PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk is challenging due to moderate performances of the known risk factors. We aimed to improve our previous risk prediction model (PredictCBC) by updated follow-up and including additional risk factors. METHODS: We included data from 207,510 invasive breast cancer patients participating in 23 studies. In total, 8225 CBC events occurred over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. In addition to the previously included risk factors, PredictCBC-2.0 included CHEK2 c.1100delC, a 313 variant polygenic risk score (PRS-313), body mass index (BMI), and parity. Fine and Gray regression was used to fit the model. Calibration and a time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) at 5 and 10 years were assessed to determine the performance of the models. Decision curve analysis was performed to evaluate the net benefit of PredictCBC-2.0 and previous PredictCBC models. RESULTS: The discrimination of PredictCBC-2.0 at 10 years was higher than PredictCBC with an AUC of 0.65 (95% prediction intervals (PI) 0.56-0.74) versus 0.63 (95%PI 0.54-0.71). PredictCBC-2.0 was well calibrated with an observed/expected ratio at 10 years of 0.92 (95%PI 0.34-2.54). Decision curve analysis for contralateral preventive mastectomy (CPM) showed the potential clinical utility of PredictCBC-2.0 between thresholds of 4 and 12% 10-year CBC risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and non-carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Additional genetic information beyond BRCA1/2 germline mutations improved CBC risk prediction and might help tailor clinical decision-making toward CPM or alternative preventive strategies. Identifying patients who benefit from CPM, especially in the general breast cancer population, remains challenging.

Substantial breast cancer risk reduction and potential survival benefit after bilateral mastectomy when compared with surveillance in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: To prospectively assess the efficacy of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) when compared with surveillance on breast cancer (BC) risk and mortality in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred and seventy healthy female mutation carriers (405 BRCA1, 165 BRCA2) were selected from the institutional Family Cancer Clinic database. Eventually, 156 BRCA1 and 56 BRCA2 mutation carriers underwent BRRM. The effect of BRRM versus surveillance was estimated using Cox models. RESULTS: During 2037 person-years of observation (PYO), 57 BC cases occurred in the surveillance group versus zero cases during 1379 PYO in the BRRM group (incidence rates, 28 and 0 per 1000 PYO, respectively). In the surveillance group, four women died of BC, while one woman in the BRRM group presented with metastatic BC 3.5 years after BRRM (no primary BC), and died afterward, yielding a HR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.02-2.61) for BC-specific mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, BRRM when compared with surveillance reduces BC risk substantially, while longer follow-up is warranted to confirm survival benefits.

The effect of attendance in the Dutch breast cancer screening program on breast tumor characteristics among migrant women.

BACKGROUND: In general, migrant women have a lower breast cancer (BC) incidence rate and higher BC mortality than autochthonous women. Further, migrant women show lower participation in the national BC screening program. To further investigate those aspects, we aimed to determine differences in incidence and tumor characteristics between autochthonous and migrant BC patients in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. METHODS: We selected women diagnosed with BC in Rotterdam during 2012-2015 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Incidence rates were calculated by migrant status (i.e., women with or without migration background). Multivariable analyses revealed adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on the association between migration status and patient and tumor characteristics, additionally stratified by screening attendance (yes/no). RESULTS: In total 1372 autochthonous and 450 migrant BC patients were included for analysis. BC incidence was lower among migrants than among autochthonous women. Overall, migrant women were younger at BC diagnosis (53 vs. 64 years, p < 0.001), and had higher risks of positive lymph nodes (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.33-2.33) and high grade tumors (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.75). Especially non-screened migrant women had higher risk of positive nodes (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.43-5.21). Among the subgroup of screened women, we observed no significant differences between migrant and autochthonous patients. CONCLUSION: Migrant women have lower BC incidence than autochthonous women, but diagnosis was more often at younger age and with unfavorable tumor characteristics. Attending the screening program strongly reduces the latter. Therefore, promotion of participation in the screening program is recommended.

Breast cancer risk after salpingo-oophorectomy in healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: revisiting the evidence for risk reduction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported a breast cancer (BC) risk reduction of approximately 50% after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, but may have been subject to several types of bias. The purpose of this nationwide cohort study was to assess potential bias in the estimated BC risk reduction after RRSO. METHODS: We selected BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from an ongoing nationwide cohort study on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON). First, we replicated the analytical methods as previously applied in four major studies on BC risk after RRSO. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios and conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios. Secondly, we analyzed the data in a revised design in order to further minimize bias using an extended Cox model with RRSO as a time-dependent variable to calculate the hazard ratio. The most important differences between our approach and those of previous studies were the requirement of no history of cancer at the date of DNA diagnosis and the inclusion of person-time preceding RRSO. RESULTS: Applying the four previously described analytical methods and the data of 551 to 934 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a median follow-up of 2.7 to 4.6 years, the odds ratio was 0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35 to 1.08), and the hazard ratios were 0.36 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.53), 0.62 (95% CI = 0.39 to 0.99), and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.71), being similar to earlier findings. For the revised analysis, we included 822 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. After a median follow-up period of 3.2 years, we obtained a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.77). CONCLUSION: In previous studies, BC risk reduction after RRSO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may have been overestimated because of bias. Using a design that maximally eliminated bias, we found no evidence for a protective effect.