Advertisement

The Problems with Risk Selection; Scientific and Psychosocial Aspects

  • Anne-Renée Hartman
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 166)

Abstract

Between 9,000 and 18,000 new cases of breast cancer per year in the United States are associated with a genetically defined predisposition [1, 2]. Mutations in BRCA1 and 2 account for greater than 60% of inherited breast cancer. Mutations in additional undiscovered high and low penetrance genes may account for the other 40% of inherited breast cancer cases and possibly a subset of familial breast cancer cases that lacks an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance. False-negative rates resulting from gene sequencing of BRCA1 and 2 may be as high as 10%-15%, making the identification of high-risk individuals a complex and often futile process for both patient and physician. As a consequence of technical limitations in BRCA1 and 2, genetic testing and the lack of comprehensive breast cancer prediction models that take into account both genetic and environmental factors, we are unable to quantify future breast cancer risk for many patients. This uncertainty often leads to the exclusion of high-risk individuals in screening and prevention trials, which is perhaps most evident in breast cancer screening trials incorporating the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to identify early cancers [3–10]. These studies demonstrate that MRI increases the sensitivity of a screening protocol in mutation carriers and succeeds at detecting earlier stage cancers [3–10]. Eligibility criterion for most of these trials was documented mutations in BRCA1 and 2 or future breast cancer risk predicted by family history or models, thereby possibly excluding women at significantly elevated risk that testing failed to identify or whose risk is not adequately reflected based on current models used in risk assessment. We may be turning very high-risk women away from screening trials, recommending yearly mammography and clinical breast exam, when neither will be adequate for detecting their cancers early. In addition, the impact of risk-reducing strategies including bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy (BSO) and tamoxifen has not been analyzed in these studies. For example, a 40-year-old BRCA2 carrier may only have a 10% and 50% lifetime risk of ovarian and breast cancer, respectively, and interventions including tamoxifen and breast MRI screening may significantly reduce the risk of both getting breast cancer and dying from it, thereby obviating the need for early screening or prophylactic surgeries, permitting these women to defer the quality of life struggles until they are older. A larger sample size is needed to determine the degree to which different subgroups of high-risk patients will benefit from MRI screening, with particular attention to women who have undergone BSO or who are taking tamoxifen. The challenges in risk selection are numerous and produce more questions than answers with regard to screening and management of highrisk individuals. In the future, we hope that early detection tools, risk-reduction strategies, and risk assessment preclude the need for prophylactic surgeries, inappropriate selection of patients for screening, and the associated decisions that compromise our patients’ quality of life.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Mutation Carrier Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Prophylactic Mastectomy Risk Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ford D, Easton DF, Peto J (1995) Estimates of the gene frequency of BRCA1 and its contribution to breast and ovarian cancer incidence. Am J Hum Genet 57:1457–1462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Madigan MP, Ziegler RG, Benichou J, Byrne C, Hoover RN (1995) Proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States explained by well-established risk factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1681–1685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robson M, Morris E, Kauff L (2003) Breast cancer screening utilizing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in carriers of BRCA mutations. Proceedings of ASCO 2003 22:Abstract 362Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhl C, Schrading S, Leutner C (2003) Surveillance of “high risk” women with proven or suspected familial (hereditary) breast cancer: first mid-term results of a multi-modality clinical screening trial. Proceedings of ASCO 2003 22:Abstract 4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Rutgers EJ, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar RA, Manoliu RA, Holland R, de Koning HJ, Klijn JG (2003) MRI screening for breast cancer in women with high familial and genetic risk: first results of the Dutch MRI screening study (MRISC). Proceedings of ASCO 2003 22:Abstract 5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartman AR, Daniel BL, Kurian AW, Mills MA, Nowels KW, Dirbas FM, Kingham KE, Chun NM, Herfkens RJ, Ford JM, Plevritis SK (2004) Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer 100:479–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Bartels KC, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M (2000) First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 63:53–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, Maringa M, Pfeifer U, Krebs D, Schild HH (2000) Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 215:267–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, Catzavelos GC, Di Prospero LS, Yaffe MJ, Goel V, Ramsay E, Chart PL, Cole DE, Taylor GA, Cutrara M, Samuels TH, Murphy JP, Murphy JM, Narod SA (2001) Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3524–3531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Podo F, Sardanelli F, Canese R, D’Agnolo G, Natali PG, Crecco M, Grandinetti ML, Musumeci R, Trecate G, Bergonzi S, De Simone T, Costa C, Pasini B, Manuokian S, Spatti GB, Vergnaghi D, Morassut S, Boiocchi M, Dolcetti R, Viel A, De Giacomi C, Veronesi A, Coran F, Silingardi V, Turchett D, Cortesi L, De Santis M, Federico M, Romagnoli R, Ferrari S, Bevilacqua G, Bartolozzi C, Caligo MA, Cilotti A, Marini C, Cirillo S, Marra V, Martincich L, Contegiacomo A, Pensabene M, Capuano I, Burgazzi GB, Petrillo A, Bonomo L, Carriero A, Mariani-Costantini R, Battista P, Cama A, Palca G, Di Maggio C, D’Andrea E, Bazzocchi M, Francescutti GE, Zuiani C, Londero V, Zunnui I, Gustavino C, Centurioni MG, Iozzelli A, Panizza P, Del Maschio A (2002) The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high genetic risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21:115–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee DH, O’Connor TR, Pfeifer GP (2002) Oxidative DNA damage induced by copper and hydrogen peroxide promotes CG->TT tandem mutations at methylated CpG dinucleotides in nucleotide excision repair-deficient cells. Nucleic Acids Res 30:3566–3573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O (1998) Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 62:145–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shattuck-Eidens D, Oliphant A, McClure M, McBride C, Gupte J, Rubano T, Pruss D, Tavtigian SV, Teng DH, Adey N, Staebell M, Gumpper K, Lundstrom R, Hulick M, Kelly M, Holmen J, Lingenfelter B, Manley S, Fujimura F, Luce M, Ward B, Cannon-Albright L, Steele L, Offit K, Thomas A, et al (1997) BRCA1 sequence analysis in women at high risk for susceptibility mutations. Risk factor analysis and implications for genetic testing. Jama 278:1242–1250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frank TS, Manley SA, Olopade OI, Cummings S, Garber JE, Bernhardt B, Antman K, Russo D, Wood ME, Mullineau L, Isaacs C, Peshkin B, Buys S, Venne V, Rowley PT, Loader S, Offit K, Robson M, Hampel H, Brener D, Winer EP, Clark S, Weber B, Strong LC, Thomas A, et al (1998) Sequence analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: correlation of mutations with family history and ovarian cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 16:2417–2425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, Calzone K, Stopfer J, Campeau L, Ganguly A, Rebbeck T, Weber BL (1997) BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 336:1409–1415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eng C (1998) Genetics of Cowden syndrome: through the looking glass of oncology. Int J Oncol 12:701–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1993) The calculation of breast cancer risk for women with a first degree family history of ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 28:115–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stratton JF, Pharoah P, Smith SK, Easton D, Ponder BA (1998) A systematic review and meta-analysis of family history and risk of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:493–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT, Narod SA, Goldgar DE (1994) Risks of cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Lancet 343:692–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, Crockford GP (1993) Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. Am J Hum Genet 52:678–701PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, Crotty TP, Myers JL, Arnold PG, Petty PM, Sellers TA, Johnson JL, McDonnell SK, Frost MH, Jenkins RB (1999) Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 340:77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, Frank TS, Soderberg CL, Sitta DL, Frost MH, Grant CS, Donohue JH, Woods JE, McDonnell SK, Vockley CW, Deffenbaugh A, Couch FJ, Jenkins RB (2001) Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1633–1637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, Robson M, Heimdal K, Neuhausen SL, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Lerman C, Pasini B, de los Rios P, Weber B, Lynch H; Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group (2000) Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Lancet 356:1876–1881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, Lee M, Walsh T, Owens K, Tait J, Ford L, Dunn BK, Costantino J, Wickerham L, Wolmark N, Fisher B; National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (2001) 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 286:2251–2256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    Friedenson B (2000) Is mammography indicated for women with defective BRCA genes? Implications of recent scientific advances for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of hereditary breast cancer. MedGenMed 2:E9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:27–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 29.
    Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J (2003) Sydney breast imaging accuracy study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. Am J Roentgenol 180:935–940Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvarinen S, Isola J, Kataja V, Kokko ML, Kokko R, Kumpulainen E, Karkkainen A, Pakkanen J, Peltonen P, Piironen A, Salo A, Talviala ML, Haka M (2001) The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultrasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    Tilanus-Linthorst M, Verhoog L, Obdeijn IM, Bartels K, Menke-Pluymers M, Eggermont A, Klijn J, Meijers-Heijboer H, van der Kwast T, Brekelmans C (2002) A BRCA1/ 2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer 102:91–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 32.
    Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, Beex L, Bult P, Hendriks JH, Laheij RJ, Massuger L, van Die LE, Wobbes T, Barentsz JO (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1095–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 33.
    Harms S, Flamig D (1993) MR imaging of the breast: technical approach and clinical experience. RadioGraphics 13:905–912PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 34.
    Cross MJ, Harms SE, Cheek JH, Peters GN, Jones RC (1993) New horizons in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer using magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Surg 166:749–753; discussion 753-755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 35.
    Kaiser W (1989) [Magnetic resonance tomography of the breast. The results of 253 examinations]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 114:1351–1357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 36.
    Orel S (1996) High-resolution MR imaging of the breast. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 17:476–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 37.
    Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, Narod SA, Van’t Veer L, Garber JE, Evans G, Isaacs C, Daly MB, Matloff E, Olopade OI, Weber BL; Prevention and Observation of Surgical End Points Study Group (2002) Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346:1616–1622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 38.
    Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, Scheuer L, Hensley M, Hudis CA, Ellis NA, Boyd J, Borgen PI, Barakat RR, Norton L, Castiel M, Nafa K, Offit K (2002) Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 346:1609–1615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 39.
    Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, Robson M, Heimdal K, Neuhausen SL, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Lerman C, Pasini B, de los Rios P, Weber B, Lynch H; Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group (2000) Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Lancet 356:1876–1881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 40.
    Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, Narod SA, Van’t Veer L, Garber JE, Evans G, Isaacs C, Daly MB, Matloff E, Olopade OI, Weber BL; Prevention and Observation of Surgical End Points Study Group (2002) Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346:1616–1622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 41.
    Kauff ND, Brogi E, Scheuer L, Pathak DR, Borgen PI, Hudis CA, Offit K, Robson ME (2003) Epithelial lesions in prophylactic mastectomy specimens from women with BRCA mutations. Cancer 97:1601–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 42.
    Wrensch M, Petrakis NL, King EB, Lee MM, Miike R (1993) Breast cancer risk associated with abnormal cytology in nipple aspirates of breast fluid and prior history of breast biopsy. Am J Epidemiol 137:829–833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 43.
    Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Zalles CM, Klemp JR, Kamel S, Zeiger S, Mayo MS (2000) Short-term breast cancer prediction by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration cytology and the Gail risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1217–1227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 44.
    Sidawy MK, Stoler MH, Frable WJ, Frost AR, Masood S, Miller TR, Silverberg SG, Sneige N, Wang HH (1998) Interobserver variability in the classification of proliferative breast lesions by fine-needle aspiration: results of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Study. Diagn Cytopathol 18:150–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 45.
    Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, Robson M, Abramson AF, Heerdt A, Dershaw DD (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Renée Hartman
    • 1
  1. 1.Dana Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations