Search

Background: Germline genetic testing, previously restricted to familial and young-onset breast cancer, is now offered increasingly broadly to patients with 'population-type' breast cancer in mainstream oncology clinics, with wide variation in the genes included., Patients and Methods: Weighted meta-analysis was carried out for three population-based case-control studies (BRIDGES, CARRIERS and UK Biobank) comprising in total 101 397 women with breast cancer and 312 944 women without breast cancer, to quantify 37 putative breast cancer susceptibility genes (BCSGs) for the frequency of pathogenic variants (PVs) in unselected, 'population-type' breast cancer cases and their association with breast cancer and its subtypes., Results: Meta-analysed odds ratios (ORs) and frequencies of PVs in 'population-type' breast cancer cases were generated for BRCA1 (OR 8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.47-10.20; 1 in 101), BRCA2 (OR 5.68, 95% CI 5.13-6.30; 1 in 68) and PALB2 (OR 4.30, 95% CI 3.68-5.03; 1 in 187). For both CHEK2 (OR 2.40, 95% CI 2.21-2.62; 1 in 73) and ATM (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.93-2.41; 1 in 132) subgroup analysis showed a stronger association with oestrogen receptor-positive disease. The magnitude of association and frequency of PVs were low for RAD51C (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.29-2.04; 1 in 913), RAD51D (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.29-2.41; 1 in 1079) and BARD1 (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.85-2.97; 1 in 672); frequencies and associations were higher when the analysis was restricted to triple-negative breast cancers. The PV frequency in 'population-type' breast cancer cases was very low for 'syndromic' BCSGs TP53 (1 in 1844), STK11 (1 in 11 525), CDH1 (1 in 2668), PTEN (1 in 3755) and NF1 (1 in 1470), with metrics of association also modest ranging from OR 3.62 (95% CI 1.98-6.61) for TP53 down to OR 1.60 (95% CI 0.48-5.30) for STK11., Conclusions: These metrics reflecting 'population-type' breast cancer will be informative in defining the appropriate gene set as we continue to expand to germline testing to an increasingly unselected group of breast cancer cases., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure CS has reported non-remunerated activities as Coordinator Gynecological Programme for the European School of Oncology. JB has reported fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca and Pfizer; fees paid to her institute for roles as local principal investigator for AstraZeneca, MedSire and Pfizer. SLB has reported fees as an author for UpToDate. She has also reported non-remunerated activities as the chair of the Scientific Network on Female Sexual Health and Cancer (academic organisation). MJC has reported fees as an invited speaker for Roche (industry-sponsored symposium in National Conference). She has also reported non-remunerated activities as a member of the Board of Directors of EUSOMA, faculty member of ESO, project lead/lead investigator for the Breast Research Group of INESC TEC and President of MAMA Help (non-profit association for breast cancer patients in Portugal). She serves as a Specialty Editor for The Breast. NC has reported fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), ImmunoGen, Mersana, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD)/Merck, Nuvation Bio, OncXerna, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pieris and Roche; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK and MSD/Merck; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche. She has also reported non-remunerated activities as member of the ESMO Guidelines Steering Committee and chair of the Scientific Committee of Alleanza contro il Tumore Ovarico (ACTO). GC has reported fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Celcuity, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipsis, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche and Veracyte; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; fees for a writing engagement from Pfizer; institutional research grant from Merck for an investigator-initiated trial; institutional funding for phase I studies from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicine, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Kymab, Novartis, Philogen, Relay Therapeutics, (coordinating principal investigator), Roche and Sanofi. He has also reported non-remunerated activities as an Italian National Health Council as Advisor for Ministry of Health (Consiglio Superiore di Sanità), member of the Scientific Council for the patient advocacy association Europa Donna, advisory role at the Fondazione Beretta cancer research foundation, member of the Board of Directors for Lega Italian Lotta ai Tumori (public national company for cancer prevention) and member of the Advisory Council of EUSOMA. SMD has reported personal honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS and Clovis; fees paid to her institute as coordinating principal investigator for AstraZeneca. DGE has reported fees for advisory board membership for Recursion, SpringWorks and Syantra; consultancy fees for a writing engagement for AstraZeneca. DF has declared no conflicts of interest. NH has reported fees for advisory board membership for Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi and SeaGen; fees as an invited speaker for Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, Medscape, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and SeaGen; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Palleos, Pierre Fabre, Roche, SeaGen, TRIO and WSG; ownership interest in the West German Study Group. She has also reported non-remunerated activities as a member of the AGO Breast Guideline Committee and member of the ESO/ESCO Breast Cancer Educational Programs. She is the Founding Editor of the Breast Care journal. CK has reported fees for advisory board membership for Guerbet; fees as an invited speaker for Bayer and Bracco. BL has reported fees received from the Rising Tide Foundation as a patient reviewer. She has also reported non-remunerated activities as a member of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO) ENGAGe (Past Executive Board Member) and chair of KIU—Danish Patient Organisation for Women with Gynaecological Cancer. ELL has reported employment as the Director of the Medical Genetics Institute of the Shaare Zedek Medical Center. She has also reported non-remunerated activity as the vice president of the Israel National Academy of Science in Medicine (non-profit). ML has reported fees for advisory board membership and speaker fees for AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche and SeaGen; fees as an invited speaker for Ipsen, Knight, Libbs, Pfizer, Sandoz, SeaGen and Takeda. JAL has reported fees for advisory board membership for Artios Pharma, AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Ellipses, GSK, ImmunoGen, Merck/MSD, Nuvation, Pfizer and VBL Therapeutics; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK and Neopharm; fees related to an independent data monitoring committee for Regeneron; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, MSD/Merck and Pfizer. He has also reported non-remunerated activities as vice president of the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (2019-2021). He serves as an associate editor of Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology (Sage Publishing). SL has reported fees paid to her institute for advisory board membership for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, DSI, EirGenix, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi and SeaGen; fees paid to her institute as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, DSI, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; employment as the Chief Executive officer (CEO) of GBG Forschungs GmbH; licensing fees paid to her institute by VM Scope GmbH; research grants to her institute from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunomedics/Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; institutional funding from AbbVie and Molecular Health; fees paid to her institute as principal investigator (Penelope/Padma) from Pfizer; fees paid to her institute from AstraZeneca (SC Capitello), Daiichi Sankyo (SC Destiny B05), Immunomedics/Gilead (SC ASCENT), Novartis (SC SOLAR1), Pfizer (SC PALOMA3), Roche (SC Inavo and SC Katherine), SeaGen (SC HERCLIMB). She has also reported non-remunerated activities as principal investigator for Aphinity, advisory role to Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Kommission Mamma (group in Germany responsible for breast cancer guidelines), membership of AGO, Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft (DKG), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and ESMO including membership of the ESMO Guidelines Committee and past chair of the ESMO Breast Congress. She has reported institutional patents for which she has no financial interests: EP14153692.0, EP21152186.9, EP15702464.7, EP19808852.8. K-AP has reported non-remunerated activities as advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Scientific Advisory Committee member for Breast Cancer Trials, project lead in Australia for the DECRESENDO and OlympiA studies, member of the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer Clusters for the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic Advisory Committee member for Breast Cancer Network Australia, Cancer Genetics Reference Committee Member for New South Wales Cancer Institute; advisory role on the register of experts for breast and hereditary cancer for the Medical Oncology Group of Australia and breast cancer optimal care pathway committee member for Cancer Council Victoria. She is also a leadership fellow of the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and a practitioner fellow of the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia). SP-S has reported fees paid to her institute for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Medison, Pfizer and Roche; fees paid to her institute as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Medison, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; fees paid to her institute for consultancy for Medison; personal and institutional research grant for an request for proposal for independent research put out by Shared Progress in Cancer Care and Pfizer.

Background: Breast cancer has a significant heritable basis, of which ∼60% remains unexplained. Testing for BRCA1/BRCA2 offers useful discrimination of breast cancer risk within families, and identification of additional breast cancer susceptibility genes could offer clinical utility., Patients and Methods: We included 2135 invasive breast cancer cases recruited via the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility study, a retrospective UK study of familial breast cancer., Eligibility Criteria: female, BRCA-negative, white European ethnicity, and one of: (i) breast cancer family history, (ii) bilateral disease, (iii) young age of onset (<30 years), and (iv) concomitant ovarian cancer. We undertook exome sequencing of cases and carried out gene-level burden testing of rare damaging variants against those from 51 377 ethnicity-matched population controls from gnomAD., Results: 159/2135 (7.4%) cases had a qualifying variant in an established breast cancer susceptibility gene, with minimal evidence of signal in other cancer susceptibility genes. Known breast cancer susceptibility genes PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the only genes to retain statistical significance after correcting for multiple testing. Due to the enrichment of hereditary cases in the series, we had good power (>80%) to detect a gene of BRCA1-like risk [odds ratio (OR) = 10.6] down to a population minor allele frequency of 4.6 × 10 -5 (1 in 10 799, less than one-tenth that of BRCA1)and of PALB2-like risk (OR = 5.0) down to a population minor allele frequency of 2.8 × 10 -4 (1 in 1779, less than half that of PALB2). Power was lower for identification of novel moderate penetrance genes (OR = 2-3) like CHEK2 and ATM., Conclusions: This is the largest case-control whole-exome analysis of enriched breast cancer published to date. Whilst additional breast cancer susceptibility genes likely exist, those of high penetrance are likely to be of very low mutational frequency. Contention exists regarding the clinical utility of such genes., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many women with increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, due to pathogenic gene variants or family history, choose to undergo bilateral risk reducing mastectomies (BRRM). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) are an increasingly important part of informed consent but are little studied in women undergoing BRRM., Methods: We used a validated PROMS tool for breast reconstruction (BREAST-Q) in 297 women who had BRRM and breast reconstruction, 81% of whom had no malignancy (Benign Group, BG) and 19% in whom a perioperative breast cancer was diagnosed (Cancer Group, CG). 128 women also completed a Hospital Anxiety & Depression Score (HADS) questionnaire to test if preoperative HADS score could predict PROMS outcomes., Results: Women in the CG had lower PROMS scores for satisfaction with their breasts, nipple reconstruction and sexual wellbeing. Both groups reported equal satisfaction with BRRM outcome and psychosocial well-being. Physical well-being PROMS of the abdomen and chest were high in women in both groups as were scores for satisfaction with the care they received. The CG group reported suboptimal quality of patient information. A higher presurgical HADS anxiety score predicted less favourable postoperative psychosocial well-being despite similar levels of satisfaction with aesthetic outcome., Conclusion: We show a high degree of patient reported satisfaction by woman undergoing BRRM and reconstruction. There was a negative association with a cancer diagnosis on quality of life PROMS and higher preoperative anxiety levels negatively affected postoperative psychosocial well-being. These important findings should be part of the informed consent process during preoperative counselling., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors confirm the absence of any conflicts of interest relating to any aspect of the work presented above., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Hereditary breast cancers, mainly due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, account for only 5-10% of this disease. The threshold for genetic testing is a 10% likelihood of detecting a mutation, as determined by validated models such as BOADICEA and Manchester Scoring System. A 90-95% reduction in breast cancer risk can be achieved with bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in unaffected BRCA mutation carriers. In patients with BRCA-associated breast cancer, there is a 40% risk of contralateral breast cancer and hence risk-reducing contralateral mastectomy is recommended, which can be performed simultaneously with surgery for unilateral breast cancer. Other options for risk management include surveillance by mammogram and breast magnetic resonance imaging, and chemoprevention with hormonal agents. With the advent of next-generation sequencing and development of multigene panel testing, the cost and time taken for genetic testing have reduced, making it possible for treatment-focused genetic testing. There are also drugs such as the PARP inhibitors that specifically target the BRCA mutation. Risk management multidisciplinary clinics are designed to quantify risk, and offer advice on preventative strategies. However, such services are only possible in high-income settings. In low-resource settings, the prohibitive cost of testing and the lack of genetic counsellors are major barriers to setting up a breast cancer genetics service. Family history is often not well documented because of the stigma associated with cancer. Breast cancer genetics services remain an unmet need in low- and middle-income countries, where the priority is to optimise access to quality treatment.

Background: Weight-loss programmes requiring intermittent energy restriction offer an alternative to continuous energy restriction programmes that typically have low adherence. We reported greater weight loss, better adherence and spontaneous reduced energy intake on healthy eating days with intermittent as opposed to continuous energy restriction. The present study aims to explore why intermittent energy restriction diets exert these positive effects., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 13 women aged 39-62 years, who followed a 4-month intermittent energy restriction (2 days of low energy/low carbohydrate, 5 days of healthy eating). Nine of the 13 women successfully lost >5% of their total body weight. Data were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: The intermittent regimen redefined the meaning of dieting and normal eating. Women reconceptualised dieting as only two low energy days per week, even though this often differed from their pre-diet eating patterns. Women reported that they could adhere more closely to the rules of the intermittent diet compared to previously attempted continuous diets. They found that the intermittent diet was less cognitively demanding because the restrictive and clear rules of the intermittent diet were easier to understand and easier to follow than with continuous dieting., Conclusions: Many participants found intermittent dieting preferable to previous experiences of continuous dieting. The findings provide some insight into the ways in which intermittent dieting is successful, and why it could be considered a viable alternative to continuous energy restriction for weight loss., (© 2018 The British Dietetic Association Ltd.)

Background: The rate of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) is increasing in the West with controversial evidence of improved survival in early breast cancer patients. Although uptake of CRRM in Asia appears low, the trends may rise, and there is currently an urgent need to provide evidence for informed decision-making in clinical practice. This study aims to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and its associated factors in an Asian setting., Method: A total of 2937 newly diagnosed patients with stage I and stage II breast cancer in University Malaya Medical Centre between Jan 1993 to Dec 2012 were included in the study. Multinomial logistic regression analysis allowing death to compete with CBC as a study outcome was used; patients with unilateral breast cancer who were alive were taken as reference. A stepwise backward regression analysis including age at diagnosis, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, TNM stage, hormonal receptor status, HER2 status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy was conducted., Results: Fifty women developed CBC, over a median follow-up of 6 years. The 5- and 10-year cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer was 1.0% (95% CI 0.6-1.4%) and 2.8% (95% CI 2.0-3.6%), respectively. Young age at diagnosis of first cancer, positive family history, and stage I disease were independent predictors of CBC., Discussion: The current study suggests that the risk of CBC is very low in a Southeast Asian setting. Any recommendations or practice of CRRM should be reviewed with caution and patients must be counseled appropriately.

Purpose: Previous research assessing the impact of pregnancy and age at first pregnancy on breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has produced conflicting results, with some studies showing an increased risk following early first pregnancy in contrast to the reduced risk in the general population of women. The present study addresses these inconsistencies., Methods: Female BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers from North West England were assessed for breast cancer incidence prior to 50 years of age comparing those with an early first full-term pregnancy (< 21 years) to those without a full-term pregnancy. Breast cancer incidence per decade from 20 years and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed., Results: 2424 female mutation carriers (1278 BRCA1; 1146 BRCA2) developed 990 breast cancers under the age of 50 years. Women who had their first term pregnancy prior to age 21 (n = 441) had a lower cancer incidence especially between age 30-39 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed an odds ratio of 0.78 for BRCA1 (p = 0.005) and 0.73 for BRCA2 (p = 0.002)., Conclusions: The present study demonstrates a clear protective effect of early first pregnancy on breast cancer risk in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

To assess the need for adjustment in the likelihood of germline BRCA1/2 mutations in women with HER2+ breast cancers. We analysed primary mutation screens on women with breast cancer with unequivocal HER2 overexpression and assessed the likelihood of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations by age, oestrogen receptor status and Manchester score. Of 1111 primary BRCA screens with confirmed HER2 status only 4/161 (2.5%) of women with HER2 amplification had a BRCA1 mutation identified and 5/161 (3.1%) a BRCA2 mutation. The pathology adjusted Manchester score between 10 and 19% and 20%+ thresholds resulted in a detection rate of only 6.5 and 15% respectively. BOADICEA examples appeared to make even less downward adjustment. There is a very low detection rate of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women with HER2 amplified breast cancers. The Manchester score and BOADICEA do not make sufficient downward adjustment for HER2 amplification. For unaffected women, assessment of breast cancer risk and BRCA1/2 probability should take into account the pathology of the most relevant close relative. Unaffected women undergoing mutation testing for BRCA1/2 should be advised that there is limited reassurance from a negative test result if their close relative had a HER2+ breast cancer.

Aim: To determine the frequency of and reasons for false-negative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations in high-risk women undergoing annual screening., Materials and Methods: The family history clinic database was interrogated and women at high risk of breast cancer who had undergone screening MRI and been diagnosed with breast cancer within 2 years of the MRI examination were identified. All available MRI examinations were reviewed and classified by two radiologists., Results: Of 32 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 23 had MRI images available for review. Fourteen were diagnosed at MRI, four at interim mammography, two symptomatically, one incidentally on ultrasound, and two at risk-reducing mastectomy. Ten women (43%) had potentially avoidable delays in diagnosis. The preceding MRIs were classified as false-negative screens in five women (one prevalent, four incident), false-negative assessment in seven and minimal signs in three (three women were assigned dual classifications). Common reasons for diagnostic delay included small enhancing masses that were overlooked, areas of non-mass enhancement that showed little or no change between screens, false reassurance from normal conventional imaging at assessment, and overreliance on short-interval repeat MRI., Conclusion: Small enhancing foci, masses, and areas of segmental non-mass enhancement are common MRI features of early breast cancer. Lack of change of non-mass enhancement on serial examinations does not exclude malignancy. Double reading of both screening and assessment examinations is recommended. Ready access to MRI biopsy is essential. Short-interval repeat MRI should be limited to reassessing low suspicion areas likely to be benign glandular enhancement. Annual mammography remains important in these women., (Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Young age at diagnosis for breast cancer raises the question of genetic susceptibility. We explored breast cancer susceptibility genes testing on ≤40-year-old patients with HER2-amplified invasive breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were selected from a large UK cohort study. The inclusion criterion was age ≤40 at diagnosis with confirmed HER2-amplified breast cancer. The probability of finding a BRCA gene mutation was calculated based on family history. Genetic testing used was either clinical testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a subset also tested for TP53 mutations, or research-based testing using a typical panel comprising 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) including BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53., Results: Of the 591 eligible patients, clinical testing results were available for 133 cases and an additional 263 cases had panel testing results. BRCA testing across 396 cases found 8 BRCA2 (2%) and 6 BRCA1 (2%) pathogenic mutations. Of the 304 patients tested for TP53 mutations, overall 9 (3%) had deleterious TP53 mutations. Of the 396 patients, 101 (26%) met clinical criteria for BRCA testing (≥10% probability), among whom 11% had pathogenic BRCA mutations (6 BRCA2, 5 BRCA1). Where the probability was calculated to be <10%, only 4 of 295 (1%) patients had BRCA mutations. Among the 59 patients who had TP53 testing meeting the 10% threshold, 7 had mutations (12%). Likely functionally deleterious mutations in 14 lower penetrance CSGs were present in 12 of 263 (5%) panel-tested patients., Conclusion: Patients aged <41 at diagnosis with HER2+ breast cancer and no family history of breast cancer can be reassured that they have a low chance of being a high-risk gene carrier. If there is a strong family history, not only BRCA but also TP53 gene testing should be considered. The clinical utility of testing lower penetrance CSGs remains unclear., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Rates of contralateral risk reducing mastectomy (CRRM) are rising despite a paucity of data to support this practice. Surgeons work as part of the multidisciplinary team (MDT). They may counsel women on these requests without the benefit of established guidelines or agreed protocol. This study assessed the practices and perceptions of breast and plastic surgeons in England on CRRM., Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to 455 breast and 364 plastic surgeons practising in England. Basic demographics, trends in CRRM, risk assessment, role of the MDT and knowledge base were assessed., Results: The response rate among breast surgeons was 48.3% (220/455) and 12.6% (46/364) among plastic surgeons. Nearly half (44%) of the respondents felt there had been an increase in rates of CRRM over the last three years. Seventy-one per cent of those surveyed performed 1-5 CRRMs annually while sixteen per cent did not perform this procedure at all. A third (32%) of respondents correctly quoted their patients an annual risk of 0.5-0.7%. Funding was refused in 4% of cases and 43% of the surgeons felt that in the future they would have to apply to relevant clinical commissioning groups. Over half (58%) of all respondents reported that decisions for CRRM are always discussed in the MDT meeting but 6% stated that these cases are never discussed by the MDT. BRCA mutation was perceived as the main risk factor for contralateral breast cancer by 81% of respondents. Surgeons felt that women requested CRRM mainly to alleviate anxiety. The next most common reasons were carriage of BRCA mutation and a desire to have reconstructions match., Conclusions: A wide variation of surgical practices and perceptions exist in assessing women for CRRM. Guidelines to standardise practices are required.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have an increased risk of contralateral breast cancer after primary breast cancer. Risk reduction strategies are discussed after assessment of risk factors for developing contralateral breast cancer. We assessed potential risk factors that could be of use in clinical practice, including the novel use of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) testing. 506 BRCA1 and 505 BRCA2 mutation carriers with a diagnosis of breast cancer were observed for up to 30 years. The risk of a contralateral breast cancer is approximately 2-3% per year, remaining constant for at least 20 years. This was similar in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Initial breast cancer before age 40-years was a significant risk factor, which was more pronounced in BRCA1 patients. The effect of risk-reducing oophorectomy on contralateral breast cancer risk may be overestimated because of bias. No significant association was found between overall breast cancer risk SNP score and contralateral breast cancer development. Young mutation carriers, particularly those with BRCA1 mutations, who develop breast cancer have a significantly higher risk of developing contralateral breast cancer, remaining constant for over 20 years. Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy should be considered in this group, in particular as there is a survival benefit. Caution is advised when counselling women considering risk-reducing oophorectomy as, after accounting for statistical bias, the associated risk reduction was found to be non-significant, and potentially smaller than has been previously reported. SNP testing did not add any further discriminatory information when assessing contralateral breast cancer risk.

Background: Rates of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) are rising, despite a decreasing global incidence of contralateral breast cancer. Reasons for requesting this procedure are complex, and we have previously shown a variable practice amongst breast and plastic surgeons in England. We propose a protocol, based on a published systematic review, a national UK survey and the Manchester experience of CRRM., Methods: We reviewed the literature for risk factors for contralateral breast cancer and have devised a 5-step process that includes history taking, calculating contralateral breast cancer risk, cooling off period/counselling, multi-disciplinary assessment and consent. Members of the multi-disciplinary team included the breast surgeon, plastic surgeon and geneticist, who formulated guidelines., Results: A simple formula to calculate the life-time risk of contralateral breast cancer has been devised. This allows stratification of breast cancer patients into different risk-groups: low, above average, moderate and high risk. Recommendations vary according to different risk groups., Conclusion: These guidelines are a useful tool for clinicians counselling women requesting CRRM. Risk assessment is mandatory in this group of patients, and our formula allows evidence-based recommendations to be made.

Rates of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy have increased substantially over the last decade. Surgical oncologists are often in the frontline, dealing with requests for this procedure. This paper reviews the current evidence base regarding contralateral breast cancer, assesses the various risk-reducing strategies, and evaluates the cost-effectiveness of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy.

Background: Randomised trials of tamoxifen versus placebo indicate that tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 33%, yet uptake is low. Approximately 10% of women in our clinic entered the IBIS-I prevention trial. We assess the uptake of tamoxifen in a consecutive series of premenopausal women not in a trial and explore the reasons for uptake through interviews., Methods: All eligible women between 33 and 46 years at ≥17% lifetime risk of breast cancer and undergoing annual mammography in our service were invited to take a 5-year course of tamoxifen. Reasons for accepting (n=15) or declining (n=15) were explored using semi-structured interviews., Results: Of 1279 eligible women, 136 (10.6%) decided to take tamoxifen. Women >40 years (74 out of 553 (13.4%)) and those at higher non-BRCA-associated risk were more likely to accept tamoxifen (129 out of 1109 (11.6%)). Interviews highlighted four themes surrounding decision making: perceived impact of side effects, the impact of others' experience on beliefs about tamoxifen, tamoxifen as a 'cancer drug', and daily reminder of cancer risk., Conclusions: Tamoxifen uptake was similar to previously ascertained uptake in a randomised controlled trial (IBIS-I). Concerns were similar in women who did or did not accept tamoxifen. Decision making appeared to be embedded in the experience of significant others.

Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35-39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32%). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.

Purpose: Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) has proven to be the most effective method to reduce the risk of breast cancer in high-risk women. The present study aimed to present and compare the attitudes towards PM among physicians in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK)., Patients and Methods: An international sample of 1196 general practitioners (GPs) and 927 breast surgeons (BS) were surveyed using a mailed questionnaire., Results: Only 30% of the French and 27% of the German GPs were of opinion that PM should be an option for an unaffected female BRCA1/2 mutation carrier, as compared to 85% and 92% of the GPs in the Netherlands and UK, respectively. Similarly, 78% of the French and 66% of the German BS reported a positive attitude towards PM, as compared to 100% and 97% of the BS in the Netherlands and UK, respectively. In the whole sample of GPs, a positive attitude towards PM was associated with country of residence, being female, and having more knowledge of breast/ovarian cancer genetics, while among BS there was a positive association with country of residence and having more knowledge of breast/ovarian cancer genetics as well, and, in addition, with a higher number of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients last year., Conclusion: These results demonstrated the international variations in the attitude towards PM among physicians. This might reflect that different policies are adopted to prevent breast cancer in women at-risk., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major breast cancer susceptibility genes. Nineteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 18 loci have been associated with breast cancer. We aimed to determine whether these predict breast cancer incidence in women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers identified through the Manchester genetics centre between 1996 and 2011 were included. Using published odds ratios (OR) and risk allele frequencies, we calculated an overall breast cancer risk SNP score (OBRS) for each woman. The relationship between OBRS and age at breast cancer onset was investigated using the Cox proportional hazards model, and predictive ability assessed using Harrell's C concordance statistic. In BRCA1 mutation carriers we found no association between OBRS and age at breast cancer onset: OR for the lowest risk quintile compared to the highest was 1.20 (95% CI 0.82-1.75, Harrell's C = 0.54), but in BRCA2 mutation carriers the association was significant (OR for the lowest risk quintile relative to the highest was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33-0.69, Harrell's C = 0.59). The 18 validated breast cancer SNPs differentiate breast cancer risks between women with BRCA2 mutations, but not BRCA1. It may now be appropriate to use these SNPs to help women with BRCA2 mutations make maximally informed decisions about management options., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Since the localization and discovery of the first high-risk breast cancer (BC) genes in 1990, there has been a substantial progress in unravelling its familial component. Increasing numbers of women at risk of BC are coming forward requesting advice on their risk and what they can do about it. Three groups of genetic predisposition alleles have so far been identified with high-risk genes conferring 40-85% lifetime risk including BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53. Moderate risk genes (20-40% risk) including PALB1, BRIP, ATM and CHEK2, and a host of low-risk common alleles identified largely through genome-wide association studies. Currently, only BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 are used in clinical practice on a wide scale, although testing of up to 50-100 gene loci may be possible in the future utilizing next-generation technology., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: The variable penetrance of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers suggests that other genetic or environmental factors modify breast cancer risk. Two genes of special interest are prohibitin (PHB) and methylene-tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), both of which are important either directly or indirectly in maintaining genomic integrity., Methods: To evaluate the potential role of genetic variants within PHB and MTHFR in breast and ovarian cancer risk, 4102 BRCA1 and 2093 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 6211 BRCA1 and 2902 BRCA2 carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA) were genotyped for the PHB 1630 C>T (rs6917) polymorphism and the MTHFR 677 C>T (rs1801133) polymorphism, respectively., Results: There was no evidence of association between the PHB 1630 C>T and MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphisms with either disease for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers when breast and ovarian cancer associations were evaluated separately. Analysis that evaluated associations for breast and ovarian cancer simultaneously showed some evidence that BRCA1 mutation carriers who had the rare homozygote genotype (TT) of the PHB 1630 C>T polymorphism were at increased risk of both breast and ovarian cancer (HR 1.50, 95%CI 1.10-2.04 and HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.24-3.76, respectively). However, there was no evidence of association under a multiplicative model for the effect of each minor allele., Conclusion: The PHB 1630TT genotype may modify breast and ovarian cancer risks in BRCA1 mutation carriers. This association need to be evaluated in larger series of BRCA1 mutation carriers.

Breast cancer is not only increasing in the west but also particularly rapidly in eastern countries where traditionally the incidence has been low. The rise in incidence is mainly related to changes in reproductive patterns and lifestyle. These trends could potentially be reversed by defining women at greatest risk and offering appropriate preventive measures. A model for this approach was the establishment of Family History Clinics (FHCs), which have resulted in improved survival in younger women at high risk. New predictive models of risk that include reproductive and lifestyle factors, mammographic density and measurement of risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) may give more precise information concerning risk and enable better targeting for mammographic screening programmes and of preventive measures. Endocrine prevention using anti-oestrogens and aromatase inhibitors is effective, and observational studies suggest lifestyle modification may also be effective. However, referral to FHCs is opportunistic and predominantly includes younger women. A better approach for identifying older women at risk may be to use national breast screening programmes. Here were described pilot studies to assess whether the routine assessment of breast cancer risk is feasible within a population-based screening programme, whether the feedback and advice on risk-reducing interventions would be welcomed and taken up, and to consider whether the screening interval should be modified according to breast cancer risk., (© 2012 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.)

Background: Triple-negative (TN) tumours are the predominant breast cancer subtype in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Recently, it was proposed that all individuals below 50 years of age with TN breast cancer should be offered BRCA testing. We have evaluated the BRCA1 mutation frequency and the implications for clinical practice of undertaking genetic testing in women with TN breast cancer., Methods: We undertook BRCA1 mutation analysis in 308 individuals with TN breast cancer, 159 individuals from unselected series of breast cancer and 149 individuals from series ascertained on the basis of young age and/or family history., Results: BRCA1 mutations were present in 45 out of 308 individuals. Individuals with TN cancer <50 years had >10% likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 mutation in both the unselected (11 out of 58, 19%) and selected (26 out of 111, 23%) series. However, over a third would not have been offered testing using existing criteria. We estimate that testing all individuals with TN breast cancer <50 years would generate an extra 1200 tests annually in England., Conclusion: Women with TN breast cancer diagnosed below 50 years have >10% likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 mutation and are therefore eligible for testing in most centres. However, implementation may place short-term logistical and financial burdens on genetic services.

In 2004 the NICE guidelines on familial breast cancer advised Health Care Professionals that they should not actively seek to identify women with a family history of breast cancer. We have carried out a review of the evidence base and a large scale questionnaire survey of health professionals in four European countries. There is overwhelming support amongst GPs and surgeons against the premise that that health care professionals should not be proactive in identifying patients at risk of familial breast cancer. This that suggest the time is right to overturn the NICE decision.

Background: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in DNA repair are good candidates to be tested as phenotypic modifiers for carriers of mutations in the high-risk susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. The base excision repair (BER) pathway could be particularly interesting given the relation of synthetic lethality that exists between one of the components of the pathway, PARP1, and both BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this study, we have evaluated the XRCC1 gene that participates in the BER pathway, as phenotypic modifier of BRCA1 and BRCA2., Methods: Three common SNPs in the gene, c.-77C>T (rs3213245) p.Arg280His (rs25489) and p.Gln399Arg (rs25487) were analysed in a series of 701 BRCA1 and 576 BRCA2 mutation carriers., Results: An association was observed between p.Arg280His-rs25489 and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers, with rare homozygotes at increased risk relative to common homozygotes (hazard ratio: 22.3, 95% confidence interval: 14.3-34, P<0.001). This association was further tested in a second series of 4480 BRCA1 and 3016 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2., Conclusions and Interpretation: No evidence of association was found when the larger series was analysed which lead us to conclude that none of the three SNPs are significant modifiers of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers.

Background: As part of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Screening (MARIBS), Study women with a family history of breast cancer were assessed psychologically to determine the relative psychological impact and acceptability of annual screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional X-ray mammography (XRM)., Methods: Women were assessed psychologically at baseline (4 weeks before MRI and XRM), immediately before, and immediately after, both MRI and XRM, and at follow-up (6 weeks after the scans)., Results: Overall, both procedures were found to be acceptable with high levels of satisfaction (MRI, 96.3% and XRM, 97.7%; NS) and low levels of psychological morbidity throughout, particularly at 6-week follow-up. Low levels of self-reported distress were reported for both procedures (MRI, 13.5% and XRM, 7.8%), although MRI was more distressing (P=0.005). Similarly, higher anticipatory anxiety was reported before MRI than before XRM (P=0.003). Relative to XRM, MRI-related distress was more likely to persist at 6 weeks after the scans in the form of intrusive MRI-related thoughts (P=0.006) and total MRI-related distress (P=0.014). More women stated that they intended to return for XRM (96.3%) than for MRI (88%; P<0.0005). These effects were most marked for the first year of screening, although they were also statistically significant in subsequent years., Conclusion: Given the proven benefits of MRI in screening for breast cancer in this population, these data point to the urgent need to provide timely information and support to women undergoing MRI.

Recent candidate gene and genome wide association studies have revealed novel loci associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. We evaluated the effect of these breast cancer associated variants on ovarian cancer risk in individuals with familial ovarian cancer both with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. A total of 158 unrelated white British women (54 BRCA1/2 mutation positive and 104 BRCA1/2 mutation negative) with familial ovarian cancer were genotyped for FGFR2, TNRC9/TOX3 and CASP8 variants. The p.Asp302His CASP8 variant was associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk in the familial BRCA1/2 mutation negative ovarian cancer cases (P = 0.016). The synonymous TNRC9/TOX3 (Ser51) variant was present at a significantly lower frequency than in patients with familial BRCA1/2 positive breast cancer (P = 0.0002). Our results indicate that variants in CASP8 and TNRC9/TOX3 alter the risk of disease in individuals affected with familial ovarian cancer.

Inactivation or loss of the tumour suppressor Ras associated domain family 1 isoform A (RASSF1A) allele has been described in breast cancer. Recently, a missense polymorphism predicting p.A331S in RASSF1A was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and early-onset breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We genotyped p.A331S RASSF1A in 854 independent, familial, white breast cancer patients (645 BRCA mutation negative, 119 BRCA1 and 90 BRCA2 positive) and compared the genotype in 331 healthy women. The RASSF1A p.A331S variant was not more common in the familial breast cancer cases than in the controls (P = 0.27). Subset analysis demonstrated no association in the BRCA1 (P = 0.26), BRCA2 (P = 0.16) or BRCA negative (P = 0.30) samples. Hence, the RASSF1A p.A331S polymorphism is not confirmed as a significant germline contributor to familial breast cancer susceptibility.

Background: There are relatively few articles addressing long-term follow-up in women with breast cancer at very young ages., Methods: We have updated and extended our population-based analysis of breast cancer diagnosed at the age < or =30 years in North-west England to include an extra 15 patients with mutation testing in BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53, with 115 of 288 consecutive cases being tested. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess overall survival, contralateral breast cancer and other second primaries., Results: Survival analysis of all 288 patients showed poor overall survival, although this improved from a 15-year survival of only 46% in those diagnosed between 1980 and 1989 to 58% in those diagnosed between 1990 and 1997 (P=0.05). Contralateral breast cancer rates were at a steady rate of 0.6 per 1000, although the rates in mutation carriers were approximately 2 per 1000. Altogether, 16 BRCA1, 9 BRCA2 and 6 TP53 mutations have now been found among the 115 cases on whom DNA analysis has been performed. BRCAPRO accurately predicted the number of carriers for BRCA1 and BRCA2 and was sensitive and specific at the 10 and 20% threshold, respectively. However, BRCAPRO did not seem to give any weight to DCIS, which accounted for two BRCA1 carriers and three TP53 carriers and overpredicted mutations at the high end of the spectrum, with only 6 of 11 (54%) with a >90% probability having identifiable BRCA1/2 mutations., Interpretation: Rates of new primaries are predicted to some extent by mutation status. BRCAPRO is useful at determining those patients aged < or =30 years to be tested.

Background: Selection for genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2 is an important area of healthcare. Although testing costs for mutational analysis are falling, costs in North America remain in excess of US$3000 (UK price can be 690 pounds). Guidelines in most countries use a 10-20% threshold of detecting a mutation in BRCA1/2 combined within a family before mutational analysis is considered. A number of computer-based models have been developed. However, use of these models can be time consuming and difficult. The Manchester scoring system was developed in 2003 to simplify the selection process without losing accuracy., Methods: In order to increase accuracy of prediction, breast pathology of the index case was incorporated into the Manchester scoring system based on 2156 samples from unrelated non-Jewish patients fully tested for BRCA1/2, and the scores were adapted accordingly. Results/, Discussion: Data from breast pathology allowed adjustment of BRCA1 and combined BRCA1/2 scores alone. There was a lack of pathological homogeneity for BRCA2, therefore specific pathological correlates could not be identified. Upward adjustments in BRCA1 mutation prediction scores were made for grade 3 ductal cancers, oestrogen receptor (ER) and triple-negative tumours. Downward adjustments in the score were made for grade 1 tumours, lobular cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ and ER/HER2 positivity. Application of the updated scoring system led to four and nine more mutations in BRCA1 being identified at the 10% and 20% threshold, respectively. Furthermore, 65 and 58 fewer cases met the 10% and 20% threshold, respectively, for testing. Moreover, the adjusted score significantly improved the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for BRCA1/2 prediction.

Background: The TP53 pathway, in which TP53 and its negative regulator MDM2 are the central elements, has an important role in carcinogenesis, particularly in BRCA1- and BRCA2-mediated carcinogenesis. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the promoter region of MDM2 (309T>G, rs2279744) and a coding SNP of TP53 (Arg72Pro, rs1042522) have been shown to be of functional significance., Methods: To investigate whether these SNPs modify breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we pooled genotype data on the TP53 Arg72Pro SNP in 7011 mutation carriers and on the MDM2 309T>G SNP in 2222 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Data were analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model within a retrospective likelihood framework., Results: No association was found between these SNPs and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (TP53: per-allele hazard ratio (HR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.10, P(trend)=0.77; MDM2: HR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.84-1.09, P(trend)=0.54) or for BRCA2 mutation carriers (TP53: HR=0.99, 95%CI: 0.87-1.12, P(trend)=0.83; MDM2: HR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.80-1.21, P(trend)=0.88). We also evaluated the potential combined effects of both SNPs on breast cancer risk, however, none of their combined genotypes showed any evidence of association., Conclusion: There was no evidence that TP53 Arg72Pro or MDM2 309T>G, either singly or in combination, influence breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Background: Increasingly women at high risk of breast cancer are opting for risk reducing surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this approach in women at high risk in both carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1/2., Methods: Data from 10 European centres that offer a genetic counselling and screening service to women at risk were obtained prospectively from 1995. Breast cancer risks were estimated from life tables and a control group of women at risk who did not undergo surgery., Results: The combined centres have data on 550 women who have undergone risk reducing mastectomy with greater than 3334 women years of follow-up. Operations were carried out on women with lifetime risks of 25-80%, with an average expected incidence rate of 1% per year. No breast cancers have occurred in this cohort in the "at risk" unaffected breast, whereas >34 would have been expected. A high rate (2-3.6%) of occult disease was identified in the at risk breast at the time of surgery., Interpretation: We conclude that risk reducing surgery is highly effective.

There have been few studies addressing uptake of predictive testing for BRCA1/2, only one comparing a proactive with usual family networking approach to dissemination. We report uptake of predictive genetic testing after directly offering BRCA1 presymptomatic genetic testing to 100 individuals in two generations of 5 large BRCA1 families compared with service testing of 196 families since that time. Uptake was significantly higher in the first generation (group 1), who were directly offered testing, and much higher in females. Seventy-four percent of unaffected women in the first generation proceeded to testing, 42% of men. This decreased to 44% of women in the second generation (group 2) and 9% males (p = 0.0003). Uptake in unaffected individuals in the final group (group 3) with no proactive approach was significantly lower than that in the first group. Overall uptake after 10 years was 56% (95% confidence interval, CI, 50-62%) for group 1 and 36% (95% CI 34.3-37.7%) for 1084 group 3 individuals (p = 0.0003). Among women, uptake was 74% (95% CI 67-81%) in group 1 at 10 years compared with 51.5% (95% CI 49-54%) in 552 group 3 women (p = 0.023). In men, uptake was 42% (95% CI 33-52%) in group 1 and 21.1% (95% CI 18.1-23.1%) among 532 men in group 3 (p = 0.0098). Although these results are not from a randomized trial, they show particularly among men a substantially higher uptake of genetic services with a direct approach. Importance should be given to more proactive approaches to ensure that men in BRCA1/2-positive families receive the appropriate information.

Multiple genetic loci confer susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers. We have previously developed a model (BOADICEA) under which susceptibility to breast cancer is explained by mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, as well as by the joint multiplicative effects of many genes (polygenic component). We have now updated BOADICEA using additional family data from two UK population-based studies of breast cancer and family data from BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers identified by 22 population-based studies of breast or ovarian cancer. The combined data set includes 2785 families (301 BRCA1 positive and 236 BRCA2 positive). Incidences were smoothed using locally weighted regression techniques to avoid large variations between adjacent intervals. A birth cohort effect on the cancer risks was implemented, whereby each individual was assumed to develop cancer according to calendar period-specific incidences. The fitted model predicts that the average breast cancer risks in carriers increase in more recent birth cohorts. For example, the average cumulative breast cancer risk to age 70 years among BRCA1 carriers is 50% for women born in 1920-1929 and 58% among women born after 1950. The model was further extended to take into account the risks of male breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer, and to allow for the risk of multiple cancers. BOADICEA can be used to predict carrier probabilities and cancer risks to individuals with any family history, and has been implemented in a user-friendly Web-based program (http://www.srl.cam.ac.uk/genepi/boadicea/boadicea&#95;home.html).

Background: Malignancy risks in patients with neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) are increased, but those occurring outside of the nervous system have not been clearly defined., Aim: To evaluate the risk of breast cancer in women with NF1 in a population-based study., Methods: The risk of breast cancer in a cohort of 304 women with NF1 aged >or=20 years was assessed and compared with population risks over the period 1975-2005 using a person-years-at-risk analysis., Results: There were 14 cases of breast cancers in the follow-up period, yielding a standardised incidence ratio (SIR) of 3.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 5.9). However, six breast cancers occurred in women in their 40s, and the SIR of breast cancer in women aged <50 years was 4.9 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.8)., Interpretation: Women with NF1 aged <50 years have a fivefold risk of breast cancer, are in the moderate risk category and should be considered for mammography from 40 years of age.

Background: The identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at-risk relatives. Those who test negative are usually reassured and additional breast cancer surveillance is discontinued. However, we postulated that in high-risk families, such as those seen in clinical genetics centres, the risk of breast cancer might be influenced not only by the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation but also by modifier genes. One manifestation of this would be the presence of phenocopies in BRCA1/BRCA2 kindreds., Methods: 277 families with pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations were reviewed and 28 breast cancer phenocopies identified. The relative risk of breast cancer in those testing negative was assessed using incidence rates from our cancer registry based on local population., Results: Phenocopies constituted up to 24% of tests on women with breast cancer after the identification of the mutation in the proband. The standardised incidence ratio for women who tested negative for the BRCA1/BRCA2 family mutation was 5.3 for all relatives, 5.0 for all first-degree relatives (FDRs) and 3.2 (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 4.9) for FDRs in whose family all other cases of breast and ovarian cancer could be explained by the identified mutation. 13 of 107 (12.1%) FDRs with breast cancer and no unexplained family history tested negative., Conclusion: In high-risk families, women who test negative for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation have an increased risk of breast cancer consistent with genetic modifiers. In light of this, such women should still be considered for continued surveillance.

We assessed the association between breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) from referral pattern to the Regional Genetics Service including molecular analysis. Hospital computer records and/or department referral books were used to identify cases referred to the Regional Genetic Service during a 16-year period (1990-2005 inclusive). All files were reviewed along with associated demographic data, risk assessments, referral details and results from mutation testing. Families were assessed for hereditary breast and colorectal cancer (HBCC) criteria, and all families with eligible individuals were tested for the 1100delC mutation in CHEK2. A total of 8,612 families were identified. One hundred and sixteen of 1,631 (7.5%) families with a primary referral for CRC fulfilled the criteria for HBCC, whereas only 68/6981 (1%) BC referrals fulfilled these criteria. Blood samples were obtained from 113 individuals from 83/184 families. Only 1/113 (1%) has screened positive for the CHEK2 mutation, whereas 14 (17%) families segregate BRCA1/2 mutations and at least 7 (8.5%) carry MLH1/MSH2 mutations. HBCC syndrome, if it exists as a separate entity, is not likely to be due to CHEK2 mutations. Many families are explicable by existing high-penetrance genes, and further work is necessary to elucidate whether the remainder is due to chance or as yet undiscovered genes.

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was pound28 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to pound11 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and pound15 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.

Women with a family history are often offered mammographic surveillance at an earlier age and with greater frequency than those in the National Breast Screening Programme. In this study, we compared the survival of 62 breast cancer patients diagnosed in the context of a family history clinic offering 12-18 monthly mammographic screening with that of 1108 patients of the same age range but having no exposure to screening. We subtracted the expected additional observation time due to lead time from the survival of the screen-detected cases. Survival was significantly better in the family history group with relative hazards of 0.19 (95% CI 0.07-0.52, P<0.001) for breast cancer death and 0.19 (95% CI 0.08-0.43, P<0.001) for disease-free survival. After correcting for lead-time, the relative hazards were 0.24 (95% CI 0.09-0.66, P=0.005) for breast cancer death and 0.25 (95% CI 0.11-0.57, P<0.001) for disease-free survival. These results strongly suggest that screening younger women with a family history of breast cancer leads to improved survival. More precise estimates of the benefit will accrue from further follow-up and other such studies.

There is considerable interest in whether anti-oestrogens can be used to prevent breast cancer in women bearing mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The effects of oestradiol (E2), tamoxifen (TAM) and fulvestrant (FUL) on proliferation and steroid receptor expression were assessed in normal breast epithelium taken from women at varying risks of breast cancer and implanted into athymic nude mice, which were treated with E2 in the presence and absence of TAM or FUL. Tissue samples were taken at various time points thereafter for assessment of proliferative activity and expression of oestrogen and progesterone receptors (ERalpha and PgR) by immunohistochemistry. Oestradiol increased proliferation in the breast epithelium from women carrying mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, those otherwise at increased risk and those at population risk of breast cancer. This increase was reduced by both TAM and FUL in all risk groups. In the absence of E2, PgR expression was reduced in all risk groups but significantly more so in the BRCA-mutated groups. Subsequent E2 treatment caused a rapid, complete induction of PgR expression in the population-risk group but not in the high-risk or BRCA-mutated groups in which PgR induction was significantly delayed. These data suggest that the mechanisms by which E2 induces breast epithelial PgR expression are impaired in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, whereas those regulating proliferation remain intact. We conclude that early anti-oestrogen treatment should prevent breast cancer in very high-risk women.

Aim: To establish the uptake of contralateral risk reducing mastectomy in women informed of their risks and options at time of diagnosis of their primary unilateral breast cancer., Methods: We have assessed the surgical choices of 70 women diagnosed with breast cancer <50 years as part of a family history surveillance program and fully informed about their contralateral risks and surgical options. We have compared this to women from other surgical clinics who were subsequently found to harbour a pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation., Results: Sixty-five percent (13/20) of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 59% (n=20/34) of those at the highest level of risk pre-diagnosis (33+% lifetime risk) opted for contra-lateral mastectomy in the study sample. In contrast only 10% (n=9/88) women identified as mutation carriers from other clinics opted for such surgery., Conclusions: We would suggest that women with a significant family history and therefore a high contra-lateral breast cancer risk, should have these risks and management options discussed at the time of diagnosis of breast cancer.

Background: Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening., Methods: We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years., Findings: We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92%vs 23%, p=0.004)., Interpretation: Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

This multi-centre UK study assesses the impact of predictive testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes (BRCA1/2) in the clinical context. In the year following predictive testing, 261 adults (59 male) from nine UK genetics centres participated; 91 gene mutation carriers and 170 noncarriers. Self-report questionnaires were completed at baseline (pre-genetic testing) and 1, 4 and 12 months following the genetic test result. Men were assessed for general mental health (by general health questionnaire (GHQ)) and women for general mental health, cancer-related worry, intrusive and avoidant thoughts, perception of risk and risk management behaviour. Main comparisons were between female carriers and noncarriers on all measures and men and women for general mental health. Female noncarriers benefited psychologically, with significant reductions in cancer-related worry following testing (P<0.001). However, younger female carriers (<50 years) showed a rise in cancer-related worry 1 month post-testing (P<0.05). This returned to pre-testing baseline levels 12 months later, but worry remained significantly higher than noncarriers throughout (P<0.01). There were no significant differences in GHQ scores between males and females (both carriers and noncarriers) at any time point. Female carriers engaged in significantly more risk management strategies than noncarriers in the year following testing (e.g. mammograms; 92% carriers vs 30% noncarriers). In the 12 months post-testing, 28% carriers had bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and 31% oophorectomy. Oophorectomy was confined to older (mean 41 yrs) women who already had children. However, worry about cancer was not assuaged by surgery following genetic testing, and this requires further investigation. In all, 20% of female carriers reported insurance problems. The data show persistent worry in younger female gene carriers and confirm changes in risk management consistent with carrier status. Men were not adversely affected by genetic testing in terms of their general mental health.