Angelica M. Gutierrez Barrera

Factors affecting the decision of breast cancer patients to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Increasing numbers of women with breast cancer are electing for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to reduce the risk of developing contralateral breast cancer. The objective of this study was to identify factors that may affect a patients decision to undergo CPM. We identified 2,504 women with stage 0 to III unilateral primary breast cancer who underwent breast surgery at our institution from January 2000 to August 2006 from a prospectively maintained database. We did logistic regression analyses to determine which factors were associated with undergoing CPM. Of 2,504 breast cancer patients, 1,223 (48.8%) underwent total mastectomy. Of the 1,223 patients who underwent mastectomy, 284 (23.2%) underwent immediate or delayed CPM. There were 33 patients (1.3%) who had genetic testing before the surgery, with the use of testing increasing in the latter years of the study (0.1% in 2000-2002 versus 2.0% in 2003-2006; P < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors that were associated with a patient undergoing CPM: age younger than 50 years, white ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, BRCA1/2 mutation testing, invasive lobular histology, clinical stage, and use of reconstruction. We identified specific patient and tumor characteristics associated with the use of CPM. Although genetic testing is increasing, most women undergoing CPM did not have a known genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Evidence-driven models are needed to better inform women of their absolute risk of contralateral breast cancer as well as their competing risk of recurrence from the primary breast cancer to empower them in their active decision making. Cancer Prev Res; 3(8); 1026–34. ©2010 AACR.

Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer in BRCA Mutation Carriers and Noncarriers: A Single-Institution Experience

PURPOSE To compare the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy (NST) in patients with breast cancer with and without deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 317 women who underwent BRCA genetic testing and were treated with NST for breast cancer between 1997 and 2009 were included in the study. The Kaplan-Meier product-limit method was used to estimate RFS and OS rates. Logistic regression models were fit to determine the associations between BRCA status, pCR, and survival. RESULTS Fifty-seven (18%) and 23 (7%) patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Twenty-six (46%) of 57 BRCA1 carriers achieved a pCR, compared with three (13%) of 23 BRCA2 carriers and 53 (22%) of 237 BRCA noncarriers (P < .001). In the multivariate logistic model, BRCA1 status (odds ratio [OR] = 3.16; 95% CI, 1.55 to 6.42; P = .002), estrogen receptor (ER) negativity (OR = 1.96; 95% CI:1.05 to 3.65; P = .03) and concurrent trastuzumab use (OR = 4.18; 95% CI, 2.04 to 8.57; P < .001) remained as independent significant predictors for a pCR. At a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 69 patients (22%) experienced a disease recurrence or death. No significant differences were noted in survival outcomes with respect to BRCA status and type of NST received. However, among BRCA1 carriers, patients who achieved a pCR had better 5-year RFS (P = .001) and OS (P = .01) rates than patients who did not. CONCLUSION BRCA1 status and ER negativity are independently associated with higher pCR rates in patients with breast cancer. Overall prognosis of breast cancer in BRCA carriers is similar to sporadic breast cancers.

Assessing the added value of breast tumor markers in genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO

Abstract The BRCAPRO model estimates carrier probabilities for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and was recently enhanced to use estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status of breast cancer. No independent assessment of the added value of these markers exists. Moreover, earlier versions of BRCAPRO did not use human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2/neu) status of breast cancer. Here, we incorporate Her-2/neu in BRCAPRO and validate all the markers. We trained the enhanced model on 406 germline tested individuals, and validated on a separate clinical cohort of 796 individuals for whom test results and family history are available. For model-building, we estimated joint probabilities of ER, PR, and Her-2/neu status for carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations. For validation, we obtained BRCAPRO predictions with and without markers. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and correct reclassification rates. The AUC for predicting BRCA1 status among individuals who are carriers of at least one mutation improved when ER and PR were used. The AUC for predicting the presence of either mutation improved when Her-2/neu was added. Use of markers also produced highly significant correct reclassification improvements in both cases. Breast tumor markers are useful for prediction of BRCA1/2 mutation status. ER and PR improve discrimination between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers while Her-2/neu helps discriminate between carriers and non-carriers, particularly among women who are ER positive and Her-2/neu negative. These results support the use of the enhanced version of BRCAPRO in clinical settings.

Simplifying clinical use of the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO

Health care providers need simple tools to identify patients at genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic risk prediction models such as BRCAPRO could fill this gap if incorporated into Electronic Medical Records or other Health Information Technology solutions. However, BRCAPRO requires potentially extensive information on the counselee and her family history. Thus, it may be useful to provide simplified version(s) of BRCAPRO for use in settings that do not require exhaustive genetic counseling. We explore four simplified versions of BRCAPRO, each using less complete information than the original model. BRCAPROLYTE uses information on affected relatives only up to second degree. It is in clinical use but has not been evaluated. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus extends BRCAPROLYTE by imputing the ages of unaffected relatives. BRCAPROLYTE-Simple reduces the data collection burden associated with BRCAPROLYTE and BRCAPROLYTE-Plus by not collecting the family structure. BRCAPRO-1Degree only uses first-degree affected relatives. We use data on 2,713 individuals from seven sites of the Cancer Genetics Network and MD Anderson Cancer Center to compare these simplified tools with the Family History Assessment Tool (FHAT) and BRCAPRO, with the latter serving as the benchmark. BRCAPROLYTE retains high discrimination; however, because it ignores information on unaffected relatives, it overestimates carrier probabilities. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple provide better calibration than BRCAPROLYTE, so they have higher specificity for similar values of sensitivity. BRCAPROLYTE-Plus performs slightly better than BRCAPROLYTE-Simple. The Areas Under the ROC curve are 0.783 (BRCAPRO), 0.763 (BRCAPROLYTE), 0.772 (BRCAPROLYTE-Plus), 0.773 (BRCAPROLYTE-Simple), 0.728 (BRCAPRO-1Degree), and 0.745 (FHAT). The simpler versions, especially BRCAPROLYTE-Plus and BRCAPROLYTE-Simple, lead to only modest loss in overall discrimination compared to BRCAPRO in this dataset. Thus, we conclude that simplified implementations of BRCAPRO can be used for genetic risk prediction in settings where collection of complete pedigree information is impractical.

Predictive factors for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in women with ductal carcinoma in situ

It is unclear whether women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), like their counterparts with invasive breast cancer, warrant genetic risk assessment and testing on the basis of high‐risk variables. The authors of this report identified predictive factors for mutations in the breast cancer‐susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 in women who were diagnosed with DCIS.

USP-11 as a predictive and prognostic factor following neoadjuvant therapy in women with breast cancer

PurposeUSP-11, a member of the ubiquitin-specific protease family, has emerged as an essential regulator of double-strand break repair. Few studies have shown that silencing USP-11 led to hypersensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition, ionizing radiation, and DNA-damaging agents. We sought to examine the predictive and prognostic relevance of USP-11 in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for breast cancer. MethodsFifty-six women who were treated with NST for breast cancer between 1999 and 2004 were included in the study. The Kaplan-Meier product-limit method was used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival rates. Logistic regression models were fit to determine the associations between USP-11 status, pathological complete response (pCR), and survival. ResultsSixteen patients (29%) had high-USP-11–expressing tumors, and 40 (71%) patients had low-USP-11–expressing tumors. No significant differences were observed in pCR rates with respect to USP-11 status. At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 33 patients (59%) experienced a disease recurrence or death. Patients with high-USP-11–expressing tumors had a higher risk of recurrence (odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51–9.93; P = 0.005) and death (OR, 6.03; 95% CI, 2.00–18.17; P = 0.001) than those with low-USP-11–expressing tumors. Patients who did not achieve a pCR had an increased risk of recurrence (OR, 5.16; 95% CI, 1.16–23.07; P = 0.03). ConclusionsOur data indicate that USP-11 is not a predictor of a pCR after anthracycline-taxane–containing NST for breast cancer. Low USP-11 expression was independently correlated with better survival outcomes.

Inflammatory breast cancer: a proposed conceptual shift in the UICC–AJCC TNM staging system

In the absence of histological criteria that distinguish between inflammatory and non-inflammatory breast cancer, diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer relies entirely on the existence of clinical criteria as outlined by the TNM classification. This classification restricts patients presenting with clinical criteria characteristic of inflammatory breast cancer to subcategory T4d, which immediately relegates all patients with non-metastatic inflammatory breast cancer to stage 3, regardless of tumour size or nodal spread. Patients who present with metastatic disease are consigned to stage 4, and the TNM classification does not distinguish patients on the basis of the presence of inflammatory criteria. Evidence by our group and others suggests that patients with inflammatory breast cancer have significantly reduced overall survival among those who present with distant metastasis at diagnosis (stage 4). In light of these results, this Personal View addresses whether the current TNM staging classification accurately represents a distinction between patients with inflammatory and those with non-inflammatory breast cancer.

Predictors that influence election of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among women with ductal carcinoma in situ who are BRCA-negative

The authors retrospectively examined the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rate among 100 women with ductal carcinoma in situ who are BRCA negative. Of 100 women with ductal carcinoma in situ, 31 elected contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). Factors associated with increased likelihood of undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) among this cohort were: family history of ovarian cancer, marital status, reconstruction, mastectomy of the affected breast, and tamoxifen use.

Evaluation of BRCAPRO risk assessment model in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who underwent clinical BRCA genetic testing

The authors retrospectively aimed to determine which of the following three scenarios, related to DCIS entry into BRCAPRO, predicted BRCA mutation status more accurately: (1) DCIS as an invasive breast cancer (IBC) entered using the actual age of diagnosis, (2) DCIS as IBC entered with 10 years added to the actual age of diagnosis, and (3) DCIS entered as no cancer. Of the 85 DCIS patients included in the study, 19% (n = 16) tested positive for a BRCA mutation, and 81% (n = 69) tested negative. DCIS patients who tested positive for a BRCA mutation had a higher BRCAPRO risk estimation (34.61%) than patients who tested negative (11.4%) when DCIS was entered at the actual age of diagnosis. When DCIS was entered with 10 years added to the actual age at diagnosis, the BRCAPRO estimate was still higher amongst BRCA positive patients (25.4%) than BRCA negative patients (7.1%). When DCIS was entered as no cancer, the BRCAPRO estimate remained higher among BRCA positive patients (2.56%) than BRCA negative patents (1.98%). In terms of accuracy of BRCA positivity, there was no statistically significant difference between DCIS at age at diagnosis, DCIS at 10 years later than age at diagnosis, and DCIS entered as no cancer (AUC = 0.77, 0.784, 0.75, respectively: p = 0.60). Our results indicate that regardless of entry approach into BRCAPRO, there were no significant differences in predicting BRCA mutation in patients with DCIS.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate and predictive factors among patients with breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer

Although multigene panel testing is increasingly common in patients with cancer, the relationship between its use among breast cancer patients with non‐BRCA mutations or variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and disease management decisions has not been well described. This study evaluated the rate and predictive factors of CPM patients who underwent multigene panel testing. Three hundred and fourteen patients with breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing between 2014 and 2017 were included in the analysis. Of the 314 patients, 70 elected CPM. Election of CPM by gene status was as follows: BRCA carriers (42.3%), non‐BRCA carriers (30.1%), and VUS (10.6%). CPM election rates did not differ between non‐BRCA carriers and BRCA carriers (P = 0.6205). Among non‐BRCA carriers, negative hormone receptor status was associated with CPM (P = 0.0115). For those with a VUS, hormone receptor status was not associated with CPM (P = 0.1879). Although the rate of CPM between BRCA carriers and non‐BRCA carriers was not significantly different, the predictors of CPM were different in each group. Our analyses shed the light on the increasing use of CPM among patients who are non‐BRCA carriers as well those with a VUS. Our study elucidates the differing predictive factors of CPM election among BRCA carriers, non‐BRCA carries, and those with a VUS. Our findings reveal the need for providers to be cognizant that non‐BRCA genes and VUS drive women to elect CPM despite the lack of data for contralateral breast cancer risk associated with these genes.