Uptake of cancer risk management strategies among women who undergo cascade genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of cancer risk management based on inherited predispositions, which encompasses bilateral mastectomy (BLM), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and intensified screening, is the primary motivation for cascade testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, long-term outcome data for cascade testers are lacking. METHODS: Medical records were abstracted for all unaffected women with pathogenic variants in HBOC genes from 2 cancer hospitals (2013-2019) with at least 1 year of follow-up to compare the uptake of surgery and screening between cascade and noncascade testers. RESULTS: Cascade testers (79.8%) were younger than noncascade testers (mean age, 37.6 vs 43.5 years; P = .002). Among women aged ≥40 years, 43% underwent BLM, and 71.6% underwent BSO, with no significant difference in uptake between cascade and noncascade testers. The mean time to BSO among cascade testers was shorter among women aged ≥40 years versus those aged <40 years (11.8 vs 31.9 months; P = .04); no such difference was observed among noncascade testers. Mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging rates were low in the recorded 6 years for both groups after genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Management uptake among cascade testers is high with rates comparable to those for unaffected BRCA-positive women. A large proportion of women act on cascade test results, and this represents a novel report of utilization of cancer management strategies.

Multicenter Phase II Study of Lurbinectedin in BRCA-Mutated and Unselected Metastatic Advanced Breast Cancer and Biomarker Assessment Substudy.

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase II trial evaluated lurbinectedin (PM01183), a selective inhibitor of active transcription of protein-coding genes, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A unicenter translational substudy assessed potential mechanisms of lurbinectedin resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two arms were evaluated according to germline BRCA1/2 status: BRCA1/2 mutated (arm A; n = 54) and unselected ( BRCA1/2 wild-type or unknown status; arm B; n = 35). Lurbinectedin starting dose was a 7-mg flat dose and later, 3.5 mg/m2 in arm A. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The translational substudy of resistance mechanisms included exome sequencing (n = 13) and in vivo experiments with patient-derived xenografts (n = 11) from BRCA1/2-mutated tumors. RESULTS: ORR was 41% (95% CI, 28% to 55%) in arm A and 9% (95% CI, 2% to 24%) in arm B. In arm A, median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 6.0 months), and median overall survival was 20.0 months (95% CI, 11.8 to 26.6 months). Patients with BRCA2 mutations showed an ORR of 61%, median progression-free survival of 5.9 months, and median overall survival of 26.6 months. The safety profile improved with lurbinectedin dose adjustment to body surface area. The most common nonhematologic adverse events seen at 3.5 mg/m2 were nausea (74%; grade 3, 5%) and fatigue (74%; grade 3, 21%). Neutropenia was the most common severe hematologic adverse event (grade 3, 47%; grade 4, 10%). Exome sequencing showed mutations in genes related to the nucleotide excision repair pathway in four of seven tumors at primary or acquired resistance and in one patient with short-term stable disease. In vivo, sensitivity to cisplatin and lurbinectedin was evidenced in lurbinectedin-resistant (one of two) and cisplatin-resistant (two of three) patient-derived xenografts. CONCLUSION: Lurbinectedin showed noteworthy activity in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations. Response and survival was notable in those with BRCA2 mutations. Additional clinical development in this subset of patients with metastatic breast cancer is warranted.

Evaluation of BRCAPRO Risk Assessment Model in Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In situ Who Underwent Clinical BRCA Genetic Testing.

The authors retrospectively aimed to determine which of the following three scenarios, related to DCIS entry into BRCAPRO, predicted BRCA mutation status more accurately: (1) DCIS as an invasive breast cancer (IBC) entered using the actual age of diagnosis, (2) DCIS as IBC entered with 10 years added to the actual age of diagnosis, and (3) DCIS entered as no cancer. Of the 85 DCIS patients included in the study, 19% (n = 16) tested positive for a BRCA mutation, and 81% (n = 69) tested negative. DCIS patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation had a higher BRCAPRO risk estimation (34.61%) than patients who tested negative (11.4%) when DCIS was entered at the actual age of diagnosis. When DCIS was entered with 10 years added to the actual age at diagnosis, the BRCAPRO estimate was still higher amongst BRCA positive patients (25.4%) than BRCA negative patients (7.1%). When DCIS was entered as no cancer, the BRCAPRO estimate remained higher among BRCA positive patients (2.56%) than BRCA negative patents (1.98%). In terms of accuracy of BRCA positivity, there was no statistically significant difference between DCIS at age at diagnosis, DCIS at 10 years later than age at diagnosis, and DCIS entered as no cancer (AUC = 0.77, 0.784, 0.75, respectively: p = 0.60). Our results indicate that regardless of entry approach into BRCAPRO, there were no significant differences in predicting BRCA mutation in patients with DCIS.

Genetic risk assessment for breast and gynecological malignancies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast cancer and gynecological cancers impact a significant portion of women each year. Identifying women at high risk is essential for implementation of screening and risk reduction recommendations. Risk assessment for these cancers involves an evaluation of many factors. This review discusses an overview of hereditary breast and gynecological cancers and the process of a cancer genetic risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: Risk assessment models for breast cancer should be used with caution, especially in populations in which they are not validated. Additionally, the BRCAPRO model may underestimate the likelihood of BRCA mutations in certain populations.The utilization of next-generation sequencing panels is increasing. Benefits and limitations of panel testing are described in the literature. There are currently no guidelines for the use of panel testing; however, some reports of institutional experiences and recommendations are available. SUMMARY: Cancer genetic risk assessment is complex, and models developed to estimate risk may not apply to all populations. Identifying genetic factors related to cancer risk is also becoming increasingly complex with the clinical implementation of panel testing. This testing approach should be critically evaluated by healthcare providers. Further research is needed to create evidence-based guidelines for panel testing and management recommendations for moderately penetrant genes.

Comparison of attitudes regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis among patients with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows couples to avoid having a child with an inherited condition, potentially reducing cancer burden in families with a hereditary cancer predisposition. This study investigated and compared awareness and acceptance of PGD among patients with different hereditary cancer syndromes. Questionnaires were mailed to 984 adults with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 or 2. Associations between clinical, demographic, and psychosocial factors and awareness and acceptance of PGD were examined. Of 370 respondents (38 % return rate), 28 % felt their syndrome impacted family planning, 24 % were aware of PGD, 72 % felt that PGD should be offered, 43 % would consider using PGD, and 29 % were uncertain. Family experience and syndrome-specific characteristics, such as disease severity, quality of life and availability of medical interventions as well as gender, family planning stage, and religiosity impact perceptions of the acceptability of PGD, though a high level of uncertainty exists. Hereditary cancer patients lack awareness of PGD despite feeling that PGD should be offered, highlighting the need for education on this topic. While we found attitudes about the acceptability of PGD to be generally similar to those reported in the literature and of genetics and ethics experts, we observed similarities and differences between syndromes that provide insight into why some hereditary cancer patients may find PGD more acceptable than others.

Clinical application of breast cancer risk assessment models.

With the evolving availability of testing for genetic cancer syndromes, oncologists now are increasingly expected to review family histories and to give a genetic risk assessment as part of their care for breast cancer. The most important of these breast cancer genetic syndromes identified to date have been those associated with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Therefore, the proper identification of potentially affected families and providing risk assessment estimates will be ever more essential. This review outlines several different available breast cancer risk assessment models. Risk models for the development of breast cancer as well as risk models that estimate the chance of having a genetic cancer syndrome are discussed. Their clinical applications are also outlined and clinical situations appropriate for each model are reviewed.

Proceedings of the international consensus conference on breast cancer risk, genetics, & risk management, April, 2007.

A consensus conference including thirty experts was held in April, 2007, to discuss risk factors for breast cancer and their management. Four categories of risk were outlined, from breast cancer "average" through "very high" risk, the latter including individuals with high penetrance BRCA1/2 gene mutations. Guidelines for management of patients in each of these categories were discussed, with the major portion of the conference being devoted to individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations. Prevalence of these mutations in the general populations was estimated to be 1 in 250-500 individuals, with an increased prevalence in Ashkenazic Jews and other founder groups. Risk reduction strategies for these individuals include surveillance, with or without chemoprevention drugs, or surgical procedures to remove the organs at risk, i.e., bilateral mastectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. These risk reduction strategies were evaluated fully, and recommendations were made for the care of patients in each of the risk categories. These guidelines for patient care were approved by the entire group of experts.