Andrea Eisen

Contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE To estimate the risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers after diagnosis and to determine which factors are predictive of the risk of a second primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients included 491 women with stage I or stage II breast cancer, for whom a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation had been identified in the family. Patients were followed from the initial diagnosis of cancer until contralateral mastectomy, contralateral breast cancer, death, or last follow-up. RESULTS The actuarial risk of contralateral breast cancer was 29.5% at 10 years. Factors that were predictive of a reduced risk were the presence of a BRCA2 mutation (v BRCA1 mutation; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.15); age 50 years or older at first diagnosis (v <or= 49 years; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.10); use of tamoxifen (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.01); and history of oophorectomy (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.91). The effect of oophorectomy was particularly strong in women first diagnosed prior to age 49 years (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.77). For women who did not have an oophorectomy or take tamoxifen, the 10-year risk of contralateral cancer was 43.4% for BRCA1 carriers and 34.6% for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION The risk of contralateral breast cancer in women with a BRCA mutation is approximately 40% at 10 years, and is reduced in women who take tamoxifen or who undergo an oophorectomy.

Breast Cancer Risk Following Bilateral Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: An International Case-Control Study

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent of protection offered against breast cancer by prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and to determine to what extent risk reduction varies with age at oophorectomy, age at diagnosis, and time elapsed since surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed 1,439 patients with breast cancer and 1,866 matched controls derived from a registry of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) of breast cancer for having had a bilateral oophorectomy, using conditional logistic regression, matched for parity and for oral contraceptive use. RESULTS A previous history of oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk of 56% for BRCA1 carriers (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.66) and of 46% for BRCA2 carriers (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.15). The risk reduction was greater if the oophorectomy was performed before age 40 (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.64 for BRCA1 carriers) than after age 40 (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.91). The protective effect was evident for 15 years post-oophorectomy (OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57). CONCLUSION Oophorectomy is an effective means of reducing the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 mutations. The data suggest oophorectomy is protective in BRCA2 carriers as well, but needs to be confirmed in other studies.

Ten-Year Multi-Institutional Results of Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy in BRCA1/2-Associated Stage I/II Breast Cancer

PURPOSE We compared the outcome of breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast cancer versus that of matched sporadic controls. METHODS A total of 160 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast cancer were matched with 445 controls with sporadic breast cancer. Primary end points were rates of in-breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and contralateral breast cancers (CBCs). Median follow-up was 7.9 years for mutation carriers and 6.7 years for controls. RESULTS There was no significant difference in IBTR overall between carriers and controls; 10- and 15-year estimates were 12% and 24% for carriers and 9% and 17% for controls, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; P = .19). Multivariate analyses for IBTR found BRCA1/2 mutation status to be an independent predictor of IBTR when carriers who had undergone oophorectomy were removed from analysis (HR, 1.99; P = .04); the incidence of IBTR in carriers who had undergone oophorectomy was not significantly different from that in sporadic controls (P = .37). CBCs were significantly greater in carriers versus controls, with 10- and 15-year estimates of 26% and 39% for carriers and 3% and 7% for controls, respectively (HR, 10.43; P < .0001). Tamoxifen use significantly reduced risk of CBCs in mutation carriers (HR, 0.31; P = .05). CONCLUSION IBTR risk at 10 years is similar in BRCA1/2 carriers treated with breast conservation surgery who undergo oophorectomy versus sporadic controls. As expected, CBCs are significantly increased in carriers. Although the incidence of CBCs was significantly reduced in mutation carriers who received tamoxifen, this rate remained significantly greater than in controls. Additional strategies are needed to reduce contralateral cancers in these high-risk women.

Impact of Oophorectomy on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Women With a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation

PURPOSE The purposes of this study were to estimate the reduction in risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation after oophorectomy, by age of oophorectomy; to estimate the impact of prophylactic oophorectomy on all-cause mortality; and to estimate 5-year survival associated with clinically detected ovarian, occult, and peritoneal cancers diagnosed in the cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were identified from an international registry; 5,783 women completed a baseline questionnaire and ≥ one follow-up questionnaires. Women were observed until either diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, death, or date of most recent follow-up. Hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer incidence and all-cause mortality associated with oophorectomy were evaluated using time-dependent survival analyses. RESULTS After an average follow-up period of 5.6 years, 186 women developed either ovarian (n = 132), fallopian (n = 22), or peritoneal (n = 32) cancer, of whom 68 have died. HR for ovarian, fallopian, or peritoneal cancer associated with bilateral oophorectomy was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.30; P < .001). Among women who had no history of cancer at baseline, HR for all-cause mortality to age 70 years associated with an oophorectomy was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.39; P < .001). CONCLUSION Preventive oophorectomy was associated with an 80% reduction in the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers and a 77% reduction in all-cause mortality.

Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in a Large United States Sample

PURPOSE An accurate evaluation of the penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is essential to the identification and clinical management of families at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Existing studies have focused on Ashkenazi Jews (AJ) or on families from outside the United States. In this article, we consider the US population using the largest US-based cohort to date of both AJ and non-AJ families. METHODS We collected 676 AJ families and 1,272 families of other ethnicities through the Cancer Genetics Network. Two hundred eighty-two AJ families were population based, whereas the remainder was collected through counseling clinics. We used a retrospective likelihood approach to correct for bias induced by oversampling of participants with a positive family history. Our approach takes full advantage of detailed family history information and the Mendelian transmission of mutated alleles in the family. RESULTS In the US population, the estimated cumulative breast cancer risk at age 70 years was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.54) in BRCA1 carriers and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.51) in BRCA2 carriers, whereas ovarian cancer risk was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50) in BRCA1 carriers and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.32) in BRCA2 carriers. We also reported the prospective risks of developing cancer for cancer-free carriers in 10-year age intervals. We noted a rapid decrease in the relative risk of breast cancer with age and derived its implication for genetic counseling. CONCLUSION The penetrance of BRCA mutations in the United States is largely consistent with previous studies on Western populations given the large CIs on existing estimates. However, the absolute cumulative risks are on the lower end of the spectrum.

Benefit from exemestane as extended adjuvant therapy after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen: intention-to-treat analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast And Bowel Project B-33 trial.

PURPOSE Patients with early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer have considerable residual risk for recurrence after completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. In May 2001, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) initiated accrual to a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane as extended adjuvant therapy in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Postmenopausal patients with clinical T(1-3)N(1)M(0) breast cancer who were disease free after 5 years of tamoxifen were randomly assigned to 5 years of exemestane (25 mg/d orally) or 5 years of placebo. Our primary aim was to test whether exemestane prolongs disease-free survival (DFS). In October 2003, results of National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) MA.17 showing benefit from adjuvant letrozole in this setting necessitated termination of accrual to B-33, unblinding, and offering of exemestane to patients in the placebo group. RESULTS At the time of unblinding, 1,598 patients had been randomly assigned; 72% in the exemestane group continued on exemestane and 44% in the placebo group elected to receive exemestane. With 30 months of median follow-up, original exemestane assignment resulted in a borderline statistically significant improvement in 4-year DFS (91% v 89%; relative risk [RR] = 0.68; P = .07) and in a statistically significant improvement in 4-year relapse-free survival (RFS; 96% v 94%; RR = 0.44; P = .004). Toxicity, assessed up to time of unblinding, was acceptable for the adjuvant setting. CONCLUSION Despite premature closure and crossover to exemestane by a substantial proportion of patients, original exemestane assignment resulted in non-statistically significant improvement in DFS and in statistically significant improvement in RFS.

Randomized Phase II Study Comparing Two Schedules of Everolimus in Patients With Recurrent/Metastatic Breast Cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group IND.163

PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, in two different schedules in minimally pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer and to explore for possible biologic correlates of response. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who received no or one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic breast cancer were entered onto this multicenter, noncomparative, randomized phase II study of everolimus 10 mg daily versus 70 mg weekly; the multinomial end points of response and progression were evaluated at 8 weeks. A two-stage accrual design was used, with 15 evaluable patients in each schedule in stage 1. Only daily therapy met criteria for continuing, and another 15 patients were added. pAKT, PTEN, carbonic anhydrase 9, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) were evaluated for possible correlation with response. RESULTS The most common drug-related toxicities were fatigue, rash, anorexia, diarrhea, stomatitis, cough, and pneumonitis. Pneumonitis occurred at higher than expected rates and seemed to be schedule dependent, with the highest incidence on the daily schedule. Response rate with daily therapy was 12% (95% CI, 3.4% to 28.2%) compared with 0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 20.6%) for weekly therapy. Twenty-seven percent of patients on daily therapy discontinued treatment compared with 13% on weekly therapy (16% v 6% with pneumonitis, respectively). No biologic correlates of response could be identified, although there were trends favoring benefit in ER-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. CONCLUSION Oral everolimus has activity in metastatic breast cancer that is schedule dependent. Daily therapy with 10 mg is worthy of further study in this patient population.

Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: an update

Women with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face a lifetime risk of breast cancer of ∼80%, and following the first diagnosis the10‐year risk of contralateral breast cancer is ∼30%. It has been shown that both tamoxifen and oophorectomy prevent contralateral breast cancer, but it is not clear whether there is a benefit in giving tamoxifen to women who have previously undergone an oophorectomy. Furthermore, the relative degree of protection in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has not been well evaluated. We studied 285 women with bilateral breast cancer and a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, and 751 control women with unilateral breast cancer and a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a matched case‐control study. Control women were of similar age and had a similar age of diagnosis of breast cancer and had been followed for as long as the case for a second primary breast cancer. The history of tamoxifen use for treating the first breast cancer was compared between bilateral and unilateral cases. The multivariate odds ratio for contralateral breast cancer associated with tamoxifen use was 0.50 for carriers of BRCA1 mutations (95% CI, 0.30–0.85) and was 0.42 for carriers of BRCA2 mutations (95% CI, 0.17–1.02). The protective effect of tamoxifen was not seen among women who had undergone an oophorectomy (OR = 0.83; 95%CI, 0.24–2.89) but this subgroup was small. In contrast, a strong protective effect of tamoxifen was apparent among women who were premenopausal or who had undergone natural menopause (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65).

Effect of Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Treatment in Women With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations

PURPOSE Recent laboratory data suggest a role for BRCA1/2 in the cellular response to DNA damage. There is a paucity of clinical data, however, examining the effect of radiotherapy (RT), which causes double-strand breaks, on breast tissue from BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Thus the goals of this study were to compare rates of radiation-associated complications, in-breast tumor recurrence, and distant relapse in women with BRCA1/2 mutations treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) using RT with rates observed in sporadic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seventy-one women with a BRCA1/2 mutation and stage I or II breast cancer treated with BCT were matched 1:3 with 213 women with sporadic breast cancer. Conditional logistic regression models were used to compare matched cohorts for rates of complications and recurrence. RESULTS Tumors from women in the genetic cohort were associated with high histologic (P =.0004) and nuclear (P =.009) grade and negative estrogen (P=.0001) and progesterone (P=.002) receptors compared with tumors from the sporadic cohort. Using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer toxicity scoring, there were no significant differences in acute or chronic morbidity in skin, subcutaneous tissue, lung, or bone. The 5-year actuarial overall survival, relapse-free survival, and rates of tumor control in the treated breast for the patients in the genetic cohort were 86%, 78%, and 98%, respectively, compared with 91%, 80%, and 96%, respectively, for the sporadic cohort (P = not significant). CONCLUSION There was no evidence of increased radiation sensitivity or sequelae in breast tissue heterozygous for a BRCA1/2 germline mutation compared with controls, and rates of tumor control in the breast and survival were comparable between BRCA1/2 carriers and controls at 5 years. Although additional follow-up is needed, these data may help in discussing treatment options in the management of early-stage hereditary breast cancer and should provide reassurance regarding the safety of administering RT to carriers of a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Technology Assessment of Pharmacologic Interventions for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Including Tamoxifen, Raloxifene, and Aromatase Inhibition

OBJECTIVE To update an evidence-based technology assessment of chemoprevention strategies for breast cancer risk reduction. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibition, and fenretinide. OUTCOMES Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. VALUES More weight was given to published randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS: A womans decision regarding breast cancer risk reduction strategies is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer- and noncancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSIONS For women with a defined 5-year projected breast cancer risk of > or= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. Risk/benefit models suggest that greatest clinical benefit with least side effects is derived from use of tamoxifen in younger (premenopausal) women (who are less likely to have thromboembolic sequelae and uterine cancer), women without a uterus, and women at higher breast cancer risk. Data do not as yet suggest that tamoxifen provides an overall health benefit or increases survival. In all circumstances, tamoxifen use should be discussed as part of an informed decision-making process with careful consideration of individually calculated risks and benefits. Use of tamoxifen combined with hormone replacement therapy or use of raloxifene, any aromatase inhibitor or inactivator, or fenretinide to lower the risk of developing breast cancer is not recommended outside of a clinical trial setting. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process and recommendations will be updated in a timely matter. VALIDATION The conclusions were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.