PRDM10 directs FLCN expression in a novel disorder overlapping with Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome and familial lipomatosis.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHD) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by fibrofolliculomas, pulmonary cysts, pneumothoraces and renal cell carcinomas. Here, we reveal a novel hereditary disorder in a family with skin and mucosal lesions, extensive lipomatosis and renal cell carcinomas. The proband was initially diagnosed with BHD based on the presence of fibrofolliculomas, but no pathogenic germline variant was detected in FLCN, the gene associated with BHD. By whole exome sequencing we identified a heterozygous missense variant (p.(Cys677Tyr)) in a zinc-finger encoding domain of the PRDM10 gene which co-segregated with the phenotype in the family. We show that PRDM10Cys677Tyr loses affinity for a regulatory binding motif in the FLCN promoter, abrogating cellular FLCN mRNA and protein levels. Overexpressing inducible PRDM10Cys677Tyr in renal epithelial cells altered the transcription of multiple genes, showing overlap but also differences with the effects of knocking out FLCN. We propose that PRDM10 controls an extensive gene program and acts as a critical regulator of FLCN gene transcription in human cells. The germline variant PRDM10Cys677Tyr curtails cellular folliculin expression and underlies a distinguishable syndrome characterized by extensive lipomatosis, fibrofolliculomas and renal cell carcinomas.

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/).

Genotype-phenotype correlations for pancreatic cancer risk in Dutch melanoma families with pathogenic CDKN2A variants.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic variants in the CDKN2A gene are generally associated with the development of melanoma and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but specific genotype-phenotype correlations might exist and the extent of PDAC risk is not well established for many variants. METHODS: Using the Dutch national familial melanoma database, we identified all families with a pathogenic CDKN2A variant and investigated the occurrence of PDAC within these families. We also estimated the standardised incidence ratio and lifetime PDAC risk for carriers of a highly prevalent variant in these families. RESULTS: We identified 172 families in which 649 individuals carried 15 different pathogenic variants. The most prevalent variant was the founder mutation c.225_243del (p16-Leiden, 484 proven carriers). Second most prevalent was c.67G>C (55 proven carriers). PDAC developed in 95 of 163 families (58%, including 373 of 629 proven carriers) harbouring a variant with an effect on the p16INK4a protein, whereas PDAC did not occur in the 9 families (20 proven carriers) with a variant affecting only p14ARF. In the c.67G>C families, PDAC occurred in 12 of the 251 (5%) persons at risk. The standardised incidence ratio was 19.1 (95% CI 8.3 to 33.6) and the cumulative PDAC incidence at age 75 years (lifetime risk) was 19% (95% CI 7.5% to 30.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the notion that pathogenic CDKN2A variants affecting the p16INK4a protein, including c.67G>C, are associated with increased PDAC risk and carriers of such variants should be offered pancreatic cancer surveillance. There is no clinical evidence that impairment of only the p14ARF protein leads to an increased PDAC risk.

Genetic control of tumor development in malformation syndromes.

One of the questions that arises frequently when caring for an individual with a malformation syndrome, is whether some form of tumor surveillance is indicated. In some syndromes there is a highly variable increased risk to develop tumors, while in others this is not the case. The risks can be hard to predict and difficult to explain to affected individuals and their families, and often also to caregivers. The queries arise especially if syndrome causing mutations are also known to occur in tumors. It needs insight in the mechanisms to understand and explain differences of tumor occurrence, and to offer optimal care to individuals with syndromes. Here we provide a short overview of the major mechanisms of the control for tumor occurrences in malformation syndromes.

Addition of a 161-SNP polygenic risk score to family history-based risk prediction: impact on clinical management in non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families.

BACKGROUND: The currently known breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are presently not used to guide clinical management. We explored whether a genetic test that incorporates a SNP-based polygenic risk score (PRS) is clinically meaningful in non-BRCA1/2 high-risk breast cancer families. METHODS: 101 non-BRCA1/2 high-risk breast cancer families were included; 323 cases and 262 unaffected female relatives were genotyped. The 161-SNP PRS was calculated and standardised to 327 population controls (sPRS). Association analysis was performed using a Cox-type random effect regression model adjusted by family history. Updated individualised breast cancer lifetime risk scores were derived by combining the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm breast cancer lifetime risk with the effect of the sPRS. RESULTS: The mean sPRS for cases and their unaffected relatives was 0.70 (SD=0.9) and 0.53 (SD=0.9), respectively. A significant association was found between sPRS and breast cancer, HR=1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.28, p=0.026. Addition of the sPRS to risk prediction based on family history alone changed screening recommendations in 11.5%, 14.7% and 19.8 % of the women according to breast screening guidelines from the USA (National Comprehensive Cancer Network), UK (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Netherlands (Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results support the application of the PRS in risk prediction and clinical management of women from genetically unexplained breast cancer families.

MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). INTERPRETATION: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. FUNDING: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting.

Multiple tumors due to mosaic genome-wide paternal uniparental disomy.

Mosaic genome-wide paternal uniparental disomy is an infrequently described disorder in which affected individuals have signs and symptoms that may resemble Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. In addition, they can develop multiple benign and malignant tumors throughout life. Routine molecular diagnostics may not detect the (characteristic) low level of mosaicism, and the diagnosis is likely to be missed. Genetic counseling and a life-long alertness for the development of tumors is indicated. We describe the long diagnostic process of a patient who already had a tumor at birth and developed multiple tumors in childhood and adulthood. Furthermore, we offer clues to recognize the entity.

The BRCA1 c. 5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) intermediate risk variant: breast and ovarian cancer risk estimation and recommendations for clinical management from the ENIGMA consortium.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that the BRCA1 variant c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) was associated with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). This study aimed to assess these cancer risks for R1699Q carriers in a larger cohort, including follow-up of previously studied families, to further define cancer risks and to propose adjusted clinical management of female BRCA1*R1699Q carriers. METHODS: Data were collected from 129 BRCA1*R1699Q families ascertained internationally by ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium members. A modified segregation analysis was used to calculate BC and OC risks. Relative risks were calculated under both monogenic model and major gene plus polygenic model assumptions. RESULTS: In this cohort the cumulative risk of BC and OC by age 70 years was 20% and 6%, respectively. The relative risk for developing cancer was higher when using a model that included the effects of both the R1699Q variant and a residual polygenic component compared with monogenic model (for BC 3.67 vs 2.83, and for OC 6.41 vs 5.83). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that BRCA1*R1699Q confers an intermediate risk for BC and OC. Breast surveillance for female carriers based on mammogram annually from age 40 is advised. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be considered based on family history.

Online decision support for persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making.

A nationwide pretest-posttest study was conducted in all clinical genetic centres in the Netherlands, to evaluate the effects of an online decision aid to support persons who have a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners in making an informed decision regarding reproductive options. Main outcomes (decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision self-efficacy) were measured before use (T0), immediately after use (T1), and at 2 weeks (T2) after use of the decision aid. Paired sample t tests were used to compute differences between the first and subsequent measurements. T0-T1 and T0-T2 comparisons indicate a significant reduction in mean decisional conflict scores with stronger effects for participants with high baseline decisional conflict. Furthermore, use of the decision aid resulted in increased knowledge levels and improved realistic expectations. Level of deliberation only increased for participants with lower baseline levels of deliberation. Decision self-efficacy increased for those with low baseline scores, whereas those with high baseline scores showed a reduction at T2. It can be concluded that use of the decision aid resulted in several positive outcomes indicative of informed decision-making. The decision aid is an appropriate and highly appreciated tool to be used in addition to reproductive counseling.

Ovarian stimulation for IVF and risk of primary breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: The effect of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is rarely examined. As carriers may increasingly undergo IVF as part of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), we examined the impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. METHODS: The study population consisted of 1550 BRCA1 and 964 BRCA2 mutation carriers, derived from the nationwide HEBON study and the nationwide PGD registry. Questionnaires, clinical records and linkages with the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to collect data on IVF exposure, risk-reducing surgeries and cancer diagnosis, respectively. Time-dependent Cox regression analyses were conducted, stratified for birth cohort and adjusted for subfertility. RESULTS: Of the 2514 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, 3% (n = 76) were exposed to ovarian stimulation for IVF. In total, 938 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (37.3%) were diagnosed with breast cancer. IVF exposure was not associated with risk of breast cancer (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46-1.36). Similar results were found for the subgroups of subfertile women (n = 232; HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.39-1.37) and BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.60-2.09). In addition, age at and recency of first IVF treatment were not associated with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSION: No evidence was found for an association between ovarian stimulation for IVF and breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA-velocity (PSAV) have been used to identify men at risk of prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating PSA screening in men with a known genetic predisposition to PrCa due to BRCA1/2 mutations. This analysis evaluates the utility of PSA and PSAV for identifying PrCa and high-grade disease in this cohort. METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV. RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.

Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.429.

Serum AMH levels in healthy women from BRCA1/2 mutated families: are they reduced?

STUDY QUESTION: Do BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a compromised ovarian reserve compared to proven non-carriers, based on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels? SUMMARY ANSWER: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers do not show a lower serum AMH level in comparison to proven non-carriers, after adjustment for potential confounders. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It has been suggested that the BRCA genes play a role in the process of ovarian reserve depletion, although previous studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the association between serum AMH levels and BRCA mutation status. Hence, it is yet unclear whether BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may indeed be at risk of a reduced reproductive lifespan. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed between January 2012 and February 2015 in 255 women. We needed to include 120 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 120 proven non-carriers to demonstrate a difference in AMH levels of 0.40 µg/l (SD ± 0.12 µg/l, two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD: Healthy women aged 18-45 years who were referred to the Clinical Genetics Department and applied for predictive BRCA1/2 testing because of a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were asked to participate. A cross-sectional assessment was performed by measuring serum AMH levels and filling out a questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression analyses adjusted for age, current smoking and current hormonal contraceptive use were performed on log-transformed serum AMH levels. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 823 potentially eligible women, 421 (51.2%) were willing to participate, and of those, 166 (39%) did not meet our inclusion criteria. Two hundred and fifty-five women were available for analyses; 124 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 131 proven non-carriers. The median [range] AMH level in carriers was 1.90 µg/l [0.11-19.00] compared to 1.80 µg/l [0.11-10.00] in non-carriers (P = 0.34). Adjusted linear regression analysis revealed no reduction in AMH level in the carriers (relative change = 0.98 (95%CI, 0.77-1.22); P = 0.76). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Participants were relatively young. Power was insufficient to analyze BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers separately. AMH levels may have been influenced by the use of hormonal contraceptives, though similar proportions of carriers and non-carriers were current users and adjustments were made to correct for potential confounding in our analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Limitations of the current analysis and limitations of the existing literature argue for prospective, well-controlled follow-up studies with recurrent AMH measurements to determine whether carriers might be at risk for low ovarian reserve and to definitively guide care. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was partially financially supported by a personal grant for Inge A.P. Derks-Smeets, kindly provided by the Dutch Cancer Society (Grant Number UM 2011-5249). Theodora C. van Tilborg, Inge A.P. Derks-Smeets, Anna M.E. Bos, Jan C. Oosterwijk, Christine E. de Die-Smulders, Lizet E. van der Kolk, Wendy A.G. van Zelst-Stams, Maria E. Velthuizen, Marinus J.C. Eijkemans and Margreet G.E.M. Ausems have nothing to disclose. Ron J. van Golde has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring and Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. Annemieke Hoek received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceutical BV, The Netherlands and a speaker's fee for post graduate education from MSD pharmaceutical company, outside the submitted work. Joop S.E. Laven has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dome, Organon, and Schering Plough, outside the submitted work. Frank J.M. Broekmans is a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (The Netherlands), outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR no. 4324.

Inverse birth cohort effects in ovarian cancer: Increasing risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and decreasing risk in the general population.

OBJECTIVE: BRCA1/2 carriers are at increased risk of ovarian cancer, and some reports suggest an increasing risk in more recent birth cohorts. In contrast, decreasing incidences have been observed in the general population. The aim was to assess the birth cohort effect on ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers relative to their background general population. METHODS: Data on ovarian cancer incidence was collected for a cohort of 1050 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ascertained by our regional clinic and retrieved from the general Dutch population cancer registry. Birth cohorts were categorized as pre-1935, 1935-1953, post-1953. Birth cohort effects on the ovarian cancer risk were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) in BRCA1/2 carriers and Poisson rate ratios in the general population. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to compare populations. HRs were adjusted for mutation position and family history. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-1935 cohort, BRCA1 carriers in the 1935-1953 and post-1953 cohorts had an increased ovarian cancer risk of HRadjusted 1.54 (95% CI 1.11-2.14) and 2.40 (95% CI 1.56-3.69), respectively. BRCA2 carriers in the 1935-1953 cohort had an HRadjusted of 3.01 (95% CI 1.47-6.13). The SIRs for the 1935-1953 and post-1953 cohorts were 1.7 and 2.7, respectively, for the BRCA1 carriers and 1.6 times and 2.4 times, respectively, for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Mutation carriers, particularly BRCA1 carriers, born in the most recent cohorts, have the highest additional ovarian cancer risk as compared to the general population.

Survival benefit in women with BRCA1 mutation or familial risk in the MRI screening study (MRISC).

Adding MRI to annual mammography screening improves early breast cancer detection in women with familial risk or BRCA1/2 mutation, but breast cancer specific metastasis free survival (MFS) remains unknown. We compared MFS of patients from the largest prospective MRI Screening Study (MRISC) with 1:1 matched controls. Controls, unscreened if<50 years, and screened with biennial mammography if ≥50 years, were matched on risk category (BRCA1, BRCA2, familial risk), year and age of diagnosis. Of 2,308 MRISC participants, breast cancer was detected in 93 (97 breast cancers), who received MRI <2 years before breast cancer diagnosis; 33 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 18 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 42 with familial risk. MRISC patients had smaller (87% vs. 52%

Breast and ovarian cancer risks in a large series of clinically ascertained families with a high proportion of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Dutch founder mutations.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations confer increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer, but risks have been found to vary across studies and populations. METHODS: We ascertained pedigree data of 582 BRCA1 and 176 BRCA2 families and studied the variation in breast and ovarian cancer risks using a modified segregation analysis model. RESULTS: The average cumulative breast cancer risk by age 70 years was estimated to be 45% (95% CI 36 to 52%) for BRCA1 and 27% (95% CI 14 to 38%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The corresponding cumulative risks for ovarian cancer were 31% (95% CI 17 to 43%) for BRCA1 and 6% (95% CI 2 to 11%) for BRCA2 mutation carriers. In BRCA1 families, breast cancer relative risk (RR) increased with more recent birth cohort (p heterogeneity = 0.0006) and stronger family histories of breast cancer (p heterogeneity < 0.001). For BRCA1, our data suggest a significant association between the location of the mutation and the ratio of breast to ovarian cancer (p<0.001). By contrast, in BRCA2 families, no evidence was found for risk heterogeneity by birth cohort, family history or mutation location. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1 mutation carriers conferred lower overall breast and ovarian cancer risks than reported so far, while the estimates of BRCA2 mutations were among the lowest. The low estimates for BRCA1 might be due to older birth cohorts, a moderate family history, or founder mutations located within specific regions of the gene. These results are important for a more accurate counselling of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Relevance and efficacy of breast cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers above 60 years: a national cohort study.

Annual MRI and mammography is recommended for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers to reduce breast cancer mortality. Less intensive screening is advised ≥60 years, although effectiveness is unknown. We identified BRCA1/2 mutation carriers without bilateral mastectomy before age 60 to determine for whom screening ≥60 is relevant, in the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic and HEBON: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Furthermore, we compared tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis between different screening strategies in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60. Tumours >2 cm, positive lymph nodes, or distant metastases at detection were defined as "unfavourable." Of 548 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60 years in 2012, 395 (72%) did not have bilateral mastectomy before the age of 60. Of these 395, 224 (57%) had a history of breast or other invasive carcinoma. In 136 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, we compared 148 breast cancers (including interval cancers) detected ≥60, of which 84 (57%) were first breast cancers. With biennial mammography 53% (30/57) of carcinomas were detected in unfavourable stage, compared to 21% (12/56) with annual mammography (adjusted odds ratio: 4·07, 95% confidence interval [1.79-9.28], p = 0.001). With biennial screening 40% of breast cancers were interval cancers, compared to 20% with annual screening (p = 0.016). Results remained significant for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and first breast cancers separately. Over 70% of 60-year old BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remain at risk for breast cancer, of which half has prior cancers. When life expectancy is good, continuation of annual breast cancer screening of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60 is worthwhile.

Optimal age to start preventive measures in women with BRCA1/2 mutations or high familial breast cancer risk.

Women from high-risk families consider preventive measures for breast cancer including screening. Guidelines on screening differ considerably regarding starting age. We investigated whether age at diagnosis in affected relatives is predictive for age at diagnosis. We analyzed the age of breast cancer detection of 1,304 first- and second-degree relatives of 314 BRCA1, 164 BRCA2 and 244 high-risk participants of the Dutch MRI-SCreening study. The within- and between-family variance in the relative's age at diagnosis was analyzed with a random effect linear regression model. We compared the starting age of screening based on risk-group (25 years for BRCA1, 30 years for BRCA2 and 35 years for familial risk), on family history, and on the model, which combines both. The findings were validated in 63 families from the UK-MARIBS study. Mean age at diagnosis in the relatives varied between families; 95% range of mean family ages was 35-55 in BRCA1-, 41-57 in BRCA2- and 44-60 in high-risk families. In all, 14% of the variance in age at diagnosis, in BRCA1 even 23%, was explained by family history, 7% by risk group. Determining start of screening based on the model and on risk-group gave similar results in terms of cancers missed and years of screening. The approach based on familial history only, missed more cancers and required more screening years in both the Dutch and the United Kingdom data sets. Age at breast cancer diagnosis is partly dependent on family history which may assist planning starting age for preventive measures.

Genetic counseling does not fulfill the counselees' need for certainty in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer families: an explorative assessment.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer-patients undergo DNA testing in the BRCA1/2 genes to receive information about the likelihood that cancer is heritable. Previous nonsystematic studies suggested that DNA testing often does not fulfill the counselees' needs for certainty. We explored the balance between the counselees' need for certainty and perceived certainty (NfC-PC, i.e., level of fulfillment of NfC) regarding the specific domains of DNA test result, heredity and cancer. We also examined relationships of NfC-PC with coping styles and distress. METHOD: Before disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (T1), questionnaires were filled in by 467 cancer-patients. Another questionnaire (T2) was filled in after disclosure of pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202) or unclassified-variants (n = 16). RESULTS: Before and after DNA test result disclosure, overall 58-94% of all counselees experienced unfulfilled NfC regarding the DNA test result, heredity and cancer. Compared with T1, the communication of pathogenic mutations (T2) caused more fulfillment of the NfC about the DNA test result, but less about cancer and heredity (p < .01). Compared with T1, unclassified variants (T2) did not significantly change the extent of fulfillment of all counselees' needs for certainty (NfC > PC). Compared with T1, uninformative results (T2) caused more fulfillments of all needs than before disclosure (p < 0.01). Counselees differentiated NfC and PC between the domains of DNA-test result, heredity and cancer (p < 0.01). The unfulfilled needs for certainty (NfC-PC) were uncorrelated with cognitive understanding of the DNA test result. CONCLUSION: The counselees' NfC needs more attention in research and practice, for example, when the potential uncertainties of testing are discussed. The counselees' NfC may be assessed and used in tailored, mutual communication of DNA test results.

The counselees' self-reported request for psychological help in genetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: not only psychopathology matters.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown that counselees do not experience psychopathological levels of distress after DNA test result disclosure. However, it has not systematically been studied whether the absence of psychopathology also means that counselees do not want to receive help. Their self-reported request for help may be related not only with psychopathology/distress but also with other psychological needs (e.g., surgery decisions), genetics-specific needs (e.g., feeling vulnerable/stigmatized), and existential concerns (e.g., meaning in life). METHODS: Questionnaires were filled in by Dutch cancer patients, before and after disclosure of BRCA1/2 test results for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer: pathogenic mutation results (n = 30), uninformative results (n = 202), or unclassified variants (n = 16). Newly developed questions measured request for help, psychopathology was estimated with factor analyses on distress/psychopathology instruments, and several validated questionnaires measured other needs/concerns. RESULTS: One-third of all counselees who reported a request for psychological help had actually received help. The level of psychopathology correlated between 0.34 and 0.44 with this self-reported need-for-help. Other needs, genetics-specific distress, and existential concerns correlated strongly/moderately with the counselees' self-reported need-for-help. Examples of other needs were intention to undergo surgery, inaccuracy of their interpretation, the impact of cancer, and family communication difficulties. Genetics-specific distress was for instance feeling vulnerable to develop cancer, stigma, and lack of mastery. Existential concerns were, among others, lack of purpose in life, low self-acceptance, and an unfulfilled wish for certainty. CONCLUSIONS: The request for help is related to multiple factors. Referral to psychosocial professionals may be improved by not only discussing psychopathology during genetic-counseling sessions but also by other needs and existential concerns. Questions about other needs and existential issues may be added to psychological screening instruments.