Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists.

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

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

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

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

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

Experience of first- and subsequent-line systemic therapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) has changed with multiple new treatment algorithms proposed based on histological and molecular subtyping but low mutation rates will ensure the dominance of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Accordingly, we undertook a detailed review of our practice delivering multiple lines of systemic therapy. METHOD: We undertook a retrospective review of consecutive patients presenting with advanced (stage IIIb/IV) NSCLC treated with systemic therapy at two UK hospitals during a 2-year period, January 2007 to December 2008. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were identified, treated with predominantly carboplatin/gemcitabine (20 initially radically). Fifty of 110 patients (45%) treated with first-line systemic therapy subsequently received second-line therapy, of which 10 patients received third-line and two patients fourth-line therapy. Sixty three of 110 first-line patients (58%) achieved clinical benefit, 19 out of 50 (38%) in the second-line, 6 out of 10 (60%) in third-line but both patients progressed at fourth-line. Median overall survival for 110 patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-11.4); but 16 months (95% CI 14-17.9) in those receiving multiple lines. Median survival from the first cycle of last-line treatment to death in the multiple therapy lines was 5 months (95% CI 2.6-7.3) and the majority of patients spent more time off treatment. CONCLUSION: Overall our outcomes are consistent with published data and show good survival times can be achieved. The future of advanced NSCLC is in selecting the best treatment approach on a histological and genotypic basis.