk associated with multiparity except for having at least 4 FTPs vs. 1 FTP (HRc = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest differential associations with parity between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with higher risk for uniparous BRCA1 carriers and parous BRCA2 carriers.

Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women. METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15 percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched control groups. RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358 carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9 years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1 lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent, respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8 percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was significantly better than that of mammography (P<0.05). The proportion of invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control group (14.0 percent [P<0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively). The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4 percent (P<0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups. CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer.

Hereditary breast cancer growth rates and its impact on screening policy.

Imaging is often performed yearly for the surveillance of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women at high familial breast cancer risk. Growth of cancers in carriers may be faster as these tumours are predominantly high grade. Quantitative data on tumour growth rates in these 2 groups are lacking. Here, we have examined 80 high-risk women under surveillance for tumour size at diagnosis and preceding examinations at mammography and/or MRI. Tumour volume doubling time (DT) was assessed in 30 cancers in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 25 non-carriers. Impact of age and menopausal status were also evaluated. Mean DT of all invasive cancers was shorter in carriers (45 days CI: 26-73) than non-carriers (84 days CI: 58-131) (P = 0.048). Mean age at diagnosis was lower in carriers (40 years) than non-carriers (45 years) (P = 0.007). At multivariable analysis only age (P = 0.03), not risk-group (P = 0.26) nor menopause (P = 0.58) correlated significantly with DT. The mean growth rate slowed down to half in each successive 10 years-older group. In conclusion, age at detection indicated the growth rates of hereditary and familial breast cancers. It is recommended that the screening frequency should be adjusted according to a woman's age and a high-sensitive biannual test may be appropriate before the age of 40 years.

Long term follow-up of HNPCC gene mutation carriers: compliance with screening and satisfaction with counseling and screening procedures.

Hereditary non polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is a hereditary predisposition to colorectal and endometrial cancer, caused by mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes MSH2, MLH1 and MSH6. Regular colonoscopy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer in mutation carriers dramatically. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of colonoscopy by proven HNPCC mutation carriers. We also evaluated the satisfaction with the counseling and screening procedures at the long term. A questionnaire survey was performed among 94 proven MMR gene mutation carriers. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The average time of follow-up was 3,5 years (range 0.5-8.5 years). The response rate was 74%. The proportion of unaffected mutation carriers under colonoscopic screening increased from 31 to 88% upon genetic testing, and for gynecological screening from 17 to 69%. However, more than half of the responders experienced colonoscopy as unpleasant or painful. About 97% felt well informed during counseling, and 88% felt sufficiently supported. Ten percent of the responders reported a high cancer worry that was significantly (P = 0.007) associated with a high perceived cancer risk. Six responders (9%) regretted being tested. Remarkably, of 4 of these 6 a close relative died recently of cancer. Problems with obtaining a disability or life insurance or mortgage were experienced by 4 out 10 healthy carriers opting for these services. In conclusion, genetic testing for HNPCC considerably improves compliance for screening, which will result in a reduction of HNPCC-related cancer morbidity and mortality in mutation carriers. Most HNPCC gene mutation carriers cope well with their cancer susceptibility on the long term.

Sensitivity to systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer in CHEK2 1100delC mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: The role of CHEK2 in DNA repair by homologous recombination suggests that CHEK2-associated breast cancer (BC) patients might be more sensitive to chemotherapy inducing double-strand DNA breaks, but results hereon are lacking. We compared the sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy and endocrine therapy between CHEK2 1100delC and non-CHEK2 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. METHODS: Sixty-two CHEK2 1100delC MBC patients were selected from three cohorts genotyped for CHEK2 1100delC (one non-BRCA1/2 cohort and two sporadic cohorts). Controls were 62 non-CHEK2 MBC patients, matched for age at and year of primary BC diagnosis, and year of metastatic disease. Objective response rate (complete and partial response) to, and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after start of first-line chemotherapy and endocrine therapy were compared between CHEK2 and non-CHEK2 patients. RESULTS: Median age at BC diagnosis was 46 and 51 years at MBC diagnosis. First-line chemotherapy consisted of anthracycline-based chemotherapy (n = 73), taxanes (n = 16), CMF(-like) chemotherapy (n = 33) and taxane/anthracycline regimens (n = 2). CHEK2 and non-CHEK2 patients had a comparable objective response rate (44 vs. 52 %). Also, PFS and OS after start of chemotherapy were comparable between both patient groups (hazard ratio 0.91; 95 % confidence interval 0.63-1.30 and 1.03; 95 % CI 0.71-1.49, respectively). Thirty-six CHEK2 and 32 non-CHEK2 patients received first-line endocrine therapy (mainly tamoxifen) for MBC. No significant differences were observed in objective response rate to, and PFS and OS after start of endocrine therapy. CONCLUSION: No differential efficacy of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy given for MBC was observed in CHEK2 versus non-CHEK2 patients.

Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA).

BACKGROUND: Previously, small studies have found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast tumors differ in their pathology. Analysis of larger datasets of mutation carriers should allow further tumor characterization. METHODS: We used data from 4,325 BRCA1 and 2,568 BRCA2 mutation carriers to analyze the pathology of invasive breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancers. RESULTS: There was strong evidence that the proportion of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast tumors decreased with age at diagnosis among BRCA1 (P-trend = 1.2 × 10(-5)), but increased with age at diagnosis among BRCA2, carriers (P-trend = 6.8 × 10(-6)). The proportion of triple-negative tumors decreased with age at diagnosis in BRCA1 carriers but increased with age at diagnosis of BRCA2 carriers. In both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, ER-negative tumors were of higher histologic grade than ER-positive tumors (grade 3 vs. grade 1; P = 1.2 × 10(-13) for BRCA1 and P = 0.001 for BRCA2). ER and progesterone receptor (PR) expression were independently associated with mutation carrier status [ER-positive odds ratio (OR) for BRCA2 = 9.4, 95% CI: 7.0-12.6 and PR-positive OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3-2.3, under joint analysis]. Lobular tumors were more likely to be BRCA2-related (OR for BRCA2 = 3.3, 95% CI: 2.4-4.4; P = 4.4 × 10(-14)), and medullary tumors BRCA1-related (OR for BRCA2 = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.35; P = 2.3 × 10(-15)). ER-status of the first breast cancer was predictive of ER-status of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer (P = 0.0004 for BRCA1; P = 0.002 for BRCA2). There were no significant differences in ovarian cancer morphology between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (serous: 67%; mucinous: 1%; endometrioid: 12%; clear-cell: 2%). CONCLUSIONS/IMPACT: Pathologic characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors may be useful for improving risk-prediction algorithms and informing clinical strategies for screening and prophylaxis.

Common genetic variation at BARD1 is not associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations confer elevated breast cancer risk. Knowledge of factors that can improve breast cancer risk assessment in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may improve personalized cancer prevention strategies. METHODS: A cohort of 5,546 BRCA1 and 2,865 BRCA2 mutation carriers was used to evaluate risk of breast cancer associated with BARD1 Cys557Ser. In a second nonindependent cohort of 1,537 of BRCA1 and 839 BRCA2 mutation carriers, BARD1 haplotypes were also evaluated. RESULTS: The BARD1 Cys557Ser variant was not significantly associated with risk of breast cancer from single SNP analysis, with a pooled effect estimate of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.71-1.15) in BRCA1 carriers and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.59-1.29) in BRCA2 carriers. Further analysis of haplotypes at BARD1 also revealed no evidence that additional common genetic variation not captured by Cys557Ser was associated with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSION: Evidence to date does not support a role for BARD1 variation, including the Cy557Ser variant, as a modifier of risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. IMPACT: Interactors of BRCA1/2 have been implicated as modifiers of BRCA1/2-associated cancer risk. Our finding that BARD1 does not contribute to this risk modification may focus research on other genes that do modify BRCA1/2-associated cancer risk.

BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study.

PURPOSE: The Dutch MRI Screening Study on early detection of hereditary breast cancer started in 1999. We evaluated the long-term results including separate analyses of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and first results on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with higher than 15% cumulative lifetime risk (CLTR) of breast cancer were screened with biannual clinical breast examination and annual mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Participants were divided into subgroups: carriers of a gene mutation (50% to 85% CLTR) and two familial groups with high (30% to 50% CLTR) or moderate risk (15% to 30% CLTR). RESULTS: Our update contains 2,157 eligible women including 599 mutation carriers (median follow-up of 4.9 years from entry) with 97 primary breast cancers detected (median follow-up of 5.0 years from diagnosis). MRI sensitivity was superior to that of mammography for invasive cancer (77.4% v 35.5%; P<.00005), but not for ductal carcinoma in situ. Results in the BRCA1 group were worse compared to the BRCA2, the high-, and the moderate-risk groups, respectively, for mammography sensitivity (25.0% v 61.5%, 45.5%, 46.7%), tumor size at diagnosis≤1 cm (21.4% v 61.5%, 40.9%, 63.6%), proportion of DCIS (6.5% v 18.8%, 14.8%, 31.3%) and interval cancers (32.3% v 6.3%, 3.7%, 6.3%), and age at diagnosis younger than 30 years (9.7% v 0%). Cumulative distant metastasis-free and overall survival at 6 years in all 42 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with invasive breast cancer were 83.9% (95% CI, 64.1% to 93.3%) and 92.7% (95% CI, 79.0% to 97.6%), respectively, and 100% in the familial groups (n=43). CONCLUSION: Screening results were somewhat worse in BRCA1 mutation carriers, but 6-year survival was high in all risk groups.

Sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: Preclinical as well as a few small retrospective, neoadjuvant studies suggest that breast cancer (cells) without functional BRCA1 or BRCA2 protein have an increased sensitivity to some chemotherapeutic agents causing double-strand DNA breaks. In this study we assessed the sensitivity to standard first-line chemotherapy of metastatic BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer, compared with sporadic breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the Family Cancer Clinic database, we selected 93 BRCA1- and 28 BRCA2-associated breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy for metastatic disease before January 1, 2007. Objective response (OR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) after start of first-line chemotherapy were compared with those of sporadic patients, matched for year of birth, age at diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and year of detection of metastatic disease. RESULTS: The chemotherapy regimens most frequently used were anthracycline-based (n = 147) and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF)/CMF like (n = 68). As compared to sporadic patients, BRCA2-associated patients had a significantly higher OR (89% v 50%; P = .001), a longer PFS (hazard ratio multivariate [HR(mult)] 0.64; P = .04) and a prolonged OS (HR(mult), 0.53; P = .005) after start of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. For BRCA1-associated patients, a nonsignificant trend for an increased OR (66% v 50%; P = .07), and a longer PFS (HR(mult), 0.79; P = .14) after first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer was observed, but not for OS. CONCLUSION: BRCA2-associated breast cancer is more sensitive to standard first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer in comparison with sporadic breast cancer, especially to anthracyclines. For BRCA1-associated breast cancer no statistically significant higher sensitivity was observed.

Distant disease-free interval, site of first relapse and post-relapse survival in BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated compared to sporadic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Data on distant disease-free interval (DDFI) and the localization of the first distant metastasis (DM) in BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast cancer (BC) patients are as yet scarcely available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 57 BRCA1-associated and 31 BRCA2-associated BC patients, diagnosed between 1980 and 2001, and developing DM disease before 2004, July 1. DDFI, the site(s) of first DM and post-relapse survival of these patients were compared with those of 192 sporadic BC patients. RESULTS: As compared to sporadic patients, BRCA1 patients developed less often bone DM (30% vs. 51%; P = 0.005), but tended to develop more often lung DM (26% vs. 16%; P = 0.07), and DM at multiple sites (44% vs. 32%; P = 0.11). In BRCA2-associated compared to sporadic patients, first DM more commonly occurred in lymph nodes (23% vs. 7%; P = 0.007) and at multiple sites (48% vs. 32%; P = 0.08). Adjuvant systemic therapy appeared to be most effective in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Post-relapse survival was worse for BRCA1- and better for BRCA2-associated patients as compared to sporadic patients, but differences disappeared after adjustment for ER-status, site of first DM and DDFI. CONCLUSION: The site of first DM is different between BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated and sporadic BC patients. Differences in post-relapse survival could be explained by differences in site of first DM, in ER-status and in DDFI. Treatment efficacy may differ dependent on genetic status.

Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Within the Dutch MRI Screening (MRISC) study, a Dutch multicenter screening study for hereditary breast cancer, the authors investigated whether previously reported increased diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with mammography would be maintained during subsequent screening rounds. METHODS: From November 1999 to October 2003, 1909 eligible women were included in the study. Screening parameters and tumor characteristics of different rounds were calculated and compared. The authors defined 3 different types of imaging screening rounds: first round in women never screened by imaging before, first round in women screened by imaging (mainly mammography) before, and subsequent rounds. RESULTS: The difference in sensitivity for invasive cancers between mammography and MRI was largest in the first round of women previously screened with mammography (20.0 vs. 93.3%; P=.003), but also in subsequent rounds, there was a significant difference in favor of MRI (29.4 vs. 76.5%; P=.02). The difference in false-positive rate between mammography and MRI was also largest in the first round of women previously screened with mammography (5.5 vs. 14.0%; P<.001), and it remained significant in subsequent rounds (4.6 vs. 8.2%; P<.001). Screen-detected tumors were smaller and more often lymph node negative than symptomatic tumors in age-matched control patients, but no major differences in tumor stage were found between tumors detected at subsequent rounds compared with those in the first round. CONCLUSIONS: In subsequent rounds, a significantly higher sensitivity and better discriminating capacity of MRI compared with mammography was maintained, and a favorable tumor stage compared with age-matched symptomatic controls. As results of these subsequent screening rounds were most predictive for long-term effects, the authors expect that this screening program will contribute to a decrease of breast cancer mortality in these high-risk women.

Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography and MRI in women with an inherited risk for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The MRISC study is a screening study, in which women with an increased risk of hereditary breast cancer are screened by a yearly mammography and MRI, and half-yearly clinical breast examination. The sensitivity found in this study was 40% for mammography and 71% for MRI and the specificity was 95 and 90%, respectively. In the current subsequent study we investigated whether these results are influenced by age, a BRCA1/2 mutation, menopausal status and breast density. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1999 to October 2003, 1909 eligible women were screened and 50 breast cancers were detected. For the current analysis, data of 4134 screening rounds and 45 detected breast cancers were used. For both imaging modalities, screening parameters, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and uni- and multivariate odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. All analyses were separately performed for age at entry (< 40, 40-49, > or =50), mutation status, menopausal status and breast density. RESULTS: Sensitivity of MRI was decreased in women with high breast density (adjusted OR 0.08). False-positive rates of both mammography (OR(adj) 1.67) and MRI (OR(adj) 1.21) were increased by high breast density, that of MRI by pre-menopausal status (OR(adj) 1.70), young age (OR(adj) 1.58 for women 40-49 years versus women > or =50 years) and decreased in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (OR(adj) 0.74). In all investigated subgroups the discriminating capacity (measured by the area under the ROC-curve) was higher for MRI than for mammography, with the largest differences for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (0.237), for women between 40 and 49 years (0.227) and for women with a low breast density (0.237). CONCLUSIONS: This report supports the earlier recommendation that MRI should be a standard screening method for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.