Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 21–33 | Cite as

The Predominant Role of Surgery in the Prevention and New Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations

  • Michael Fatouros
  • Georgios Baltoyiannis
  • Dimitrios H. Roukos
Educational Review Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Advances in understanding molecular and genetic mechanisms underlying cancer promise an “individualized” management of the disease. Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germ-line mutation are at very high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Because high-quality data are lacking from randomized trials, prevention strategies and treatment of patients with BRCA-associated breast cancer are complex.

Methods

The data for this review were obtained by searching PubMed and Medline for articles about optimizing prevention and treating women with familial susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.

Results

Prophylactic surgery is the rational approach for women who carry the BRCA mutation; chemoprevention and/or intensified surveillance represent alternative approaches. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is superior to bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. However, reaching a definitive clinical decision is complex, and several variables should be considered for an individualized approach. Accumulating data support the concept of more extensive surgery for newly diagnosed breast cancer in women with a BRCA mutation but new unbaised studies are needed for an evidence-based approach . Such patients treated with breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer are at higher risk of contralateral breast cancer than noncarriers. Primary bilateral mastectomy could also be considered and discussed with these patients. Breast tumors from BRCA1 mutation carriers are predominantly of basal subtype (i.e., triple negative), and BRCA2 mutation carriers are of luminal subtype (i.e., estrogen receptor positive). Decisions on adjuvant treatment are based on estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status.

Conclusions

The complex management of healthy women and breast cancer patients with familial susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer requires an individualized prevention or treatment strategy by an experienced team.

Keywords

BRCA Hereditary breast ovarian cancer Prophylactic surgery Chemoprevention Screening Treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    Trusheim MR, Berndt ER, Douglas FL. Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6:287–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 1976;194(4260):23–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roukos DH, Murray S, Briasoulis E. Molecular genetic tools shape a roadmap towards a more accurate prognostic prediction and personalized management of cancer. Cancer Biol Ther 2007;6:308–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R, Harris EL, US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:362–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roukos DH, Fatouros M, Tsianos E, Kappas AM. Does a new model improve decisions about mismatch-repair genetic testing and Lynch syndrome identification? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006;3:656–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roukos DH, Briasoulis E. Individualized preventive and therapeutic management of hereditary breast ovarian cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4:578–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 2004;24:2137–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wooster R, Weber BL. Breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2339–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agnantis NJ, Paraskevaidis E, Roukos D. Preventing breast, ovarian cancer in BRCA carriers: rational of prophylactic surgery and promises of surveillance. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:1030–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Venkitaraman AR. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cell 2002;108:171–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nathanson KL, Wooster R, Weber BL. Breast cancer genetics: what we know and what we need. Nat Med 2001;7:552–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pharoah PD, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BA. Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 2002;31:33–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith P, McGuffog L, Easton DF, et al. A genome wide linkage search for breast cancer susceptibility genes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2006;45:646–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meijers-Heijboer H, van den Ouweland A, Klijn J, et al. Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2(*)1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet 2002;31:55–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walsh T, Casadei S, Coats KH, et al. Spectrum of mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in families at high risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2006;295:1379–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt MK, Tollenaar RA, de Kemp SR, et al. Breast cancer survival and tumor characteristics in premenopausal women carrying the CHEK2*1100delC germline mutation. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:64–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, et al. Increased risk of breast cancer associated with CHEK2*1100delC. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:57–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown ML, Riley GF, Schussler N, et al. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002;40:IV–17Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson K, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:397–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005;434:917–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 2005;434:913–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolfberg AJ. Genes on the Web—direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing. N Engl J Med 2006;355:543–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roche PA, Annas GJ. DNA testing, banking, and genetic privacy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:545–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith A, Moran A, Boyd MC, et al. Phenocopies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 families: evidence for modifier genes and implications for screening. J Med Genet 2007;44:10–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:1117–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Dijk S, Timmermans DR, Meijers-Heijboer H, Tibben A, van Asperen CJ, Otten W. Clinical characteristics affect the impact of an uninformative DNA test result: the course of worry and distress experienced by women who apply for genetic testing for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3672–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barcenas CH, Hosain GM, Arun B, et al. Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:354–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:355–61Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sauven P. Guidelines for the management of women at increased familial risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:653–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. New York Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 2003;302:643–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Levy-Lahad E, Plon SE. Cancer. A risky business—assessing breast cancer risk. Science 2003;302:574–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roukos DH, Kappas AM, Tsianos E. Role of surgery in the prophylaxis of hereditary cancer syndromes. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:607–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klaren HM, van’t Veer LJ, van Leeuwen FE, Rookus MA. Potential for bias in studies on efficacy of prophylactic surgery for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:941–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL, et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 2001;345:159–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1055–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1633–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Brogan BM, et al. Quality of life after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in newly diagnosed high-risk breast cancer patients who underwent BRCA1/2 gene testing. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:285–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Metcalfe KA, Semple JL, Narod SA. Time to reconsider subcutaneous mastectomy for breast-cancer prevention? Lancet Oncol 2005;6:431–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:704–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg 2003;238:120–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW. Subcutaneous mastectomy with implant reconstruction: cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26:137–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wellisch DK, Schain WS, Noone RB, Little JW 3rd. The psychological contribution of nipple addition in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:699–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cheung KL, Blamey RW, Robertson JF, et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy for primary breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Surg Oncol 1997;23:343–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shestak KC, Gabriel A, Landecker A, et al. Assessment of longterm nipple projection: a comparison of three techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;110:780–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Narod SA, Foulkes WD. BRCA1 and BRCA2: 1994 and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:665–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rubinstein WS. Surgical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: bitter choices slightly sweetened. J Clin Oncol 2006;23:7772–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rebbeck TR, Levin AM, Eisen A, et al. Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1475–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7491–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Struewing JP, Watson P, Easton DF, et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy in inherited breast/ovarian cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1995;33–5Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1616–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Neuhausen SL, et al. Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:223–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C. Can bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy reduce cancer mortality in carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation? Lancet Oncol 2006;7:191–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1609–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al. Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. JAMA 2006;296:185–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Roukos DH, Agnanti NJ, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Approaching the dilemma between prophylactic bilateral mastectomy or oophorectomy for breast and ovarian cancer prevention in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:941–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kramer JL, Velazquez IA, Chen BE, Rosenberg PS, Struewing JP, Greene MH. Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer penetrance during prospective, long-term follow-up of BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8629–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Randall T, Rubin SC, Weber B. Hormone replacement therapy and life expectancy after prophylactic oophorectomy in women with BRCA1/2 mutations: a decision analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1045–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    McLaughlin JR, Risch HA, Lubinski J, et al. Reproductive risk factors for ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:26–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Narod SA. Modifiers of risk of hereditary breast cancer. Oncogene 2006;25:5832–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Brose MS, Rebbeck TR, Calzone KA, Stopfer JE, Nathanson KL, Weber BL. Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1365–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pichert G, Bolliger B, Buser K, Pagani O. Swiss Institute for Applied Cancer Research Network for Cancer Predisposition Testing and Counseling. Evidence-based management options for women at increased breast/ovarian cancer risk. Ann Oncol 2003;14:9–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Komenaka IK, Ditkoff BA, Joseph KA, et al. The development of interval breast malignancies in patients with BRCA mutations. Cancer 2004;100:2079–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Madalinska JB, van Beurden M, Bleiker EM, et al. Predictors of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy compared with gynecologic screening use in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:301–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bourne TH, Campbell S, Reynolds KM, et al. Screening for early familial ovarian cancer with transvaginal ultrasonography and colour blood flow imaging. BMJ 1993;306:1025–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2519–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hogg R, Friedlander M. Biology of epithelial ovarian cancer: implications for screening women at high genetic risk. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1315–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Schiff R, Osborne CK. Endocrinology and hormone therapy in breast cancer: new insight into estrogen receptor–alpha function and its implication for endocrine therapy resistance in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:205–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1371–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1652–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Cuzick J, Powles T, Veronesi U, et al. Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet 2003;361:296–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al. Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. JAMA 2001;286:2251–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kote-Jarai Z, Powles TJ, Mitchell G, et al. BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and analysis of cancer family history in participants of the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen chemoprevention trial. Cancer Lett 2007;247:259–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Bramley M, Clarke RB, Howell A, et al. Effects of oestrogens and anti-oestrogens on normal breast tissue from women bearing BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Br J Cancer 2006;94:1021–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gogas H, Markopoulos C, Blamey R. Should women be advised to take prophylactic endocrine treatment outside of a clinical trial setting? Ann Oncol 2005;16:1861–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Dunn BK, Wickerham DL, Ford LG. Prevention of hormone-related cancers: breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:357–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Vogel VG. Recent results from clinical trials using SERMs to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1089:127–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA 2006;295:2727–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Jordan VC. SERMs: meeting the promise of multifunctional medicines. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:350–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Goss PE, Strasser-Weippl K. Prevention strategies with aromatase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:372S–379SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    O’Regan RM. Chemoprevention of breast cancer. Lancet 2006;367:1382–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Polyzos NP, Ioannidis JP. Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inactivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:1285–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Roukos DH, Fatouros M, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Is an aromatase inhibitor more effective than tamoxifen in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006;3:82–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lonning PE. Bone safety of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16(Suppl 2):518–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chien AJ, Goss PE. Aromatase inhibitors and bone health in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5305–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Altundag K, Ibrahim NK. Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: an overview. Oncologist 2006;11:553–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Narod SA, Dubé MP, Klijn J, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1773–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Whittemore AS, Balise RR, Pharoah PD, et al. Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk among carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Br J Cancer 2004;91:1911–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Wagner T, et al. Effect of short-term hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7804–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Beral V, Bull D, Reeves G, Million Women Study Collaborators. Endometrial cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 2005;365:1543–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Madalinska JB, Hollenstein J, Bleiker E, et al. Quality-of-life effects of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy versus gynecologic screening among women at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6890–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Berman DB, Costalas J, Schultz DC, Grana G, Daly M, Godwin AK. A common mutation in BRCA2 that predisposes to a variety of cancers is found in both Jewish Ashkenazi and non-Jewish individuals. Cancer Res 1996;56:3409–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Panel members. Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1569–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1940–9. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3221Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Roukos DH, Kappas AM, Agnantis NJ. Perspectives and risks of breast-conservation therapy for breast cancer (editorial). Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:718–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Benson JR, della Rovere GQ, Axilla Management Consensus Group. Management of the axilla in women with breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:331–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Fatouros M, Roukos DH, Arampatzis I, Sotiriadis A, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Factors increasing local recurrence in breast-conserving surgery. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005;5:737–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    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;24:2437–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    de Bock GH, Tollenaar RA, Papelard H, Cornelisse CJ, Devilee P, van de Vijver MJ. Clinical and pathological features of BRCA1 associated carcinomas in a hospital-based sample of Dutch breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2001;85:1347–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al. The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2310–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Veronesi A, de Giacomi C, Magri MD, et al. Familial breast cancer: characteristics and outcome of BRCA 1–2 positive and negative cases. BMC Cancer 2005;5:70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Cass I, Baldwin RL, Varkey T, Moslehi R, Narod SA, Karlan BY. Improved survival in women with BRCA-associated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2003;97:2187–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Roukos DH. Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis—invited critique. Arch Surg 2003;138:1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Roukos DH. Prognosis of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1555–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    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 randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365(9472):1687–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Friedman A, Perrimon N. Genetic screening for signal transduction in the era of network biology. Cell 2007;128:225–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hunter DJ, Kraft P. Drinking from the fire hose—statistical issues in genomewide association studies. N Engl J Med 2007;357:436–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Drazen JM, Phimister EG. Publishing genomewide association studies. N Engl J Med 2007;357:496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1999–2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:10393–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Roukos DH, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Surgery in the era of gene expression profiling-based prediction and individualized, neoadjuvant breast cancer therapy: the beginning of the end? Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:433–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene 2006;25:5846–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:235–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Bane AL, Beck JC, Bleiweiss I, et al. BRCA2 mutation-associated breast cancers exhibit a distinguishing phenotype based on morphology and molecular profiles from tissue microarrays. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:121–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Fatouros
    • 1
  • Georgios Baltoyiannis
    • 1
  • Dimitrios H. Roukos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryIoannina University School of MedicineIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations