Advertisement

Current Breast Cancer Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 91–97 | Cite as

Estimating Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk

  • Maureen O’Donnell
Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy (DM Euhus, Section Editor)
  • 54 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Local-Regional Evaluation and Therapy

Abstract

Purpose of review

Accurate estimates of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk are necessary around the time a first breast cancer is diagnosed to aid surgical decision-making. This review will discuss the known risk factors for contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and present methods for calculating CBC risk that can be utilized when breast surgeons counsel patients.

Recent findings

In addition to the well-known factors that impact contralateral breast cancer risk, such as BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carrier status and history of chest wall radiation, other factors that affect CBC risk are being better defined. Recent studies that take into account important covariates in contralateral breast cancer risk, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status, family history, and systemic treatment, are further improving estimates of contralateral risk. Recent studies show family history, especially of breast cancer in a young relative or of bilateral breast cancer, hormone receptor status, lobular histology, and breast density are important in accurately estimating contralateral breast cancer risk. The Manchester formula, a pen and paper calculation for contralateral breast cancer risk estimation, and CBCRisk, a recently developed online CBC risk calculator, are two tools now available to clinicians.

Summary

Despite a decreasing incidence of contralateral breast cancer over the last few decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of women undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). The reasons for this are multifactorial, but fear of a contralateral breast cancer and a tendency to overestimate the risk of a contralateral breast cancer are two factors. Therefore, a critical element in decision-making for women considering CPM is having an accurate estimate of contralateral breast cancer risk. Models for estimating contralateral breast cancer risk are not widely used, but are available.

Keywords

Contralateral breast cancer Prophylactic mastectomy Risk estimation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Curtis RE, Freedman DM, Ron E, Ries LAG, Hacker DG, Edwards BK, Tucker MA, Fraumeni JF Jr (eds). New malignancies among cancer survivors: SEER Cancer Registries, 1973-2000. National Cancer Institute. NIH Publ. No. 05-5302. National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nichols HB, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lacey JV Jr, Rosenberg PS, Anderson WF. Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975-2006. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1564–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.7395. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuzick J, Sestak I, Baum M, Buzdar A, Howell A, Dowsett M, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10 year analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1135–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15 year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurian AW, McClure LA, John EM, et al. Second primary breast cancer occurrence according to hormone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1058–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, Gurevich I, Stempel M, Sampson M, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2158–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, Morris TJ, Virnig BA. Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5203–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tuttle TM, Jarosek S, Habermann EB, Arrington A, Abraham A, Morris TJ, et al. Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1362–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murphy JA, Milner TD, O’Donoghue JM. Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in sporadic breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e262–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Angelos P, Bedrosian I, Euhus D, et al. Prophylactic mastectomy: challenging considerations for the surgeon. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3208–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han E, Johnson N, Glissmeyer M, Wagie T, Carey B, DelaMelena T, et al. Increasing incidence of bilateral mastectomies: the patient perspective. Am J Surg. 2011;201(5):615–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sorbero ME, Dick AW, Beckjord EB, et al. Diagnostic breast magnetic reasonance imaging and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1597–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abbott A, Rueth N, Pappas-Varco S, Kuntz K, Kerr E, Tuttle T. Perceptions of contralateral breast cancer: an overestimation of risk. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3129–36.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1914-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg S, Tracy M, Meyer M. Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Int Med. 2013;159(6):373–81.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-6-201309170-00003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Jagsi R, Hawley ST, Griffith KA, Janz NK, Kurian AW, Ward KC, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy decisions in a population based sample of patients with early stage breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(3):274–82.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4749. This study demonstrates surgeon recommendation regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy does impact surgical decision making. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Janz NK, Hawley ST, et al. Communication of recurrence risk estimates to patients diagnosed with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(5):684–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K, Gadzicki D, Bick U, Kast K, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5887–589.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.19.9430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Van den Broek AJ, van’t Veer LJ, Hooning MJ, et al. Impact of age at primary breast cancer on contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(5):409–18.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3942. This study demonstrates that age is a strong factor for cumulative CBC risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and is evidence that age-specific risk estimates should be used when counseling patients CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reiner AS, John EM, Brooks JD, Lynch CF, Bernstein L, Mellemkjær L, et al. 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. 2013;31:433–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basu SK, Schwartz C, Fisher SG, Hudson MM, Tarbell N, Muhs A, et al. Unilateral and bilateral breast cancer in women surviving pediatric Hodgkin’s disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;72(1):34–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.068.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lizarraga IM, Sugg SL, Weigel RJ, Scott-Conner CE. Review of the risk factors for the development of contralateral breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2013;206:704–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hafty BG, Harrold E, Khan AJ, et al. Outcome of conservatively managed early-onset breast cancer by BRCA1/2 status. Lancet. 2002;359(1471–77)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Travis LB, Hill DA, Dores GM, Gospodarowicz M, van Leeuwen FE, Holowaty E, et al. Breast cancer following radiotherapy and chemotherapy among young women with Hodgkin disease. JAMA. 2003;290(4):465–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B. Risk of secondary primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56(4):1038–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00203-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reiner AS, Lynch CG, Sisti JS, et al. Hormone receptor status of a first primary breast cancer predicts contralateral breast cancer risk in the WECARE study population. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19:83–94.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0874-x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernstein JL, Thompson WD, Risch N, Holford TR. Risk factors predicting the incidence of second primary breast cancer among women diagnosed with a first primary breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136(8):925–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Langballe R, Mellenkjaer L, Malone K, et al. Systemic therapy for breast cancer and risk of subsequent contralateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:65–77.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0726-0. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, Lee V, Hopper JL, Yaffe MJ, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(10):798–808.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70390-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hwang ES, Migliorretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Weaver DL, Kerlikowske K. Association between breast density and subsequent breast cancer following treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16(12):2587–93.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Habel LA, Capra AM, Achacoso NS, et al. Mammographic density and risk of second breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19(10):2488–95.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Raghavendra A, Sinha AK, Le-Petross HT, et al. Mammographic breast density is associated with the development of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer. 2017;123(11):1935–40.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30573.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sandberg ME, Li J, Hall P, Hartman M, et al. Change of mammographic density predicts the risk of contralateral breast cancer—a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(4):R57.  https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3451.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Basu NN, Ross GL, Evans DG, Barr L. The Manchester guidelines for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:237–42.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0638-y. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chowdhury M, Euhus D, Onega T, Biswas S, Choudhary PK. A model for individualized risk prediction of contralateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161:153–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4039-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sibley Memorial HospitalWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations