Risk-reducing mastectomy and breast cancer mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant: an international analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is offered to women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, however, there are limited data on the impact on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: Participants were identified from a registry of women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. We used a pseudo-randomised trial design and matched one woman with a RRM to one woman without a RRM on year of birth, gene, and country. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dying of breast cancer in the follow-up period. RESULTS: There were 1654 women included; 827 assigned to the RRM arm and 827 assigned to the control arm. After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 20 incident breast cancers (including 15 occult cancers) and two breast cancer deaths in the RRM arm, and 100 incident breast cancers and 7 breast cancer deaths in the control arm (HR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.05-1.35; p = 0.11). The probability of dying of breast cancer within 15 years after RRM was 0.95%. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, RRM reduces the risk of breast cancer, and the probability of dying of breast cancer is low.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative and Her2 +ve breast cancer: striving for the standard of care.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for triple-negative (TN) and Her2-positive (HER2) breast cancers is supported by international guidelines as it can decrease extent of surgery, provide prognostic information, and allow response-driven adjuvant therapies. Our goal was to describe practice patterns for patients with TN and HER2-positive breast cancer and identify the factors associated with the receipt of NAC versus surgery as initial treatment. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study of adult women diagnosed with stage I-III TN or HER2-positive breast cancer (2012-2020) in Ontario was completed using linked administrative datasets. The primary outcome was NAC as first treatment. The association between NAC and patient, tumor, and practice-related factors was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 14,653 patients included, 23.9% (n = 3500) underwent NAC as first treatment. Patients who underwent NAC were more likely to be younger and have larger tumors, node-positive disease, and stage 3 disease. Of patients who underwent surgery first, 8.8% were seen by a medical oncologist prior to surgery. On multivariable analysis, increasing tumor size (T2 vs T1/T0: 2.75 (2.31-3.28)) and node-positive (N1 vs N0: OR 3.54 (2.92-4.30)) disease were both associated increased odds of receiving NAC. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of patients with TN and HER2-positive breast cancer do not receive NAC as first treatment. Of those, most were not assessed by both a surgeon and medical oncologist prior to initiating therapy. This points toward potential gaps in multidisciplinary assessment and disparities in receipt of guideline-concordant care.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting: final analysis of LUCY.

PURPOSE: The interim analysis of the phase IIIb LUCY trial demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of olaparib in patients with germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC), with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.11 months, which was similar to that in the olaparib arm of the phase III OlympiAD trial (7.03 months). This prespecified analysis provides final overall survival (OS) and safety data. METHODS: The open-label, single-arm LUCY trial of olaparib (300 mg, twice daily) enrolled adults with gBRCAm or somatic BRCA-mutated (sBRCAm), HER2-negative mBC. Patients had previously received a taxane or anthracycline for neoadjuvant/adjuvant or metastatic disease and up to two lines of chemotherapy for mBC. RESULTS: Of 563 patients screened, 256 (gBRCAm, n = 253; sBRCAm, n = 3) were enrolled. In the gBRCAm cohort, median investigator-assessed PFS (primary endpoint) was 8.18 months and median OS was 24.94 months. Olaparib was clinically effective in all prespecified subgroups: hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapy for mBC, previous platinum-based chemotherapy (including by line of therapy), and previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor use. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nausea (55.3%) and anemia (39.2%). Few patients (6.3%) discontinued olaparib owing to a TEAE. No deaths associated with AEs occurred during the study treatment or 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: The LUCY patient population reflects a real-world population in line with the licensed indication of olaparib in mBC. These findings support the clinical effectiveness and safety of olaparib in patients with gBRCAm, HER2-negative mBC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration number: NCT03286842.

Development of a comprehensive approach to adult hereditary cancer testing in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility has advanced over time due to the discovery of new risk genes, improved technology and decreased cost. In the province of Ontario, testing eligibility criteria were initially developed to include hereditary breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer syndromes. The rapid evolution of genetic technologies has facilitated the ability to interrogate a large number of genes concurrently. This, coupled with new knowledge about risk genes, necessitated a coordinated approach to expanding the scope of genes and indications tested and synchronisation of access and test utilisation across the province as required in a publicly funded universal healthcare system. METHODS: Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario convened expert working groups to develop a standardised and comprehensive cancer gene list for adults and accompanying hereditary cancer testing (HCT) criteria using an evidence-based framework and broad laboratory and clinical genetics engagement. RESULTS: A standardised 76-cancer-gene panel, organised into 13 larger disease site panels and 25 single/small gene panels, was developed and endorsed by the working groups. Provincial genetic testing eligibility criteria were updated to align with the new panels and to guide clinical decision-making. In the first year following the implementation of these changes, 10 564 HCT panels were performed with an overall mutation detection rate of 12.2%. CONCLUSION: Using an evidence framework and broad clinical engagement to develop and endorse an updated guidance document, cancer genetic testing for adults in Ontario is now standardised and coordinated across the province.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

The risk of skin cancer in women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: It has not been clearly established if skin cancer or melanoma are manifestations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier status. Estimating the risk of skin cancer is an important step towards developing screening recommendations. METHODS: We report the findings of a prospective cohort study of 6,207 women from North America who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Women were followed from the date of baseline questionnaire to the diagnosis of skin cancer, to age 80 years, death from any cause, or the date of last follow-up. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of eight years, 3.7% of women with a BRCA1 mutation (133 of 3,623) and 3.8% of women with a BRCA2 mutation (99 of 2,584) reported a diagnosis of skin cancer (including both keratinocyte carcinomas and melanoma). The cumulative risk of all types of skin cancer from age 20 to 80 years was 14.1% for BRCA1 carriers and 10.7% for BRCA2 carriers. The cumulative risk of melanoma was 2.5% for BRCA1 carriers and 2.3% for BRCA2 carriers, compared to 1.5% for women in the general population in the United States. The strongest risk factor for skin cancer was a prior diagnosis of skin cancer. CONCLUSION: The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in women who carry a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is similar to that of non-carrier women. The risk of melanoma appears to be slightly elevated. We suggest that a referral to a dermatologist or primary care provider for BRCA mutation carriers for annual skin examination and counselling regarding limiting UV exposure, the use of sunscreen and recognizing the early signs of melanoma might be warranted, but further studies are necessary.

Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is known to detect additional cancers that are occult on mammography and ultrasound. There is debate as to whether these additional lesions affect clinical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on whether additional information on disease extent obtained with preoperative breast MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer affects surgical management, rates of recurrence, survival, re-excision, and early detection of bilateral cancer. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until January 2021 (partial update July 2022) for studies comparing outcomes with versus without pre-operative MRI. Included were both randomized controlled trials and other comparative studies provided MRI and control groups had equivalent disease and patient characteristics or methods such as multivariable analysis or propensity score matching were used to control potential confounders. Results: The search resulted in 26,399 citations, of which 8 randomized control trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 42 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. Use of MRI resulted in decreased rates of reoperations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.85), re-excisions (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89), and recurrence (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.90). Increased detection of synchronous contralateral breast cancers led to a reduction in metachronous contralateral breast cancer (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.85). Hazard ratios for recurrence-free and overall survival were 0.77 (95% CI = 0.53 to 1.12) and 0.89 (95% CI = 0.74 to 1.07). Conclusion: This systematic review indicates substantial benefits of pre-operative breast MRI in decreasing reoperations and recurrence.

The risks of cancer in older women with BRCA pathogenic variants: How far have we come?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cumulative risks of all cancers in women from 50 to 75 years of age with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant. METHODS: Participants were women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants from 85 centers in 16 countries. Women were eligible if they had no cancer before the age of 50 years. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and follow-up questionnaires every 2 years. Women were followed from age 50 until a diagnosis of cancer, death, age 75, or last follow-up. The risk of all cancers combined from age 50 to 75 was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were 2211 women included (1470 BRCA1 and 742 BRCA2). There were 379 cancers diagnosed in the cohort between 50 and 75 years. The actuarial risk of any cancer from age 50 to 75 was 49% for BRCA1 and 43% for BRCA2. Breast (n = 186) and ovarian (n = 45) were the most frequent cancers observed. For women who had both risk-reducing mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy before age 50, the risk of developing any cancer between age 50 and 75 was 9%. CONCLUSION: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant have a high risk of cancer between the ages of 50 and 75 years and should be counselled appropriately.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

Estimating the incidence of breast cancer recurrence using administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, but most cancer registries do not capture recurrences. We estimated the incidence of local, regional, and distant recurrences using administrative data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage I-III primary breast cancer in Ontario, Canada from 2013 to 2017 were included. Patients were followed until 31/Dec/2021, death, or a new primary cancer diagnosis. We used hospital administrative data (diagnostic and intervention codes) to identify local recurrence, regional recurrence, and distant metastasis after primary diagnosis. We used logistic regression to explore factors associated with developing a distant metastasis. RESULTS: With a median follow-up 67 months, 5,431/45,857 (11.8%) of patients developed a distant metastasis a median 23 (9, 42) months after diagnosis of the primary tumor. 1086 (2.4%) and 1069 (2.3%) patients developed an isolated regional or a local recurrence, respectively. Patients with distant metastatic disease had a median overall survival of 15.4 months (95% CI 14.4-16.4 months) from the time recurrence/metastasis was identified. In contrast, the median survival for all other patients was not reached. Patients were more likely to develop a distant metastasis if they had more advanced stage, greater comorbidity, and presented with symptoms (p < 0.0001). Trastuzumab halved the risk of recurrence [OR 0.53 (0.45-0.63), p < 0.0001]. CONCLUSION: Distant metastasis is not a rare outcome for patients diagnosed with breast cancer, translating to an annual incidence of 2132 new cases (17.8% of all breast cancer diagnoses). Overall survival remains high for patients with locoregional recurrences, but was poor following a diagnosis of a distant metastasis.

Tamoxifen and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

PURPOSE: Chemoprevention with a selective estrogen receptor modulator (tamoxifen or raloxifene) is a non-surgical option offered to high-risk women to reduce the risk of breast cancer. The evidence for tamoxifen benefit is based on trials conducted among predominantly postmenopausal women from the general population and on studies of contralateral breast cancer in women with a pathogenic variant (mutation hereafter) in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Tamoxifen has not been assessed as a primary prevention agent in women with an inherited BRCA mutation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of tamoxifen chemoprevention and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Data on tamoxifen (and raloxifene) use was collected by questionnaire and updated biennially. Information on incident cancers was collected by self-report and was confirmed by medical record review. In a matched analysis, we estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for developing a first primary breast cancer associated with tamoxifen or raloxifene use, using Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: There were 4578 unaffected women in the cohort, of whom 137 reported tamoxifen use (3%), 83 reported raloxifene use (2%) and 12 used both drugs (0.3%). Women who used tamoxifen or raloxifene were matched 1:3 with women who used neither drug on year of birth, country of residence, year of study entry and gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2). We generated 202 matched pairs. After a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, there were 22 incident breast cancers diagnosed among tamoxifen/raloxifene users (10.9% of users) and 71 cases diagnosed among non-users (14.3% of non-users; HR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.40-1.03; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Chemoprevention may be an effective risk-reduction option for BRCA mutation carriers, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary.

Validation of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) model in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program: A retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Women with a remaining lifetime risk of breast cancer of ≥25%, estimated using the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) model, were eligible for the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. This study examined the performance of IBIS 10-year risk estimates in the program. METHODS: This retrospective study included 7487 women aged 30 to 69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Model calibration and discrimination were assessed. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by age (< or ≥50 years). Different 10-year risk thresholds were compared with the current eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Overall, IBIS overestimated the risk of breast cancer with an expected vs observed case ratio of 1.17 (95% CI = 1.04-1.35). Overestimation was highest in women aged 50 to 69 years (expected vs observed case ratio = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.03-1.69) and for those in the top quartile of risk. Overall discrimination was fair with a concordance statistic of 0.66 (95% CI = 0.63-0.70). Furthermore, when using different 10-year risk eligibility thresholds, most cases would have been missed in the 30 to 49 age group using the 8% 10-year risk threshold, whereas relatively few women aged 50 to 69 would have been ineligible at any of the thresholds examined. CONCLUSION: We found that IBIS overestimated the risk of breast cancer in this screening cohort but had adequate discrimination. Age-specific risk thresholds should be considered to optimize the program eligibility criteria.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

Impact of body mass index on survival in women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The impact of elevated body mass index (BMI) on overall survival (OS) in patients receiving modern anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC) has not yet been well established. The purpose of our study was to examine overall survival (OS) by BMI category in women with EBC receiving either doxorubicin (A), cyclophosphamide (C) + paclitaxel (P) or fluorouracil (F), epirubicin (E), cyclophosphamide (C) + docetaxel (D). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in patients ≥ 18 years with resected stage I-III BC diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 in Ontario, identified through linkage of administrative databases. Patients were classified according to baseline BMI into underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m2) World Health Organization (WHO) categories. The primary outcome was OS. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to examine the association between clinico-pathologic characteristics and OS among BMI categories. RESULTS: Our cohort included 11,601 women, of whom 3890 (33.5%) were normal weight, 3696 (31.9%) overweight, and 3847 (33.1%) obese. Median OS was 7.9 years. There were no statistically significant differences in OS according to BMI (p = 0.66) in the overall study cohort or among the BMI categories after adjusting for age, nodal status, stage, grade, ER and HER2 status for either AC-P or FEC-D- treated patients (p = 0.45 and p = 0.97, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our large population-based retrospective cohort analysis of EBC patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy found no significant impact of BMI on OS. Further investigation is warranted to confirm these findings in prospective patient cohorts.

Impact of rapid genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at time of breast cancer diagnosis on psychosocial functioning.

PURPOSE: Many women are being offered rapid genetic testing (RGT) for cancer predisposition genes, at the time of breast cancer diagnosis prior to surgery. The goal of this study was to determine if psychosocial functioning was affected in women receiving RGT for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Participants were women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2013 and 2018, at four centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible women were referred into the study by their surgeon at the time of diagnosis. Participants received pre-test genetic counselling and were offered RGT for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Standardized questionnaires (Impact of Event Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were completed before genetic counselling, and follow-up questionnaires at one-week and one-year post-genetic test result disclosure (higher scores indicate higher symptoms). RESULTS: 1007 women had RGT; 60 women (6.0%) were found to have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, 80 women (7.9%) had a VUS, and 867 (86.1%) had a negative test result. At one-week post-testing, there were no differences in distress (p = 0.32), anxiety (p = 0.14), or depression (p = 0.42) between women with a BRCA1/2 mutation and those with a negative result. At one year, there were no differences in distress (p = 0.75) or anxiety (p = 0.13) between women with a BRCA1 or BRCA/2 mutation and those with a negative result. However, women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had significantly lower depression scores compared to women with a negative result (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: For women who have RGT for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, identifying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation does not impair psychosocial functioning in the short or long term.

The risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with the Ashkenazi Jewish founder allele BRCA2 6174delT.

Approximately 1% of the Ashkenazi Jewish population carries the BRCA2 6174delT (c.5946del) pathogenic variant. It is important to have accurate knowledge of the risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with this specific variant so that women may be counseled accordingly. In this prospective study, we estimated the risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with the 6174delT variant compared with the risks for other pathogenic variants in the BRCA2 gene. The annual risk for developing breast cancer was significantly lower in 246 women who carried the 6174delT variant compared with 721 non-Jewish women who carried a variant at any other locus in BRCA2 (1.2% per year vs. 2.4% per year, p = 0.003). We estimated the cumulative risk of breast cancer from age 30 to 70 to be 39% for carriers of the BRCA2 6174delT variant and 61% for carriers of other BRCA2 variants. The annual risk for ovarian or fallopian tube cancer was 0.51% per year for the 233 women who carried the 6174delT variant compared to 0.22% per year for the 1128 carriers of other BRCA2 variants; the difference was not significant. Lower risks for breast cancer associated with 6174delT may not impact screening and prevention choices, however, the discussion should be based on accurate risk assessment.

Contraceptive use and the risk of ovarian cancer among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Background BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation carriers face a high lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer. Oral contraceptives are protective in this population; however, the impact of other types of contraception (e.g. intrauterine devices, implants, injections) is unknown. We undertook a matched case-control study to evaluate the relationship between type of contraception and risk of ovarian cancer among women with BRCA mutations. Methods A total of 1733 matched pairs were included in this analysis. Women were matched according to year of birth, date of study entry, country of residence, BRCA mutation type and history of breast cancer. Detailed information on hormonal, reproductive and lifestyle exposures were collected from a routinely administered questionnaire. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with each contraceptive exposure. Results Ever use of any contraceptive was significantly associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.52-0.75; P < 0.0001), which was driven by significant inverse associations with oral contraceptives (OR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.54-0.79; P < 0.0001) and contraceptive implants (OR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.73; P = 0.008). We observed a similar effect with use of injections (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.10-1.38; P = 0.14), but this did not achieve significance. No significant associations were observed between patterns of intrauterine device use and risk of ovarian cancer. Conclusions These findings support a protective effect of oral contraceptives and implants on risk of ovarian cancer among women with BRCA mutations. The possible protective effect of injections requires further evaluation.

Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?

BACKGROUND: Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) are increasing among women with unilateral breast cancer despite low rates of contralateral recurrence and lack of survival benefit. We aimed to investigate the decisional needs and supports required to ensure adequate and quality decision-making by patients with breast cancer facing the decision regarding CPM. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used semistructured interviews developed with the use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to investigate the decisional needs and supports of women (aged > 18 yr) with nonhereditary breast cancer who had previously discussed CPM with their care provider. Patients were recruited from 2 academic cancer centres in Toronto, Ontario. Interviews were conducted between June 2016 and October 2017. We analyzed responses to the open-ended questions iteratively and inductively to establish major themes within the results. RESULTS: Ten patients were recruited. Eight patients reported having initiated the discussion about CPM. Although most patients reported feeling supported, 6 mentioned some degree of decisional conflict. Cancer risk reduction was the most commonly reported perceived benefit of CPM (9 patients), followed by improved psychologic well-being (7). Most patients (8) did not mention the lack of survival benefit of CPM as a disadvantage of the procedure. Patients indicated that information resources (in 8 cases) and improved counselling from their health care team (in 7) would assist in decision-making. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate the disconnect between true and perceived risks (i.e., surgical risk) and benefits (potential recurrence and survival benefit) of CPM, which is not being managed adequately despite support from the health care team. A decision aid may address unmet patient need by providing a reliable resource regarding the benefits and risks of this procedure, while helping patients understand their values and realign their expectations.

Factors associated with waiting time to breast cancer diagnosis among symptomatic breast cancer patients: a population-based study from Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: A prolonged time from first presentation to cancer diagnosis has been associated with worse disease-related outcomes. This study evaluated potential determinants of a long diagnostic interval among symptomatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: This was a population-based, cross-sectional study of symptomatic breast cancer patients diagnosed in Ontario, Canada from 2007 to 2015 using administrative health data. The diagnostic interval was defined as the time from the earliest breast cancer-related healthcare encounter before diagnosis to the diagnosis date. Potential determinants of the diagnostic interval included patient, disease and usual healthcare utilization characteristics. We used multivariable quantile regression to evaluate their relationship with the diagnostic interval. We also examined differences in diagnostic interval by the frequency of encounters within the interval. RESULTS: Among 45,967 symptomatic breast cancer patients, the median diagnostic interval was 41 days (interquartile range 20-92). Longer diagnostic intervals were observed in younger patients, patients with higher burden of comorbid disease, recent immigrants to Canada, and patients with higher healthcare utilization prior to their diagnostic interval. Shorter intervals were observed in patients residing in long-term care facilities, patients with late stage disease, and patients who initially presented in an emergency department. Longer diagnostic intervals were characterized by an increased number of physician visits and breast procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of groups at risk of longer diagnostic intervals provides direction for future research aimed at better understanding and improving breast cancer diagnostic pathways. Ensuring that all women receive a timely breast cancer diagnosis could improve breast cancer outcomes.

Psychological consequences of MRI-based screening among women with strong family histories of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: MRI-based screening in women with a ≥ 25% lifetime risk of breast cancer , but no identifiable genetic mutations may be associated with false positives. This study examined the psychological impact of abnormal screens and biopsies in non-mutation carriers participating in high-risk screening with no personal history of breast cancer. METHODS: Non-mutation carriers participating in the High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program at two sites were mailed demographic surveys, psychological scales, and chart review consent. Scales included the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer questionnaire, Lerman Breast Cancer Worry Scale, and Worry Interference Scale. Missing data were managed with multiple imputation. Multivariable regression was used to assess whether abnormal screens or biopsies were associated with adverse psychological effects. RESULTS: After contacting 465 participants, 169 non-mutation carriers were included. Median age was 46 years (range 30-65). Over a median 3 years of screening, 63.9% of women experienced at least one abnormal screen, and 24.9% underwent biopsies. Statements relating to cancer worry/anxiety scored highest, with 19.5% indicating they worried "a lot". Higher scores among anxiety-related statements were strongly associated with higher dejection scores. Overall, coping and daily functioning were preserved. Women indicated some positive reactions to screening, including improved existential values and reassurance they do not have breast cancer. Abnormal screens and biopsies were not significantly associated with any psychological scale, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Non-mutation carriers undergoing MRI-based screening had considerable baseline anxiety and cancer worry, although daily functioning was not impaired. Abnormal screens and biopsies did not appear to have adverse psychological effects.