Literature DB >> 35217802

Prevalent versus incident breast cancers: benefits of clinical and radiological monitoring in women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants.

Claire Saule1, Solveig Menu-Hespel2, Matthieu Carton3, Caroline Malhaire4,5, Pascal Cherel6, Fabien Reyal7,8, Marine Le Mentec9, Eugénie Guillot10, Anne Donnadieu11, Nasrine Callet9,11, Sophie Frank9,12, Florence Coussy12, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet9,13,14, Emmanuelle Mouret-Fourme9.   

Abstract

Women with pathogenic germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants have a higher risk of breast cancer than in the general population. International guidelines recommend specific clinical and radiological breast follow-up. This specific breast screening program has already been shown to be of clinical benefit, but no information is available concerning the use of prognostic factors or specific survival to guide follow-up decisions. We evaluated "high-risk" screening in a retrospective single-center study of 520 women carrying pathogenic germline variants of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene treated for breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2016. We compared two groups of women: the incidental breast cancer group (IBCG) were followed before breast cancer diagnosis (N = 103), whereas the prevalent breast cancer group (PBCG) (N = 417) had no specific follow-up for high risk before breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were diagnosed at an earlier stage in the IBCG than in the PBCG: T0 in 64% versus 19% of tumors, (p < 0.00001), and N0 in 90% vs. 75% (p < 0.00001), respectively. Treatment differed significantly between the 2 groups: less neoadjuvant chemotherapy (7.1% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.00001), adjuvant chemotherapy (47.7% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.004) and more mastectomies (60% vs. 42% p < 0.0001) in the IBCG vs PBCG groups respectively. Overall and breast cancer-specific mortality were similar between the two groups. However, the patients in the IBCG had a significantly longer metastasis-free survival than those in the PBCG, at three years (96.9% [95% CI 93.5-100] vs. 92.30% [95% CI 89.8-94.9]; p = 0.02), suggesting a possible long-term survival advantage.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35217802      PMCID: PMC9436925          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01049-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   5.351


  46 in total

1.  Presymptomatic Awareness of Germline Pathogenic BRCA Variants and Associated Outcomes in Women With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Tal Hadar; Pnina Mor; Gefen Amit; Sari Lieberman; David Gekhtman; Rachel Rabinovitch; Ephrat Levy-Lahad
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for cancer prevention and screening.

Authors:  S Paluch-Shimon; F Cardoso; C Sessa; J Balmana; M J Cardoso; F Gilbert; E Senkus
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 32.976

3.  Is BRCA mutational status a predictor of platinum-based chemotherapy related hematologic toxicity in high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients?

Authors:  Federica Tomao; Lucia Musacchio; Federica Di Mauro; Serena Maria Boccia; Violante Di Donato; Antonella Giancotti; Giorgia Perniola; Innocenza Palaia; Ludovico Muzii; Pierluigi Benedetti Panici
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Oncologic Safety of Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in a Population With BRCA Mutations: A Multi-institutional Study.

Authors:  James W Jakub; Anne Warren Peled; Richard J Gray; Rachel A Greenup; John V Kiluk; Virgilio Sacchini; Sarah A McLaughlin; Julia C Tchou; Robert A Vierkant; Amy C Degnim; Shawna Willey
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 14.766

5.  Survival of patients with BRCA1-associated breast cancer diagnosed in an MRI-based surveillance program.

Authors:  Pål Møller; Astrid Stormorken; Christoffer Jonsrud; Marit Muri Holmen; Anne Irene Hagen; Neal Clark; Anita Vabø; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod; Lovise Mæhle
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Impact of Age at Primary Breast Cancer on Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers.

Authors:  Alexandra J van den Broek; Laura J van 't Veer; Maartje J Hooning; Sten Cornelissen; Annegien Broeks; Emiel J Rutgers; Vincent T H B M Smit; Cees J Cornelisse; Mike van Beek; Maryska L Janssen-Heijnen; Caroline Seynaeve; Pieter J Westenend; Jan J Jobsen; Sabine Siesling; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Flora E van Leeuwen; Marjanka K Schmidt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Improving outcomes of screening breast MRI with practice evolution: initial clinical experience with 3T compared to 1.5T.

Authors:  Ana P Lourenco; Linda Donegan; Hanan Khalil; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Choosing high-risk screening vs. surgery and the effect of treatment modality on anxiety and breast-specific sensuality in BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Kristin E Rojas; Elizabeth Butler; Julie Gutierrez; Rebecca Kwait; Jessica Laprise; Jennifer Scalia Wilbur; Sarah Spinette; Christina A Raker; Katina Robison; Robert Legare; Jennifer Gass; Ashley Stuckey
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2019-06

Review 9.  Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review.

Authors:  Adrienne G Waks; Eric P Winer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists.

Authors:  B K Eccles; E Copson; T Maishman; J E Abraham; D M Eccles
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  1 in total

1.  Guidelines, guidelines everywhere-and still I'm not sure what to do.

Authors:  Alisdair McNeill
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 5.351

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.