Search

BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have high lifetime risks of developing breast and ovarian cancers. We sought to estimate the prevalence of cancer-related distress and to identify predictors of distress in an international sample of unaffected women with a BRCA mutation. METHODS: Women with a BRCA1/2 mutation and no previous cancer diagnosis were recruited from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and from a national advocacy group. Using an online survey, we asked about cancer risk reduction options and screening, and we measured cancer-related distress using the Impact of Event Scale. RESULTS: Among 576 respondents, mean age was 40.8 years (SD = 8.1). On average 4.9 years after a positive test result, 16.3% of women reported moderate-to-severe cancer-related distress. Women who had undergone risk-reducing breast and ovarian surgery were less likely to have (moderate or severe) cancer-related distress compared to other women (22.0% versus 11.4%, P value = 0.007). Women recruited from the advocacy group were more likely to have cancer-related distress than other women (21.6% versus 5.3%, P value = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 16% of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation experience distress levels comparable to those of women after a cancer diagnosis. Distress was lower for women who had risk-reducing surgery.

BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation have high lifetime risks of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The decision to embark on risk reduction strategies is a difficult and personal one. We surveyed an international group of women with BRCA mutations and measured choices and sequence of breast cancer risk reduction strategies. METHODS: Women with a BRCA1/2 mutation and no previous cancer diagnosis were recruited from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and from a national advocacy group. Using an online survey, we asked about cancer-risk reduction preferences including for one of two hypothetical medicines, randomly assigned, and women's recommendations for a hypothetical woman (Susan, either a 25- or 36-year-old). Sunburst diagrams were generated to illustrate hierarchy of choices. RESULTS: Among 598 respondents, mean age was 40.9 years (range 25-55 years). Timing of the survey was 4.8 years (mean) after learning their positive test result and 33% had risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) and bilateral mastectomy (RRBM), while 19% had RRBSO only and 16% had RRBM only. Although 30% said they would take a hypothetical medicine, 6% reported taking a medicine resembling tamoxifen. Respondents were 1.5 times more likely to select a hypothetical medicine for risk reduction when Susan was 25 than when Susan was 36. Women assigned to 36-year-old Susan were more likely to choose a medicine if they had a family member diagnosed with breast cancer and personal experience taking tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: Women revealed a willingness to undergo surgeries to achieve largest reduction in breast cancer risk, although this would not be recommended for a younger woman in her 20s. The goal of achieving the highest degree of cancer risk reduction is the primary driver for women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations in selecting an intervention and a sequence of interventions, regardless of whether it is non-surgical or surgical.

Purpose: Following a diagnosis of breast cancer, BRCA mutation carriers face an increased risk of developing a second (contralateral) cancer in the unaffected breast. It is important to identify predictors of contralateral cancer in order to make informed decisions about bilateral mastectomy. The impact of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (i.e., oophorectomy) on the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer is unclear. Thus, we conducted a prospective study of the relationship between oophorectomy and the risk of contralateral breast cancer in 1781 BRCA1 and 503 BRCA2 mutation carriers with breast cancer. Methods: Women were followed from the date of diagnosis of their first breast cancer until the date of diagnosis of a contralateral breast cancer, bilateral mastectomy, date of death, or date of last follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of contralateral breast cancer associated with oophorectomy. Oophorectomy was included as a time-dependent covariate. We performed a left-censored analysis for those women who reported a primary breast cancer prior to study entry (i.e., from completion of baseline questionnaire). Results: After an average of 9.8 years of follow-up, there were 179 (7.8%) contralateral breast cancers diagnosed. Oophorectomy was not associated with the risk of developing a second breast cancer (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68–1.25). The relationship did not vary by BRCA mutation type or by age at diagnosis of the first breast cancer. There was some evidence for a decreased risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with an ER-positive primary breast cancer, but this was based on a small number of events (n = 240). Conclusion: Overall, our findings suggest that oophorectomy has little impact on the risk of contralateral breast cancer

PURPOSE: Unaffected women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations face difficult choices about reducing their breast cancer risk. Understanding their treatment preferences could help us improve patient counseling and inform drug trials. The objective was to explore preferences for various risk-reducing options among women with germline BRCA1/2 mutations using a discrete-choice experiment survey and to compare expressed preferences with actual behaviors. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey was designed wherein women choose between hypothetical treatments to reduce breast cancer risk. The hypothetical treatments were characterized by the extent of breast cancer risk reduction, treatment duration, impact on fertility, hormone levels, risk of uterine cancer, and ease and mode of administration. Data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model. Women were also asked to express their preference between surgical and chemoprevention options and to report on their actual risk-reduction actions. Women aged 25-55 years with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who were unaffected with breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through research registries at five clinics and a patient advocacy group. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and March 2016, 622 women completed the survey. Breast cancer risk reduction was the most important consideration expressed, followed by maintaining fertility. Among the subset of women who wished to have children in future, the ability to maintain fertility was the most important factor, followed by the extent of risk reduction. Many more women said they would take a chemoprevention drug than had actually taken chemoprevention. CONCLUSIONS: Women with BRCA1/2 mutations indicated strong preferences for breast cancer risk reduction and maintaining fertility. The expressed desire to have a safe chemoprevention drug available to them was not met by current chemoprevention options.

Germ-line mutations in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 have been shown to cause Lynch syndrome. The penetrance of the cancer and tumor spectrum has been repeatedly studied, and multiple professional societies have proposed clinical management guidelines for affected individuals. Several studies have demonstrated a reduced penetrance for monoallelic carriers of PMS2 mutations compared with the other mismatch repair (MMR) genes, but clinical management guidelines have largely proposed the same screening recommendations for all MMR gene carriers. The authors considered whether enough evidence existed to propose new screening guidelines specific to PMS2 mutation carriers with regard to age at onset and frequency of colonic screening. Published reports of PMS2 germ-line mutations were combined with unpublished cases from the authors' research registries and clinical practices, and a discussion of potential modification of cancer screening guidelines was pursued. A total of 234 monoallelic PMS2 mutation carriers from 170 families were included. Approximately 8% of those with colorectal cancer (CRC) were diagnosed before age 30, and each of these tumors presented on the left side of the colon. As it is currently unknown what causes the early onset of CRC in some families with monoallelic PMS2 germline mutations, the authors recommend against reducing cancer surveillance guidelines in families found having monoallelic PMS2 mutations in spite of the reduced penetrance.Genet Med 18 1, 13-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: African Americans (AAs) have the highest incidence of and mortality resulting from colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States. Few data are available on genetic and nongenetic risk factors for CRC among AAs. Little is known about cancer risks and mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes in AAs with the most common inherited CRC condition, Lynch syndrome. We aimed to characterize phenotype, mutation spectrum, and risk of CRC in AAs with Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of AAs with mutations in MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) using databases from 13 US referral centers. We analyzed data on personal and family histories of cancer. Modified segregation analysis conditioned on ascertainment criteria was used to estimate age- and sex-specific CRC cumulative risk, studying members of the mutation-carrying families. RESULTS: We identified 51 AA families with deleterious mutations that disrupt function of the MMR gene product: 31 in MLH1 (61%), 11 in MSH2 (21%), 3 in MSH6 (6%), and 6 in PMS2 (12%); 8 mutations were detected in more than 1 individual, and 11 have not been previously reported. In the 920 members of the 51 families with deleterious mutations, the cumulative risks of CRC at 80 years of age were estimated to be 36.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5%-83.9%) for men and 29.7% (95% CI, 8.31%-76.1%) for women. CRC risk was significantly higher among individuals with mutations in MLH1 or MSH2 (hazard ratio, 13.9; 95% CI, 3.44-56.5). CONCLUSIONS: We estimate the cumulative risk for CRC in AAs with MMR gene mutations to be similar to that of individuals of European descent with Lynch syndrome. Two-thirds of mutations were found in MLH1, some of which were found in multiple individuals and some that have not been previously reported. Differences in mutation spectrum are likely to reflect the genetic diversity of this population.

The identification of the two most prevalent susceptibility genes in breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, was the beginning of a sustained effort to uncover new genes explaining the missing heritability in this disease. Today, additional high, moderate and low penetrance genes have been identified in breast cancer, such as P53, PTEN, STK11, PALB2 or ATM, globally accounting for around 35 percent of the familial cases. In the present study we used massively parallel sequencing to analyze 7 BRCA1/BRCA2 negative families, each having at least 6 affected women with breast cancer (between 6 and 10) diagnosed under the age of 60 across generations. After extensive filtering, Sanger sequencing validation and co-segregation studies, variants were prioritized through either control-population studies, including up to 750 healthy individuals, or case-control assays comprising approximately 5300 samples. As a result, a known moderate susceptibility indel variant (CHEK2 1100delC) and a catalogue of 11 rare variants presenting signs of association with breast cancer were identified. All the affected genes are involved in important cellular mechanisms like DNA repair, cell proliferation and survival or cell cycle regulation. This study highlights the need to investigate the role of rare variants in familial cancer development by means of novel high throughput analysis strategies optimized for genetically heterogeneous scenarios. Even considering the intrinsic limitations of exome resequencing studies, our findings support the hypothesis that the majority of non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer families might be explained by the action of moderate and/or low penetrance susceptibility alleles.

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 mode