Olaparib Addition to Maintenance Bevacizumab Therapy in Ovarian Carcinoma With BRCA-Like Genomic Aberrations.

Importance: Testing for homologous recombination deficiency is required for the optimal treatment of high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer. The search for accurate biomarkers is ongoing. Objective: To investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo differed between patients with a tumor BRCA-like genomic profile and patients without a tumor BRCA-like profile. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial that compared olaparib plus bevacizumab with placebo plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer after a good response to first-line platinum with taxane chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, irrespective of germline or tumor BRCA1/2 mutation status. All patients with available tumor DNA were included in the analysis. The current analysis tested for an interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on survival outcomes. The original trial was conducted between July 2015 and September 2017; at the time of data extraction for analysis in March 2022, a median follow-up of 54.1 months (IQR, 28.5-62.2 months) and a total follow-up time of 21 711 months was available, with 336 PFS and 245 OS events. Exposures: Tumor homologous recombination deficiency was assessed using the BRCA-like copy number aberration profile classifier. Myriad MyChoice CDx was previously measured. The trial was randomized between the olaparib and bevacizumab and placebo plus bevacizumab groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: This secondary analysis assessed hazard ratios (HRs) of olaparib vs placebo among biomarker strata and tested for interaction between BRCA-like status and olaparib treatment on PFS and OS, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 469 patients (median age, 60 [range 26-80] years) were included in this study. The patient cohort consisted of women with International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage III (76%) high-grade serous (95%) ovarian cancer who had no evaluable disease or complete remission at initial or interval debulking surgery (76%). Thirty-one percent of the tumor samples (n = 138) harbored a pathogenic BRCA mutation, and BRCA-like classification was performed for 442 patients. Patients with a BRCA-like tumor had a longer PFS after olaparib treatment than after placebo (36.4 vs 18.6 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65; P < .001). No association of olaparib with PFS was found in patients with a non-BRCA-like tumor (17.6 vs 16.6 months; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.51; P = .93). The interaction was significant (P = .004), and HRs and P values (for interaction) were similar in the relevant subgroups, OS, and multivariable analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the PAOLA-1 randomized clinical trial, patients with a BRCA-like tumor, but not those with a non-BRCA-like tumor, had a significantly longer survival after olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment than placebo plus bevacizumab treatment. Thus, the BRCA1-like classifier could be used as a biomarker for olaparib plus bevacizumab as a maintenance treatment.

Decision Coaching for Healthy Women With BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants­Findings of the Randomized Controlled EDCP-BRCA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) have a choice of preventive options. To help these women decide for themselves, we developed and implemented a decision coaching (DC) program and evaluated it for congruence between the participants' desired and actual roles in decision-making. METHODS: Healthy BRCA1/2 PV carriers (from 25 to 60 years of age) were recruited at six centers in Germany. Those returning baseline T1-questionnaires were randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). The IG attended a nurse-led DC program. The primary outcome was congruence between the participants' desired and actual roles in decision-making. The secondary outcomes included an active role, satisfaction, decisional conflict, and knowledge. Follow-up data were obtained by questionnaire at 12 weeks (T2) and 6 months (T3). RESULTS: Of the 413 women who were recruited, 389 returned baseline T1 questionnaires. At T2, the IG and CG groups did not differ significantly in congruence between their desired and actual roles in decision-making (0.12 [95% confidence interval -0.03; 0.28], p=0.128), with a slightly higher congruence in the CG. Women in both groups were more active at T2 than their stated preference at T1, with a notably higher percentage in the IG (IG: 40%, CG: 24.4%; [-25.1; -6.1]). IG participants were more satisfied with the role that they had assumed and had less decisional conflict and greater knowledge. CONCLUSION: These findings imply that this DC program can help women with BRCA1/2 PVs participate actively in decision-making with regard to preventive measures.

Predictors of knowledge and knowledge gain after decision aid use among women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors contributing to baseline knowledge in women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) and knowledge gain after decision aid (DA) use. METHODS: Women with PVs in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG) receiving DAs or a control group (CG). Of the total sample, 417 completed the baseline survey and were included in this analysis. Two multiple regression analyses were conducted: baseline data on socio-demographic, medical, decision-related and psychological variables were used to identify predictors for (1) baseline knowledge within the total group and (2) knowledge gain within the IG after DA use three months post study inclusion. RESULTS: At baseline, higher education status, no breast cancer history, and lower decisional conflict related to higher knowledge within the total group. After DA use within the IG, higher baseline scores for decisional conflict predicted higher knowledge gain, and higher baseline scores for depression and intrusion predicted lower knowledge gain. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified predictors of baseline knowledge and knowledge gain after DA use in women with BRCA1/2 PVs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of facilitating and hindering factors on these women's knowledge can improve understanding of their health literacy and enable further targeted support interventions.

Implementing mainstream genetic counseling within the area-wide network of the German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC): Satisfaction of primary care providers with the provided state-of-the-art training by the Cologne Center.

The German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DKG) has published a position paper to address the challenges of cancer patient care in the era of genomic medicine. The German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has implemented this recommendation in its care concept for families at risk. Core elements are the outcome-oriented evaluation of structured and standardized clinical measures and reporting recommendations derived therefrom to primary care providers and patients. A cross-sector network with certified breast cancer and gynecological cancer centers was founded in 2015, starting from the Cologne Center of the GC-HBOC. To guarantee the knowledge transfer for mainstream genetic counseling, the Cologne center has established an educational program for physicians and specialized nurses in order to pilot trans-sectoral knowledge transfer on risk assessment and risk-stratified care. It consists of face-to-face lectures with written knowledge test, attending a genetic case conference and genetic counseling sessions with the opportunity to counsel under supervision. The lectures were accompanied by a structured evaluation of the participants' satisfaction and feedback of the needs in mainstream genetic counseling. Thereby, the network ensures that genetic counseling and testing is provided according to state-of-the-art knowledge and allows physicians to participate in knowledge-generating care outside the university setting and patients to receive care close to home. After multiple feedback cycles to improve the educational program, the GC-HBOC, in cooperation with the German Cancer Society, has now adopted this concept and developed a common and uniform online curriculum funded by the Federal Ministry of Health. https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/fortbildung-familiaerer-krebs.html.

Clinical implications of incorporating genetic and non-genetic risk factors in CanRisk-based breast cancer risk prediction.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation with polygenic risk score (PRS) and non-genetic risk factor (NGRFs) data affects individual intensified breast surveillance (IBS) recommendations according to European guidelines. METHODS: For 425 cancer-free women with cancer FH (mean age 40·6 years, range 21-74), recruited in France, Germany and the Netherlands, germline PV status, NGRFs, and a 306 variant-based PRS (PRS306) were assessed to calculate estimated lifetime risks (eLTR) and estimated 10-year risks (e10YR) using CanRisk. The proportions of women changing country-specific European risk categories for IBS recommendations, i.e. ≥20 % and ≥30 % eLTR, or ≥5 % e10YR were determined. FINDINGS: Of the women with non-informative PV status, including PRS306 and NGRFs changed clinical recommendations for 31·0 %, (57/184, 20 % eLTR), 15·8 % (29/184, 30 % eLTR) and 22·4 % (41/183, 5 % e10YR), respectively whereas of the women tested negative for a PV observed in their family, clinical recommendations changed for 16·7 % (25/150), 1·3 % (2/150) and 9·5 % (14/147). No change was observed for 82 women with PVs in high-risk genes (BRCA1/2, PALB2). Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs identified BRCA1/2 PV carriers benefitting from IBS <30 years, and women tested non-informative/negative for whom IBS may be postponed. INTERPRETATION: For women who tested non-informative/negative, PRS and NGRFs have a considerable impact on IBS recommendations. Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs allows personalizing IBS starting age. FUNDING: Horizon 2020, German Cancer Aid, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Köln Fortune.

Effectiveness of evidence-based decision aids for women with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants in the german health care context: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants are at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Preventive options include risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgeries and intensified breast surveillance. However, individual decision-making is often associated with decisional conflicts. Two evidence-based decision aids have recently been developed for these women (healthy or with unilateral breast cancer) for the German context to support them in their decision-making process. This study evaluated their effectiveness. METHODS: In a randomized controlled study, women (aged 18-70 years) with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants were randomly assigned 1:1 to the intervention (IG, n = 230) or control (CG, n = 220) group. All participants received usual care. After baseline survey (t0), IG participants additionally received the DAs. Follow-up surveys were at three (t1) and six (t2) months. Primary outcome was decisional conflict at t1. Secondary analyses included decision status, decision regret, knowledge on risks and preventive options, self-reported psychological symptoms, acceptability of DAs, and preparation for decision-making. RESULTS: Of 450 women recruited, 417 completed t0, 398 completed t1 and 386 completed t2. Compared to CG, IG participants had lower decisional conflict scores at t1 (p = 0.049) and t2 (p = 0.006) and higher scores for knowledge (p = 0.004), acceptability (p = 0.000), and preparation for decision-making (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These DAs can help improve key parameters of decision-making in women with pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants and, thus, provide a useful add-on to the current counseling and care concept for these women in Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS-ID: DRKS00015823, retrospectively registered 14/06/2019.

Endometrial Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG, DKG and DKH (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/034-OL, September 2022). Part 1 with Recommendations on the Epidemiology, Screening, Diagnosis and Hereditary Factors of Endometrial Cancer, Geriatric Assessment and Supply Structures.

Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary. Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat women with endometrial cancer of low risk prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers. Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and hereditary factors. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endometrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer. The use of geriatric assessment is considered and existing structures of care are presented.

Exome sequencing identifies breast cancer susceptibility genes and defines the contribution of coding variants to breast cancer risk.

Linkage and candidate gene studies have identified several breast cancer susceptibility genes, but the overall contribution of coding variation to breast cancer is unclear. To evaluate the role of rare coding variants more comprehensively, we performed a meta-analysis across three large whole-exome sequencing datasets, containing 26,368 female cases and 217,673 female controls. Burden tests were performed for protein-truncating and rare missense variants in 15,616 and 18,601 genes, respectively. Associations between protein-truncating variants and breast cancer were identified for the following six genes at exome-wide significance (P < 2.5 × 10-6): the five known susceptibility genes ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and PALB2, together with MAP3K1. Associations were also observed for LZTR1, ATR and BARD1 with P < 1 × 10-4. Associations between predicted deleterious rare missense or protein-truncating variants and breast cancer were additionally identified for CDKN2A at exome-wide significance. The overall contribution of coding variants in genes beyond the previously known genes is estimated to be small.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited. METHODS: An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed. RESULTS: Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time. CONCLUSION: Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

Prevalence of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Women with Non-Familial Unilateral Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Introduction: International guidelines recommend genetic testing for women with familial breast cancer at an expected prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PVs) of at least 10%. In a study sample of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC), we have previously shown that women with TNBC diagnosed before the age of 50 years but without a family history of breast or ovarian cancer (sTNBC) meet this criterion. The present study investigates the PV prevalence in BRCA1, BRCA2, and nine additional cancer predisposition genes in an extended sTNBC study sample including a cohort of women with a later age at sTNBC diagnosis. Patients and Methods: In 1,600 women with sTNBC (median age at diagnosis: 41 years, range 19-78 years), we investigated the association between age at diagnosis and PV occurrence in cancer predisposition genes using logistic regression. Results: 260 sTNBC patients (16.2%) were found to have a PV in cancer predisposition genes (BRCA1: n = 170 [10.6%]; BRCA2: n = 46 [2.9%], other: n = 44 [2.8%]). The PV prevalence in women diagnosed between 50 and 59 years (n = 194) was 11.3% (22/194). Logistic regression showed a significant increase in PV prevalence with decreasing age at diagnosis (OR 1.41 per 10 years younger age at diagnosis; 95% confidence interval: 1.21-1.65; p < 0.001). The PV prevalence predicted by the model was above 10% for diagnoses before the age of 56.8 years. Conclusion: Based on the data presented, we recommend genetic testing by gene panel analysis for sTNBC patients diagnosed before the age of 60 years. Due to the still uncertain estimate for women with sTNBC diagnosed above the age of 60 years, further studies are needed.

Associations of height, body mass index, and weight gain with breast cancer risk in carriers of a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2: the BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Height, body mass index (BMI), and weight gain are associated with breast cancer risk in the general population. It is unclear whether these associations also exist for carriers of pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international pooled cohort of 8091 BRCA1/2 variant carriers was used for retrospective and prospective analyses separately for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cox regression was used to estimate breast cancer risk associations with height, BMI, and weight change. RESULTS: In the retrospective analysis, taller height was associated with risk of premenopausal breast cancer for BRCA2 variant carriers (HR 1.20 per 10 cm increase, 95% CI 1.04-1.38). Higher young-adult BMI was associated with lower premenopausal breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR 0.75 per 5 kg/m2, 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and BRCA2 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89) variant carriers in the retrospective analysis, with consistent, though not statistically significant, findings from the prospective analysis. In the prospective analysis, higher BMI and adult weight gain were associated with higher postmenopausal breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers (HR 1.20 per 5 kg/m2, 95% CI 1.02-1.42; and HR 1.10 per 5 kg weight gain, 95% CI 1.01-1.19, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anthropometric measures are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers, with relative risk estimates that are generally consistent with those for women from the general population.

Incidence and Prognostic Impact of Deleterious Germline Mutations in Primary Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma Patients.

Data on deleterious variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 remain limited. A retrospective cohort study was performed, including primary OC cases with TruRisk® germline gene panel testing between 2011 and 2020. Patients with testing after relapse were excluded. The cohort was divided into three groups: (A) no mutations, (B) deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations, and (C) deleterious mutations in other genes. A total of 702 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these 17.4% (n = 122) showed BRCA1/2 mutations and a further 6.0% (n = 42) in other genes. Three-year overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort was significantly longer in patients with germline mutations (85%/82.8% for cohort B/C vs. 70.2% for cohort A, p < 0.001) and 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) only for cohort B (58.1% vs. 36.9%/41.6% in cohort A/C, p = 0.002). In multivariate analysis for the subgroup of advanced-stages of high-grade serous OC, both cohorts B/C were found to be independent factors for significantly better outcome, cohort C for OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.25-0.84), and cohort B for both OS and PFS (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.27-0.61 and HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37-0.66, respectively). Germline mutations were detected in a quarter of OC patients, and a quarter of those in genes other than BRCA1/2. Germline mutations demonstrate in our cohort a prognostic factor and predict better prognosis for OC patients.

Creation of a structured molecular genomics report for Germany as a local adaption of HL7's Genomic Reporting Implementation Guide.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop a dataset definition, information model, and FHIR® specification for key data elements contained in a German molecular genomics (MolGen) report to facilitate genomic and phenotype integration in electronic health records. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dedicated expert group participating in the German Medical Informatics Initiative reviewed information contained in MolGen reports, determined the key elements, and formulated a dataset definition. HL7's Genomics Reporting Implementation Guide (IG) was adopted as a basis for the FHIR® specification which was subjected to a public ballot. In addition, elements in the MolGen dataset were mapped to the fields defined in ISO/TS 20428:2017 standard to evaluate compliance. RESULTS: A core dataset of 76 data elements, clustered into 6 categories was created to represent all key information of German MolGen reports. Based on this, a FHIR specification with 16 profiles, 14 derived from HL7®'s Genomics Reporting IG and 2 additional profiles (of the FamilyMemberHistory and RiskAssessment resources), was developed. Five example resource bundles show how our adaptation of an international standard can be used to model MolGen report data that was requested following oncological or rare disease indications. Furthermore, the map of the MolGen report data elements to the fields defined by the ISO/TC 20428:2017 standard, confirmed the presence of the majority of required fields. CONCLUSIONS: Our report serves as a template for other research initiatives attempting to create a standard format for unstructured genomic report data. Use of standard formats facilitates integration of genomic data into electronic health records for clinical decision support.

Coping Self-Efficacy and Its Relationship with Psychological Morbidity after Genetic Test Result Disclosure: Results from Cancer-Unaffected BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers.

Women who are found to carry a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant experience psychological distress due to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. They may decide between different preventive options. In this secondary analysis of data collected alongside a larger randomized controlled trial, we are looking at 130 newly found BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers and how their coping self-efficacy immediately after genetic test result disclosure is related to their psychological burden and status of preventive decision making. Participants received the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, the Decisional Conflict Scale, and the Stage of Decision-Making Scale after positive genetic test result disclosure. We found that women with higher coping self-efficacy showed fewer symptoms of anxiety or depression and were less affected by receiving the genetic test result in terms of post-traumatic stress. However, coping self-efficacy had no relationship with any decision-related criteria, such as decisional conflict or stage of decision making. This shows that despite its buffering capacity on psychological burden, possessing coping self-efficacy does not lead to more decisiveness in preference-sensitive decisions.

Psychological distress and decision-making factors for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in cancer-unaffected BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

OBJECTIVE: Women carrying a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant have an increased risk for breast cancer and may opt for risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. In this study, we examine which demographic, psychosocial, and personality factors are associated with their decision to undergo risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. METHODS: Cancer-unaffected women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 were recruited before receiving their genetic test result and completed follow-up including decision to undergo mastectomy over 6-8 months after genetic test result disclosure. Anxiety, depression, breast cancer worry, personality and sociodemographic data were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 125 cancer-unaffected women were included in the analysis. Participants were found to have higher anxiety levels than the general female population regardless of mastectomy decision. Breast cancer worry was higher among women who opted for risk-reducing mastectomy and did not decrease over time. By contrast, women who did not opt for surgery experienced decreasing levels of breast cancer worry. Regression analysis found that women with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1, younger women and women with higher breast cancer worry were more likely to opt for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides valuable insights into the factors that influence women with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant to undergo risk-reducing mastectomy. These findings may be helpful in understanding individual differences in decision-making concerning preventive options and show the need to address negative anticipatory feelings associated with carrying a pathogenic variant in a high breast cancer risk gene in clinical care.

EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

After a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer, increasing numbers of patients are requesting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), the surgical removal of the healthy breast after diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. It is important for the community of breast cancer specialists to provide meaningful guidance to women considering CPM. This manifesto discusses the issues and challenges of CPM and provides recommendations to improve oncological, surgical, physical and psychological outcomes for women presenting with unilateral breast cancer: (1) Communicate best available risks in manageable timeframes to prioritise actions; better risk stratification and implementation of risk-assessment tools combining family history, genetic and genomic information, and treatment and prognosis of the first breast cancer are required; (2) Reserve CPM for specific situations; in women not at high risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC), ipsilateral breast-conserving surgery is the recommended option; (3) Encourage patients at low or intermediate risk of CBC to delay decisions on CPM until treatment for the primary cancer is complete, to focus on treating the existing disease first; (4) Provide patients with personalised information about the risk:benefit balance of CPM in manageable timeframes; (5) Ensure patients have an informed understanding of the competing risks for CBC and that there is a realistic plan for the patient; (6) Ensure patients understand the short- and long-term physical effects of CPM; (7) In patients considering CPM, offer psychological and surgical counselling before surgery; anxiety alone is not an indication for CPM; (8) Eliminate inequality between countries in reimbursement strategies; CPM should be reimbursed if it is considered a reasonable option resulting from multidisciplinary tumour board assessment; (9) Treat breast cancer patients at specialist breast units providing the entire patient-centred pathway.

Incorporating Alternative Polygenic Risk Scores into the BOADICEA Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: The multifactorial risk prediction model BOADICEA enables identification of women at higher or lower risk of developing breast cancer. BOADICEA models genetic susceptibility in terms of the effects of rare variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes and a polygenic component, decomposed into an unmeasured and a measured component - the polygenic risk score (PRS). The current version was developed using a 313 SNP PRS. Here, we evaluated approaches to incorporating this PRS and alternative PRS in BOADICEA. METHODS: The mean, SD, and proportion of the overall polygenic component explained by the PRS (α2) need to be estimated. $\alpha $ was estimated using logistic regression, where the age-specific log-OR is constrained to be a function of the age-dependent polygenic relative risk in BOADICEA; and using a retrospective likelihood (RL) approach that models, in addition, the unmeasured polygenic component. RESULTS: Parameters were computed for 11 PRS, including 6 variations of the 313 SNP PRS used in clinical trials and implementation studies. The logistic regression approach underestimates $\alpha $, as compared with the RL estimates. The RL $\alpha $ estimates were very close to those obtained by assuming proportionality to the OR per 1 SD, with the constant of proportionality estimated using the 313 SNP PRS. Small variations in the SNPs included in the PRS can lead to large differences in the mean. CONCLUSIONS: BOADICEA can be readily adapted to different PRS in a manner that maintains consistency of the model. IMPACT: : The methods described facilitate comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment.