[Non-publication is common among phase 1, single-center, not prospectively registered, or early terminated clinical drug trials]. / Hoeveel klinische geneesmiddelenstudies worden uiteindelijk gepubliceerd?

The objective of this study was to investigate the occurrence and determinants of non-publication of clinical drug trials in the Netherlands. All clinical drug trials reviewed by the 28 Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the Netherlands in 2007 were followed-up from approval to publication. Candidate determinants were the sponsor, phase, applicant, centers, therapeutic effect expected, type of trial, approval status of the drug(s), drug type, participant category, oncology or other disease area, prospective registration, and early termination. The main outcome was publication as peer reviewed article. The percentage of trials that were published, crude and adjusted odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to quantify the associations between determinants and publication. In 2007, 622 clinical drug trials were reviewed by IRBs in the Netherlands. By the end of follow-up, 19 of these were rejected by the IRB, another 19 never started inclusion, and 10 were still running. Of the 574 trials remaining in the analysis, 334 (58%) were published as peer-reviewed article. The multivariable logistic regression model identified the following determinants with a robust, statistically significant association with publication: phase 2 (60% published; adjusted OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.9), phase 3 (73% published; adjusted OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.7-10.0), and trials not belonging to phase 1-4 (60% published; adjusted OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 6.5) compared to phase 1 trials (35% published); trials with a company or investigator as applicant (63% published) compared to trials with a Contract Research Organization (CRO) as applicant (50% published; adjusted OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.8); and multicenter trials also conducted in other EU countries (68% published; adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.4) or also outside the European Union (72% published; adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-4.0) compared to single-center trials (45% published). Trials that were not prospectively registered (48% published) had a lower likelihood of publication compared to prospectively registered trials (75% published; adjusted OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), as well as trials that were terminated early (33% published) compared to trials that were completed as planned (64% published; adjusted OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.3). The non-publication rate of clinical trials seems to have improved compared to previous inception cohorts, but is still far from optimal, in particular among phase 1, single-center, not prospectively registered, and early terminated trials.

No efficacy of annual gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; an observational follow-up study.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are offered gynaecological screening with the intention to reduce mortality by detecting ovarian cancer at an early stage. We examined compliance and efficacy of gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. In this multicentre, observational, follow-up study we examined medical record data of a consecutive series of 888 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who started annual screening with transvaginal ultrasonography and serum CA125 between 1993 and 2005. The women were annually screened for 75% of their total period of follow-up. Compliance decreased with longer follow-up. Five of the 10 incident cancers were interval tumours, diagnosed in women with a normal screening result within 3-10 months before diagnosis. No difference in stage distribution between incident screen-detected and interval tumours was found. Eight of the 10 incident cancers were stage III/IV (80%). Cancers diagnosed in unscreened family members had a similar stage distribution (77% in stage III/IV). The observed number of cases detected during screening was not significantly higher than expected (Standardized Incidence Ratio (SIR): 1.5, 95% confidence interval: 0.7-2.8). For the subgroup that was fully compliant to annual screening, a similar SIR was found (1.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-3.6). Despite annual gynaecological screening, a high proportion of ovarian cancers in BRCA1/2 carriers are interval cancers and the large majority of all cancers are diagnosed in advanced stages. Therefore, it is unlikely that annual screening will reduce mortality from ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Tumour characteristics, survival and prognostic factors of hereditary breast cancer from BRCA2-, BRCA1- and non-BRCA1/2 families as compared to sporadic breast cancer cases.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Results on tumour characteristics and survival of hereditary breast cancer (BC), especially on BRCA2-associated BC, are inconclusive. The prognostic impact of the classical tumour and treatment factors in hereditary BC is insufficiently known. METHODS: We selected 103 BRCA2-, 223 BRCA1- and 311 non-BRCA1/2 BC patients (diagnosis 1980-2004) from the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic. To correct for longevity bias, analyses were also performed while excluding index patients undergoing DNA testing 2 years after BC diagnosis. As a comparison group, 759 sporadic BC patients of comparable age at and year of diagnosis were selected. We compared tumour characteristics, the occurrence of ipsilateral recurrence (LRR) and contralateral BC (CBC) as well as distant disease-free (DDFS), BC-specific (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) between these groups. By multivariate modelling, the prognostic impact of tumour and treatment factors was investigated separately in hereditary BC. RESULTS: We confirmed the presence of the particular BRCA1-phenotype. In contrast, tumour characteristics of BRCA2-associated BC were similar to those of non-BRCA1/2 and sporadic BC, with the exception of a high risk of CBC (3.1% per year) and oestrogen-receptor (ER)-positivity (83%). No significant differences between BRCA2-associated BC and other BC subgroups were found with respect to LRR, DDFS, BCSS and OS. Independent prognostic factors for BC-specific survival in hereditary BC (combining the three subgroups) were tumour stage, adjuvant chemotherapy, histologic grade, ER status and a prophylactic (salpingo-)oophorectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the frequent occurrence of contralateral BC and a positive ER-status, BRCA2-associated BC did not markedly differ from other hereditary or sporadic BC. Our observation that tumour size and nodal status are prognostic factors also in hereditary BC implies that the strategy to use these factors as a proxy for ultimate mortality appears to be valid also in this specific group of patients.

Tumor characteristics and detection method in the MRISC screening program for the early detection of hereditary breast cancer.

In the MRISC study, women with an inherited risk for breast cancer were screened by a 6-month clinical breast examination (CBE) and yearly MRI and mammography. We found that the MRISC screening scheme could facilitate early breast cancer diagnosis and that MRI was a more sensitive screening method than mammography, but less specific. In the current study we investigated the contribution of MRI in the early detection of breast cancer in relation to tumor characteristics. From November 1999 to October 2003, 1909 women were included and 50 breast cancers were detected, of which 45 were evaluable and included in the current study. We compared the characteristics of tumors detected by MRI-only with those of all other (non-palpable) screen-detected tumors. Further, we compared the sensitivity of mammography and MRI within subgroups according to different tumor characteristics. Twenty-two (49%) of the 45 breast cancers were detected by MRI and not visible at mammography, of which 20 (44%) were also not palpable (MRI-only detected tumors). MRI-only detected tumors were more often node-negative than other screen-detected cancers (94 vs. 59%; P=0.02) and tended to be more often

Association between the CHEK2*1100delC germ line mutation and estrogen receptor status.

Already published data were further analyzed regarding the association between the CHEK2*1100delC germ line mutation and estrogen receptor (ER) status in patients with breast cancer. The CHEK2*1100delC mutation was more prevalent among the patients with a positive ER status (4.2% versus 1.0%). An ER-negative status was beside CHEK2*1100delC mutation and independently associated with an earlier of age onset of breast cancer. There was a trend that an ER-negative status, beside the presence of a CHEK2*1100delC mutation, was associated with a worse disease-free survival. There might be an association between ER status and a CHEK2*1100delC mutation. More studies with larger number of patients are needed to further investigate the relation between CHEK2*1100delC and ER status.

Contralateral recurrence and prognostic factors in familial non-BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A higher incidence of contralateral breast cancer and ipsilateral recurrence has been reported in familial breast cancer than in sporadic cancer. This study investigated the influence of contralateral cancer and tumour stage on survival in patients with familial non-BRCA1/BRCA2-associated breast cancer. METHODS: The incidences of contralateral breast cancer, ipsilateral recurrence, distant disease-free and overall survival were assessed in 327 patients from families with three or more breast and/or ovarian cancers, but no BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation (familial non-BRCA1/2), and in 327 control subjects with sporadic breast cancer, matched for year and age at detection. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 7.3 years for patients with familial-non-BRCA1/2 cancers and 6.5 years for patients with sporadic breast cancer. Tumours were stage T1 or lower in 62.1 per cent of familial non-BRCA1/2 cancers versus 49.9 per cent in sporadic breast cancers (P = 0.003), and node negative in 55.8 versus 52.1 per cent, respectively (P = 0.477). After 10 years the incidence of metachronous contralateral breast cancer was 6.4 per cent for familial non-BRCA1/2 tumours versus 5.4 per cent for sporadic cancers. The rate of ipsilateral recurrence was not significantly increased (17.0 versus 14.2 per cent, respectively, at 10 years; P = 0.132). Tumour size (hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 per mm increase, P = 0.016) and node status (HR 2.6 for three or more involved nodes versus node negative, P = 0.017) were independent predictors of overall survival in the familial non-BRCA1/2 group, and in the whole group, whereas contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.7, P = 0.503) and risk-reducing contralateral mastectomy (HR 0.4, P = 0.163) were not. CONCLUSION: Stage at detection was a key determinant of prognosis in familial non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer, whereas contralateral cancer was not. Risk-reducing contralateral mastectomy did not significantly improve survival, but early detection can. Decisions on breast-conserving treatment can be made on the same grounds in patients with familial and sporadic breast cancer.

Survival and prognostic factors in BRCA1-associated breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing survival in BRCA1-associated and sporadic breast cancer (BC) report inconsistent results and frequently concern small sample sizes. Further, the prognostic impact of the classical tumour and treatment factors is unclear in BRCA1-associated BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We selected 223 BC patients diagnosed between 1980 and 2001 within families with a deleterious germline BRCA1-mutation ascertained at the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic. To correct for ascertainment bias, the group of index patients undergoing DNA testing more than 2 years after BC diagnosis (n = 53) was separated from the other BRCA1-patients (n = 170). All BRCA1-associated patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio for age and year of diagnosis to sporadic BC patients. We compared the occurrence of ipsi- and contralateral BC (CBC) as well as distant disease-free (DDFS), BC-specific (BCSS) and overall survival (OS). By multivariate modelling, the prognostic impact of tumour and treatment factors was investigated separately in BRCA1-associated and sporadic breast cancers. RESULTS: For the total group of 669 cases, the median follow-up was 5.1 years, the median age at diagnosis 39 years. We confirmed the existence of the typical BRCA1-associated tumour type and the high CBC incidence. No significant differences between BRCA1-associated and sporadic tumours were found with respect to ipsilateral BC recurrence (HR(mult) 0.7; P = 0.24), DDFS (HR(mult) 1.2; P = 0.37) or BC-specific survival (HR(mult) 1.3; P = 0.23). A trend towards a worse survival was found for BRCA1-associated ductal BC (HR(mult) 1.5, P = 0.07). Prognostic factors for BRCA1-associated BC were age at diagnosis, tumour size and morphology, and nodal status. Further, survival was non-significantly improved by systemic treatment and a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. No effect on survival of a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy was seen. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1-associated BC is characterised by specific tumour characteristics, a high incidence of CBC and a trend towards a worse survival for the ductal tumour type. Our observation that tumour size and nodal status are also prognostic factors for BRCA1-associated BC implies that the strategy to use these factors as a proxy for ultimate mortality, for instance in BC screening programmes or the consideration of (contralateral) preventive mastectomy, appears to be valid in this specific group of patients.

Tumour characteristics and prognosis of breast cancer patients carrying the germline CHEK2*1100delC variant.

BACKGROUND: The germline CHEK2*1100delC variant has been associated with breast cancer in multiple case families where involvement of BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been excluded. METHODS: We have investigated the tumour characteristics and prognosis of carriers of this germline variant by means of a prospective cohort study in an unselected cohort of 1084 consecutive patients with primary breast cancer. Data were collected for 34 patients with a germline CHEK2*1100delC mutation and for 102 patients without this mutation, stratified by age and date of diagnosis of the first primary breast cancer (within 1 year). RESULTS: Carriers developed steroid receptor positive tumours (oestrogen receptor (ER): 91%; progesterone receptor (PR): 81%) more frequently than non-carriers (ER: 69%; PR: 53%; p = 0.04). Mutation carriers more frequently had a female first or second degree relative with breast cancer (p = 0.03), or had any first or second degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer (p = 0.04). Patients with the CHEK2 variant had a more unfavourable prognosis regarding the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer (relative risk (RR) = 5.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 19.65), distant metastasis-free survival (RR = 2.81; 95% CI 1.20 to 6.58), and disease-free survival (RR = 3.86; 95% CI 1.91 to 7.78). As yet, no difference with respect to overall survival has been found at a median follow up of 3.8 years. CONCLUSION: We conclude that carrying the CHEK2*1100delC mutation is an adverse prognostic indicator for breast cancer. If independently confirmed by others, intensive surveillance, and possibly preventive measures, should be considered for newly diagnosed breast cancer cases carrying the CHEK2*1100delC variant.

Ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence in hereditary breast cancer following breast-conserving therapy.

The overall rate of an ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) ranges from 1% to 2% per year. Risk factors include young age but data on the impact of BRCA1/2 mutations or a definite positive family history for breast cancer are scarce. We investigated IBTR after BCT in patients with hereditary breast cancer (HBC). Through our family cancer clinic we identified 87 HBC patients, including 26 BRCA1/2 carriers, who underwent BCT between 1980 and 1995 (cases). They were compared to 174 patients with sporadic breast cancer (controls) also treated with BCT, matched for age and year of diagnosis. Median follow up was 6.1 years for the cases and 6.0 years for controls. Patient and tumour characteristics were similar in both groups. An IBTR was observed in 19 (21.8%) hereditary and 21 (12.1%) sporadic patients. In the hereditary patients more recurrences occurred elsewhere in the breast (21% versus 9.5%), suggestive of new primaries. Overall, the actuarial IBTR rate was similar at 2 years, but higher in hereditary as compared to sporadic patients at 5 years (14% versus 7%) and at 10 years (30% versus 16%) (P=0.05). Post-relapse and overall survival was not different between hereditary and sporadic cases. Hereditary breast cancer was therefore associated with a higher frequency of early (2-5 years) and late (>5 years) local recurrences following BCT. These data suggest an indication for long-term follow up in HBC and should be taken into account when additional 'risk-reducing' surgery after primary BCT is eventually considered.

Possible consequences of applying guidelines to healthy women with a family history of breast cancer.

Possible effects of consistently applying published guidelines on healthy women with breast cancer in their family history were analysed. We investigated 1060 unrelated breast cancer patients and calculated the numbers of first-degree relatives that would be referred to a familial cancer clinic if the guidelines were consistently applied. A first-degree relative was considered a candidate for referral if she was female, without breast cancer at the moment of the interview, alive and over the age of 24. The criteria for referral were based on one Dutch and two British guidelines. According to the Dutch guideline, for one affected woman with breast cancer, 0.25 (95% CI 0.22-0.28) healthy first-degree female relatives should be offered a consultation at a familial cancer clinic (FCC). Application of the British guidelines would lead to a similar number of referrals. Of all healthy first-degree female relatives, who should be referred to an FCC, 34-37% had an index case among their family who was already known at a genetic department. If current guidelines are consistently applied, a sharp increase in referrals to FCCs may be expected. These guidelines, however, are arbitrary and only limited data are available on the efficacy of this surveillance for high-risk healthy women.

Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have a high risk of breast cancer and may choose to undergo prophylactic bilateral total mastectomy. We investigated the efficacy of this procedure in such women. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 139 women with a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who were enrolled in a breast-cancer surveillance program at the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic. At the time of enrollment, none of the women had a history of breast cancer. Seventy-six of these women eventually underwent prophylactic mastectomy, and the other 63 remained under regular surveillance. The effect of mastectomy on the incidence of breast cancer was analyzed by the Cox proportional-hazards method in which mastectomy was modeled as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: No cases of breast cancer were observed after prophylactic mastectomy after a mean (+/-SE) follow-up of 2.9+/-1.4 years, whereas eight breast cancers developed in women under regular surveillance after a mean follow-up of 3.0+/-1.5 years (P=0.003; hazard ratio, 0; 95 percent confidence interval, 0 to 0.36). The actuarial mean five-year incidence of breast cancer among all women in the surveillance group was 17+/-7 percent. On the basis of an exponential model, the yearly incidence of breast cancer in this group was 2.5 percent. The observed number of breast cancers in the surveillance group was consistent with the expected number (ratio of observed to expected cases, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 3.7; P=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: In women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, prophylactic bilateral total mastectomy reduces the incidence of breast cancer at three years of follow-up.

Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk.

PURPOSE: Women with a high breast cancer risk due to a familial predisposition may choose between preventive surgery and regular surveillance. The effectiveness of surveillance in high-risk women and especially BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. We present first results from a single large family cancer clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with breast cancer risk over 15% were examined by physical examination every 6 months and mammography every year. Detection rates and screening parameters were calculated for the total group and separately for different age and genetic risk groups. RESULTS: At least one examination was performed in 1,198 women: 449 moderate and 621 high-risk women and 128 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Within a median follow-up of 3 years, 35 breast cancers were detected (four ductal carcinoma-in-situ; 31 invasive tumors); the average detection rate was 9.7 per 1,000. Detection rates (95% confidence interval) for moderate and high-risk women and BRCA1/2 carriers were 3.3 (1.1 to 8.6), 8.4 (5.4 to 13.2), and 33 (17 to 63) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. The ratio of observed cases versus breast cancers expected in an average-risk population of comparable age was 2.7, 7.0 and 23.7 respectively. Overall, node negativity was 65%; 34% of primary tumors were less than 10 mm; sensitivity was 74%. Results with respect to tumor stage and sensitivity were less favorable in BRCA1/2 carriers and in women under the age of 40. CONCLUSION: It is possible to identify young women at high risk for breast cancer. The number of cancers detected was significantly greater than expected in an age-matched average-risk population and related to the risk category. Overall, screening parameters were comparable to population screening data, with less favorable results in the youngest age group (< 40) and BRCA1/2 carriers.

MRI screening for breast cancer in women with familial or genetic predisposition: design of the Dutch National Study (MRISC).

Mammography screening of women aged 50-70 years for breast cancer has proven to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality. There is no consensus about the value of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-49 years. Five to ten per cent of all breast cancers are hereditary. One of the options to reduce the risk of breast cancer mortality for women with a familial or genetic predisposition is intensive surveillance. However, the effectiveness of mammography screening for breast cancer in these women, who are mainly younger than 50 years, is unproven. MRI might increase the effectiveness of screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. This paper describes the design of the Dutch national study for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. The aims of this study are to investigate: the value of regular surveillance in women with a familial or genetic predisposition for breast cancer, the efficacy of MRI as compared to mammography, cost-effectiveness of regular screening and quality of life during surveillance. Included are women with a lifetime risk of familial breast cancer of 15% or more or BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, who visit one of the Dutch family cancer clinics. The aim is to include 2,500 women. The study started on 1 November 1999. On 1 January 2002, more than 1,700 women, including 210 proven carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, were included in the study.

Prognostic significance of germline BRCA2 mutations in hereditary breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer in BRCA2 gene mutation carriers differs from BRCA1-associated breast cancer or so-called sporadic breast cancer in clinical features and behavior. These differences may be of importance for the prevention, screening, and ultimately treatment of breast cancer in women with such germline mutations. METHODS: We reviewed the few studies that have reported on survival in patients with BRCA2-associated breast cancer. In this article we discuss why family history is no substitute for hereditary breast cancer with regard to studying survival and possible reasons why studies using family history yield contradictory results, why BRCA2-associated breast cancer should be considered a unique entity, and what methodological problems may exist, especially with regard to family-based studies. RESULTS: Five studies have reported on survival in BRCA2-associated breast cancer. Two studies showed a statistically significant worse survival for BRCA2 patients, but the patients from one of these studies were later claimed to have a trend toward better prognosis when controls were matched for age and year of diagnosis. The other study found that the unfavorable prognosis of BRCA2 patients was, to a great extent, due to a worse stage of the disease at time of diagnosis. The remaining three studies showed no significant effect of germline BRCA2 mutations on survival. The numbers of BRCA2 patients investigated in these studies were 42, 20, 23, 28, and 54 patients. Five-year overall survival in these patients varied from 65% to 74%. CONCLUSION: No definite conclusion can be made with regard to the prognosis of BRCA2-associated breast cancer, but large differences in comparison with sporadic breast cancer are not likely to exist. Breast cancer caused by BRCA2 mutations is also a distinct entity with its own features when compared with BRCA1-associated breast cancer. In contrast with BRCA1-associated breast cancer, BRCA2 tumors tend to be more often steroid receptor-positive.

Contralateral breast cancer risk is influenced by the age at onset in BRCA1-associated breast cancer.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers diagnosed with breast cancer have a strongly elevated life-time risk of developing a contralateral tumour. We studied the contralateral breast cancer risk in 164 patients from 83 families with a proven BRCA1 mutation in relation to the age at diagnosis of the first primary breast cancer. In the actuarial outcomes after 10 years' follow-up, 40% of the 124 BRCA1-patients diagnosed with breast cancer < 50 years had developed contralateral breast cancer, vs 12% of the 40 patients > 50 years at first diagnosis (Plogrank = 0.02). These data suggest that age at diagnosis of the first tumour should be taken into account when prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1-patients is considered.

Presymptomatic DNA testing and prophylactic surgery in families with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes highly predispose to breast and ovarian cancer. In families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, identification of mutation carriers is clinically relevant in view of the options for surveillance and prevention. METHODS: We assessed presymptomatic DNA testing and prophylactic surgery in 53 consecutive families presenting to the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic with a known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. We identified predictors for DNA testing and prophylactic surgery with univariate and multivariate analysis. FINDINGS: 682 unaffected individuals with a 50% risk (275 women and 271 men) or with a 25% risk (136 women) for carrying a mutation were identified and offered a DNA test. Presymptomatic DNA testing was requested by 48% (198 of 411) of women and 22% (59 of 271) of men (odds ratio for difference between sexes 3.21 [95% CI 2.27-4.51]; p<0.001). In women, DNA testing was significantly more frequent at young age, in the presence of children, and at high pre-test genetic risk for a mutation. Of the unaffected women with an identified mutation who were eligible for prophylactic surgery, 51% (35 of 68) opted for bilateral mastectomy and 64% (29 of 45) for oophorectomy. Parenthood was a predictor for prophylactic mastectomy but not for prophylactic oophorectomy. Age was significantly associated with prophylactic oophorectomy, but not with prophylactic mastectomy, although there was a tendency towards mastectomy at younger ages. INTERPRETATION: In a clinical setting, we show a high demand for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing by unaffected women at risk, and of prophylactic surgery by unaffected women with the mutation. Young women with children especially opt for DNA testing and prophylactic mastectomy.

Survival in hereditary breast cancer associated with germline mutations of BRCA2.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene-mutation carriers may differ from so-called sporadic breast cancer in clinical features and behavior. These potential differences may be of importance for the prevention, screening, and, ultimately, treatment of breast cancer in women with such germline mutations. Thus far, there have been very few studies on the survival of BRCA2-associated breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We determined the disease-free and overall survival of 28 breast cancer patients from 14 consecutive families with eight different BRCA2 germline mutations. These patients' survival and tumor characteristics were compared with those of a control group of 112 sporadic breast cancer patients matched to them by age and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: The 5-year disease-free survival was 52% for each group (P =.91); the overall survival was 74% for BRCA2 carriers and 75% for sporadic cases (P =.50). At the time of diagnosis, tumors from the BRCA2 carriers were borderline significantly larger in comparison to the tumors in sporadic cases (P =.05), but axillary nodal status was not significantly different in the two groups (node-negativity, 63% v 52. 8%, respectively; P =.34). With respect to steroid receptor status, BRCA2-associated tumors were more likely to be steroid receptor-positive, especially regarding progesterone receptor status (100% v 76.7% positive, respectively; P =.06). Stage-adjusted recurrence and death rates were nonsignificantly better for BRCA2 cases (hazard ratios of 0.84 and 0.59 [P =.61 and P =.19], respectively). In contrast, after 5 years, the rate of metachronous contralateral breast cancer in BRCA2 patients was 12% (v 2% in controls; P =.02). CONCLUSION: Patients with hereditary breast cancer due to BRCA2 have a similar prognosis when compared with age-matched sporadic breast cancer patients. Contrary to our previous observation regarding BRCA1-associated breast cancer, BRCA2 tumors tended to be steroid receptor-positive, instead of steroid receptor-negative.

Family history of breast cancer and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. The Dutch Study Group on Local Recurrence after Breast Conservation (BORST).

The impact of a family history of breast cancer on the local recurrence (LR) risk after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) was performed within the framework of a large, multicentre matched case-control study of risk factors for LR after BCT (BORST study). Family history was assessed for 218 breast cancer patients with LR (cases) and 480 patients without LR (controls). Detailed histological tumour features were determined by review of the primary tumour. The risk of LR for patients with a positive family history was similar to or less than that of non-familial patients (unadjusted odds ratio (ORunadj) 0.66 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-1.08)). Familial patients were older than non-familial patients (P = 0.07) and their tumours had a lower histological grade (P = 0.07). A second primary tumour occurred significantly more often in familial patients (P = 0.02). Adjustment for these factors did not essentially alter the results (ORadj 0.71 (0.38-1.32)). Separate analyses according to age at onset (younger and older than 50 years) and time to LR/site of LR produced similar results. The sole presence of a positive family history of breast cancer does not appear to be a risk factor for local recurrence after BCT. Whilst this might be different for genetically predisposed patients, a positive family history does not appear to be a contra-indication for BCT.

Survival and tumour characteristics of breast-cancer patients with germline mutations of BRCA1.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary breast cancer has been associated with mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and has a natural history different from sporadic breast cancer. We investigated disease-free and overall survival for patients with a proven BRCA1 alteration. METHODS: We estimated disease-free and overall survival for 49 Dutch patients from 19 consecutive families with a proven specific BRCA1 mutation and one family with strong evidence for linkage to the BRCA1 gene. We compared clinical outcome and data on tumour size, histology, axillary nodal status, contralateral breast cancer, and oestrogen-receptor and progesterone-receptor status with those of 196 patients with sporadic breast cancer, matched for age and year of diagnosis. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival for BRCA1 and sporadic patients at 5 years was 49% (95% CI 33-64) and 51% (43-59), respectively (p=0.98). Overall survival at 5 years was 63% (47-76) and 69% (62-76), respectively (p=0.88). Recurrence and death rates did not differ significantly between groups. Hazard ratios for recurrence and death among BRCA1 patients were 1.00 (0.65-1.55) and 1.04 (0.63-1.71) relative to sporadic patients (p=0.88), and these did not differ significantly after adjustment for prognostic factors. Patients with BRCA1-associated breast cancer had twice as many progesterone-receptor-negative tumours (p<0.005) and development of contralateral breast cancer was four to five times as frequent as in the sporadic group (p<0.001). INTERPRETATION: We showed that disease-free and overall survival were similar for sporadic and hereditary breast cancer in the presence of different tumour characteristics, which has implications for screening prophylactic therapy, and different treatments of hereditary breast cancer.