Jessemae L Welsh1, Tanya L Hoskin2, Courtney N Day2, Abigail S Thomas2, Jodie A Cogswell2, Fergus J Couch3, Judy C Boughey4. 1. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. boughey.judy@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: How diagnosis with a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a BRCA gene impacts clinical decision-making is not well known. METHODS: We queried for all patients attending Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2004 to 2016 who tested positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 VUS and reviewed patient management choices. Groups were compared by using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: We identified 97 patients (95 females, 2 males) with BRCA VUS. For patients without cancer history (n = 20), 80% had a mother or sister with breast cancer, and median Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS) lifetime breast cancer risk score was 27% (range 16-62%). Management included bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in 39%, where choice for BPM was significantly associated with IBIS score (median 32 vs. 24%, p = 0.02) and first-degree family history of breast cancer (100 vs. 64%, p = 0.03) but not Gail score or total number of family members with cancer. For patients with breast cancer who had known VUS status prior to surgery (n = 9), the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) was 22% compared with 25% without known VUS and 83% with known BRCA pathogenic mutation. In 21 of 97 (22%) patients, the BRCA VUS has been reclassified (95% benign, 5% deleterious). CONCLUSIONS: BRCA VUS carriers with cancer elected surgical choices similar to average-risk breast cancer patients. However, VUS carriers without cancer had high rates of BPM, associated with first-degree family history and IBIS score. Over time, a significant proportion of BRCA VUS were reclassified, illustrating the importance of appropriate counseling regarding VUS.
BACKGROUND: How diagnosis with a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a BRCA gene impacts clinical decision-making is not well known. METHODS: We queried for all patients attending Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2004 to 2016 who tested positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2VUS and reviewed patient management choices. Groups were compared by using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: We identified 97 patients (95 females, 2 males) with BRCA VUS. For patients without cancer history (n = 20), 80% had a mother or sister with breast cancer, and median Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS) lifetime breast cancer risk score was 27% (range 16-62%). Management included bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) in 39%, where choice for BPM was significantly associated with IBIS score (median 32 vs. 24%, p = 0.02) and first-degree family history of breast cancer (100 vs. 64%, p = 0.03) but not Gail score or total number of family members with cancer. For patients with breast cancer who had known VUS status prior to surgery (n = 9), the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) was 22% compared with 25% without known VUS and 83% with known BRCA pathogenic mutation. In 21 of 97 (22%) patients, the BRCA VUS has been reclassified (95% benign, 5% deleterious). CONCLUSIONS:BRCA VUS carriers with cancer elected surgical choices similar to average-risk breast cancerpatients. However, VUS carriers without cancer had high rates of BPM, associated with first-degree family history and IBIS score. Over time, a significant proportion of BRCA VUS were reclassified, illustrating the importance of appropriate counseling regarding VUS.
Authors: J M Eggington; K R Bowles; K Moyes; S Manley; L Esterling; S Sizemore; E Rosenthal; A Theisen; J Saam; C Arnell; D Pruss; J Bennett; L A Burbidge; B Roa; R J Wenstrup Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Rebecca Nash; Michael Goodman; Chun Chieh Lin; Rachel A Freedman; Laura S Dominici; Kevin Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Akiko Chiba; Tanya L Hoskin; Emily J Hallberg; Jodie A Cogswell; Courtney N Heins; Fergus J Couch; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tanya L Hoskin; Tina J Hieken; Amy C Degnim; James W Jakub; Steven R Jacobson; Judy C Boughey Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Lea M Starita; Muhtadi M Islam; Tapahsama Banerjee; Aleksandra I Adamovich; Justin Gullingsrud; Stanley Fields; Jay Shendure; Jeffrey D Parvin Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Brittany L Murphy; Min Yi; Banu K Arun; Angelica M Gutierrez Barrera; Isabelle Bedrosian Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Shenin A Dettwyler; Darcy L Thull; Priscilla F McAuliffe; Jennifer G Steiman; Ronald R Johnson; Emilia J Diego; Phuong L Mai Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Paul S Appelbaum; Wylie Burke; Erik Parens; David A Zeevi; Laura Arbour; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Vence L Bonham; Wendy K Chung Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Sarah Knerr; Boya Guo; Kathleen F Mittendorf; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Marian J Gilmore; Gail P Jarvik; Tia L Kauffman; Erin Keast; Frances L Lynch; Kristin R Muessig; Sonia Okuyama; David L Veenstra; Jamilyn M Zepp; Katrina A B Goddard; Beth Devine Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Jana K McHugh; Gozie Offiah; Sean Daly; Nazmy El Beltagi; Michael Kevin Barry; Seamus O'Reilly; Terri P McVeigh Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Ana Catarina Freitas; Ana Opinião; Sofia Fragoso; Hugo Nunes; Madalena Santos; Ana Clara; Sandra Bento; Ana Luis; Jorge Silva; Cecília Moura; Bruno Filipe; Patrícia Machado; Sidónia Santos; Saudade André; Paula Rodrigues; Joana Parreira; Fátima Vaz Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2018-01-30