Ian Solsky1, Jinbo Chen2, Timothy R Rebbeck3. 1. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America. 2. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America. 3. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States of America; Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States of America. Electronic address: Timothy_Rebbeck@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Current risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) guidelines for individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations do not account for risk variability due to BRCA1/2 cluster region mutations that are associated with varying risks for the development of breast and ovarian cancer. We assessed whether current recommendations are appropriate for individual patients considering mutation-specific risks. METHODS: Using a hypothetical cohort of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, we constructed Markov models allowing for the estimation of mean life expectancy based upon BRCA1/2 mutation, the presence of a cluster region mutation (Ovarian Cancer Cluster Region (OCCR), Breast Cancer Cluster Region (BCCR), or non-BCCR/OCCR), age at time of BRCA1/2 diagnosis (20-65), and age at time of RRSO (21-80). RESULTS: For all BRCA1/2 mutation types, the optimal strategy was to undergo RRSO as early as possible. For BRCA1/2 carriers who delayed RRSO or who were identified with a mutation later in life, the OCCR mutation tended to be associated with lower life expectancy estimates than the BCCR and non-BCCR/OCCR mutations. Minimal delays in RRSO (i.e., neighboring 5-year intervals) were associated with minor losses in life expectancy. Variables associated with greatest impact on life expectancy included ovarian cancer risk after RRSO, breast cancer mortality rate, non-cancer mortality associated with RRSO, and breast cancer stage distribution. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1/2 cluster regions may provide more precise estimates of life expectancy in counselling and shared decision-making. The most appropriate timing for RRSO is a complex decision and must be individualized for each patient.
OBJECTIVES: Current risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) guidelines for individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations do not account for risk variability due to BRCA1/2 cluster region mutations that are associated with varying risks for the development of breast and ovarian cancer. We assessed whether current recommendations are appropriate for individual patients considering mutation-specific risks. METHODS: Using a hypothetical cohort of patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, we constructed Markov models allowing for the estimation of mean life expectancy based upon BRCA1/2 mutation, the presence of a cluster region mutation (Ovarian Cancer Cluster Region (OCCR), Breast Cancer Cluster Region (BCCR), or non-BCCR/OCCR), age at time of BRCA1/2 diagnosis (20-65), and age at time of RRSO (21-80). RESULTS: For all BRCA1/2 mutation types, the optimal strategy was to undergo RRSO as early as possible. For BRCA1/2 carriers who delayed RRSO or who were identified with a mutation later in life, the OCCR mutation tended to be associated with lower life expectancy estimates than the BCCR and non-BCCR/OCCR mutations. Minimal delays in RRSO (i.e., neighboring 5-year intervals) were associated with minor losses in life expectancy. Variables associated with greatest impact on life expectancy included ovarian cancer risk after RRSO, breast cancer mortality rate, non-cancer mortality associated with RRSO, and breast cancer stage distribution. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1/2 cluster regions may provide more precise estimates of life expectancy in counselling and shared decision-making. The most appropriate timing for RRSO is a complex decision and must be individualized for each patient.
Authors: Timothy R Rebbeck; Henry T Lynch; Susan L Neuhausen; Steven A Narod; Laura Van't Veer; Judy E Garber; Gareth Evans; Claudine Isaacs; Mary B Daly; Ellen Matloff; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Barbara L Weber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M S Piver; T R Baker; M F Jishi; A M Sandecki; Y Tsukada; N Natarajan; C J Mettlin; C A Blake Journal: Cancer Date: 1993-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Deann P Atchley; Constance T Albarracin; Adriana Lopez; Vicente Valero; Christopher I Amos; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J K Chan; R Urban; M K Cheung; K Osann; J Y Shin; A Husain; N N Teng; D S Kapp; J S Berek; G S Leiserowitz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 7.640