Clinical and imaging modality factors impacting radiological interpretation of breast screening in young women with neurofibromatosis type 1.

Young women with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) have a high risk of developing breast cancer and poorer survival following breast cancer diagnosis. International guidelines recommend commencing breast screening between 30 and 35 years; however, the optimal screening modality is unestablished, and previous reports suggest that breast imaging may be complicated by the presence of intramammary and cutaneous neurofibromas (cNFs). The aim of this study was to explore potential barriers to implementation of breast screening for young women with NF1.Twenty-seven women (30-47 years) with NF1 completed breast screening with breast MRI, mammogram and breast ultrasound. Nineteen probably benign/suspicious lesions were detected across 14 women. Despite the presence of breast cNFs, initial biopsy rate for participants with NF1 (37%), were comparable to a BRCA pathogenic variant (PV) cohort (25%) (P = 0.311). No cancers or intramammary neurofibromas were identified. Most participants (89%) returned for second round screening.The presence of cNF did not affect clinician confidence in 3D mammogram interpretation, although increasing breast density, frequently seen in young women, impeded confidence for 2D and 3D mammogram. Moderate or marked background parenchymal enhancement on MRI was higher in the NF1 cohort (70.4%) than BRCA PV carriers (47.3%), which is an independent risk factor for breast cancer.Breast MRI was the preferred mode of screening over mammogram, as the majority (85%) with NF1 demonstrated breast density (BI-RADS 3C/4D), which hinders mammogram interpretation. For those with high breast density and high cNF breast coverage, 3D rather than 2D mammogram is preferred, if MRI is unavailable.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health.

Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.

The psychological impact and experience of breast cancer screening in young women with an increased risk of breast cancer due to neurofibromatosis type 1.

Women with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) have an increased risk of developing early breast cancer with a poorer prognosis compared to the general population. Therefore, international management guidelines recommend regular screening in women with NF1 starting from 30 to 35 years. As the psychological impacts of breast cancer screening in other high-risk populations cannot be extended to women with NF1, due to increased incidence of cognitive and mental health issues, the psychological harms of breast screening in women with NF1 are unknown. Consequently, the aim of this study was to assess the psychological impact of breast cancer screening in women with NF1 attending an established risk management clinic. Twenty-eight women with NF1 (30-50 years) completed psychological well-being and patient experience questionnaires, administered across five time points, before and after their initial and second round annual breast screening visits. Preliminary findings demonstrated the screening regimen was well-tolerated, with most participants reporting high satisfaction with the screening process. Overall, no significant increase in psychological distress related to the breast screening process was identified, with mean cancer worry and anxiety scores decreasing over time. However, some women did experience negative aspects of screening and barriers to re-attendance at annual breast screening appointments. As some women with NF1 exhibited clinical levels of psychological distress prior to screening, efforts to identify those at risk and additional support to address concerns and expectations throughout the breast screening process may be beneficial.