Sukh Makhnoon1, Grace Tran2, Brooke Levin3, Kristin D Mattie3, Brian Dreyer4, Robert J Volk5, Generosa Grana3, Banu K Arun2, Susan K Peterson1. 1. Department of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. William G. Rohrer Cancer Genetics Program, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper University Health Care, Camden, New Jersey. 4. Orlando, Florida. 5. Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uptake of cancer risk management based on inherited predispositions, which encompasses bilateral mastectomy (BLM), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and intensified screening, is the primary motivation for cascade testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, long-term outcome data for cascade testers are lacking. METHODS: Medical records were abstracted for all unaffected women with pathogenic variants in HBOC genes from 2 cancer hospitals (2013-2019) with at least 1 year of follow-up to compare the uptake of surgery and screening between cascade and noncascade testers. RESULTS: Cascade testers (79.8%) were younger than noncascade testers (mean age, 37.6 vs 43.5 years; P = .002). Among women aged ≥40 years, 43% underwent BLM, and 71.6% underwent BSO, with no significant difference in uptake between cascade and noncascade testers. The mean time to BSO among cascade testers was shorter among women aged ≥40 years versus those aged <40 years (11.8 vs 31.9 months; P = .04); no such difference was observed among noncascade testers. Mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging rates were low in the recorded 6 years for both groups after genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Management uptake among cascade testers is high with rates comparable to those for unaffected BRCA-positive women. A large proportion of women act on cascade test results, and this represents a novel report of utilization of cancer management strategies.
BACKGROUND: Uptake of cancer risk management based on inherited predispositions, which encompasses bilateral mastectomy (BLM), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), and intensified screening, is the primary motivation for cascade testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, long-term outcome data for cascade testers are lacking. METHODS: Medical records were abstracted for all unaffected women with pathogenic variants in HBOC genes from 2 cancer hospitals (2013-2019) with at least 1 year of follow-up to compare the uptake of surgery and screening between cascade and noncascade testers. RESULTS: Cascade testers (79.8%) were younger than noncascade testers (mean age, 37.6 vs 43.5 years; P = .002). Among women aged ≥40 years, 43% underwent BLM, and 71.6% underwent BSO, with no significant difference in uptake between cascade and noncascade testers. The mean time to BSO among cascade testers was shorter among women aged ≥40 years versus those aged <40 years (11.8 vs 31.9 months; P = .04); no such difference was observed among noncascade testers. Mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging rates were low in the recorded 6 years for both groups after genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Management uptake among cascade testers is high with rates comparable to those for unaffected BRCA-positive women. A large proportion of women act on cascade test results, and this represents a novel report of utilization of cancer management strategies.
Authors: Pablo Lázaro; Leopoldo Pérez de Isla; Gerald F Watts; Rodrigo Alonso; Richard Norman; Ovidio Muñiz; Francisco Fuentes; Nelva Mata; José López-Miranda; José Ramón González-Juanatey; José Luis Díaz-Díaz; Antonio Javier Blasco; Pedro Mata Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: R Manchanda; M Burnell; A Abdelraheim; M Johnson; A Sharma; E Benjamin; C Brunell; E Saridogan; S Gessler; D Oram; L Side; A N Rosenthal; I Jacobs; U Menon Journal: BJOG Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: M G Harmsen; M Arts-de Jong; K Horstik; P Manders; L F A G Massuger; R P M G Hermens; N Hoogerbrugge; G H Woldringh; J A de Hullu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Melissa K Frey; Ryan M Kahn; Eloise Chapman-Davis; Francesca Tubito; Maira Pires; Paul Christos; Samantha Anderson; Semanti Mukherjee; Bailey Jordan; Stephanie V Blank; Thomas A Caputo; Ravi N Sharaf; Kenneth Offit; Kevin Holcomb; Steven Lipkin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Iman Haroun; Tracy Graham; Aletta Poll; Ping Sun; Kimberley Hill; Eleanor Weitzner; Steven Narod; Ellen Warner Journal: Breast Date: 2011-02-08 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Kelly Metcalfe; Andrea Eisen; Leigha Senter; Susan Armel; Louise Bordeleau; Wendy S Meschino; Tuya Pal; Henry T Lynch; Nadine M Tung; Ava Kwong; Peter Ainsworth; Beth Karlan; Pal Moller; Charis Eng; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Ping Sun; Jan Lubinski; Steven A Narod Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Deborah O Himes; Margaret F Clayton; Gary W Donaldson; Lee Ellington; Saundra S Buys; Anita Y Kinney Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 2.537
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