nach oben

Erschienen in:

21.05.2022 | Epidemiology

Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy

verfasst von: Shenin A. Dettwyler, Darcy L. Thull, Priscilla F. McAuliffe, Jennifer G. Steiman, Ronald R. Johnson, Emilia J. Diego, Phuong L. Mai

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Genetic testing (GT) can identify individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, who may consider contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). We report on CRRM rates in young women newly diagnosed with BC who received GT through a multidisciplinary clinic.

Methods

Clinical data were reviewed for patients seen between November 2014 and June 2019. Patients with non-metastatic, unilateral BC diagnosed at age ≤ 45 and completed GT prior to surgery were included. Associations between surgical intervention and age, BC stage, family history, and GT results were evaluated.

Results

Of the 194 patients, 30 (15.5%) had a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, NBN, NF1), with 66.7% in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Of 164 (84.5%) uninformative results, 132 (68%) were negative and 32 (16.5%) were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 67 (34.5%) had CRRM, including 25/30 (83.3%) PV/LPV carriers and 42/164 (25.6%) non-carriers. A positive test result (p < 0.01) and significant family history were associated with CRRM (p = 0.02). For the 164 with uninformative results, multivariate analysis showed that CRRM was not associated with age (p = 0.23), a VUS, (p = 0.08), family history (p = 0.10), or BC stage (p = 0.11).

Conclusion

In this cohort of young women with BC, the identification of a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene and a significant family history were associated with the decision to pursue CRRM. Thus, incorporation of genetic services in the initial evaluation of young patients with a new BC could contribute to the surgical decision-making process.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70:7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590CrossRefPubMed

Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Hughes K et al (2019) Underdiagnosis of hereditary breast cancer: are genetic testing guidelines a tool or an obstacle? J Clin Oncol 37:453–460. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01631CrossRefPubMed

Tung N, Lin NU, Kidd J et al (2016) Frequency of germline mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in a sequential series of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:1460–1468. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.0747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR et al (2017) Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA 317:2402–2416. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7112CrossRefPubMed

Corso G, Montagna G, Figueiredo J et al (2020) Hereditary gastric and breast cancer syndromes related to CDH1 germline mutation: a multidisciplinary clinical review. Cancers. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12061598CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ngeow J, Sesock K, Eng C (2017) Breast cancer risk and clinical implications for germline PTEN mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:1–8CrossRef

Hearle N, Schumacher V, Menko FH et al (2006) Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 12:3209–3215. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0083CrossRefPubMed

Howell SJ, Hockenhull K, Salih Z, Evans DG (2017) Increased risk of breast cancer in neurofibromatosis type 1: current insights. Breast Cancer Targets Ther 9:531–536CrossRef

Zhang G, Zeng Y, Liu Z, Wei W (2013) Significant association between Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 657del5 polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Tumor Biol 34:2753–2757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-013-0830-zCrossRef

10.

Yang X, Leslie G, Doroszuk A et al (2020) Cancer risks associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants: an international study of 524 families. J Clin Oncol 38:674–685. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.01907CrossRefPubMed

11.

Decker B, Allen J, Luccarini C et al (2017) Rare, protein-truncating variants in ATM, CHEK2 and PALB2, but not XRCC2, are associated with increased breast cancer risks. J Med Genet 54:732–741. https://doi.org/10.1136/JMEDGENET-2017-104588CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hall M, Bernhisel R, Hughes E et al (2021) Germline pathogenic variants in the ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) gene are associated with high and moderate risks for multiple cancers. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 14:433–440. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0448CrossRef

13.

Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman J-M et al (2015) Revisiting Li-Fraumeni syndrome from TP53 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 33:2345–2352. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.59.5728CrossRefPubMed

14.

Plichta JK, Sebastian ML, Smith LA et al (2019) Germline genetic testing: what the breast surgeon needs to know. Ann Surg Oncol 26:2184–2190. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07341-8CrossRefPubMed

15.

Manahan ER, Kuerer HM, Sebastian M et al (2019) Consensus guidelines on genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer from the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 26:3025–3031CrossRef

16.

Network NCC (2020) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer version 4.2020. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 12 Jun 2020

17.

Network NCC (2020) NCCN guidelines version 1.2021: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_bop.pdf. Accessed 12 Sep 2020

18.

Reiner AS, John EM, Brooks JD et al (2013) Risk of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer in noncarriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with a family history of breast cancer: a report from the women’s environmental cancer and radiation epidemiology study. J Clin Oncol 31:433–439. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.43.2013CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lizarraga IM, Sugg SL, Weigel RJ, Scott-Conner CEH (2013) Review of risk factors for the development of contralateral breast cancer. Am J Surg 206:704–708CrossRef

20.

Akdeniz D, Schmidt MK, Seynaeve CM et al (2019) Risk factors for metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 44:1–14CrossRef

21.

Giardiello D, Steyerberg EW, Hauptmann M et al (2019) Prediction and clinical utility of a contralateral breast cancer risk model. Breast Cancer Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1221-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Xiong Z, Yang L, Deng G et al (2018) Patterns of occurrence and outcomes of contralateral breast cancer: analysis of SEER data. J Clin Med 7:133. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7060133CrossRefPubMedCentral

23.

Soran A, Kamali Polat A, Johnson R, McGuire KP (2014) Increasing trend of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: what are the factors behind this phenomenon? Surgeon 12:316–322CrossRef

24.

Cybulski C, Kluźniak W, Huzarski T et al (2015) Clinical outcomes in women with breast cancer and a PALB2 mutation: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet Oncol 16:638–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70142-7CrossRefPubMed

25.

Weischer M, Nordestgaard BG, Pharoah P et al (2012) CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity in women with breast cancer associated with early death, breast cancer-specific death, and increased risk of a second breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:4308–4316. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.42.7336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Bernstein JL, WECARE Study Collaborative Group, Concannon P (2017) ATM, radiation, and the risk of second primary breast cancer. Int J Radiat Biol. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2017.1344363CrossRef

27.

Teoh V, Tasoulis MK, Gui G (2020) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with unilateral breast cancer who are genetic carriers, have a strong family history or are just young at presentation. Cancers 12(1):140CrossRef

28.

Hunt KK, Euhus DM, Boughey JC et al (2017) Society of Surgical Oncology Breast Disease Working Group statement on prophylactic (risk-reducing) mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 24:375–397. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5688-zCrossRefPubMed

29.

Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, Frank TS, Soderberg CL, Sitta DL, Frost MH, Grant CS, Donohue JH, Woods JE, McDonnell SK, Vockley CW, Deffenbaugh A, Couch FJ, Jenkins RB (2001) Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 93:1633–1637. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.21.1633CrossRef

30.

Boughey JC, Attai DJ, Chen SL et al (2016) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) consensus statement from the American Society of Breast Surgeons: data on CPM outcomes and risks. Ann Surg Oncol 23:3100–3105. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5443-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Boccardo C, Gentilini O (2016) Contralateral risk reducing mastectomy in patients with sporadic breast cancer. Benefits and hazards. Eur J Surg Oncol 42:913–918CrossRef

32.

Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, Ko H (2018) Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002748.pub4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Kenny R, Reed M, Subramanian A (2018) Mastectomy for risk reduction or symmetry in women without high risk gene mutation: a review. Int J Surg 50:60–64CrossRef

34.

Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH et al (2007) Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol 25:5203–5209. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.12.3141CrossRefPubMed

35.

Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB et al (2009) Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 27:1362–1367. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.20.1681CrossRefPubMed

36.

Nash R, Goodman M, Lin CC et al (2017) State variation in the receipt of a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among women who received a diagnosis of invasive unilateral early-stage breast cancer in the United States, 2004–2012. JAMA Surg 152:648–657. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Jones NB, Wilson J, Kotur L et al (2009) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer: an increasing trend at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol 16:2691–2696. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0547-9CrossRefPubMed

38.

You Q, Chen K, Li Y et al (2018) Factors associated with the increasing trend of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data. Breast 40:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.05.001CrossRefPubMed

39.

Clerville JW (2018) Trends of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and other types of breast cancer surgery. J Registry Manag 45:28–32PubMed

40.

Couch FJ, Nathanson KL, Offit K (2014) Two decades after BRCA: setting paradigms in personalized cancer care and prevention. Science 343:1466–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Kurian AW, Hare EE, Mills MA et al (2014) Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment. J Clin Oncol 32:2001–2009. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.6607CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Desmond A, Kurian AW, Gabree M et al (2015) Clinical actionability of multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. JAMA Oncol 1:943–951. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2690CrossRefPubMed

43.

Cragun D, Weidner A, Tezak A et al (2020) Cancer risk management among female BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 182:421–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05699-yCrossRefPubMed

44.

Chang J, Seng S, Yoo J et al (2019) Clinical management of patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer with variants of uncertain significance in the era of multigene panel testing. Ann Surg Oncol 26:3389–3396. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07595-2CrossRefPubMed

45.

Pederson HJ, Gopalakrishnan D, Noss R et al (2018) Impact of multigene panel testing on surgical decision making in breast cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 226:560–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.12.037CrossRefPubMed

46.

Elsayegh N, Webster RD, Gutierrez Barrera AM et al (2018) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate and predictive factors among patients with breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer. Cancer Med 7:2718–2726. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1519CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S et al (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Mersch J, Brown N, Pirzadeh-Miller S et al (2018) Prevalence of variant reclassification following hereditary cancer genetic testing. J Am Med Assoc 320:1266–1274. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13152CrossRef

49.

Kurian AW, Li Y, Hamilton AS et al (2017) Gaps in incorporating germline genetic testing into treatment decision-making for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 35:2232–2239. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCOCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Welsh JL, Hoskin TL, Day CN et al (2017) Clinical decision-making in patients with variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3067–3072. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5959-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Morgan R, Brown A, Hamman K, Sampson J, Naik AMK (2018) Risk management decisions in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Am J Surg 15:899–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.02.010CrossRef

52.

Macklin SK, Jackson JL, Atwal PS, Hines SL (2019) Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance. Fam Cancer 18:121–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-018-0086-2CrossRefPubMed

53.

Eccles BK, Copson E, Maishman T et al (2015) Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists. BMC Cancer 15:936. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1934-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Buys SS, Sandbach JF, Gammon A et al (2017) A study of over 35,000 women with breast cancer tested with a 25-gene panel of hereditary cancer genes. Cancer 123:1721–1730. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30498CrossRefPubMed

55.

Tung N, Battelli C, Allen B et al (2015) Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel. Cancer 121:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29010CrossRefPubMed

56.

Momozawa Y, Iwasaki Y, Parsons MT et al (2018) Germline pathogenic variants of 11 breast cancer genes in 7,051 Japanese patients and 11,241 controls. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06581-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Network NCC (2020) NCCN guidelines version 1.2020 genetic/familial high-risk assessment: colorectal. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_colon.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2020

58.

Flippo-Morton T, Walsh K, Chambers K et al (2016) Surgical decision making in the BRCA-positive population: institutional experience and comparison with recent literature. Breast J 22:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12521CrossRefPubMed

59.

Sacks GD, Morrow M (2020) Addressing the dilemma of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with behavioral science. J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.20.02239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Elsayegh N, Kuerer HM, Lin H et al (2014) Predictors that influence contralateral prophylactic mastectomy election among women with ductal carcinoma in situ who were evaluated for BRCA genetic testing. Ann Surg Oncol 21:3466–3472. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3747-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Metcalfe KA, Retrouvey H, Kerrebijn I et al (2019) Predictors of uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with nonhereditary breast cancer. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32405CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Yi M, Hunt KK, Arun BK et al (2010) Factors affecting the decision of breast cancer patients to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer Prev Res 3:1026–1034. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0130CrossRef

63.

Abbott A, Rueth N, Pappas-Varco S et al (2011) Perceptions of contralateral breast cancer: an overestimation of risk. Ann Surg Oncol 16:3129–3136CrossRef

64.

Culver J, Brinkerhoff C, Clague J et al (2013) Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress. Clin Genet 84:464–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy
verfasst von: Shenin A. Dettwyler
Darcy L. Thull
Priscilla F. McAuliffe
Jennifer G. Steiman
Ronald R. Johnson
Emilia J. Diego
Phuong L. Mai
Publikationsdatum: 21.05.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06619-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Springer Medizin

Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy