Genetic predisposition is responsible for 5-10% of all breast cancer, and a much larger percent of early-onset disease. Within the past few years, a number of genes associated with a high risk of breast cancer have been identified, including BRCA1, BRCA2, p53, and the Cowden disease gene PTEN/MMAC1. These genes appear to function as tumor suppressors, and although their mutation frequency in the general population is low, certain populations have a carrier frequency of up to 1% for particular BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. The isolation of these genes is likely to provide important insight into the pathogenesis of human cancer. The clinical application of these molecular discoveries raises controversial issues regarding presymptomatic testing for patients suspected of harboring cancer predisposing mutations.

The genetic basis of inherited predisposition to breast cancer has been assiduously investigated for the past two decades and has been the subject of several recent discoveries. Three reasonably well-defined classes of breast cancer susceptibility alleles with different levels of risk and prevalence in the population have become apparent: rare high-penetrance alleles, rare moderate-penetrance alleles and common low-penetrance alleles. The contribution of each component to breast cancer predisposition is still to be fully explored, as are the phenotypic characteristics of the cancers associated with them, the ways in which they interact, much of their biology and their clinical utility. These recent advances herald a new chapter in the exploration of susceptibility to breast cancer and are likely to provide insights relevant to other common, heterogeneous diseases.

Genetic abnormalities in the DNA repair genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, only approximately 25% of cases of HBOC can be ascribed to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Recently, exome sequencing has uncovered substantial locus heterogeneity among affected families without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The new pathogenic variants are rare, posing challenges to estimation of risk attribution through patient cohorts. In this Review article, we examine HBOC genes, focusing on their role in genome maintenance, the possibilities for functional testing of putative causal variants and the clinical application of new HBOC genes in cancer risk management and treatment decision-making.

The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates.To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location.Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years.BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location.Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer.Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for ≥2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P<.001 for trend) and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P=.02 for trend). Breast cancer risk was higher if mutations were located outside vs within the regions bounded by positions c.2282-c.4071 in BRCA1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P=.007) and c.2831-c.6401 in BRCA2 (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.74; P<.001).These findings provide estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status using prospective data collection and demonstrate the potential importance of family history and mutation location in risk assessment.

Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are at increased risk for developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Consequently, more women with DCIS are electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). We evaluated factors associated with CPM in patients with DCIS who underwent genetic counseling for BRCA testing.This retrospective study involved 165 women with DCIS referred for genetic counseling between 2003 and 2011. Patient characteristics were age, marital and educational status, tumor markers, nuclear grade, family history of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC), race, Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and BRCA results. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictive factors associated with CPM election.Of 165 patients, 44 (27 %) underwent CPM. Patients <45 years of age were more likely to elect CPM (p = 0.0098). A BRCA+ mutation was found in 17 patients (10.3 %), and BRCA+ women were more likely to elect CPM than BRCA or untested women (p = 0.0001). Patients who had a family history of OC (57.7 %) were more likely to choose CPM than those with no family history (p = 0.0004). Younger age, BRCA+, and an OC family history remained significant in the multivariate model (p < 0.008).The CPM rate among patients with DCIS who undergo genetic counseling is high. Factors associated with increased likelihood of CPM among this group were age, BRCA+, and a family history of OC. Further studies are needed to evaluate patients' perceptions of CBC risk and their role in the likelihood of CPM choice.

In the OlympiAD study, olaparib was shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (BRCAm) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We now report the planned final overall survival (OS) results, and describe the most common adverse events (AEs) to better understand olaparib tolerability in this population.OlympiAD, a Phase III, randomized, controlled, open-label study (NCT02000622), enrolled patients with a germline BRCAm and HER2-negative mBC who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for mBC. Patients were randomized to olaparib tablets (300mg bid) or predeclared TPC (capecitabine, vinorelbine, or eribulin). OS and safety were secondary end points.A total of 205 patients were randomized to olaparib and 97 to TPC. At 64% data maturity, median OS was 19.3months with olaparib versus 17.1months with TPC (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66-1.23; P = 0.513); median follow-up was 25.3 and 26.3months, respectively. HR for OS with olaparib versus TPC in prespecified subgroups were: prior chemotherapy for mBC [no (first-line setting): 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.90; yes (second/third-line): 1.13, 0.79-1.64]; receptor status (triple negative: 0.93, 0.62-1.43; hormone receptor positive: 0.86, 0.55-1.36); prior platinum (yes: 0.83, 0.49-1.45; no: 0.91, 0.64-1.33). Adverse events during olaparib treatment were generally low grade and manageable by supportive treatment or dose modification. There was a low rate of treatment discontinuation (4.9%), and the risk of developing anemia did not increase with extended olaparib exposure.While there was no statistically significant improvement in OS with olaparib compared to TPC, there was the possibility of meaningful OS benefit among patients who had not received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Olaparib was generally well-tolerated, with no evidence of cumulative toxicity during extended exposure.© 2019 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations./ mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered / testing, regardless of family history. / testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond / should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants.(1) In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next-generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever-increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprising representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and the College of American Pathologists to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP, and College of American Pathologists stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories, including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes, and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology-"pathogenic," "likely pathogenic," "uncertain significance," "likely benign," and "benign"-to describe variants identified in genes that cause Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classifying variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g., population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved laboratory, with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or the equivalent.

ACMG previously developed recommendations for standards for interpretation of sequence variations. We now present the updated revised recommendations. Here, we describe six interpretative categories of sequence variations: (1) sequence variation is previously reported and is a recognized cause of the disorder; (2) sequence variation is previously unreported and is of the type which is expected to cause the disorder; (3) sequence variation is previously unreported and is of the type which may or may not be causative of the disorder; (4) sequence variation is previously unreported and is probably not causative of disease; (5) sequence variation is previously reported and is a recognized neutral variant; and (6) sequence variation is previously not known or expected to be causative of disease, but is found to be associated with a clinical presentation. We emphasize the importance of appropriate reporting of sequence variations using standardized terminology and established databases, and of clearly reporting the limitations of sequence-based testing. We discuss follow-up studies that may be used to ascertain the clinical significance of sequence variations, including the use of additional tools (such as predictive software programs) that may be useful in variant classification. As more information becomes available allowing the interpretation of a new sequence variant, it is recommended that the laboratory amend previous reports and provide updated results to the physician. The ACMG strongly recommends that the clinical and technical validation of sequence variation detection be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory and interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or equivalent.

The authors compared the performance of screening mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women at genetically high risk for breast cancer.The authors conducted an international prospective study of screening mammography and MRI in asymptomatic, genetically high-risk women age >/= 25 years. Women with a history of breast cancer were eligible for a contralateral screening if they had been diagnosed within 5 years or a bilateral screening if they had been diagnosed > 5 years previously. All examinations (MRI, mammography, and clinical breast examination [CBE]) were performed within 90 days of each other.In total, 390 eligible women were enrolled by 13 sites, and 367 women completed all study examinations. Imaging evaluations recommended 38 biopsies, and 27 biopsies were performed, resulting in 4 cancers diagnosed for an overall 1.1% cancer yield (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.3-2.8%). MRI detected all four cancers, whereas mammography detected one cancer. The diagnostic yield of mammography was 0.3% (95%CI, 0.01-1.5%). The yield of cancer by MRI alone was 0.8% (95%CI, - 0.3-2.0%). The biopsy recommendation rates for MRI and mammography were 8.5% (95%CI, 5.8-11.8%) and 2.2% (95%CI, 0.1-4.3%).Screening MRI in high-risk women was capable of detecting mammographically and clinically occult breast cancer. Screening MRI resulted in 22 of 367 of women (6%) who had negative mammogram and negative CBE examinations undergoing biopsy, resulting in 3 additional cancers detected. MRI also resulted in 19 (5%) false-positive outcomes, which resulted in benign biopsies.(c) 2005 American Cancer Society.

Current recommendations for women who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are to undergo breast surveillance from age 25 years onward with mammography annually and clinical breast examination (CBE) every 6 months; however, many tumors are detected at a relatively advanced stage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound may improve the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage.To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 4 methods of breast cancer surveillance (mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and CBE) in women with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer due to a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.A surveillance study of 236 Canadian women aged 25 to 65 years with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations who underwent 1 to 3 annual screening examinations, consisting of MRI, mammography, and ultrasound at a single tertiary care teaching hospital between November 3, 1997, and March 31, 2003. On the day of imaging and at 6-month intervals, CBE was performed.Sensitivity and specificity of each of the 4 surveillance modalities, and sensitivity of all 4 screening modalities vs mammography and CBE.Each imaging modality was read independently by a radiologist and scored on a 5-point Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scale. All lesions with a score of 4 or 5 (suspicious or highly suspicious for malignancy) were biopsied. There were 22 cancers detected (16 invasive and 6 ductal carcinoma in situ). Of these, 17 (77%) were detected by MRI vs 8 (36%) by mammography, 7 (33%) by ultrasound, and 2 (9.1%) by CBE. The sensitivity and specificity (based on biopsy rates) were 77% and 95.4% for MRI, 36% and 99.8% for mammography, 33% and 96% for ultrasound, and 9.1% and 99.3% for CBE, respectively. There was 1 interval cancer. All 4 screening modalities combined had a sensitivity of 95% vs 45% for mammography and CBE combined.In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, MRI is more sensitive for detecting breast cancers than mammography, ultrasound, or CBE alone. Whether surveillance regimens that include MRI will reduce mortality from breast cancer in high-risk women requires further investigation.

To compare the effectiveness of mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for surveillance of women at increased familial risk for breast cancer (lifetime risk of 20% or more).We conducted a surveillance cohort study of 529 asymptomatic women who, based on their family history and/or mutational analysis, were suspected or proven to carry a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA). A total of 1,542 annual surveillance rounds were completed with a mean follow-up of 5.3 years. Diagnostic accuracies of the three imaging modalities used alone or in different combinations were compared.Forty-three breast cancers were identified in the total cohort (34 invasive, nine ductal carcinoma-in-situ). Overall sensitivity of diagnostic imaging was 93% (40 of 43 breast cancers); overall node-positive rate was 16%, and one interval cancer occurred (one of 43 cancers, or 2%). In the analysis by modality, sensitivity was low for mammography (33%) and ultrasound (40%) or the combination of both (49%). MRI offered a significantly higher sensitivity (91%). The sensitivity of mammography in the higher risk groups was 25%, compared with 100% for MRI. Specificity of MRI (97.2%) was equivalent to that of mammography (96.8%).Mammography alone, and also mammography combined with breast ultrasound, seems insufficient for early diagnosis of breast cancer in women who are at increased familial risk with or without documented BRCA mutation. If MRI is used for surveillance, diagnosis of intraductal and invasive familial or hereditary cancer is achieved with a significantly higher sensitivity and at a more favorable stage.

: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a multicenter surveillance of high-risk women.: We enrolled asymptomatic women aged ≥ 25: BRCA mutation carriers; first-degree relatives of BRCA mutation carriers, and women with strong family history of breast/ovarian cancer, including those with previous personal breast cancer.: A total of 18 centers enrolled 501 women and performed 1592 rounds (3.2 rounds/woman). Forty-nine screen-detected and 3 interval cancers were diagnosed: 44 invasive, 8 ductal carcinoma in situ; only 4 pT2 stage; 32 G3 grade. Of 39 patients explored for nodal status, 28 (72%) were negative. Incidence per year-woman resulted 3.3% overall, 2.1% <50, and 5.4% ≥ 50 years (P < 0.001), 4.3% in women with previous personal breast cancer and 2.5% in those without (P = 0.045). MRI was more sensitive (91%) than clinical breast examination (18%), mammography (50%), ultrasonography (52%), or mammography plus ultrasonography (63%) (P < 0.001). Specificity ranged 96% to 99%, positive predictive value 53% to 71%, positive likelihood ratio 24 to 52 (P not significant). MRI showed significantly better negative predictive value (99.6) and negative likelihood ratio (0.09) than those of the other modalities. At receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve of MRI (0.97) was significantly higher than that of mammography (0.83) or ultrasonography (0.82) and not significantly increased when MRI was combined with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Of 52 cancers, 16 (31%) were diagnosed only by MRI, 8 of 21 (38%) in women <50, and 8 of 31 (26%) in women ≥ 50 years of age.: MRI largely outperformed mammography, ultrasonography, and their combination for screening high-risk women below and over 50.

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in the surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer.In this prospective comparison study, women at high risk for breast cancer were offered annual surveillance examinations, consisting of mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, at a single tertiary care breast center. The sensitivity and specificity of each modality was based on the histopathologic evaluation of suspicious findings from all modalities plus the detected interval cancers.Three hundred and twenty-seven women underwent 672 complete imaging rounds. Of a total of 28 detected cancers, 14 were detected by mammography, 12 by ultrasound, and 24 by MRI, which resulted in sensitivities of 50%, 42.9%, and 85.7%, respectively (P < 0.01). MRI detected not only significantly more invasive but also significantly more preinvasive cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ). Mammography, ultrasound, and MRI led to 25, 26, and 101 false-positive findings, which resulted in specificities of 98%, 98%, and 92%, respectively (P < 0.05). Thirty-five (35%) of these false-positive findings were atypical ductal hyperplasias, lesions considered to be of premalignant character. Nine (26%) of those were detected by mammography, 2 (6%) with ultrasound, and 32 (91%) with MRI (P < 0.01).Our results show that MRI of the breast improves the detection of invasive cancers, preinvasive cancers, and premalignant lesions in a high-risk population and should therefore become an integral part of breast cancer surveillance in these patients.

Surgical treatment of breast cancer has evolved from radical mastectomy with routine removal of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) to breast conservative therapy with preservation of the breast and NAC. When breast conservation is not appropriate or the patient desires mastectomy for risk reduction, conventional therapy still consists of mastectomy with removal of the NAC, followed by reconstruction. Rising interest in improved cosmesis has led to the introduction of the skin-sparing and nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) as potential alternatives to mastectomy. There has been much controversy regarding the oncologic safety of these procedures, and the NSM has also introduced a set of complications, such as nipple and areolar necrosis, that are not a concern with total mastectomy. From our review of the literature, we feel that NSM may be a viable option in the appropriate setting, and that its risks and complications are acceptable when compared to the traditional surgical treatment of breast cancer.

Widespread clinical laboratory implementation of next-generation sequencing-based cancer testing has highlighted the importance and potential benefits of standardizing the interpretation and reporting of molecular results among laboratories. A multidisciplinary working group tasked to assess the current status of next-generation sequencing-based cancer testing and establish standardized consensus classification, annotation, interpretation, and reporting conventions for somatic sequence variants was convened by the Association for Molecular Pathology with liaison representation from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists. On the basis of the results of professional surveys, literature review, and the Working Group's subject matter expert consensus, a four-tiered system to categorize somatic sequence variations based on their clinical significances is proposed: tier I, variants with strong clinical significance; tier II, variants with potential clinical significance; tier III, variants of unknown clinical significance; and tier IV, variants deemed benign or likely benign. Cancer genomics is a rapidly evolving field; therefore, the clinical significance of any variant in therapy, diagnosis, or prognosis should be reevaluated on an ongoing basis. Reporting of genomic variants should follow standard nomenclature, with testing method and limitations clearly described. Clinical recommendations should be concise and correlate with histological and clinical findings.Copyright © 2017 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Management of early-stage breast cancer in young women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 remains controversial. This study assessed the long-term risks of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer in a cohort of young women who underwent breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy.Between 1975 and 1998, 290 women with breast cancer diagnosed at age 42 years or younger underwent lumpectomy followed by radiotherapy at our hospital. We recruited 127 of these women for complete sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Demographic, clinical, pathological, and outcome data were recorded. The primary endpoints were rates of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer, in relation to germline BRCA1/2 status.105 women were classified as having sporadic disease (94 with wild-type or known polymorphisms and 11 with variants of unclear significance) and 22 as having genetic predisposition (deleterious mutations in BRCA1 [15] or BRCA2 [seven]). At 12 years of follow-up, the genetic group had significantly higher rates of ipsilateral (49% vs 21%, p=0.007) and contralateral events (42% vs 9%, p=0.001) than the sporadic group. The majority of events were classified as second primary tumours. No patient in the genetic group had undergone oophorectomy or was taking prophylactic agents such as tamoxifen.Patients with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a high risk of developing late ipsilateral and contralateral second primary tumours. With breast-conserving therapy, chemoprophylaxis or other interventions to reduce the rate of second cancers may be valuable. Alternatively, bilateral mastectomy may be considered, to minimise the risk of second tumours in the breasts.

We compared the outcome of breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast cancer versus that of matched sporadic controls.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.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).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.

We evaluated the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and investigated the predictive factors for CBC and IBTR in breast cancer patients with mutations and non-carriers at high-risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC).We analyzed prospectively collected clinical data of patients with unilateral breast cancer who were at high-risk for HBOC and were tested for the mutation between 2003 and 2013.The cohort comprised 540 patients with 45 carriers, 50 carriers, and 445 non-carriers. The median follow-up was 84.5 months. Overall, 61 patients (11.3%) developed CBC (24.4% for carriers, 20% for carriers, and 9% for non-carriers). The 10-year cumulative risk for CBC was 23.8% for carriers, 19.1% for carriers, and 9.8% for non-carriers ( = 0.174). Among the 277 patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery, 29 (10.5%) developed IBTR (9.1% for carriers, 16.7% for carriers, and 10.2% for non-carriers). The 10-year cumulative risk for IBTR for carriers, carriers, and non-carriers was 8.7%, 14.1%, and 20%, respectively ( = 0.577). (hazard ratio [HR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-7.20; = 0.019) and (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.13-7.35; = 0.027) mutations and negative estrogen receptor status (HR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.60-10.08; = 0.003) were the significant predictive factors for CBC, while tumor size ≥ 2 cm was predictive of IBTR (HR, 6.11; 95% CI, 2.03-18.33; = 0.001).While mutation carriers had a higher risk of developing CBC compared to non-carriers at high-risk of HBOC, the risk of IBTR was similarly high across breast cancer patients irrespective of the mutation. Further preventive strategies to reduce CBC and IBTR for all patients at high-risk of HBOC should be investigated.© 2019 Korean Breast Cancer Society.

In women with a family history of breast cancer, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a decreased risk of subsequent breast cancer of approximately 90%. We examined the association between bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast cancer risk in women at high risk for breast cancer who also had mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.We obtained blood samples from 176 of the 214 high-risk women who participated in our previous retrospective cohort study of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. We used conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis and direct sequence analysis of the blood specimens to identify women with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. The carriers' probabilities of developing breast cancer were estimated from two different penetrance models.We identified 26 women with an alteration in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Eighteen of the mutations were considered to be deleterious and eight to be of uncertain clinical significance. None of the 26 women has developed breast cancer after a median of 13.4 years of follow-up (range, 5.8-28.5 years). Three of the 214 women are known to have developed a breast cancer after prophylactic mastectomy. For two of these women, BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening was negative, and no blood specimen was available for the third. Estimations of the effectiveness of prophylactic mastectomy were performed, considering this woman as both a mutation carrier and a noncarrier. These calculations predicted that six to nine breast cancers should have developed among the mutation carriers, which translates into a risk reduction, after bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, of 89.5%-100% (95% confidence interval = 41.4% to 100%).Prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of subsequent breast cancer not only in women identified as being at high risk on the basis of a family history of breast cancer but also in known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women from a hereditary breast(/ovarian) cancer family have a highly increased risk of developing breast cancer (BC). Prophylactic mastectomy (PM) results in the greatest BC risk reduction. Long-term data on the efficacy and sequels of PM are scarce.From 358 high-risk women (including 236 BRCA1/2 carriers) undergoing PM between 1994 and 2004, relevant data on the occurrence of BC in relation to PM, complications in relation to breast reconstruction (BR), mutation status, age at PM and preoperative imaging examination results were extracted from the medical records, and analyzed separately for women without (unaffected, n = 177) and with a BC history (affected, n = 181).No primary BCs occurred after PM (median follow-up 4.5 years). In one previously unaffected woman, metastatic BC was detected almost 4 years after PM (primary BC not found). Median age at PM was younger in unaffected women (P <.001), affected women more frequently were 50% risk carriers (P <.001). Unexpected (pre)malignant changes at PM were found in 3% of the patients (in 5 affected, and 5 unaffected women, respectively). In 49.6% of the women opting for BR one or more complications were registered, totaling 215 complications, leading to 153 surgical interventions (71%). Complications were mainly related to cosmetic outcome (36%) and capsular formation (24%).The risk of developing a primary BC after PM remains low after longer follow-up. Preoperative imaging and careful histological examination is warranted because of potential unexpected (pre)malignant findings. The high complication rate after breast reconstruction mainly concerns cosmetic issues.

Little evidence exists on the effect of risk-reducing surgeries in young BRCA carriers with a previous history of breast cancer. We investigated the association between risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), or both procedures, with survival outcomes in a large global cohort of young BRCA carriers with previous breast cancer.The BRCA BCY Collaboration is an international, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study, conducted at 109 centres in five continents, including women harbouring germline BRCA1, BRCA2, or both, pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and diagnosed with stage I-III invasive breast cancer at the age of 40 years or younger between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2020. The primary objectives of the present analysis were to determine the association between RRM or RRSO and overall survival in young BRCA carriers with breast cancer. The primary endpoint was overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03673306.Between Jan 1, 2000 and Dec 31, 2020, 5290 patients were included, of whom 3361 (63·5%) patients were BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers, 2708 (51·2%) had node-negative, and 2421 (45·8%) hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Of 5290 patients, 2910 (55·0%) underwent RRM, 2782 (52·6%) underwent RRSO. After a median follow-up of 8·2 years (IQR 4·7-12·8), RRM was associated with significantly better overall survival compared with no RRM (adjusted HR [aHR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·53-0·78; 20-year restricted mean overall survival time 17·89 years [95% CI 17·61-18·17] with RRM vs 16·65 years [16·38-16·92] without RRM). RRSO was also associated with significantly better overall survival compared with no RRSO (aHR 0·58, 95% CI 0·48-0·71; 20-year restricted mean overall survival time 17·73 years [95% CI 17·43-18·03] with RRSO vs 16·67 years [16·38-16·96] without RRSO).In this global cohort of BRCA carriers with previous breast cancer diagnosis at a young age, RRM and RRSO were both associated with a significant improvement in overall survival. These findings provide evidence for a tailored counselling of a unique and high-risk patient population on cancer risk management strategies.Italian Association for Cancer Research.Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

Background Male breast cancer incidence is rising. There may be a potential role in selective screening in men at elevated risk for breast cancer, but the effectiveness of such screening remains unexplored. Purpose To evaluate patterns of male breast imaging utilization, to determine high-risk screening outcomes, and to delineate risk factors associated with cancer diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study reviewed consecutive male breast imaging examinations over a 12-year period (between 2005-2017). Examination indications, biopsy recommendations, and pathologic results were correlated with patient characteristics. Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney test, Spearman correlation, and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results A total of 1869 men (median age, 55 years; range, 18-96 years) underwent 2052 examinations yielding 2304 breast lesions and resulting in 149 (6.5%) biopsies in 133 men; 41 (27.5%) were malignant and 108 (72.5%) were benign. There were 1781 (86.8%) diagnostic and 271 (13.2%) screening examinations. All men undergoing screening had personal or family history of breast cancer and/or genetic mutations. There was a significant increase in the number of examinations in men relative to the number of examinations in women over time (Spearman correlation, = 0.85; <.001). Five node-negative cancers resulted from screening mammography, yielding a cancer detection rate of 18 per 1000 examinations (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7, 41), with cancers diagnosed on average after 4 person-years of screening (range, 1-10 person-years). Mammographic screening sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy were 100% (95% CI: 50%, 100%), 95.0% (95% CI: 93.1%, 98%), and 50% (95% CI: 22.2%, 77.8%). Older age (<.001), Ashkenazi descent (<.001), genetic mutations ( =.006), personal history (<.001), and first-degree family history ( =.03) were associated with breast cancer. Non-first-degree family history was not associated with cancer ( =.09). Conclusion There is potential benefit in screening men at high risk for developing breast cancer. Such screening may have increased over time. © RSNA, 2019.