Final Results of the Prospective FH02 Mammographic Surveillance Study of Women Aged 35-39 at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many women who are at increased risk of breast cancer due to a mother or sister diagnosed with breast cancer aged under 40 do not currently qualify for surveillance before 40 years of age. There are almost no available data to assess whether mammography screening aged 35-39 years would be effective in this group, in terms of detection of breast cancer at an early stage or cost effective. METHODS: A cohort screening study (FH02) with annual mammography was devised for women aged 35-39 to assess the sensitivity and screening performance and potential survival of women with identified tumours. FINDINGS: 2899 women were recruited from 12/2006-12/2015. These women underwent 12,086 annual screening mammograms and were followed for 13,365.8 years. A total of 55 breast cancers in 54 women occurred during the study period (one bilateral) with 50 cancers (49 women) (15 CIS) adherent to the screening. Eighty percent (28/35) of invasive cancers were ≤ 2 cm and 80% also lymph node negative. Invasive cancers diagnosed in FH02 were significantly smaller than the comparable (POSH-unscreened prospective) study group (45% (131/293) ≤ 2 cm in POSH vs 80% (28/35) in FH02 p < 0.0001), and were less likely to be lymph-node positive (54% (158/290, 3 unknown) in POSH vs 20% (7/35) in FH02: p = 0.0002. Projected and actual survival were also better than POSH. Overall radiation dose was not higher than in an older screened population at mean dose on study per standard sized breast of 1.5 mGy. INTERPRETATION: Mammography screening aged 35-39 years detects breast cancer at an early stage and is likely to be as effective in reducing mortality as in women at increased breast cancer risk aged 40-49 years.

The presentation, management and outcome of inflammatory breast cancer cases in the UK: Data from a multi-centre retrospective review.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory Breast cancer (IBC) is a rare but aggressive form of breast cancer. Its incidence and behaviour in the UK is poorly characterised. We collected retrospective data from hospitals in the UK and Ireland to describe the presentation, pathology, treatment and clinical course of IBC in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with IBC diagnosed between 1997-2014 at fourteen UK and Irish hospitals were identified from local breast unit databases. Patient characteristics, tumour pathology and stage, and details of surgical, systemic and radiotherapy treatment and follow-up data were collected from electronic patient records and medical notes. RESULT: This retrospective review identified 445 patients with IBC accounting for 0.4-1.8% of invasive breast cancer cases. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. 53.2% of tumours were grade 3, 56.2% were oestrogen receptor positive, 31.3% were HER2 positive and 25.1% were triple negative. 20.7% of patients had distant metastases at presentation. Despite trimodality treatment in 86.4%, 40.1% of stage III patients developed distant metastases. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 61.0% for stage III and 21.4% for stage IV patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of UK IBC patients reported to date. It indicates a lower incidence than in American series, but confirms that IBC has a high risk of recurrence with poor survival despite contemporary multi-modality therapy. A national strategy is required to facilitate translational research into this aggressive disease.

Genetic testing in a cohort of young patients with HER2-amplified breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Young age at diagnosis for breast cancer raises the question of genetic susceptibility. We explored breast cancer susceptibility genes testing on ≤40-year-old patients with HER2-amplified invasive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were selected from a large UK cohort study. The inclusion criterion was age ≤40 at diagnosis with confirmed HER2-amplified breast cancer. The probability of finding a BRCA gene mutation was calculated based on family history. Genetic testing used was either clinical testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a subset also tested for TP53 mutations, or research-based testing using a typical panel comprising 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) including BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53. RESULTS: Of the 591 eligible patients, clinical testing results were available for 133 cases and an additional 263 cases had panel testing results. BRCA testing across 396 cases found 8 BRCA2 (2%) and 6 BRCA1 (2%) pathogenic mutations. Of the 304 patients tested for TP53 mutations, overall 9 (3%) had deleterious TP53 mutations. Of the 396 patients, 101 (26%) met clinical criteria for BRCA testing (≥10% probability), among whom 11% had pathogenic BRCA mutations (6 BRCA2, 5 BRCA1). Where the probability was calculated to be <10%, only 4 of 295 (1%) patients had BRCA mutations. Among the 59 patients who had TP53 testing meeting the 10% threshold, 7 had mutations (12%). Likely functionally deleterious mutations in 14 lower penetrance CSGs were present in 12 of 263 (5%) panel-tested patients. CONCLUSION: Patients aged <41 at diagnosis with HER2+ breast cancer and no family history of breast cancer can be reassured that they have a low chance of being a high-risk gene carrier. If there is a strong family history, not only BRCA but also TP53 gene testing should be considered. The clinical utility of testing lower penetrance CSGs remains unclear.

Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming genetic medicine, increased media coverage and clinical trials for BRCA mutation carriers are leading oncologists into more patient discussions about BRCA genetic testing. BRCA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in 10-20% of tests. VUS detection introduces additional uncertainty for patient and potentially clinician. We aimed to explore the ability of breast cancer specialists (BCS) in the UK to correctly respond to a VUS report. METHODS: A survey sent to 800 UK BCS collected demographics data, VUS general knowledge and interpretation and communication based on two genetics reports. A separate survey of UK clinical geneticists collected demographics data, laboratory reporting practice and methods used to clarify VUS pathogenicity including classification systems. RESULTS: Of the 155 BCS (22.5%) who completed the survey, 12% reported no genetics training. Ninety five percent referred patients for BRCA genetic tests, 71% felt unsure about the clinical implications of the test reports presented here. A VUS report from a patient with a positive family history was interpreted and theoretically communicated correctly by 94% but when presented with a different VUS report with no management guidance and negative family history, 39% did not know how to communicate this result to the patient. Geneticists reported multiple VUS classification systems; the most commonly used was word-based in 32%. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent and standardised format to report particularly VUS results across all diagnostic laboratories plus additional training of UK BCS will be necessary for effective mainstreaming of BRCA testing to the oncology clinic.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of BRCA1/2 testing for tailoring cancer treatment and extension of testing to tumour tissue for somatic mutation is moving BRCA1/2 mutation screening from a primarily prevention arena delivered by specialist genetic services into mainstream oncology practice. A considerable number of gene tests will identify rare variants where clinical significance cannot be inferred from sequence information alone. The proportion of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) is likely to grow with lower thresholds for testing and laboratory providers with less experience of BRCA. Most VUS will not be associated with a high risk of cancer but a misinterpreted VUS has the potential to lead to mismanagement of both the patient and their relatives. DESIGN: Members of the Clinical Working Group of ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) global consortium (www.enigmaconsortium.org) observed wide variation in practices in reporting, disclosure and clinical management of patients with a VUS. Examples from current clinical practice are presented and discussed to illustrate potential pitfalls, explore factors contributing to misinterpretation, and propose approaches to improving clarity. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients and their relatives would all benefit from an improved level of genetic literacy. Genetic laboratories working with clinical geneticists need to agree on a clinically clear and uniform format for reporting BRCA test results to non-geneticists. An international consortium of experts, collecting and integrating all available lines of evidence and classifying variants according to an internationally recognized system, will facilitate reclassification of variants for clinical use.

Family history and outcome of young patients with breast cancer in the UK (POSH study).

BACKGROUND: Young patients presenting to surgical clinics with breast cancer are usually aware of their family history and frequently believe that a positive family history may adversely affect their prognosis. Tumour pathology and outcomes were compared in young British patients with breast cancer with and without a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Prospective Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) is a large prospective cohort study of women aged less than 41 years with breast cancer diagnosed and treated in the UK using modern oncological management. Personal characteristics, tumour pathology, treatment and family history of breast/ovarian cancer were recorded. Follow-up data were collected annually. RESULTS: Family history data were available for 2850 patients. No family history was reported by 65·9 per cent, and 34·1 per cent reported breast/ovarian cancer in at least one first- or second-degree relative. Patients with a family history were more likely to have grade 3 tumours (63·3 versus 58·9 per cent) and less likely to have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive tumours (24·7 versus 28·8 per cent) than those with no family history. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in distant disease-free intervals for patients with versus those without a family history, either for the whole cohort (hazard ratio (HR) 0·89, 95 per cent c.i. 0·76 to 1·03; P = 0·120) or when stratified by oestrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-negative: HR 0·80, 0·62 to 1·04, P = 0·101; ER-positive: HR 0·95, 0·78 to 1·15, P = 0·589). CONCLUSION: Young British patients presenting to breast surgical clinics with a positive family history can be reassured that this is not a significant independent risk factor for breast cancer outcome.

Obesity and the outcome of young breast cancer patients in the UK: the POSH study.

BACKGROUND: Obese breast cancer patients have a poorer prognosis than non-obese patients. We examined data from a large prospective cohort study to explore the associations of obesity with tumour pathology, treatment and outcome in young British breast cancer patients receiving modern oncological treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2956 patients aged ≤40 at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from 126 UK hospitals from 2001 to 2007. Height and weight were measured at registration. Tumour pathology and treatment details were collected. Follow-up data were collected at 6, 12 months, and annually. RESULTS: A total of 2843 eligible patients (96.2%) had a body mass index (BMI) recorded: 1526 (53.7%) were under/healthy-weight (U/H, BMI <25 kg/m(2)), 784 (27.6%) were overweight (ov, BMI ≥25 to <30), and 533 (18.7%) were obese (ob, BMI ≥30). The median tumour size was significantly higher in obese and overweight patients than U/H patients (Ob 26 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001; Ov 24 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001). Obese and overweight patients had significantly more grade 3 tumours (63.9% versus 59.0%, P = 0.048; Ov 63.6% versus U/H 59.0% P = 0.034) and node-positive tumours (Ob 54.6% versus U/H 49.0%, P = 0.027; Ov 54.2% versus U/H 49%, P = 0.019) than U/H patients. Obese patients had more ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours than healthy-weight patients (25.0% versus 18.3%, P = 0.001). Eight-year overall survival (OS) and distant disease-free interval (DDFI) were significantly lower in obese patients than healthy-weight patients [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, P < 0.001; DDFI: HR 1.44, P < 0.001]. Multivariable analyses adjusting for tumour grade, size, nodal, and HER2 status indicated that obesity was a significant independent predictor of OS and DDFI in patients with ER-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Young obese breast cancer patients present with adverse tumour characteristics. Despite adjustment for this, obesity still independently predicts DDFI and OS.

Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35-39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02).

Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35-39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32%). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.

Development of genetic testing for breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer predisposition: a step closer to targeted cancer prevention.

Individuals who inherit a high penetrance cancer susceptibility gene represent a population in which cancer diagnoses occur at younger ages and much more frequently than in the general population. Screening regimens aimed at early detection of cancer may reduce cancer mortality but in order to reduce cancer incidence, surgery and medical therapies have been advocated. In high genetic risk patients, either surgical or medical intervention may provide long term protection against cancer and at young ages co-morbidities will be low. The use of genetic testing for high risk predisposition genes to refine risk estimates and inform choices about cancer prevention is now readily available in many countries and routinely used to target cancer prevention strategies. Surgical approaches to cancer prevention are currently the mainstay in many conditions where a high risk is identified but medical prevention strategies also have demonstrated some efficacy in lowering cancer risk. Using the genetic status of an individual to target cancer treatment and prevent recurrence is increasingly gaining momentum as clinical trials involving known high risk gene carriers are now being conducted using both established cytotoxic drugs and novel targeted agents. Translation of new mechanistic insights into beneficial clinical care strategies requires more research. Robust evidence supporting medical approaches to cancer prevention in particular will require well designed large international collaborative clinical trials.

A novel HER2-positive breast cancer phenotype arising from germline TP53 mutations.

INTRODUCTION: The Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is caused by a germline TP53 mutation and is associated with a high risk of breast cancer at young ages. Basal (triple negative) breast cancers are now well recognised to be a typical sub-type of breast cancer developing in a large proportion of BRCA1 gene carriers. We considered whether a similar narrow sub-type of breast cancer was found in TP53 gene mutation carriers. OBJECTIVE: A hypothesis generating study to investigate whether there are specific breast tumour characteristics associated with germline TP53 mutations. METHODS: Pathological characteristics in 12 breast cancers arising in nine patients carrying pathogenic TP53 mutations were compared to a reference panel of 231 young onset breast tumours included in the POSH study. RESULTS: Patients carrying a TP53 mutation showed a significantly higher likelihood of developing a breast cancer with Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor (HER2) amplification (83%) when compared to the cohort of young onset breast cancer cases (16%); ER and PR status were equivalent between groups. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that breast cancer developing on a background of an inherited TP53 mutation is highly likely to present with amplification of HER2.

The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions.

Multiple genetic loci confer susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers. We have previously developed a model (BOADICEA) under which susceptibility to breast cancer is explained by mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, as well as by the joint multiplicative effects of many genes (polygenic component). We have now updated BOADICEA using additional family data from two UK population-based studies of breast cancer and family data from BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers identified by 22 population-based studies of breast or ovarian cancer. The combined data set includes 2785 families (301 BRCA1 positive and 236 BRCA2 positive). Incidences were smoothed using locally weighted regression techniques to avoid large variations between adjacent intervals. A birth cohort effect on the cancer risks was implemented, whereby each individual was assumed to develop cancer according to calendar period-specific incidences. The fitted model predicts that the average breast cancer risks in carriers increase in more recent birth cohorts. For example, the average cumulative breast cancer risk to age 70 years among BRCA1 carriers is 50% for women born in 1920-1929 and 58% among women born after 1950. The model was further extended to take into account the risks of male breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer, and to allow for the risk of multiple cancers. BOADICEA can be used to predict carrier probabilities and cancer risks to individuals with any family history, and has been implemented in a user-friendly Web-based program (http://www.srl.cam.ac.uk/genepi/boadicea/boadicea_home.html).

Breast and ovarian cancer risks to carriers of the BRCA1 5382insC and 185delAG and BRCA2 6174delT mutations: a combined analysis of 22 population based studies.

A recent report estimated the breast cancer risks in carriers of the three Ashkenazi founder mutations to be higher than previously published estimates derived from population based studies. In an attempt to confirm this, the breast and ovarian cancer risks associated with the three Ashkenazi founder mutations were estimated using families included in a previous meta-analysis of populatrion based studies. The estimated breast cancer risks for each of the founder BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were similar to the corresponding estimates based on all BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in the meta-analysis. These estimates appear to be consistent with the observed prevalence of the mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.

Dosage analysis of cancer predisposition genes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification.

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is a recently described method for detecting gross deletions or duplications of DNA sequences, aberrations which are commonly overlooked by standard diagnostic analysis. To determine the incidence of copy number variants in cancer predisposition genes from families in the Wessex region, we have analysed the hMLH1 and hMSH2 genes in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), BRCA1 and BRCA2 in families with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (BRCA) and APC in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis coli (FAP). Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (n=162) and FAP (n=74) probands were fully screened for small mutations, and cases for which no causative abnormality were found (HNPCC, n=122; FAP, n=24) were screened by MLPA. Complete or partial gene deletions were identified in seven cases for hMSH2 (5.7% of mutation-negative HNPCC; 4.3% of all HNPCC), no cases for hMLH1 and six cases for APC (25% of mutation negative FAP; 8% of all FAP). For BRCA1 and BRCA2, a partial mutation screen was performed and 136 mutation-negative cases were selected for MLPA. Five deletions and one duplication were found for BRCA1 (4.4% of mutation-negative BRCA cases) and one deletion for BRCA2 (0.7% of mutation-negative BRCA cases). Cost analysis indicates it is marginally more cost effective to perform MLPA prior to point mutation screening, but the main advantage gained by prescreening is a greatly reduced reporting time for the patients who are positive. These data demonstrate that dosage analysis is an essential component of genetic screening for cancer predisposition genes.

A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO.

PURPOSE: To develop a simple scoring system for the likelihood of identifying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: DNA samples from affected subjects from 422 non-Jewish families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer were screened for BRCA1 mutations and a subset of 318 was screened for BRCA2 by whole gene screening techniques. Using a combination of results from screening and the family history of mutation negative and positive kindreds, a simple scoring system (Manchester scoring system) was devised to predict pathogenic mutations and particularly to discriminate at the 10% likelihood level. A second separate dataset of 192 samples was subsequently used to test the model's predictive value. This was further validated on a third set of 258 samples and compared against existing models. RESULTS: The scoring system includes a cut-off at 10 points for each gene. This equates to >10% probability of a pathogenic mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 individually. The Manchester scoring system had the best trade-off between sensitivity and specificity at 10% prediction for the presence of mutations as shown by its highest C-statistic and was far superior to BRCAPRO. CONCLUSION: The scoring system is useful in identifying mutations particularly in BRCA2. The algorithm may need modifying to include pathological data when calculating whether to screen for BRCA1 mutations. It is considerably less time-consuming for clinicians than using computer models and if implemented routinely in clinical practice will aid in selecting families most suitable for DNA sampling for diagnostic testing.

Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 confer high risks of breast and ovarian cancer, but the average magnitude of these risks is uncertain and may depend on the context. Estimates based on multiple-case families may be enriched for mutations of higher risk and/or other familial risk factors, whereas risk estimates from studies based on cases unselected for family history have been imprecise. We pooled pedigree data from 22 studies involving 8,139 index case patients unselected for family history with female (86%) or male (2%) breast cancer or epithelial ovarian cancer (12%), 500 of whom had been found to carry a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence rates for mutation carriers were estimated using a modified segregation analysis, based on the occurrence of these cancers in the relatives of mutation-carrying index case patients. The average cumulative risks in BRCA1-mutation carriers by age 70 years were 65% (95% confidence interval 44%-78%) for breast cancer and 39% (18%-54%) for ovarian cancer. The corresponding estimates for BRCA2 were 45% (31%-56%) and 11% (2.4%-19%). Relative risks of breast cancer declined significantly with age for BRCA1-mutation carriers (P trend.0012) but not for BRCA2-mutation carriers. Risks in carriers were higher when based on index breast cancer cases diagnosed at <35 years of age. We found some evidence for a reduction in risk in women from earlier birth cohorts and for variation in risk by mutation position for both genes. The pattern of cancer risks was similar to those found in multiple-case families, but their absolute magnitudes were lower, particularly for BRCA2. The variation in risk by age at diagnosis of index case is consistent with the effects of other genes modifying cancer risk in carriers.

Apoptosis, ageing and cancer susceptibility.

We have previously shown that peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) from individuals carrying a germline TP53 mutation show a dramatically reduced apoptotic response to radiation. As part of a study of this phenomenon, we also investigated apoptotic response in a series of breast cancer patients lacking TP53 mutations and in a control group of individuals without cancer. There was a significant reduction in mean apoptotic response with increasing age in all groups. These findings are consistent with a number of studies in rodents, which have demonstrated a reduction in DNA damage-induced apoptosis with increasing age. In addition, after adjusting for age, breast cancer patients showed significantly reduced apoptotic responses compared with normal controls (P=0.002). The odds ratio for breast cancer in women with an apoptotic response of <35%, compared with women with a response of >49%, was 6.42 (95% CI 1.68-24.6). The data further support the hypothesis that a reduction in apoptotic response to DNA damage with increasing age may play a significant role in the age-related increase in cancer.

The UK national study of magnetic resonance imaging as a method of screening for breast cancer (MARIBS).

The UK national study of magnetic resonance imaging as a method of screening for breast cancer (MARIBS) is in progress. The study design, accrual to date, and related research projects are described. Revised accrual rates and expected recruitment are given. 15 cancers have been detected to date, from a total of 1236 screening measurements. This event rate and the tumour grades reported are compared with recent reports from other studies in women at high risk of breast cancer.