Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

Racial/ethnic differences in multiple-gene sequencing results for hereditary cancer risk.

PurposeWe examined racial/ethnic differences in the usage and results of germ-line multiple-gene sequencing (MGS) panels to evaluate hereditary cancer risk.MethodsWe collected genetic testing results and clinical information from 1,483 patients who underwent MGS at Stanford University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015.ResultsAsians and Hispanics presented for MGS at younger ages than whites (48 and 47 vs. 55; P = 5E-16 and 5E-14). Across all panels, the rate of pathogenic variants (15%) did not differ significantly between racial groups. Rates by gene did differ: in particular, a higher percentage of whites than nonwhites carried pathogenic CHEK2 variants (3.8% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.002). The rate of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result was higher in nonwhites than whites (36% vs. 27%; P = 2E-4). The probability of a VUS increased with increasing number of genes tested; this effect was more pronounced for nonwhites than for whites (1.1% absolute difference in VUS rates testing BRCA1/2 vs. 8% testing 13 genes vs. 14% testing 28 genes), worsening the disparity.ConclusionIn this diverse cohort undergoing MGS testing, pathogenic variant rates were similar between racial/ethnic groups. By contrast, VUS results were more frequent among nonwhites, with potential significance for the impact of MGS testing by race/ethnicity.

A clinical trial of lovastatin for modification of biomarkers associated with breast cancer risk.

Pre-clinical and epidemiologic studies provide rationale for evaluating lipophilic statins for breast cancer prevention. We conducted a single-arm, biomarker modulation trial of lovastatin among women with increased risk of breast cancer. Eligibility criteria included a deleterious germline mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, or TP53; lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20 % as estimated by the Claus model; or personal history of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Participants received 40 mg of lovastatin orally twice daily for 6 months. We evaluated the following biomarkers before and after lovastatin use: breast duct cytology (primary endpoint), serum lipids, C-reactive protein, insulin-like growth factor-1, IGF binding protein-3, lipid peroxidation, oxidative DNA damage, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl CoA reductase genotype, and mammographic density. Thirty women were enrolled, and 26 (86.7 %) completed the study. For the primary endpoint of changes in breast duct cytology sampled by random periareolar fine needle aspiration, most participants [57.7 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 38.9-74.5 %] showed no change after lovastatin; 19.2 % (CI 8.1-38.3 %) had a favorable change in cytology, 7.7 % (95 % CI 1.0-25.3 %) had an unfavorable change, and 15.4 % (95 % CI 5.5-34.2 %) had equivocal results due to acellular specimens, usually after lovastatin. No significant changes were observed in secondary biomarker endpoints. The study was generally well-tolerated: 4 (13.3 %) participants did not complete the study, and one (3.8 %) required a dose reduction. This trial was technically feasible, but demonstrated no significant biomarker modulation; contributing factors may include insufficient sample size, drug dose and/or duration. The results are inconclusive and do not exclude a favorable effect on breast cancer risk.

The Gastric Cancer Registry: A Genomic Translational Resource for Multidisciplinary Research in Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. Developing information systems which integrate clinical and genomic data may accelerate discoveries to improve cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. To support translational research in gastric cancer, we developed the Gastric Cancer Registry (GCR), a North American repository of clinical and cancer genomics data. METHODS: Participants self-enrolled online. Entry criteria into the GCR included the following: (i) diagnosis of gastric cancer, (ii) history of gastric cancer in a first- or second-degree relative, or (iii) known germline mutation in the gene CDH1. Participants provided demographic and clinical information through a detailed survey. Some participants provided specimens of saliva and tumor samples. Tumor samples underwent exome sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, and transcriptome sequencing. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2021, 567 individuals registered and returned the clinical questionnaire. For this cohort 65% had a personal history of gastric cancer, 36% reported a family history of gastric cancer, and 14% had a germline CDH1 mutation. 89 patients with gastric cancer provided tumor samples. For the initial study, 41 tumors were sequenced using next-generation sequencing. The data was analyzed for cancer mutations, copy-number variations, gene expression, microbiome, neoantigens, immune infiltrates, and other features. We developed a searchable, web-based interface (the GCR Genome Explorer) to enable researchers' access to these datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The GCR is a unique, North American gastric cancer registry which integrates clinical and genomic annotation. IMPACT: Available for researchers through an open access, web-based explorer, the GCR Genome Explorer will accelerate collaborative gastric cancer research across the United States and world.

Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk.

PURPOSE: Multiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics-University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute-who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate). RESULTS: Of 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83% v 41%; P < .001) to encourage their relatives to be tested. CONCLUSION: In a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.

Cancer risk reduction and reproductive concerns in female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Women with mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 cancer susceptibility genes face unique choices regarding management of their high risk for breast and ovarian cancer that impact their reproductive options. In order to explore women's preferences for management of elevated cancer risk, we evaluated the decisions of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers about contraception, prophylactic surgery, and family planning. METHODS: An internet-based questionnaire assessing high-risk women's preferences about cancer risk management and reproductive options was designed, pilot-tested and administered electronically to 284 participants of an internet-based advocacy group for women with BRCA1/2 mutations. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen eligible participants completed the majority of the survey. Mean age was 34 years; 66% were BRCA1 mutation carriers and 34% were BRCA2 mutation carriers. Most women (92%) had used oral contraceptive pills. About 88% of responders reported frequent or extreme worry about transmitting the mutation to their children. Despite their high level of worry, few responders said they would likely consider using assisted reproduction technologies such as a pregnancy surrogate (3%), cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos (8%), or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select embryos without BRCA1/2 mutations (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Although they expressed substantial concern about transmitting BRCA1/2 mutations to their children, only a minority of the high-risk women surveyed were likely to consider currently available assisted reproductive strategies. Further research is necessary to explore the risk management preferences of patients with inherited cancer predisposition, and to incorporate these preferences into clinical care.

Pathogenic Variants in Less Familiar Cancer Susceptibility Genes: What Happens After Genetic Testing?

PURPOSE: As genetic testing expands, patients are increasingly found to carry pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes that are less familiar to most clinicians, specifically genes other than those causing hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome (BRCA1 and BRCA2) and Lynch syndrome. Little is known about the subsequent behaviors of such patients in terms of managing cancer risks and informing relatives. METHODS: All adult patients who were counseled and tested at the Stanford Cancer Genetics Clinic from January 2013 to July 2015 and had a pathogenic variant in a non-BRCA1/2, non-Lynch syndrome gene were invited to participate in a telephone interview about adherence to risk-reducing recommendations, genetic testing by relatives, and new cancer incidence. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (40%) of 142 eligible patients were successfully contacted, and all 57 patients participated; median follow-up was 677 days (range, 247 to 1,401 days). Most patients (82%; 95% CI, 70% to 90%) recalled that a risk-reducing intervention (screening, medication, or surgery) was recommended, and most patients (85%; 95% CI, 72% to 93%) adhered to the recommendation. Nearly all patients (91%; 95% CI, 81% to 97%) shared results with relatives, and most patients (78%; 95% CI, 64% to 88%) reported that a relative was subsequently tested. During the follow-up period, 9% of patients (95% CI, 3% to 19%) developed second cancers, and in 14% of patients (95% CI, 7% to 26%), a first-degree relative developed cancer, some of which were detected by recommended screening. CONCLUSION: Patients with a pathogenic variant in a less familiar cancer susceptibility gene report high adherence to risk-reducing interventions. Furthermore, in the 57 carriers and subsequently tested relatives with two years of follow-up, a total of three cancers (one in a proband and two in relatives) were detected through interventions recommended on the basis of the pathogenic variant. These results suggest a potential benefit of genetic counseling and testing for pathogenic variants in less familiar genes.

Patient communication of cancer genetic test results in a diverse population.

Research on the communication of genetic test results has focused predominately on non-Hispanic White (NHW) mutation-positive families with high-risk hereditary cancer conditions. Little is known about this process for racially and ethnically diverse individuals or for those with mutations in moderate risk genes. The communication behaviors of study participants who carry a gene mutation were analyzed 3 months after disclosure of genetic test results. Participants were queried about communication of their results, as part of a prospective study of multi-gene panel genetic testing. The responses of particpants who tested positive were analyzed by race/ethnicity and by level of cancer risk (high vs. moderate). Of the 216 mutation-positive study participants, 136 (63%) responded. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 46% NHW, 41% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 2% Black. The majority (99.0%, n = 135) had shared their results with someone and 96% had told a family member (n = 130). Hispanic respondents were less likely to have told a healthcare provider about their results than NHW (29% vs. 68%, p < .0001). Asian respondents were less likely than NHW to encourage family members to undergo testing (OR = 0.1, p = .03); but Asian family members were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 8.0, p = .03). There were no differences in communication between those with a mutation in a high- or moderate-risk gene. Three months post genetic testing, communication of results was very high; 30% reported a family member underwent genetic testing. Further studies are needed to better understand the communication process in individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Ductal lavage of fluid-yielding and non-fluid-yielding ducts in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and other women at high inherited breast cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE: Nipple fluid production and atypical breast duct cells in women at high risk of breast cancer have been associated with further increased risk. Most publications on ductal lavage for cell collection report cannulating fluid-yielding ducts only. We report lavage of fluid-yielding and non-fluid-yielding ducts in women at high inherited breast cancer risk. METHODS: A pilot breast cancer screening study including ductal lavage was conducted in 75 women at high inherited risk, 56 (74.7%) of whom had BRCA1/2 mutations. Ductal lavage was attempted in any duct identifiable with a catheter. RESULTS: Ducts were successfully catheterized in 60 of 75 patients (80%). Successfully catheterized patients were younger (median age 41 versus 53 years, P = 0.0003) and more often premenopausal (51.7% versus 20%, P = 0.041). Thirty-one successfully catheterized patients [51.6%, 95% confidence interval (39.4-63.9%)] had non-fluid-yielding ducts only. Seventeen patients [28.3% (18.5-40.9%)] had atypical cells. Twelve of seventeen [70.6% (46.8-87.2%)] samples with atypia were from non-fluid-yielding ducts. Patients with non-fluid-yielding ducts (versus fluid-yielding ducts) were more likely to have had prior cancer (48.4% versus 17.2%, P = 0.014) or chemotherapy (45.2% versus 17.2%, P = 0.027); this was also true in patients with atypia from non-fluid-yielding ducts. CONCLUSION: Successfully lavaged women were younger and more often premenopausal. Atypical cells can be found in non-fluid-yielding ducts in patients at high inherited breast cancer risk. Non-fluid-yielding ducts, and atypia from non-fluid-yielding ducts, are more common in patients with prior cancer and chemotherapy. Larger studies are needed to identify risk factors and prognostic significance associated with atypia and non-fluid-yielding ducts in high-risk populations, and define their role as biomarkers.

Clinical Actionability of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment.

IMPORTANCE: The practice of genetic testing for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) is rapidly evolving owing to the recent introduction of multigene panels. While these tests may identify 40% to 50% more individuals with hereditary cancer gene mutations than does testing for BRCA1/2 alone, whether finding such mutations will alter clinical management is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To define the potential clinical effect of multigene panel testing for HBOC in a clinically representative cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of patients seen between 2001 and 2014 in 3 large academic medical centers. We prospectively enrolled 1046 individuals who were appropriate candidates for HBOC evaluation and who lacked BRCA1/2 mutations. INTERVENTIONS: We carried out multigene panel testing on all participants, then determined the clinical actionability, if any, of finding non-BRCA1/2 mutations in these and additional comparable individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We evaluated the likelihood of (1) a posttest management change and (2) an indication for additional familial testing, considering gene-specific consensus management guidelines, gene-associated cancer risks, and personal and family history. RESULTS: Among 1046 study participants, 40 BRCA1/2-negative patients (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%) harbored deleterious mutations, most commonly in moderate-risk breast and ovarian cancer genes (CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2) and Lynch syndrome genes. Among these and an additional 23 mutation-positive individuals enrolled from our clinics, most of the mutations (92%) were consistent with the spectrum of cancer(s) observed in the patient or family, suggesting that these results are clinically significant. Among all 63 mutation-positive patients, additional disease-specific screening and/or prevention measures beyond those based on personal and family history alone would be considered for most (33 [52%] of 63; 95% CI, 40.3%-64.2%). Furthermore, additional familial testing would be considered for those with first-degree relatives (42 [72%] of 58; 95% CI, 59.8%-82.2%) based on potential management changes for mutation-positive relatives. This clinical effect was not restricted to a few of the tested genes because most identified genes could change clinical management for some patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a clinically representative cohort, multigene panel testing for HBOC risk assessment yielded findings likely to change clinical management for substantially more patients than does BRCA1/2 testing alone. Multigene testing in this setting is likely to alter near-term cancer risk assessment and management recommendations for mutation-affected individuals across a broad spectrum of cancer predisposition genes.

A Systematic Comparison of Traditional and Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Genes in More Than 1000 Patients.

Gene panels for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment are gaining acceptance, even though the clinical utility of these panels is not yet fully defined. Technical questions remain, however, about the performance and clinical interpretation of gene panels in comparison with traditional tests. We tested 1105 individuals using a 29-gene next-generation sequencing panel and observed 100% analytical concordance with traditional and reference data on >750 comparable variants. These 750 variants included technically challenging classes of sequence and copy number variation that together represent a significant fraction (13.4%) of the pathogenic variants observed. For BRCA1 and BRCA2, we also compared variant interpretations in traditional reports to those produced using only non-proprietary resources and following criteria based on recent (2015) guidelines. We observed 99.8% net report concordance, albeit with a slightly higher variant of uncertain significance rate. In 4.5% of BRCA-negative cases, we uncovered pathogenic variants in other genes, which appear clinically relevant. Previously unseen variants requiring interpretation accumulated rapidly, even after 1000 individuals had been tested. We conclude that next-generation sequencing panel testing can provide results highly comparable to traditional testing and can uncover potentially actionable findings that may be otherwise missed. Challenges remain for the broad adoption of panel tests, some of which will be addressed by the accumulation of large public databases of annotated clinical variants.

Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS: Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.

Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations face difficult decisions about managing their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer. We developed an online tool to guide decisions about cancer risk reduction (available at: http://brcatool.stanford.edu ), and recruited patients and clinicians to test its feasibility. We developed questionnaires for women with BRCA1/2 mutations and clinicians involved in their care, incorporating the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Center for Healthcare Evaluation Provider Satisfaction Questionnaire (CHCE-PSQ). We enrolled BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who were seen by local physicians or participating in a national advocacy organization, and we enrolled clinicians practicing at Stanford University and in the surrounding community. Forty BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 16 clinicians participated. Both groups found the tool easy to use, with SUS scores of 82.5-85 on a scale of 1-100; we did not observe differences according to patient age or gene mutation. General satisfaction was high, with a mean score of 4.28 (standard deviation (SD) 0.96) for patients, and 4.38 (SD 0.89) for clinicians, on a scale of 1-5. Most patients (77.5 %) were comfortable using the tool at home. Both patients and clinicians agreed that the decision tool could improve patient-doctor encounters (mean scores 4.50 and 4.69, on a 1-5 scale). Patients and health care providers rated the decision tool highly on measures of usability and clinical relevance. These results will guide a larger study of the tool's impact on clinical decisions.

Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: Women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations must choose between prophylactic surgeries and screening to manage their high risks of breast and ovarian cancer, comparing options in terms of cancer incidence, survival, and quality of life. A clinical decision tool could guide these complex choices. METHODS: We built a Monte Carlo model for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, simulating breast screening with annual mammography plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from ages 25 to 69 years and prophylactic mastectomy (PM) and/or prophylactic oophorectomy (PO) at various ages. Modeled outcomes were cancer incidence, tumor features that shape treatment recommendations, overall survival, and cause-specific mortality. We adapted the model into an online tool to support shared decision making. RESULTS: We compared strategies on cancer incidence and survival to age 70 years; for example, PO plus PM at age 25 years optimizes both outcomes (incidence, 4% to 11%; survival, 80% to 83%), whereas PO at age 40 years plus MRI screening offers less effective prevention, yet similar survival (incidence, 36% to 57%; survival, 74% to 80%). To characterize patients' treatment and survivorship experiences, we reported the tumor features and treatments associated with risk-reducing interventions; for example, in most BRCA2 mutation carriers (81%), MRI screening diagnoses stage I, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers, which may not require chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Cancer risk-reducing options for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers vary in their impact on cancer incidence, recommended treatments, quality of life, and survival. To guide decisions informed by multiple health outcomes, we provide an online tool for joint use by patients with their physicians (http://brcatool.stanford.edu).

Breast cancer risk factors differ between Asian and white women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

The prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations may differ between Asians and whites. We investigated BRCA1/2 mutations and cancer risk factors in a clinic-based sample. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were enrolled from cancer genetics clinics in Hong Kong and California according to standardized entry criteria. We compared BRCA mutation position, cancer history, hormonal and reproductive exposures. We analyzed DNA samples for single-nucleotide polymorphisms reported to modify breast cancer risk. We performed logistic regression to identify independent predictors of breast cancer. Fifty Asian women and forty-nine white American women were enrolled. BRCA1 mutations were more common among whites (67 vs. 42 %, p = 0.02), and BRCA2 mutations among Asians (58 vs. 37 %, p = 0.04). More Asians had breast cancer (76 vs. 53 %, p = 0.03); more whites had relatives with breast cancer (86 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0003). More whites than Asians had breastfed (71 vs. 42 %, p = 0.005), had high BMI (median 24.3 vs. 21.2, p = 0.04), consumed alcohol (2 drinks/week vs. 0, p < 0.001), and had oophorectomy (61 vs. 34 %, p = 0.01). Asians had a higher frequency of risk-associated alleles in MAP3K1 (88 vs. 59 %, p = 0.005) and TOX3/TNRC9 (88 vs. 55 %, p = 0.0002). On logistic regression, MAP3K1 was associated with increased breast cancer risk for BRCA2, but not BRCA1 mutation carriers; breast density was associated with increased risk among Asians but not whites. We found significant differences in breast cancer risk factors between Asian and white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Further investigation of racial differences in BRCA1/2 mutation epidemiology could inform targeted cancer risk-reduction strategies.

Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in Asian Americans.

PURPOSE: There are established differences in breast cancer epidemiology between Asian and white individuals, but little is known about hereditary breast cancer in Asian populations. Although increasing numbers of Asian individuals are clinically tested for BRCA1/2 mutations, it is not known whether computer models that predict mutations work accurately in Asian individuals. We compared the performance in Asian and white individuals of two widely used BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models, BRCAPRO and Myriad II. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated BRCAPRO and Myriad II in 200 Asian individuals and a matched control group of 200 white individuals who were tested for BRCA1/2 mutations at four cancer genetics clinics, by comparing numbers of observed versus predicted mutation carriers and by evaluating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each model. RESULTS: BRCAPRO and Myriad II accurately predicted the number of white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (25 observed v 24 predicted by BRCAPRO; 25 predicted by Myriad II, P > or = .69), but underpredicted Asian carriers by two-fold (49 observed v 25 predicted by BRCAPRO; 26 predicted by Myriad II; P < or = 3 x 10(-7)). For BRCAPRO, this racial difference reflects substantial underprediction of Asian BRCA2 mutation carriers (26 observed v 4 predicted; P = 1 x 10(-30)); for Myriad II, separate mutation predictions were not available. For both models, AUCs were nonsignificantly lower in Asian than white individuals, suggesting less accurate discrimination between Asian carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSION: Both BRCAPRO and Myriad II underestimated the proportion of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and discriminated carriers from noncarriers less well, in Asian compared with white individuals.

Ductal pattern enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging of the breast due to ductal lavage.

Our purpose is to describe the appearance of breast ductal enhancement found on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after breast ductal lavage (DL). We describe a novel etiology of enhancement in a ductal pattern on postcontrast MRI of the breast. Knowledge of the potential for breast MRI enhancement subsequent to DL, which can mimic the appearance of a pathologic lesion, is critical to the care of patients who undergo breast MRI and DL or other intraductal cannulation procedures.

Opinions of women with high inherited breast cancer risk about prophylactic mastectomy: an initial evaluation from a screening trial including magnetic resonance imaging and ductal lavage.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) is often considered, but variably chosen by women at high inherited risk of breast cancer; few data exist on patient tolerance of intensive breast screening as an alternative to PM. We performed an evaluation of high-risk women's tolerance of a breast screening protocol using clinical breast examination, mammography, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ductal lavage (DL), and of change in attitudes toward PM after screening. DESIGN: A questionnaire assessing tolerance of screening procedures and change in opinion towards PM was designed and administered to 43 study participants, after a median follow-up of 13 months. Responses were evaluated according to patient characteristics, including type of study-prompted interventions, BRCA mutation status, and prior history of cancer, via univariate analysis. RESULTS: Most patients [85.3% (68.9-95.1%)] were more opposed or unchanged in their attitudes towards PM after study participation, with only 14.7% (5.0-31.1%) less opposed (P = 0.017) despite a short-interval follow-up MRI rate of 71.7% and a biopsy rate of 37%. Lower rates of maximal discomfort were reported with mammogram [2.8% (0-14.5%)] and MRI [5.6% (0-18.7%)] than with DL [28.6% (14.6-46.3%)], with P = 0.035. CONCLUSIONS: Most high-risk women tolerated intensive breast screening well; they were not more inclined towards PM after participating. Future studies should prospectively evaluate larger numbers of high-risk women via multivariate analysis, to determine characteristics associated with preference for breast screening vs. PM.

Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Intensive screening is an alternative to prophylactic mastectomy in women at high risk for developing breast carcinoma. The current article reports preliminary results from a screening protocol using high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ductal lavage (DL), clinical breast examination, and mammography to identify early malignancy and high-risk lesions in women at increased genetic risk of breast carcinoma. METHODS: Women with inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or women with a >10% risk of developing breast carcinoma at 10 years, as estimated by the Claus model, were eligible. Patients were accrued from September 2001 to May 2003. Enrolled patients underwent biannual clinical breast examinations and annual mammography, breast MRI, and DL. RESULTS: Forty-one women underwent an initial screen. Fifteen of 41 enrolled women (36.6%) either had undergone previous bilateral oophorectomy and/or were on tamoxifen at the time of the initial screen. One patient who was a BRCA1 carrier had high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) that was screen detected by MRI but that was missed on mammography. High-risk lesions that were screen detected by MRI in three women included radial scars and atypical lobular hyperplasia. DL detected seven women with cellular atypia, including one woman who had a normal MRI and mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI identified high-grade DCIS and high-risk lesions that were missed by mammography. DL detected cytologic atypia in a high-risk cohort. A larger screening trial is needed to determine which subgroups of high-risk women will benefit and whether the identification of malignant and high-risk lesions at an early stage will impact breast carcinoma incidence and mortality.