C.J. van Asperen

Cancer risks in BRCA2 families: estimates for sites other than breast and ovary

Background: In BRCA2 mutation carriers, increased risks have been reported for several cancer sites besides breast and ovary. As most of the families included in earlier reports were selected on the basis of multiple breast/ovarian cancer cases, it is possible that risk estimates may differ in mutation carriers with a less striking family history. Methods: In the Netherlands, 139 BRCA2 families with 66 different pathogenic mutations were included in a nationwide study. To avoid testing bias, we chose not to estimate risk in typed carriers, but rather in male and female family members with a 50% prior probability of being a carrier (n = 1811). The relative risk (RR) for each cancer site with the exception of breast and ovarian cancer was determined by comparing observed numbers with those expected, based on Dutch cancer incidence rates. Results: We observed an excess risk for four cancer sites: pancreas (RR 5.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.2 to 10.0), prostate (2.5; 1.6 to 3.8), bone (14.4; 2.9 to 42.1) and pharynx (7.3; 2.0 to 18.6). A small increase was observed for cancer of the digestive tract (1.5; 1.1 to 1.9). Histological verification was available for 46% of the tumours. Nearly all increased risks reached statistical significance for men only. Cancer risks tended to be higher for people before the age of 65 years. Moreover, families with mutations outside the previously defined ovarian cancer cluster region tended to have a higher cancer risk. Conclusions: We found that BRCA2 carriers are at increased risk for cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and possibly bone and pharynx. Larger databases with extended follow up are needed to provide insight into mutation specific risks of selected carriers in BRCA2 families.

Risk reduction of contralateral breast cancer and survival after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers

The clinical outcome of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and a personal history of invasive breast cancer is unknown. We identified a cohort of 148 female BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (115 and 33, respectively) who previously were treated for unilateral invasive breast cancer stages I–IIIa. In all, 79 women underwent a CPM, while the other women remained under intensive surveillance. The mean follow-up was 3.5 years and started at the time of CPM or at the date of mutation testing, whichever came last, that is, on average 5 years after diagnosis of the first breast cancer. One woman developed an invasive contralateral primary breast cancer after CPM, whereas six were observed in the surveillance group (P<0.001). Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy reduced the risk of contralateral breast cancer by 91%, independent of the effect of bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy (BPO). At 5 years follow-up, overall survival was 94% for the CPM group vs 77% for the surveillance group (P=0.03), but this was unexpectedly mostly due to higher mortality related with first breast cancer and ovarian cancer in the surveillance group. After adjustment for BPO in a multivariate Cox analysis, the CPM effect on overall survival was no longer significant. Our data show that CPM markedly reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer among BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with a history of breast cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to study the impact of CPM on contralateral breast cancer-specific survival. The choice for CPM is highly correlated with that for BPO, while only BPO leads to a significant improvement in overall survival so far.

Screening for familial ovarian cancer: poor survival of BRCA1/2 related cancers

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of annual ovarian cancer screening (transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 estimation) in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer in women at increased genetic risk. Patients and methods: A cohort of 3532 women at increased risk of ovarian cancer was screened at five European centres between January 1991 and March 2007. Survival from diagnosis of ovarian cancer was calculated using Kaplan–Meier analysis and compared for proven BRCA1/2 carriers with non-carriers and whether the cancer was detected at prevalence or post-prevalent scan. Screening was performed by annual transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA125 measurement. Results: 64 epithelial ovarian malignancies (59 invasive and 5 borderline), developed in the cohort. 26 tumours were detected at prevalent round; there were 27 incident detected cancers and 11 interval. 65% of cancers were stage 3 or 4, however, stage and survival were little different for prevalent versus post-prevalent cancers. Five year and 10 year survival in 49 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was 58.6% (95% CI 50.9% to 66.3%) and 36% (95% CI 27% to 45%), which was significantly worse than for 15 non-BRCA carriers (91.8%, 95% CI 84% to 99.6%, both 5 and 10 year survival p = 0.015). However, when borderline tumours were excluded, the difference in survival between carriers and non-carriers was no longer significant. Conclusion: Annual surveillance, by transvaginal ultrasound scanning and serum CA125 measurement, in women at increased familial risk of ovarian cancer is ineffective in detecting tumours at a sufficiently early stage to influence substantially survival in BRCA1/2 carriers.

Tumour characteristics and prognosis of breast cancer patients carrying the germline CHEK2*1100delC variant

Background: The germline CHEK2*1100delC variant has been associated with breast cancer in multiple case families where involvement of BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been excluded. Methods: We have investigated the tumour characteristics and prognosis of carriers of this germline variant by means of a prospective cohort study in an unselected cohort of 1084 consecutive patients with primary breast cancer. Data were collected for 34 patients with a germline CHEK2*1100delC mutation and for 102 patients without this mutation, stratified by age and date of diagnosis of the first primary breast cancer (within 1 year). Results: Carriers developed steroid receptor positive tumours (oestrogen receptor (ER): 91%; progesterone receptor (PR): 81%) more frequently than non-carriers (ER: 69%; PR: 53%; p = 0.04). Mutation carriers more frequently had a female first or second degree relative with breast cancer (p = 0.03), or had any first or second degree relative with breast or ovarian cancer (p = 0.04). Patients with the CHEK2 variant had a more unfavourable prognosis regarding the occurrence of contralateral breast cancer (relative risk (RR) = 5.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 19.65), distant metastasis-free survival (RR = 2.81; 95% CI 1.20 to 6.58), and disease-free survival (RR = 3.86; 95% CI 1.91 to 7.78). As yet, no difference with respect to overall survival has been found at a median follow up of 3.8 years. Conclusion: We conclude that carrying the CHEK2*1100delC mutation is an adverse prognostic indicator for breast cancer. If independently confirmed by others, intensive surveillance, and possibly preventive measures, should be considered for newly diagnosed breast cancer cases carrying the CHEK2*1100delC variant.

Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study

Study Type – Diagnostic (validating cohort)
Level of Evidence 1b

Multiple primary malignancies in osteosarcoma patients: incidence and predictive value of osteosarcoma subtype for cancer syndromes related with osteosarcoma

The overall incidence of osteosarcoma is low. However, the occurrence of osteosarcoma in a setting of multiple primary tumours is not infrequent, although population-based incidence numbers are unknown. The occurrence of osteosarcoma and other malignancies is frequently related to treatment, and can also be the result of genetic predisposition as in patients with retinoblastoma, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Werner syndrome and Rothmund–Thomson syndrome. The aim of our study is to establish the incidence of osteosarcoma associated with other malignancies in a populationwide study and to find out if these osteosarcomas have a specific subtype, that could draw attention to a genetic predisposition to malignancy. A list of all patients registered in the Dutch National Pathology Register, named PALGA, with a diagnosis of osteosarcoma between 1975 and May 2000 was retrieved. All patients with another malignancy besides osteosarcoma were selected. All patients registered in the same period with a tonsillectomy served as a control for the occurrence of malignancy in a normal population. In a second step, only osteosarcoma patients with a history of retinoblastoma or a malignancy before the age of 46 years, since these are most probable to have a hereditary cancer syndrome, were retained for further analysis. The osteosarcomas were subtyped as common, chondroblastic, fibroblastic, teleangiectatic, anaplastic, osteoclast-rich or small cell. As a control for osteosarcoma subtypes the data of 570 patients entered in two studies from the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EORTC/MRC) were used. Of all 938 patients registered with the diagnosis of osteosarcoma, 66 had a history of multiple primary tumours. Four patients had a surface osteosarcoma, three an extraskeletal osteosarcoma and 59 had intramedullar high-grade osteosarcoma. Of this last group, one patient was known with Rothmund–Thomson syndrome, one had retinoblastoma and 30 had their malignancies before the age of 46. Of these 32 patients, 17 had osteosarcoma of the long bones. Especially women seem to be more susceptible for the development of multiple primaries. In nine patients, the histological subtype could be assessed by revision of available histological slides. All of these patients had an osteosarcoma subtype other than common as opposed to 29% in the control group of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. It is concluded that although the incidence of osteosarcoma is low, the occurrence of another malignancy in osteosarcoma patients is higher than in the normal population. Specifically, osteosarcoma patients have a relative risk of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 1.88–3.07) to develop another malignancy. A noncommon subtype of osteosarcoma should draw attention to a possible genetic predisposition of the patient involved.

Family system characteristics and psychological adjustment to cancer susceptibility genetic testing: a prospective study.

This study examined prospectively the contribution of family functioning, differentiation to parents, family communication and support from relatives to psychological distress in individuals undergoing genetic susceptibility testing for a known familial pathogenic BRCA1/2 or Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer‐related mutation. Family functioning, differentiation to parents, hereditary cancer‐related family communication and perceived support from relatives were assessed in 271 participants for genetic testing before test result disclosure. Hereditary cancer distress (assessed by the Impact of Event Scale) and cancer worry (assessed by the Cancer Worry Scale) were assessed before, 1 week after, and 6 months after test result disclosure. Participants reporting more cancer‐related distress over the study period more frequently perceived the communication about hereditary cancer with relatives as inhibited, the nuclear family functioning as disengaged‐rigid or enmeshed‐chaotic, the support from partner as less than adequate and the relationship to mother as less differentiated. Especially, open communication regarding hereditary cancer and partner support may be important buffers against hereditary cancer distress. Identifying individuals with insufficient sources of support and addressing the family communication concerning hereditary cancer in genetic counseling may help the counselee to adjust better to genetic testing.

Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment

Scientific reports suggest that women at risk for familial breast cancer may benefit from prophylactic mastectomy. However, few data are available about how women decide upon this clinical option, and in particular, what role an objective risk assessment plays in this. The purpose of the present study is to assess whether this objective risk information provided in genetic counselling affects the intention for prophylactic mastectomy. Additionally, the (mediating) effects of breast cancer worry and perceived risk are investigated. A total of 241 women completed a questionnaire before and after receiving information about their familial lifetime breast cancer risk in a genetic counselling session. Path analysis showed that the objective risk information had a corrective effect on perceived risk (β=0.38; P=0.0001), whereas the amount of breast cancer worry was not influenced by the counselling session. The objective risk information did not directly affect the intention for prophylactic mastectomy. The intention was influenced by perceived risk after counselling (β=0.23; P=0.002), and by the precounselling levels of perceived risk (β=0.27; P=0.00025) and breast cancer worry (β=0.32; P=0.0001), that is, higher levels of perceived risk and breast cancer worry imply a stronger intention for prophylactic mastectomy. A personal history of breast cancer did not directly influence the intention for prophylactic mastectomy, but affected women who had undergone a mastectomy as surgical treatment were more positively inclined to have a prophylactic mastectomy than women who had had breast-conserving therapy. The impact of objective risk information on the intention for prophylactic mastectomy is limited and is mediated by perceived risk. Important determinants of the intention for prophylactic mastectomy were precounselling levels of breast cancer worry and perceived risk, suggesting that genetic counselling is only one event in the entire process of decision making. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving decision making on prophylactic mastectomy should explicitly address precounselling factors, such as personal beliefs and the psychological impact of the family medical history.

The requirements of a specialist Breast Centre.

INTRODUCTION In recognition of the advances and evidence based changes in clinical practice that have occurred in recent years and taking into account the knowledge and experience accumulated through the voluntary breast unit certification programme, Eusoma has produced this up-dated and revised guidelines on the requirements of a Specialist Breast Centre (BC). METHODS The content of these guidelines is based on evidence from the recent relevant peer reviewed literature and the consensus of a multidisciplinary team of European experts. The guidelines define the requirements for each breast service and for the specialists who work in specialist Breast Centres. RESULTS The guidelines identify the minimum requirements needed to set up a BC, these being an integrated Breast Centre, dealing with a sufficient number of cases to allow effective working and continuing expertise, dedicated specialists working with a multidisciplinary approach, providing all services throughout the patients pathway and data collection and audit. It is essential that the BC also guarantees the continuity of care for patients with advanced (metastatic) disease offering treatments according to multidisciplinary competencies and a high quality palliative care service. The BC must ensure that comprehensive support and expertise may be needed, not only through the core BC team, but also ensure that all other medical and paramedical expertise that may be necessary depending on the individual case are freely available, referring the patient to the specific care provider depending on the problem. CONCLUSIONS Applying minimum requirements and quality indicators is essential to improve organisation, performance and outcome in breast care. Efficacy and compliance have to be constantly monitored to evaluate the quality of patient care and to allow appropriate corrective actions leading to improvements in patient care.

What do women really want to know? Motives for attending familial breast cancer clinics

Genetic counselling is a highly specialised service in medical care. The service is expensive and its task is comprehensive, including “starting a communication process which deals with the human problems associated with the risk of occurrence of a genetic disorder in a family”.1 For a breast cancer service, this process is an attempt to assist the counsellee in understanding the medical facts, the mode of inheritance, the risk of getting breast and/or ovarian cancer (again), and the implications for daily life. Options for dealing with the risk are discussed and counsellees, depending on their own cumulative risk of getting breast cancer, are presented with a choice of surveillance of their breasts, DNA testing, or prophylactic mastectomy, either with or without oophorectomy. An ever increasing number of women from breast cancer families visit familial cancer clinics for genetic counselling. Because of the comprehensive task of genetic counselling and the increasing numbers of appointments, it is important that the geneticist optimally and efficiently recognises the informational needs that are essential to the counsellee.2 For the counsellee, it is important that she should receive all the information to make a conscious choice. One possible approach is to assess the specific motives for women to attend a familial breast cancer clinic. In this respect, different sets of motives may require different sets of information. Several studies have examined individual motives for attending familial breast cancer clinics and much insight has been gleaned into the most common ones.3–9 Motives often encountered for attending these clinics included: “to find out my risk”, “knowledge of my family history”, “to find out the risk to other family members”, “to reduce my worry”, “to find out about genetic testing”, and “to get information about preventive methods”. Some of these studies3,4,10 simply focused …