MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). INTERPRETATION: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. FUNDING: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting.

Breast conserving therapy and mastectomy revisited: Breast cancer-specific survival and the influence of prognostic factors in 129,692 patients.

This large population-based study compared breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (BCT) with mastectomy on (long-term) breast cancer-specific (BCSS) and overall survival (OS), and investigated the influence of several prognostic factors. Patients with primary T1-2N0-2M0 breast cancer, diagnosed between 1999 and 2012, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We investigated the 1999-2005 (long-term outcome) and the 2006-2012 cohort (contemporary adjuvant systemic therapy). Cause of death was derived from the Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Multivariable analyses, per time cohort, were performed in T1-2N0-2, and separately in T1-2N0-1 and T1-2N2 stages. The T1-2N0-1 stages were further stratified for age, hormonal receptor and HER2 status, adjuvant systemic therapy and comorbidity. In total, 129,692 patients were included. In the 1999-2005 cohort, better BCSS and OS for BCT than mastectomy was seen in all subgroups, except in patients < 40 years with T1-2N0-1 stage. In the 2006-2012 cohort, superior BCSS and OS were found for T1-2N0-1, but not for T1-2N2. Subgroup analyses for T1-2N0-1 showed superior BCSS and OS for BCT in patients >50 years, not treated with chemotherapy and with comorbidity. Both treatments led to similar BCSS in patients <50 years, without comorbidity and those treated with chemotherapy. Although confounding by severity and residual confounding cannot be excluded, this study showed better long-term BCSS for BCT than mastectomy. Even with more contemporary diagnostics and therapies we identified several subgroups that may benefit from BCT. Our results support the hypothesis that BCT might be preferred in most breast cancer patients when both treatments are suitable.

Proteomic characterization of microdissected breast tissue environment provides a protein-level overview of malignant transformation.

Both healthy and cancerous breast tissue is heterogeneous, which is a bottleneck for proteomics-based biomarker analysis, as it obscures the cellular origin of a measured protein. We therefore aimed at obtaining a protein-level interpretation of malignant transformation through global proteome analysis of a variety of laser capture microdissected cells originating from benign and malignant breast tissues. We compared proteomic differences between these tissues, both from cells of epithelial origin and the stromal environment, and performed string analysis. Differences in protein abundances corresponded with several hallmarks of cancer, including loss of cell adhesion, transformation to a migratory phenotype, and enhanced energy metabolism. Furthermore, despite enriching for (tumor) epithelial cells, many changes to the extracellular matrix were detected in microdissected cells of epithelial origin. The stromal compartment was heterogeneous and richer in the number of fibroblast and immune cells in malignant sections, compared to benign tissue sections. Furthermore, stroma could be clearly divided into reactive and nonreactive based on extracellular matrix disassembly proteins. We conclude that proteomics analysis of both microdissected epithelium and stroma gives an additional layer of information and more detailed insight into malignant transformation.

Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the additional contribution of mammography to screening accuracy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers screened with MRI at different ages using individual patient data from six high-risk screening trials. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of MRI, mammography and the combination of these tests were compared stratified for BRCA mutation and age using generalised linear mixed models with random effect for studies. Number of screens needed (NSN) for additional mammography-only detected cancer was estimated. RESULTS: In BRCA1/2 mutation carriers of all ages (BRCA1 = 1,219 and BRCA2 = 732), adding mammography to MRI did not significantly increase screening sensitivity (increased by 3.9% in BRCA1 and 12.6% in BRCA2 mutation carriers, P > 0.05). However, in women with BRCA2 mutation younger than 40 years, one-third of breast cancers were detected by mammography only. Number of screens needed for mammography to detect one breast cancer not detected by MRI was much higher for BRCA1 compared with BRCA2 mutation carriers at initial and repeat screening. CONCLUSIONS: Additional screening sensitivity from mammography above that from MRI is limited in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whereas mammography contributes to screening sensitivity in BRCA2 mutation carriers, especially those ⩽ 40 years. The evidence from our work highlights that a differential screening schedule by BRCA status is worth considering.

Assessment of variation in immunosuppressive pathway genes reveals TGFBR2 to be associated with prognosis of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer after chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor lymphocyte infiltration is associated with clinical response to chemotherapy in estrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. To identify variants in immunosuppressive pathway genes associated with prognosis after adjuvant chemotherapy for ER-negative patients, we studied stage I-III invasive breast cancer patients of European ancestry, including 9,334 ER-positive (3,151 treated with chemotherapy) and 2,334 ER-negative patients (1,499 treated with chemotherapy). METHODS: We pooled data from sixteen studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), and employed two independent studies for replications. Overall 3,610 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 133 genes were genotyped as part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study, in which phenotype and clinical data were collected and harmonized. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess genetic associations with overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Heterogeneity according to chemotherapy or ER status was evaluated with the log-likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Three independent SNPs in TGFBR2 and IL12B were associated with OS (P <10⁻³) solely in ER-negative patients after chemotherapy (267 events). Poorer OS associated with TGFBR2 rs1367610 (G > C) (per allele hazard ratio (HR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.95), P = 3.08 × 10⁻4) was not found in ER-negative patients without chemotherapy or ER-positive patients with chemotherapy (P for interaction <10-3). Two SNPs in IL12B (r² = 0.20) showed different associations with ER-negative disease after chemotherapy: rs2546892 (G > A) with poorer OS (HR 1.50 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.86), P = 1.81 × 10⁻4), and rs2853694 (A > C) with improved OS (HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.87), P = 3.67 × 10⁻4). Similar associations were observed with BCSS. Association with TGFBR2 rs1367610 but not IL12B variants replicated using BCAC Asian samples and the independent Prospective Study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary Breast Cancer Study and yielded a combined HR of 1.57 ((95% CI 1.28 to 1.94), P = 2.05 × 10⁻5) without study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: TGFBR2 variants may have prognostic and predictive value in ER-negative breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Our findings provide further insights into the development of immunotherapeutic targets for ER-negative breast cancer.

Should we screen BRCA1 mutation carriers only with MRI? A multicenter study.

BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with MRI and mammography. Aim of the study was to investigate the additional value of digital mammography over MRI screening. BRCA1 mutation carriers, who developed breast cancer since the introduction of digital mammography between January 2003 and March 2013, were included. The images and reports were reviewed in order to assess whether the breast cancers were screen-detected or interval cancers and whether they were visible on mammography and MRI, using the breast imaging and data system classification allocated at the time of diagnosis. In 93 BRCA1 mutation carriers who underwent screening with MRI and mammography, 82 invasive breast cancers and 12 ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) were found. Screening sensitivity was 95.7 % (90/94). MRI detected 88 of 94 breast cancers (sensitivity 93.6 %), and mammography detected 48 breast cancers (sensitivity 51.1 %) (two-sided p < 0.001). Forty-two malignancies were detected only by MRI (42/94 = 44.7 %). Two DCIS were detected only with mammography (2/94 = 2.1 %) concerning a grade 3 in a 50-year-old patient and a grade 2 in a 67-year-old patient. Four interval cancers occurred (4/94 = 4.3 %), all grade 3 triple negative invasive ductal carcinomas. In conclusion, digital mammography added only 2 % to the breast cancer detection in BRCA1 patients. There was no benefit of additional mammography in women below age 40. Given the potential risk of radiation-induced breast cancer in young mutation carriers, we propose to screen BRCA1 mutation carriers yearly with MRI from age 25 onwards and to start with mammographic screening not earlier than age 40.

Optimal age to start preventive measures in women with BRCA1/2 mutations or high familial breast cancer risk.

Women from high-risk families consider preventive measures for breast cancer including screening. Guidelines on screening differ considerably regarding starting age. We investigated whether age at diagnosis in affected relatives is predictive for age at diagnosis. We analyzed the age of breast cancer detection of 1,304 first- and second-degree relatives of 314 BRCA1, 164 BRCA2 and 244 high-risk participants of the Dutch MRI-SCreening study. The within- and between-family variance in the relative's age at diagnosis was analyzed with a random effect linear regression model. We compared the starting age of screening based on risk-group (25 years for BRCA1, 30 years for BRCA2 and 35 years for familial risk), on family history, and on the model, which combines both. The findings were validated in 63 families from the UK-MARIBS study. Mean age at diagnosis in the relatives varied between families; 95% range of mean family ages was 35-55 in BRCA1-, 41-57 in BRCA2- and 44-60 in high-risk families. In all, 14% of the variance in age at diagnosis, in BRCA1 even 23%, was explained by family history, 7% by risk group. Determining start of screening based on the model and on risk-group gave similar results in terms of cancers missed and years of screening. The approach based on familial history only, missed more cancers and required more screening years in both the Dutch and the United Kingdom data sets. Age at breast cancer diagnosis is partly dependent on family history which may assist planning starting age for preventive measures.

Preoperative breast MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In breast cancer patients eligible for breast-conserving surgery, we evaluated whether the information provided by preoperative MRI of the breast would result in fewer tumor-positive resection margins and fewer reoperations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 123 consecutive patients diagnosed with either breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ eligible for breast-conserving surgery between April 2007 and July 2010. For these patients, a first plan for breast-conserving surgery was made on the basis of clinical examination and conventional imaging. The final surgical plan was made with knowledge of the preoperative breast MRI. The rates of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations were compared with those of a historical control group consisting of 119 patients who underwent 123 breast-conserving procedures between January 2005 and December 2006. The percentage of change in the surgical plan was recorded. RESULTS: Preoperative breast MRI changed the surgical plan to more extensive surgery in 42 patients (34.1%), mainly to mastectomy (29 patients, 23.6%). Ninety-four patients underwent 95 breast-conserving procedures. Significantly fewer patients had tumor-positive resection margins than in the control group (15.8%, 15/95 versus 29.3%, 36/123; p < 0.01). Patients in the study group underwent significantly fewer reoperations compared with the historical control group (18.9%, 18/95 vs 37.4%, 46/123; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Preoperative breast MRI can substantially decrease the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in breast cancer patients eligible for breast-conserving surgery.

Breast density as indicator for the use of mammography or MRI to screen women with familial risk for breast cancer (FaMRIsc): a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer often start mammography screening at a younger age than the general population. Breast density is high in over 50% of women younger than 50 years. With high breast density, breast cancer incidence increases, but sensitivity of mammography decreases. Therefore, mammography might not be the optimal method for breast cancer screening in young women. Adding MRI increases sensitivity, but also the risk of false-positive results. The limitation of all previous MRI screening studies is that they do not contain a comparison group; all participants received both MRI and mammography. Therefore, we cannot empirically assess in which stage tumours would have been detected by either test.The aim of the Familial MRI Screening Study (FaMRIsc) is to compare the efficacy of MRI screening to mammography for women with a familial risk. Furthermore, we will assess the influence of breast density. METHODS/DESIGN: This Dutch multicentre, randomized controlled trial, with balanced randomisation (1:1) has a parallel grouped design. Women with a cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer due to their family history of ≥20%, aged 30-55 years are eligible. Identified BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or women with 50% risk of carrying a mutation are excluded. Group 1 receives yearly mammography and clinical breast examination (n = 1000), and group 2 yearly MRI and clinical breast examination, and mammography biennially (n = 1000).Primary endpoints are the number and stage of the detected breast cancers in each arm. Secondary endpoints are the number of false-positive results in both screening arms. Furthermore, sensitivity and positive predictive value of both screening strategies will be assessed. Cost-effectiveness of both strategies will be assessed. Analyses will also be performed with mammographic density as stratification factor. DISCUSSION: Personalized breast cancer screening might optimize mortality reduction with less over diagnosis. Breast density may be a key discriminator for selecting the optimal screening strategy for women < 55 years with familial breast cancer risk; mammography or MRI. These issues are addressed in the FaMRIsc study including high risk women due to a familial predisposition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherland Trial Register NTR2789.

Common breast cancer susceptibility alleles are associated with tumour subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles are differentially associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers. It is currently unknown how these alleles are associated with different breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers defined by estrogen (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) status of the tumour. METHODS: We used genotype data on up to 11,421 BRCA1 and 7,080 BRCA2 carriers, of whom 4,310 had been affected with breast cancer and had information on either ER or PR status of the tumour, to assess the associations of 12 loci with breast cancer tumour characteristics. Associations were evaluated using a retrospective cohort approach. RESULTS: The results suggested stronger associations with ER-positive breast cancer than ER-negative for 11 loci in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Among BRCA1 carriers, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs2981582 (FGFR2) exhibited the biggest difference based on ER status (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) for ER-positive = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.56 vs HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.98 for ER-negative, P-heterogeneity = 6.5 × 10-6). In contrast, SNP rs2046210 at 6q25.1 near ESR1 was primarily associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. In BRCA2 carriers, SNPs in FGFR2, TOX3, LSP1, SLC4A7/NEK10, 5p12, 2q35, and 1p11.2 were significantly associated with ER-positive but not ER-negative disease. Similar results were observed when differentiating breast cancer cases by PR status. CONCLUSIONS: The associations of the 12 SNPs with risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers differ by ER-positive or ER-negative breast cancer status. The apparent differences in SNP associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and non-carriers, may be explicable by differences in the prevalence of tumour subtypes. As more risk modifying variants are identified, incorporating these associations into breast cancer subtype-specific risk models may improve clinical management for mutation carriers.

Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial. METHODS: A 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30-55 years, had a ≥20% cumulative lifetime risk, but no BRCA1/2 or TP53 gene variant, and were screened outside the population-based screening program. Women received annual mammography (mammography-group), or annual MRI and biennial mammography (MRI-group). We asked whether women trust the screening outcome, what they consider as (dis)advantages, which screening they prefer and what they expect of the early detection by the screening tools. RESULTS: 255 (62%) women completed our questionnaire. The high chance of early cancer detection was the most important advantage of MRI screening (MRI-group: 95%; mammography-group: 74%), while this was also the main advantage of mammography (MRI-group: 57%; mammography-group: 72%). Most important disadvantages of MRI were the small tunnel and the contrast fluid (for 23-36%), and of mammography were its painfulness and X-radiation (for 48-60%). Almost the whole MRI-group and half the mammography-group preferred screening with MRI (either alone or with mammography). DISCUSSION: Most women would prefer screening with MRI. The way women think of MRI and mammography is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing. Our outcomes can be used for creating information brochures when MRI will be implemented for more women.

Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.

Importance: For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Interventions: Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied. Results: This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

Breast cancer screening: evidence for false reassurance?

Tumour stage distribution at repeated mammography screening is, unexpectedly, often not more favourable than stage distribution at first screenings. False reassurance, i.e., delayed symptom presentation due to having participated in earlier screening rounds, might be associated with this, and unfavourably affect prognosis. To assess the role of false reassurance in mammography screening, a consecutive group of 155 breast cancer patients visiting a breast clinic in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) completed a questionnaire on screening history and self-observed breast abnormalities. The length of time between the initial discovery of breast abnormalities and first consultation of a general practitioner ("symptom-GP period") was compared between patients with ("screening group") and without a previous screening history ("control group"), using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank testing. Of the 155 patients, 84 (54%) had participated in the Dutch screening programme at least once before tumour detection; 32 (38%) of whom had noticed symptoms. They did not significantly differ from control patients (n = 42) in symptom-GP period (symptom-GP period > or = 30 days: 31.2% in the symptomatic screened group, 31.0% in the control group; p = 0.9). Only 2 out of 53 patients (3.8%) with screen-detected cancer had noticed symptoms prior to screening, reporting symptom-GP periods of 2.5 and 4 years. The median period between the first GP- and breast clinic visit was 7.0 days (95% C.I. 5.9-8.1) in symptomatic screened patients and 6.0 days (95% C.I. 4.0-8.0) in control patients. Our results show that false reassurance played, at most, only a minor role in breast cancer screening.

BRCA1 mutation and young age predict fast breast cancer growth in the Dutch, United Kingdom, and Canadian magnetic resonance imaging screening trials.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening enables early detection of breast cancers in women with an inherited predisposition. Interval cancers occurred in women with a BRCA1 mutation, possibly due to fast tumor growth. We investigated the effect of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and age on the growth rate of breast cancers, as this may influence the optimal screening frequency. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We reviewed the invasive cancers from the United Kingdom, Dutch, and Canadian MRI screening trials for women at hereditary risk, measuring tumor size at diagnosis and on preceding MRI and/or mammography. We could assess tumor volume doubling time (DT) in 100 cancers. RESULTS: Tumor DT was estimated for 43 women with a BRCA1 mutation, 16 women with a BRCA2 mutation, and 41 women at high risk without an identified mutation. Growth rate slowed continuously with increasing age (P = 0.004). Growth was twice as fast in BRCA1 (P = 0.003) or BRCA2 (P = 0.03) patients as in high-risk patients of the same age. The mean DT for women with BRCA1/2 mutations diagnosed at ages < or =40, 41 to 50, and >50 years was 28, 68, and 81 days, respectively, and 83, 121, and 173 days, respectively, in the high-risk group. Pathologic tumor size decreased with increasing age (P = 0.001). Median size was 15 mm for patients ages < or =40 years compared with 9 mm in older patients (P = 0.003); tumors were largest in young women with BRCA1 mutations. CONCLUSION: Tumors grow quickly in women with BRCA1 mutations and in young women. Age and risk group should be taken into account in screening protocols.

Correction: MicroRNA expression in pre-treatment plasma of patients with benign breast diseases and breast cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25262.].

MicroRNA expression in pre-treatment plasma of patients with benign breast diseases and breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miRs) are small RNA molecules, influencing messenger RNA (mRNA) expression and translation, and are readily detectable in blood. Some have been reported as potential breast cancer biomarkers. This study aimed to identify and validate miRs indicative of breast cancer. RESULTS: Based on the discovery and literature, 18 potentially informative miRs were quantified in the validation cohort. Irrespective of patient and tumour characteristics, hsa-miR-652-5p was significantly upregulated in the malignant compared to benign patients (1.26 fold, P = 0.005) and therefore validated as potential biomarker. In the validation cohort literature-based hsa-let-7b levels were higher in malignant patients as well (1.53 fold, P = 0.011). Two miRs differentiated benign wildtype from benign BRCA1 mutation carriers and an additional 8 miRs differentiated metastastic (n = 8) from non-metastatic (n = 41) cases in the validation cohort. METHODS: Pre-treatment plasma samples were collected of patients with benign breast disease and breast cancer and divided over a discovery (n = 31) and validation (n = 84) cohort. From the discovery cohort miRs differentially expressed between benign and malignant cases were identified using a 2,000-miR microarray. Literature-based miRs differentiating benign from malignant disease were added. Using RT-qPCR, their expression was investigated in a validation cohort consisting of pre-treatment benign, malignant and metastatic samples. Additionally, benign and malignant cases were compared to benign and malignant cases of BRCA1-mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma microRNA levels differed between patients with and without breast cancer, between benign disease from wildtype and BRCA1-mutation carriers and between breast cancer with and without metastases. Hsa-miR-652-5p was validated as a potential biomarker for breast cancer.

Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women. METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15 percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched control groups. RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358 carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9 years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1 lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent, respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8 percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was significantly better than that of mammography (P<0.05). The proportion of invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control group (14.0 percent [P<0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively). The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4 percent (P<0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups. CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer.

Prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women at risk of hereditary breast cancer: long-term experiences at the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women from a hereditary breast(/ovarian) cancer family have a highly increased risk of developing breast cancer (BC). Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) results in the greatest BC risk reduction. Long-term data on the efficacy and sequels of PM are scarce. METHODS: From 358 high-risk women (including 236 BRCA1/2 carriers) undergoing PM between 1994 and 2004, relevant data on the occurrence of BC in relation to PM, complications in relation to breast reconstruction (BR), mutation status, age at PM and preoperative imaging examination results were extracted from the medical records, and analyzed separately for women without (unaffected, n = 177) and with a BC history (affected, n = 181). RESULTS: No primary BCs occurred after PM (median follow-up 4.5 years). In one previously unaffected woman, metastatic BC was detected almost 4 years after PM (primary BC not found). Median age at PM was younger in unaffected women (P < .001), affected women more frequently were 50% risk carriers (P < .001). Unexpected (pre)malignant changes at PM were found in 3% of the patients (in 5 affected, and 5 unaffected women, respectively). In 49.6% of the women opting for BR one or more complications were registered, totaling 215 complications, leading to 153 surgical interventions (71%). Complications were mainly related to cosmetic outcome (36%) and capsular formation (24%). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing a primary BC after PM remains low after longer follow-up. Preoperative imaging and careful histological examination is warranted because of potential unexpected (pre)malignant findings. The high complication rate after breast reconstruction mainly concerns cosmetic issues.

Accuracy of screening women at familial risk of breast cancer without a known gene mutation: Individual patient data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Women with a strong family history of breast cancer (BC) and without a known gene mutation have an increased risk of developing BC. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of screening using annual mammography with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for these women outside the general population screening program. METHODS: An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was conducted using IPD from six prospective screening trials that had included women at increased risk for BC: only women with a strong familial risk for BC and without a known gene mutation were included in this analysis. A generalised linear mixed model was applied to estimate and compare screening accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) for annual mammography with or without MRI. RESULTS: There were 2226 women (median age: 41 years, interquartile range 35-47) with 7478 woman-years of follow-up, with a BC rate of 12 (95% confidence interval 9.3-14) in 1000 woman-years. Mammography screening had a sensitivity of 55% (standard error of mean [SE] 7.0) and a specificity of 94% (SE 1.3). Screening with MRI alone had a sensitivity of 89% (SE 4.6) and a specificity of 83% (SE 2.8). Adding MRI to mammography increased sensitivity to 98% (SE 1.8, P < 0.01 compared to mammography alone) but lowered specificity to 79% (SE 2.7, P < 0.01 compared with mammography alone). CONCLUSION: In this population of women with strong familial BC risk but without a known gene mutation, in whom BC incidence was high both before and after age 50, adding MRI to mammography substantially increased screening sensitivity but also decreased its specificity.

[Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients]. / De invloed nu van tumorstadium op overleving na borstkanker.

OBJECTIVE: To assess influence of stage at breast cancer diagnosis, tumour biology, and therapy on survival in contemporary times of better (neo-)adjuvant systemic therapy. DESIGN: Prospective nationwide population based study. METHOD: Female primary breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1999 and 2012 (173,797). Participants were subdivided into two time cohorts on the basis of breast cancer diagnosis; 1999 through 2005 (n = 80,228) and 2006 through 2012 (n = 93,569). Main outcome measures were relative survival, compared between both cohorts, and the influence of traditional prognostic factors on overall mortality, analyzed with Cox regression for both cohorts separately. RESULTS: Compared to 1999-2005 patients from 2006-2012 had smaller ( ≤ T1 65 vs. 60%; p < 0.001), more often lymph node negative (N0 68 vs. 65%; p < 0.001) tumours, but they received more chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy (neo-adjuvant/adjuvant systemic therapy 60 vs. 53%; p < 0.001). Median follow-up was 9.8 years for 1999-2005 and 3.9 years for 2006-2012. Relative 5-years survival rate was 96% in 2006-2012, improved in all tumour and nodal stages compared to 1999-2005, and 100% in tumours ≤ 1 cm. With multivariable analyses, adjusted for age and tumour type, overall mortality decreased by surgery (especially breast conserving), radiotherapy and systemic therapies. Mortality increased with progressing tumour size in both cohorts (2006-2012 T1c vs. T1a HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.78), but without significant difference in invasive breast cancers until 1 cm (2006-2012 T1b vs. T1a HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22), and independently with progressing number of positive lymph nodes (2006-2012 N1 vs. N0 HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32). CONCLUSION: Tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis influences overall survival significantly also in the current era of effective systemic therapy. Early tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis remains vital.