Abstract
Identifying patients at high risk of carrying pathogenic variants in genes is a crucial part of providing both accurate counseling and evidence-based treatment recommendations. Current risk assessment models have strengths and weaknesses that may limit their applicability to specific clinical circumstances. Clinicians must have knowledge regarding variations in available models, how they should be used, and what data they can expect from specific models. In addition, indications for genetic testing are expanding, and the adoption of next-generation sequencing has allowed the creation of multigene testing panels. Complex consequences of panel testing have included an increase in the incidence of identifying variants of uncertain significance and the identification of pathogenic variants in genes for which treatment guidelines are not available. Women diagnosed with breast cancer who carry pathogenic variants in genes with proven associations with breast cancer (BRCA1/2) or highly likely associations (PTEN, PALB2) require additional risk assessment to facilitate treatment decisions that will limit in-breast tumor recurrence and contralateral breast cancer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.
National comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline Version 2.2016. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
Mutation Prevalence Tables 2010.http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
Center for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology. Boadicea. 2016. http://ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/boadicea (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
IBIS breast cancer risk evaluation tool. http://www.ems-trials.org/riskevaluator/ (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
CRA Health. Risk Express. http://expresstwo.cloudapp.net/ (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; BayesMendel Group. CancerGene. http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/breasthealth/cagene/default.asp (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
Smith SG, Sestak I, Forster A, et al. Factors affecting uptake and adherence to breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:575–90.
Ropka ME, Keim J, Philbrick JT. Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3090–5.
American Society of Breast Surgeons. Mastery of breast surgery. https://www.breastsurgeons.org/new_layout/programs/mastery/ (2016). Accessed 23 March 2016.
Senter L, Clendenning M, Sotamaa K, et al. The clinical phenotype of Lynch syndrome due to germ-line PMS2 mutations. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:419–28.
ten Broeke SW, Brohet RM, Tops CM, et al. Lynch syndrome caused by germline PMS2 mutations: delineating the cancer risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:319–25.
Greenblatt MS. Sequence variants of uncertain significance: what to do when genetic test results are not definitive. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2015;24:833–46.
14. LaDuca H, Stuenkel AJ, Dolinsky JS, et al. Utilization of multigene panels in hereditary cancer predisposition testing: analysis of more than 2,000 patients. Genet Med. 2014;16:830–7.
Tung N, Lin NU, Kidd J, et al. Frequency of germline mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in a sequential series of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. In press.
Eggington JM, Burbidge LA, Roa B, et al. Current variant of uncertain significance rates in BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome testing (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM). Myriad Genetics Laboratories poster presentation; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics annual meeting 2012.
Yorczyk A, Robinson LS, Ross TS. Use of panel tests in place of single gene tests in the cancer genetics clinic. Clin Genet. 2015;88:278–82.
18. Jez S, Martin M, South S, et al. Variants of unknown significance on chromosomal microarray analysis: parental perspectives. J Community Genet. 2015;6:343–9.
19. Kiedrowski LA, Owens KM, Yashar BM, et al. Parents’ perspectives on variants of uncertain significance from chromosome microarray analysis. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:101–11.
Reiff M, Bernhardt BA, Mulchandani S, et al. “What does it mean?”: uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing. Genet Med. 2012;14:250–8.
Richter S, Haroun I, Graham TC, et al. Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(Suppl 8):viii69–74.
Rosell AM, Pena LD, Schoch K, et al. Not the end of the odyssey: parental perceptions of whole exome sequencing (WES) in pediatric undiagnosed disorders. J Genet Couns. In press.
Ford D. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:676–89.
Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS, et al. Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2373–8.
25. Wapnir IL, Anderson SJ, Mamounas EP, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project node-positive adjuvant breast cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2028–37.
Pierce LJ, Levin AM, Rebbeck TR, et al. Ten-year multi-institutional results of breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in BRCA1/2-associated stage I/II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2437–43.
27Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5887–92.
28. Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M, et al. Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1260–8.
29. Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Lynch HT, et al. Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:1384–92.
30. Metcalfe KA, Lubinski J, Ghadirian P, et al. Predictors of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: the Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1093–7.
31. Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Ghadirian P, et al. Contralateral mastectomy and survival after breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g226.
32. Evans DG, Ingham SL, Baildam A, et al. Contralateral mastectomy improves survival in women with BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:135–42.
Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM, et al. Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:668–77.
Disclosure
K.S.H. receives honoraria from Myriad Genetics and Veritas Genetics, and is a founder of and has a financial interest in Hughes Risk Apps, LLC. K.S.H.’s interests were reviewed and are managed by Massachusetts General Hospital and Partners Health Care in accordance with their conflict of interest policies. M.R. is an Employee of GeneDx Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BioReference Laboratories Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of OPKO Health Inc. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Clifford, Hughes, Roberts, Pirzadeh-Miller, and McLaughlin contributed equally to this article, and all should be considered first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clifford, E., Hughes, K.S., Roberts, M. et al. Assessing, Counseling, and Treating Patients at High Risk for Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3128–3132 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5399-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5399-5