Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

The predictive ability of the 313 variant-based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant-based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes. METHODS: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk. RESULTS: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06-1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07-1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making.

A polymorphism in the promoter of FRAS1 is a candidate SNP associated with metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and one of its mediators, NF-kappa B (NFκB), have been implicated in prostate cancer carcinogenesis. We assessed whether germline polymorphisms associated with NFκB are associated with the risk of developing lethal disease (metastases or death from prostate cancer). METHODS: Using a Bayesian approach leveraging NFκB biology with integration of publicly available datasets we used a previously defined genome-wide functional association network specific to NFκB and lethal prostate cancer. A dense-module-searching method identified modules enriched with significant genes from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) study in a discovery data set, Physicians' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (PHS/HPFS). The top 48 candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the dense-module-searching method were then assessed in an independent prostate cancer cohort and the one SNP reproducibly associated with lethality was tested in a third cohort. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between each SNP and lethal prostate cancer. The candidate SNP was assessed for association with lethal prostate cancer in 6 of 28 studies in the prostate cancer association group to investigate cancer associated alterations in the genome (PRACTICAL) Consortium where there was some medical record review for death ascertainment which also had SNP data from the ONCOARRAY platform. All men self-identified as Caucasian. RESULTS: The rs1910301 SNP which was reproducibly associated with lethal disease was nominally associated with lethal disease (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40; p = .02) in the discovery cohort and the minor allele was also associated with lethal disease in two independent cohorts (OR = 1.35; p = .04 and OR = 1.35; p = .07). Fixed effects meta-analysis of all three cohorts found an association: OR = 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.62, p = .0003). This SNP is in the promoter region of FRAS1, a gene involved in epidermal-basement membrane adhesion and is present at a higher frequency in men with African ancestry. No association was found in the subset of studies from the PRACTICAL consortium studies which had a total of 106 deaths out total of 3263 patients and a median follow-up of 4.4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Through its connection with the NFκB pathway, a candidate SNP with a higher frequency in men of African ancestry without cancer was found to be associated with lethal prostate cancer across three well-annotated independent cohorts of Caucasian men.

Oncologically Relevant Findings Reporting and Data System (ONCO-RADS): Guidelines for the Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-Body MRI for Cancer Screening.

Acknowledging the increasing number of studies describing the use of whole-body MRI for cancer screening, and the increasing number of examinations being performed in patients with known cancers, an international multidisciplinary expert panel of radiologists and a geneticist with subject-specific expertise formulated technical acquisition standards, interpretation criteria, and limitations of whole-body MRI for cancer screening in individuals at higher risk, including those with cancer predisposition syndromes. The Oncologically Relevant Findings Reporting and Data System (ONCO-RADS) proposes a standard protocol for individuals at higher risk, including those with cancer predisposition syndromes. ONCO-RADS emphasizes structured reporting and five assessment categories for the classification of whole-body MRI findings. The ONCO-RADS guidelines are designed to promote standardization and limit variations in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI scans for cancer screening. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Practical considerations for optimising homologous recombination repair mutation testing in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Analysis of the genomic landscape of prostate cancer has identified different molecular subgroups with relevance for novel or existing targeted therapies. The recent approvals of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib and rucaparib in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting signal the need to embed molecular diagnostics in the clinical pathway of patients with mCRPC to identify those who can benefit from targeted therapies. Best practice guidelines in overall biospecimen collection and processing for molecular analysis are widely available for several tumour types. However, there is no standard protocol for molecular diagnostic testing in prostate cancer. Here, we provide a series of recommendations on specimen handling, sample pre-analytics, laboratory workflow, and testing pathways to maximise the success rates for clinical genomic analysis in prostate cancer. Early involvement of a multidisciplinary team of pathologists, urologists, oncologists, radiologists, nurses, molecular scientists, and laboratory staff is key to enable optimal workflow for specimen selection and preservation at the time of diagnosis so that samples are available for molecular analysis when required. Given the improved outcome of patients with mCRPC and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who have been treated with PARP inhibitors, there is an urgent need to incorporate high-quality genomic testing in the routine clinical pathway of these patients.

Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has been shown to decrease with longer duration of oral contraceptive use. Although the effects of using oral contraceptives in the general population are well established (approximately 50% risk reduction in ovarian cancer), the estimated risk reduction in mutation carriers is much less precise because of potential bias and small sample sizes. In addition, only a few studies on oral contraceptive use have examined the associations of duration of use, time since last use, starting age, and calendar year of start with risk of ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate in more detail the associations of various characteristics of oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer, to provide healthcare providers and carriers with better risk estimates. STUDY DESIGN: In this international retrospective study, ovarian cancer risk associations were assessed using oral contraceptives data on 3989 BRCA1 and 2445 BRCA2 mutation carriers. Age-dependent-weighted Cox regression analyses were stratified by study and birth cohort and included breast cancer diagnosis as a covariate. To minimize survival bias, analyses were left truncated at 5 years before baseline questionnaire. Separate analyses were conducted for each aspect of oral contraceptive use and in a multivariate analysis, including all these aspects. In addition, the analysis of duration of oral contraceptive use was stratified by recency of use. RESULTS: Oral contraceptives were less often used by mutation carriers who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (ever use: 58.6% for BRCA1 and 53.5% BRCA2) than by unaffected carriers (ever use: 88.9% for BRCA1 and 80.7% for BRCA2). The median duration of use was 7 years for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who developed ovarian cancer and 9 and 8 years for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with ovarian cancer, respectively. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, univariate analyses have shown that both a longer duration of oral contraceptive use and more recent oral contraceptive use were associated with a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. However, in multivariate analyses, including duration of use, age at first use, and time since last use, duration of oral contraceptive use proved to be the prominent protective factor (compared with <5 years: 5-9 years [hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.12]; >10 years [hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.73]; Ptrend=.008). The inverse association between duration of use and ovarian cancer risk persisted for more than 15 years (duration of ≥10 years; BRCA1 <15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.43]; BRCA1 >15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.59]). Univariate results for BRCA2 mutation carriers were similar but were inconclusive because of limited sample size. CONCLUSION: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, longer duration of oral contraceptive use is associated with a greater reduction in ovarian cancer risk, and the protection is long term.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Correction to: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, natural menopause, and breast cancer risk: an international prospective cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

After publication of the original article [1], we were notified that columns in Table 2 were erroneously displayed.

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, natural menopause, and breast cancer risk: an international prospective cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: The effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective effect but may be substantially biased. Prospective studies have had limited power, particularly for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further, previous studies have not considered the effect of RRSO in the context of natural menopause. METHODS: A multi-centre prospective cohort of 2272 BRCA1 and 1605 BRCA2 mutation carriers was followed for a mean of 5.4 and 4.9 years, respectively; 426 women developed incident breast cancer. RRSO was modelled as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression, and its effect assessed in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. RESULTS: There was no association between RRSO and breast cancer for BRCA1 (HR = 1.23; 95% CI 0.94-1.61) or BRCA2 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.62-1.24) mutation carriers. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, HRs were 0.68 (95% CI 0.40-1.15) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64) for RRSO carried out before or after age 45 years, respectively. The HR for BRCA2 mutation carriers decreased with increasing time since RRSO (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26-0.99 for 5 years or longer after RRSO). Estimates for premenopausal women were similar. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that RRSO reduces breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. A potentially beneficial effect for BRCA2 mutation carriers was observed, particularly after 5 years following RRSO. These results may inform counselling and management of carriers with respect to RRSO.

Germline genetic variation in prostate susceptibility does not predict outcomes in the chemoprevention trials PCPT and SELECT.

BACKGROUND: The development of prostate cancer can be influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Numerous germline SNPs influence prostate cancer susceptibility. The functional pathways in which these SNPs increase prostate cancer susceptibility are unknown. Finasteride is currently not being used routinely as a chemoprevention agent but the long term outcomes of the PCPT trial are awaited. The outcomes of the SELECT trial have not recommended the use of chemoprevention in preventing prostate cancer. This study investigated whether germline risk SNPs could be used to predict outcomes in the PCPT and SELECT trial. METHODS: Genotyping was performed in European men entered into the PCPT trial (n = 2434) and SELECT (n = 4885). Next generation genotyping was performed using Affymetrix® Eureka™ Genotyping protocols. Logistic regression models were used to test the association of risk scores and the outcomes in the PCPT and SELECT trials. RESULTS: Of the 100 SNPs, 98 designed successfully and genotyping was validated for samples genotyped on other platforms. A number of SNPs predicted for aggressive disease in both trials. Men with a higher polygenic score are more likely to develop prostate cancer in both trials, but the score did not predict for other outcomes in the trial. CONCLUSION: Men with a higher polygenic risk score are more likely to develop prostate cancer. There were no interactions of these germline risk SNPs and the chemoprevention agents in the SELECT and PCPT trials.

Polygenic risk-tailored screening for prostate cancer: A benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force supports individualised decision-making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening in men aged 55-69. Knowing how the potential benefits and harms of screening vary by an individual's risk of developing prostate cancer could inform decision-making about screening at both an individual and population level. This modelling study examined the benefit-harm tradeoffs and the cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening programme compared to age-based and no screening. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A life-table model, projecting age-specific prostate cancer incidence and mortality, was developed of a hypothetical cohort of 4.48 million men in England aged 55 to 69 years with follow-up to age 90. Risk thresholds were based on age and polygenic profile. We compared no screening, age-based screening (quadrennial PSA testing from 55 to 69), and risk-tailored screening (men aged 55 to 69 years with a 10-year absolute risk greater than a threshold receive quadrennial PSA testing from the age they reach the risk threshold). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective, including direct costs borne by the health system for risk assessment, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We used probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for parameter uncertainty and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5% per year. Our analysis should be considered cautiously in light of limitations related to our model's cohort-based structure and the uncertainty of input parameters in mathematical models. Compared to no screening over 35 years follow-up, age-based screening prevented the most deaths from prostate cancer (39,272, 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 16,792-59,685) at the expense of 94,831 (95% UI: 84,827-105,630) overdiagnosed cancers. Age-based screening was the least cost-effective strategy studied. The greatest number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was generated by risk-based screening at a 10-year absolute risk threshold of 4%. At this threshold, risk-based screening led to one-third fewer overdiagnosed cancers (64,384, 95% UI: 57,382-72,050) but averted 6.3% fewer (9,695, 95% UI: 2,853-15,851) deaths from prostate cancer by comparison with age-based screening. Relative to no screening, risk-based screening at a 4% 10-year absolute risk threshold was cost-effective in 48.4% and 57.4% of the simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of GBP£20,000 (US$26,000) and £30,000 ($39,386) per QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening improved as the threshold rose. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this modelling study, offering screening to men at higher risk could potentially reduce overdiagnosis and improve the benefit-harm tradeoff and the cost-effectiveness of a prostate cancer screening program. The optimal threshold will depend on societal judgements of the appropriate balance of benefits-harms and cost-effectiveness.

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. METHODS: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. RESULTS: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06-1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08-2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.

Height and Body Mass Index as Modifiers of Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 mutations confer high lifetime risk of breast cancer, although other factors may modify this risk. Whether height or body mass index (BMI) modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remains unclear. METHODS: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management.

Risks of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predictive test negatives: findings from the EMBRACE study.

PURPOSE: BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives are proven noncarriers of a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation that is carried by their relatives. The risk of developing breast cancer (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in these women is uncertain. The study aimed to estimate risks of invasive BC and EOC in a large cohort of BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives. METHODS: We used cohort analysis to estimate incidences, cumulative risks, and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: A total of 1,895 unaffected women were eligible for inclusion in the BC risk analysis and 1,736 in the EOC risk analysis. There were 23 incident invasive BCs and 2 EOCs. The cumulative risk of invasive BC was 9.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-15%) by age 85 years and the corresponding risk of EOC was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-2.6%). The SIR for invasive BC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) in the overall cohort, 0.85 (95% CI 0.48-1.50) in noncarriers from BRCA1 families, and 1.03 (95% CI 0.57-1.87) in noncarriers from BRCA2 families. The SIR for EOC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.20-3.17) in the overall cohort. CONCLUSION: Our results did not provide evidence for elevated risks of invasive BC or EOC in BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives.

Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies provide conflicting interpretations of the effect of inherited genetic factors on the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. The primary aim of this study was to determine the effect of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation on breast cancer outcomes in patients with young-onset breast cancer. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study of female patients recruited from 127 hospitals in the UK aged 40 years or younger at first diagnosis (by histological confirmation) of invasive breast cancer. Patients with a previous invasive malignancy (except non-melanomatous skin cancer) were excluded. Patients were identified within 12 months of initial diagnosis. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were identified using blood DNA collected at recruitment. Clinicopathological data, and data regarding treatment and long-term outcomes, including date and site of disease recurrence, were collected from routine medical records at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually until death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was overall survival for all BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-positive) versus all non-carriers (BRCA-negative) at 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after diagnosis. A prespecified subgroup analysis of overall survival was done in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Recruitment was completed in 2008, and long-term follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2000, and Jan 24, 2008, we recruited 2733 women. Genotyping detected a pathogenic BRCA mutation in 338 (12%) patients (201 with BRCA1, 137 with BRCA2). After a median follow-up of 8·2 years (IQR 6·0-9·9), 651 (96%) of 678 deaths were due to breast cancer. There was no significant difference in overall survival between BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative patients in multivariable analyses at any timepoint (at 2 years: 97·0% [95% CI 94·5-98·4] vs 96·6% [95·8-97·3]; at 5 years: 83·8% [79·3-87·5] vs 85·0% [83·5-86·4]; at 10 years: 73·4% [67·4-78·5] vs 70·1% [67·7-72·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·76-1·22]; p=0·76). Of 558 patients with triple-negative breast cancer, BRCA mutation carriers had better overall survival than non-carriers at 2 years (95% [95% CI 89-97] vs 91% [88-94]; HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·35-0·99]; p=0·047) but not 5 years (81% [73-87] vs 74% [70-78]; HR 1·13 [0·70-1·84]; p=0·62) or 10 years (72% [62-80] vs 69% [63-74]; HR 2·12 [0·82-5·49]; p= 0·12). INTERPRETATION: Patients with young-onset breast cancer who carry a BRCA mutation have similar survival as non-carriers. However, BRCA mutation carriers with triple-negative breast cancer might have a survival advantage during the first few years after diagnosis compared with non-carriers. Decisions about timing of additional surgery aimed at reducing future second primary-cancer risks should take into account patient prognosis associated with the first malignancy and patient preferences. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Wessex Cancer Trust, Breast Cancer Now, and the PPP Healthcare Medical Trust Grant.

Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer Risk: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses From a BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carrier Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the association between oral contraceptive preparation (OCP) use and breast cancer (BC) risk is still unclear. METHODS: Breast camcer risk associations were estimated from OCP data on 6030 BRCA1 and 3809 BRCA2 mutation carriers using age-dependent Cox regression, stratified by study and birth cohort. Prospective, left-truncated retrospective and full-cohort retrospective analyses were performed. RESULTS: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, OCP use was not associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.56), but in the left-truncated and full-cohort retrospective analyses, risks were increased by 26% (95% CI = 6% to 51%) and 39% (95% CI = 23% to 58%), respectively. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, OCP use was associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.97), but retrospective analyses were inconsistent (left-truncated: HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.33; full cohort: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.81). There was evidence of increasing risk with duration of use, especially before the first full-term pregnancy (BRCA1: both retrospective analyses, P < .001 and P = .001, respectively; BRCA2: full retrospective analysis, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective analyses did not show that past use of OCP is associated with an increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers in young middle-aged women (40-50 years). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, a causal association is also not likely at those ages. Findings between retrospective and prospective analyses were inconsistent and could be due to survival bias or a true association for younger women who were underrepresented in the prospective cohort. Given the uncertain safety of long-term OCP use for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, indications other than contraception should be avoided and nonhormonal contraceptive methods should be discussed.