Danielle A Henry1, Marie C Lee2, Deanna Almanza2, Kamran A Ahmed2, Weihong Sun2, David C Boulware3, Christine Laronga2. 1. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, Orlando Health UF Health Cancer Center, 1400 S Orange Ave, Orlando, FL, 32806, USA. DanielleHenryMD@gmail.com. 2. Department of Breast Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 10920 N. McKinley Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, Orlando, FL, 33612, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Awareness of inherited breast cancer has increased bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) among unaffected genetic mutation carriers, yet many still choose surveillance. We aimed to identify differences among women electing BPM vs high-risk surveillance. METHODS: Participants from an IRB-approved database recruited from 11/2000 to 01/2017 with a deleterious/pathogenic, variant suspected deleterious, or likely pathogenic mutation in ≥ 1 of 11 genes with increased risk for breast cancer (per 2017 NCCN guidelines) were identified. Participants with breast cancer and males were excluded. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. The BPM and high-risk surveillance groups were compared using Wilcoxon, Fisher's Exact, and Pearson's Chi-Square analyses. RESULTS: A total of 304 unaffected genetic mutation carriers were identified; 22 men were excluded. 113/282 (40%) underwent BPM. There was no significant difference in age, race, marital status, high school graduates, family history of breast cancer, breast biopsies, chemoprevention use, or understanding implications of genetic mutation carriage. BPM participants were more likely to have a prior pregnancy (p = 0.0005), college education (p = 0.04), income > $50,000/year (p = 0.01), first-degree relative with breast cancer (p = 0.04), higher total number of relatives with breast cancer (p = 0.01), and rate of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (p = < 0.0001). The high-risk surveillance group was more likely to have a history of ovarian cancer (p = 0.009) and cancer worry (p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: BPM is a common but not universal choice among unaffected genetic carriers of inherited breast cancer syndromes. Parity, education, income, ovarian cancer history, first-degree relatives with breast cancer, and cancer worry play significant roles in these decisions.
PURPOSE: Awareness of inherited breast cancer has increased bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM) among unaffected genetic mutation carriers, yet many still choose surveillance. We aimed to identify differences among women electing BPM vs high-risk surveillance. METHODS:Participants from an IRB-approved database recruited from 11/2000 to 01/2017 with a deleterious/pathogenic, variant suspected deleterious, or likely pathogenic mutation in ≥ 1 of 11 genes with increased risk for breast cancer (per 2017 NCCN guidelines) were identified. Participants with breast cancer and males were excluded. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected. The BPM and high-risk surveillance groups were compared using Wilcoxon, Fisher's Exact, and Pearson's Chi-Square analyses. RESULTS: A total of 304 unaffected genetic mutation carriers were identified; 22 men were excluded. 113/282 (40%) underwent BPM. There was no significant difference in age, race, marital status, high school graduates, family history of breast cancer, breast biopsies, chemoprevention use, or understanding implications of genetic mutation carriage. BPM participants were more likely to have a prior pregnancy (p = 0.0005), college education (p = 0.04), income > $50,000/year (p = 0.01), first-degree relative with breast cancer (p = 0.04), higher total number of relatives with breast cancer (p = 0.01), and rate of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (p = < 0.0001). The high-risk surveillance group was more likely to have a history of ovarian cancer (p = 0.009) and cancer worry (p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: BPM is a common but not universal choice among unaffected genetic carriers of inherited breast cancer syndromes. Parity, education, income, ovarian cancer history, first-degree relatives with breast cancer, and cancer worry play significant roles in these decisions.
Authors: A-B Skytte; A-M Gerdes; M K Andersen; L Sunde; K Brøndum-Nielsen; M Waldstrøm; S Kølvraa; D Crüger Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Kelly A Metcalfe; Nida Mian; Melissa Enmore; Aletta Poll; Marcia Llacuachaqui; Sonia Nanda; Ping Sun; Kevin S Hughes; Steven A Narod Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-01-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marc D Schwartz; Claudine Isaacs; Kristi D Graves; Elizabeth Poggi; Beth N Peshkin; Christy Gell; Clinton Finch; Scott Kelly; Kathryn L Taylor; Lauren Perley Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: K A Metcalfe; W D Foulkes; C Kim-Sing; P Ainsworth; B Rosen; S Armel; A Poll; A Eisen; D Gilchrist; A Chudley; P Ghadirian; C Maugard; E G Lemire; P Sun; S A Narod Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: B A M Heemskerk-Gerritsen; M B E Menke-Pluijmers; A Jager; M M A Tilanus-Linthorst; L B Koppert; I M A Obdeijn; C H M van Deurzen; J M Collée; C Seynaeve; M J Hooning Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Kathleen F Mittendorf; Sarah Knerr; Tia L Kauffman; Nangel M Lindberg; Katherine P Anderson; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Marian J Gilmore; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; Galen Joseph; Stephanie A Kraft; Jamilyn M Zepp; Sapna Syngal; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-11-03
Authors: Lee Galmor; Rinat Bernstein-Molho; Miri Sklair-Levy; Dana Madoursky-Feldman; Dov Zippel; Yael Laitman; Eitan Friedman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Antônio Luiz Frasson; Martina Lichtenfels; Alessandra Anton Borba de Souza; Betina Vollbrecht; Ana Beatriz Falcone; Mônica Adriana Rodriguez Martinez Frasson; Fernanda Barbosa Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jacob G Comeaux; Julie O Culver; John E Lee; Danielle Dondanville; Heather L McArthur; Emily Quinn; Nicholas Gorman; Charité Ricker; Ming Li; Caryn Lerman Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 2.473