Explore the vast range of titles available.

An international group of cancer geneticists review the level of evidence for the association of gene variants with the risk of breast cancer. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the data because of ascertainment bias and the lack of data from large populations. Advances in sequencing technology have made multigene testing, or “panel testing,” a practical option when looking for genetic variants that may be associated with a risk of breast cancer. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court 1 invalidated specific claims made by Myriad Genetics with respect to the patenting of the genomic DNA sequence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 . Other companies immediately began to offer panel tests for breast cancer genes that included BRCA1 and BRCA2 . The subsequent flourishing of gene-panel testing services (Table 1, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at . . .

The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness–implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.Risk-adapted approaches to breast cancer prevention and screening could potentially be more effective than universal approaches, which have important limitations. In this Consensus Statement, representatives of the European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. They also present the ENVISION recommendations on priorities for future research in each of these areas with the aim of stimulating and guiding risk-adapted breast cancer prevention and screening programmes.

Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) is a tumour-prone disorder characterised by the development of multiple schwannomas and meningiomas. Prevalence (initially estimated at 1: 200,000) is around 1 in 60,000. Affected individuals inevitably develop schwannomas, typically affecting both vestibular nerves and leading to hearing loss and deafness. The majority of patients present with hearing loss, which is usually unilateral at onset and may be accompanied or preceded by tinnitus. Vestibular schwannomas may also cause dizziness or imbalance as a first symptom. Nausea, vomiting or true vertigo are rare symptoms, except in late-stage disease. The other main tumours are schwannomas of the other cranial, spinal and peripheral nerves; meningiomas both intracranial (including optic nerve meningiomas) and intraspinal, and some low-grade central nervous system malignancies (ependymomas). Ophthalmic features are also prominent and include reduced visual acuity and cataract. About 70% of NF2 patients have skin tumours (intracutaneous plaque-like lesions or more deep-seated subcutaneous nodular tumours). Neurofibromatosis type 2 is a dominantly inherited tumour predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the NF2 gene on chromosome 22. More than 50% of patients represent new mutations and as many as one-third are mosaic for the underlying disease-causing mutation. Although truncating mutations (nonsense and frameshifts) are the most frequent germline event and cause the most severe disease, single and multiple exon deletions are common. A strategy for detection of the latter is vital for a sensitive analysis. Diagnosis is based on clinical and neuroimaging studies. Presymptomatic genetic testing is an integral part of the management of NF2 families. Prenatal diagnosis and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is possible. The main differential diagnosis of NF2 is schwannomatosis. NF2 represents a difficult management problem with most patients facing substantial morbidity and reduced life expectancy. Surgery remains the focus of current management although watchful waiting with careful surveillance and occasionally radiation treatment have a role. Prognosis is adversely affected by early age at onset, a higher number of meningiomas and having a truncating mutation. In the future, the development of tailored drug therapies aimed at the genetic level are likely to provide huge improvements for this devastating condition.

Lynch Syndrome, or hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by inactivating mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes. It accounts for 2–4 % of all incident colorectal cancers. Mutation carriers are at risk of early onset colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and a spectrum of other tumours. Accurate estimation of cancer risk for mutation carriers is essential for counselling, and establishing appropriate screening guidelines. This study reviews the current data on cancer risk, and emerging risk reduction strategies.

Lynch syndrome (LS) predisposes to endometrial cancer (EC), colorectal cancer, and other cancers through inherited pathogenic variants affecting mismatch-repair (MMR) genes. Diagnosing LS in women with EC can reduce subsequent cancer mortality through colonoscopic surveillance and aspirin chemoprevention; it also enables cascade testing of relatives. A growing consensus supports LS screening in EC; however, the expected proportion of test positives, and optimal testing strategy is uncertain. Previous studies from insurance-based healthcare systems were limited by narrow selection criteria, failure to apply reference standard tests consistently, and poor conversion to definitive testing. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of LS and the diagnostic accuracy of LS testing strategies in an unselected EC population. This was a prospective cross-sectional study carried out at a large United Kingdom gynaecological cancer centre between October 2015 and January 2017. Women diagnosed with EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH) were offered LS testing. Tumours underwent MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability (MSI), and targeted MLH1-methylation testing. Women <50 years, with strong family histories and/or indicative tumour molecular features, underwent MMR germline sequencing. Somatic MMR sequencing was performed when indicative molecular features were unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation. The main outcome measures were the prevalence of LS in an unselected EC population and the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and tumour testing strategies for risk stratifying women with EC for MMR germline sequencing. In total, 500 women participated in the study; only 2 (<1%) declined. Germline sequencing was indicated and conducted for 136 and 135 women, respectively. A total of 16/500 women (3.2%, 95% CI 1.8% to 5.1%) had LS, and 11 more (2.2%) had MMR variants of uncertain significance. Restricting testing to age <50 years, indicative family history (revised Bethesda guidelines or Amsterdam II criteria) or endometrioid histology alone would have missed 9/16 (56%), 8/13 (62%) or 9/13 (69%), and 5/16 (31%) cases of LS, respectively. In total 132/500 tumours were MMR deficient by IHC of which 83/132 (63%) had MLH1-hypermethylation, and 16/49 (33%) of the remaining patients had LS (16/132 with MMR deficiency, 12%). MMR-IHC with targeted MLH1-methylation testing was more discriminatory for LS than MSI with targeted methylation testing, with 100% versus 56.3% (16/16 versus 9/16) sensitivity (p = 0.016) and equal 97.5% (468/484) specificity; 64% MSI-H and 73% MMR deficient tumours unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation had somatic MMR mutations. The main limitation of the study was failure to conduct MMR germline sequencing for the whole study population, which means that the sensitivity and specificity of tumour triage strategies for LS detection may be overestimated, although the risk of LS in women with no clinical or tumour predictors is expected to be extremely low. In this study, we observed that age, family history, and histology are imprecise clinical correlates of LS-EC. IHC outperformed MSI for tumour triage and reliably identified both germline and somatic MMR mutations. The 3.2% proportion of LS-EC is similar to colorectal cancer, supporting unselected screening of EC for LS.

Fifty years after the recognition of the Li–Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), our perception of cancers related to germline alterations of TP53 has drastically changed: (i) germline TP53 alterations are often identified among children with cancers, in particular soft-tissue sarcomas, adrenocortical carcinomas, central nervous system tumours, or among adult females with early breast cancers, without familial history. This justifies the expansion of the LFS concept to a wider cancer predisposition syndrome designated heritable TP53-related cancer (hTP53rc) syndrome; (ii) the interpretation of germline TP53 variants remains challenging and should integrate epidemiological, phenotypical, bioinformatics prediction, and functional data; (iii) the penetrance of germline disease-causing TP53 variants is variable, depending both on the type of variant (dominant-negative variants being associated with a higher cancer risk) and on modifying factors; (iv) whole-body MRI (WBMRI) allows early detection of tumours in variant carriers and (v) in cancer patients with germline disease-causing TP53 variants, radiotherapy, and conventional genotoxic chemotherapy contribute to the development of subsequent primary tumours. It is critical to perform TP53 testing before the initiation of treatment in order to avoid in carriers, if possible, radiotherapy and genotoxic chemotherapies. In children, the recommendations are to perform clinical examination and abdominal ultrasound every 6 months, annual WBMRI and brain MRI from the first year of life, if the TP53 variant is known to be associated with childhood cancers. In adults, the surveillance should include every year clinical examination, WBMRI, breast MRI in females from 20 until 65 years and brain MRI until 50 years.

PurposeIn 2013, Angelina Jolie disclosed in the New York Times (NYT) that she had undergone risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRBM) after learning that she was a BRCA1 mutation carrier. We examined the rates of BRCA testing and RRBM from 1997 to 2016, and quantified trends before and after the Jolie op-ed.MethodsThis observational study of insurance claims data representative of the commercially-insured US population (Truven MarketScan® database) measured BRCA testing and RRBM rates among females ≥ 18 years. Censoring events were breast cancer or ovarian cancer diagnosis, last follow-up date (September 2016), or death. Interrupted time series analyses were used to quantify trends before and after the op-ed.ResultsAngelina Jolie’s NYT op-ed led to a statistically significant increase in the uptake of genetic testing and in RRBM among women without previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer in the US population, and in women who did not undergo testing for BRCA (P < 0.0001 for both). The rate (slope) of RRBM among women who were previously tested for BRCA (P = 0.70) was unchanged. After excluding women with in-situ tumors, the editorial’s effect became less pronounced, suggesting that high-risk women with in-situ breast cancers were most influenced by Jolie’s announcement.ConclusionThe Angelina Effect—a term coined by Time magazine to describe the rise in internet searches related to breast cancer genetics and counseling—represents a long-lasting impact of celebrity on public health awareness as significant increases in genetic testing and mastectomy rates were observed and sustained in subsequent years.

Retrospective studies provide conflicting interpretations of the effect of inherited genetic factors on the prognosis of patients with breast cancer. The primary aim of this study was to determine the effect of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation on breast cancer outcomes in patients with young-onset breast cancer. We did a prospective cohort study of female patients recruited from 127 hospitals in the UK aged 40 years or younger at first diagnosis (by histological confirmation) of invasive breast cancer. Patients with a previous invasive malignancy (except non-melanomatous skin cancer) were excluded. Patients were identified within 12 months of initial diagnosis. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were identified using blood DNA collected at recruitment. Clinicopathological data, and data regarding treatment and long-term outcomes, including date and site of disease recurrence, were collected from routine medical records at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually until death or loss to follow-up. The primary outcome was overall survival for all BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-positive) versus all non-carriers (BRCA-negative) at 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after diagnosis. A prespecified subgroup analysis of overall survival was done in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Recruitment was completed in 2008, and long-term follow-up is continuing. Between Jan 24, 2000, and Jan 24, 2008, we recruited 2733 women. Genotyping detected a pathogenic BRCA mutation in 338 (12%) patients (201 with BRCA1, 137 with BRCA2). After a median follow-up of 8·2 years (IQR 6·0–9·9), 651 (96%) of 678 deaths were due to breast cancer. There was no significant difference in overall survival between BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative patients in multivariable analyses at any timepoint (at 2 years: 97·0% [95% CI 94·5–98·4] vs 96·6% [95·8–97·3]; at 5 years: 83·8% [79·3–87·5] vs 85·0% [83·5–86·4]; at 10 years: 73·4% [67·4–78·5] vs 70·1% [67·7–72·3]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·76–1·22]; p=0·76). Of 558 patients with triple-negative breast cancer, BRCA mutation carriers had better overall survival than non-carriers at 2 years (95% [95% CI 89–97] vs 91% [88–94]; HR 0·59 [95% CI 0·35–0·99]; p=0·047) but not 5 years (81% [73–87] vs 74% [70–78]; HR 1·13 [0·70–1·84]; p=0·62) or 10 years (72% [62–80] vs 69% [63–74]; HR 2·12 [0·82–5·49]; p= 0·12). Patients with young-onset breast cancer who carry a BRCA mutation have similar survival as non-carriers. However, BRCA mutation carriers with triple-negative breast cancer might have a survival advantage during the first few years after diagnosis compared with non-carriers. Decisions about timing of additional surgery aimed at reducing future second primary-cancer risks should take into account patient prognosis associated with the first malignancy and patient preferences. Cancer Research UK, the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Wessex Cancer Trust, Breast Cancer Now, and the PPP Healthcare Medical Trust Grant.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast cancer are at high risk of contralateral disease. Such women often elect to have contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. This study considers whether CRRM improves overall survival. 105 female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with unilateral breast cancer who underwent CRRM were compared to controls (593 mutation carriers and 105 specifically matched) not undergoing CRRM and diagnosed between 1985 and 2010. Survival was assessed by proportional hazards models, and extended to a matched analysis using stratification by risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO), gene, grade and stage. Median time to CRRM was 1.1 years after the primary diagnosis (range 0.0–13.3). Median follow-up was 9.7 years in the CRRM group and 8.6 in the non-CRRM group. The 10-year overall survival was 89 % in women electing for CRRM ( n  = 105) compared to 71 % in the non-CRRM group ( n  = 593); p  < 0.001. The survival advantage remained after matching for oophorectomy, gene, grade and stage: HR 0.37 (0.17–0.80, p  = 0.008)—CRRM appeared to act independently of RRBSO. CRRM appears to confer a survival advantage. If this finding is confirmed in a larger series it should form part of the counselling procedure at diagnosis of the primary tumour. The indication for CRRM in women who have had RRBSO also requires further research.

This review aimed to synthesise qualitative research on how women notified that they are at increased risk of breast cancer view their risk. Five electronic databases were systematically reviewed for qualitative research investigating how women who have received an increased breast cancer risk estimate appraise their risk status. Fourteen records reporting 12 studies were included and critically appraised. Data were thematically synthesised. Four analytical themes were generated. Women appraise their risk of breast cancer through comparison with their risk of other familial diseases. Clinically derived risk estimates were understood in relation to pre-conceived risk appraisals, with incongruences met with surprise. Family history is relied upon strongly, with women exploring similarities and differences in attributes between themselves and affected relatives to gauge the likelihood of diagnosis. Women at increased risk reported living under a cloud of inevitability or uncertainty regarding diagnosis, resulting in concerns about risk management. Women hold stable appraisals of their breast cancer risk which appear to be mainly formed through their experiences of breast cancer in the family. Healthcare professionals should explore women’s personal risk appraisals prior to providing clinically derived risk estimates in order to address misconceptions, reduce concerns about inevitability and increase perceived control over risk reduction.