Validation of the BOADICEA model in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

BACKGROUND: No validation has been conducted for the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model specifically in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers to date. Here, we evaluated the performance of BOADICEA in predicting 5-year breast cancer risks in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 PV carriers ascertained through clinical genetic centres. METHODS: We evaluated the model calibration and discriminatory ability in the prospective TRANsIBCCS cohort study comprising 1614 BRCA1 and 1365 BRCA2 PV carriers (209 incident cases). Study participants had lifestyle, reproductive, hormonal, anthropometric risk factor information, a polygenic risk score based on 313 SNPs and family history information. RESULTS: The full multifactorial model considering family history together with all other risk factors was well calibrated overall (E/O=1.07, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24) and in quintiles of predicted risk. Discrimination was maximised when all risk factors were considered (Harrell's C-index=0.70, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.74; area under the curve=0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). The model performance was similar when evaluated separately in BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV carriers. The full model identified 5.8%, 12.9% and 24.0% of BRCA1/2 PV carriers with 5-year breast cancer risks of <1.65%, <3% and <5%, respectively, risk thresholds commonly used for different management and risk-reduction options. CONCLUSION: BOADICEA may be used to aid personalised cancer risk management and decision-making for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers. It is implemented in the free-access CanRisk tool (https://www.canrisk.org/).

Performance of clinical risk scores and prediction models to identify pathogenic germline variants in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Determining the frequency and distribution of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in Austrian prostate cancer (PCa) patients and to assess the accuracy of different clinical risk scores to correctly predict PGVs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 313 men with advanced PCa. A comprehensive personal and family history was obtained based on predefined questionnaires. Germline DNA sequencing was performed between 2019 and 2021 irrespective of family history, metastatic or castration status or age at diagnosis. Clinical risk scores for hereditary cancer syndromes were evaluated and a PCa-specific score was developed to assess the presence of PGVs. RESULTS: PGV presence was associated with metastasis (p = 0.047) and castration resistance (p = 0.011), but not with personal cancer history or with relatives with any type of cancer. Clinical risk scores (Manchester score, PREMM5 score, Amsterdam II criteria or Johns Hopkins criteria) showed low sensitivities (3.3-20%) for assessing the probability of PGV presence. A score specifically designed for PCa patients stratifying patients into low- or high-risk regarding PGV probability, correctly classified all PGV carriers as high-risk, whereas a third of PCa patients without PGVs was classified as low risk of the presence of PGVs. CONCLUSION: Application of common clinical risk scores based on family history are not suitable to identify PCa patients with high PGV probabilities. A PCa-specific score stratified PCa patients into low- or high-risk of PGV presence with sufficient accuracy, and germline DNA sequencing may be omitted in patients with a low score. Further studies are needed to evaluate the score.

Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has been shown to decrease with longer duration of oral contraceptive use. Although the effects of using oral contraceptives in the general population are well established (approximately 50% risk reduction in ovarian cancer), the estimated risk reduction in mutation carriers is much less precise because of potential bias and small sample sizes. In addition, only a few studies on oral contraceptive use have examined the associations of duration of use, time since last use, starting age, and calendar year of start with risk of ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate in more detail the associations of various characteristics of oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer, to provide healthcare providers and carriers with better risk estimates. STUDY DESIGN: In this international retrospective study, ovarian cancer risk associations were assessed using oral contraceptives data on 3989 BRCA1 and 2445 BRCA2 mutation carriers. Age-dependent-weighted Cox regression analyses were stratified by study and birth cohort and included breast cancer diagnosis as a covariate. To minimize survival bias, analyses were left truncated at 5 years before baseline questionnaire. Separate analyses were conducted for each aspect of oral contraceptive use and in a multivariate analysis, including all these aspects. In addition, the analysis of duration of oral contraceptive use was stratified by recency of use. RESULTS: Oral contraceptives were less often used by mutation carriers who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (ever use: 58.6% for BRCA1 and 53.5% BRCA2) than by unaffected carriers (ever use: 88.9% for BRCA1 and 80.7% for BRCA2). The median duration of use was 7 years for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who developed ovarian cancer and 9 and 8 years for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with ovarian cancer, respectively. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, univariate analyses have shown that both a longer duration of oral contraceptive use and more recent oral contraceptive use were associated with a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. However, in multivariate analyses, including duration of use, age at first use, and time since last use, duration of oral contraceptive use proved to be the prominent protective factor (compared with <5 years: 5-9 years [hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.12]; >10 years [hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.73]; Ptrend=.008). The inverse association between duration of use and ovarian cancer risk persisted for more than 15 years (duration of ≥10 years; BRCA1 <15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.43]; BRCA1 >15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.59]). Univariate results for BRCA2 mutation carriers were similar but were inconclusive because of limited sample size. CONCLUSION: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, longer duration of oral contraceptive use is associated with a greater reduction in ovarian cancer risk, and the protection is long term.

Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome: Implications for genetic counselling.

OBJECTIVE: To determine endometrial cancer (EC) risk according to family cancer history, including assessment by degree of relatedness, type of and age at cancer diagnosis of relatives. METHODS: Self-reported family cancer history was available for 1353 EC patients and 628 controls. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between EC and cancer diagnosis in ≥1 first or second degree relative, and to assess whether level of risk differed by degree of relationship and/or relative's age at diagnosis. Risk was also evaluated for family history of up to three cancers from known familial syndromes (Lynch, Cowden, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) overall, by histological subtype and, for a subset of 678 patients, by EC tumor mismatch repair (MMR) gene expression. RESULTS: Report of EC in ≥1 first- or second-degree relative was associated with significantly increased risk of EC (P=3.8×10-7), independent of lifestyle risk factors. There was a trend in increasing EC risk with closer relatedness and younger age at EC diagnosis in relatives (PTrend=4.43×10-6), and with increasing numbers of Lynch cancers in relatives (PTrend≤0.0001). EC risk associated with family history did not differ by proband tumor MMR status, or histological subtype. Reported EC in first- or second-degree relatives remained associated with EC risk after conservative correction for potential misreported family history (OR 2.0; 95% CI, 1.24-3.37, P=0.004). CONCLUSION: The strongest predictor of EC risk was closer relatedness and younger EC diagnosis age in ≥1 relative. Associations remained significant irrespective of proband MMR status, and after excluding MMR pathogenic variant carriers, indicating that Lynch syndrome genes do not fully explain familial EC risk.

Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: a comparison of research data with clinical records.

Current evidence suggests poor identification and referral of Lynch syndrome patients. This study evaluated the strategies by which patients with endometrial cancer were referred to genetics services. Data from clinic-based patients with endometrial cancer enrolled through the Australian National Endometrial Cancer population-based research study with detailed family history information were analyzed. The Amsterdam II criteria, the revised Bethesda guidelines, and criteria adapted for this study was assessed using personal/family history information. The percentages of patients referred and who could have been referred to genetics services, and the performance of each criterion for identifying possible mismatch-repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers, based on tumor MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), were determined. Research data indicated that 236/397(59%) of patients with endometrial cancer had family/personal history of cancer, including 14 (4%) who fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria. Family history information was noted in the hospital records for only 61(15%) patients, including 7/14 (50%) of patients meeting Amsterdam criteria, and always less extensively than that recorded in the research setting. Only 13 patients (two meeting Amsterdam criteria) were referred for genetic assessment. Of 58 patients with tumor MMR protein-IHC loss, the Amsterdam criteria and Bethesda guidelines identified only three and 34% of these possible germline mutation carriers, respectively. Greater sensitivity (60%) was obtained using a single criterion proposed by our study, ≥2 first-degree or second-degree relatives reporting Lynch cancers. Hospital records indicate poor recognition of family history. Application of research methods show improved identification and may facilitate appropriate referrals of endometrial cancer patients with possible Lynch syndrome.

Cancer Spectrum, Family History of Cancer and Overall Survival in Men with Germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: Men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations are not well studied compared to their female counterparts. This study evaluates the cancer characteristics, family history of cancer, and outcomes of male BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. METHODS: All men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who attended genetic assessment between October 1995 and October 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna were identified. Clinicohistopathological features, family history of cancer, and outcomes were assessed by mutation status. RESULTS: Of the 323 men included, 45 (13.9%) had a primary cancer diagnosis, many of whom were BRCA2 carriers (75.5%). Breast cancer (BC) was the most common cancer (57.8%) followed by prostate cancer (15.6%). Invasive ductal carcinoma and hormone receptor positive tumors were the most common. Among 26 BC-affected patients, 42% did not have any relatives with cancer. Parent of origin was only known in half of the 26 men, with 42% of them inherited through the maternal lineage versus 8% through the paternal. BRCA2 carriers and those with a family history of BC had worse overall survival (20 y vs. 23 y BRCA1 carriers; P = 0.007; 19 y vs. 21 y for those without family history of BC; P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Male BRCA2 carriers were most likely to develop cancer and had worse prognosis. In our dataset, BC was the most common cancer, likely due to referral bias. Not all mutation carriers present with BC or have a family history of cancer to warrant genetic testing.

Patient satisfaction after breast cancer surgery : A prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the impact of curative breast cancer surgery on patient satisfaction concerning cosmetic results and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In this study 61 participants completed questionnaires to evaluate their QoL and patient satisfaction with cosmetic results following breast cancer surgery. Cosmetic outcomes were evaluated by the breast surgeon and an independent breast specialist using the Harris scale and the breast analyzing tool (BAT). RESULTS: Of the participants 71% completed all 4 follow-up visits, 38 (62%) patients received breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and 23 (38%) received a mastectomy. Surgery-associated complications arose in 2.6% of the patients who received BCT and 17.4% of patients who received a mastectomy. No significant differences in QoL between BCT patients and mastectomy patients were observed immediately after surgery, or after 6 and 12 months. Breast asymmetry, measured using the BAT score, and QoL scores were worst immediately after surgery. The surgeon rated the cosmetic results as better compared to the independent breast expert (p = 0.001). Furthermore, patients aged over 60 years old were less satisfied with the cosmetic outcome compared to younger patients at the time of discharge (p = 0.024). Patients who received a mastectomy were less satisfied when the resected volume was higher. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction was lowest immediately after surgery but improved during the following months, despite continued breast asymmetry. For mastectomy patients, a lower resected volume led to a higher satisfaction with cosmetic results. Satisfaction is subjective and cannot be determined from the esthetic satisfaction of the surgeon or using an objective tool measuring breast asymmetry.

Alcohol Consumption, Cigarette Smoking, and Risk of Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Results from The BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption have been intensively studied in the general population to assess their effects on the risk of breast cancer, but very few studies have examined these effects in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Given the high breast cancer risk for mutation carriers and the importance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in DNA repair, better evidence on the associations of these lifestyle factors with breast cancer risk is essential. METHODS: Using a large international pooled cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we conducted retrospective (5,707 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 3,525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and prospective (2,276 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 1,610 BRCA2 mutation carriers) analyses of alcohol and tobacco consumption using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: For both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, none of the smoking-related variables was associated with breast cancer risk, except smoking for more than 5 years before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) when compared with parous women who never smoked. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, the HR from retrospective analysis (HRR) was 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.39] and the HR from prospective analysis (HRP) was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.99-1.87). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, smoking for more than 5 years before an FFTP showed an association of a similar magnitude, but the confidence limits were wider (HRR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55 and HRP = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83-2.01). For both carrier groups, alcohol consumption was not associated with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that smoking during the prereproductive years increases breast cancer risk for mutation carriers warrants further investigation. IMPACT: This is the largest prospective study of BRCA mutation carriers to assess these important risk factors.

Association between family history, mutation locations, and prevalence of BRCA1 or 2 mutations in ovarian cancer patients.

We investigated the prevalence of germline BRCA mutations in a population-based cohort of Austrian women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and its association with family history of cancer. We prospectively collected family pedigrees of 443 Austrian ovarian cancer patients who had been tested for the presence of a germline BRCA or 2 mutations and correlated the familial breast and ovarian cancer burden with the prevalence of BRCA mutations and disease onset. The probability of carrying a gBRCA mutation in patients without family history of cancer is 14% (95% CI 9%-22%), as opposed to 45% (95% CI 31%-59%) of patients with at least one family member with ovarian cancer, and 47% (95% CI 40%-54%) if other relatives have developed breast cancer. If both breast and ovarian cancer are diagnosed in the family, the probability of carrying a germline BRCA1 or 2 mutations is 60% (95% CI 50%-68%). germline BRCA1 or mutations in families with ovarian cancer only are commonly located in the Ovarian Cancer Cluster Regions when compared to families with both breast and ovarian cancer (P = 0.001, and P = 0.020, respectively). While gBRCA mutation carriers with ovarian cancer do not have a significantly different age at onset than patients with a family history of cancer, gBRCA1 carriers in general have an earlier onset than gBRCA2 carriers (P = 0.002) and patients without a mutation (P = 0.006). The rate of germline BRCA1 or 2 mutations in ovarian cancer patients without a family history or breast or ovarian cancer is low. However, in women with additional family members affected, the prevalence is considerably higher than previously reported.

Correction: Diagnostic markers for the detection of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189641.].