Temporal variations in maternal treatment requirements and early neonatal outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes

Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreAbstract: Aims: There is seasonal variation in the incidence of gestational diabetes (GDM) and delivery outcomes of affected patients. We assessed whether there was also evidence of temporal variation in maternal treatment requirements and early neonatal outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of women diagnosed with GDM (75 g oral glucose tolerance test, 0 h ≥ 5.1; 1 h ≥ 10.0; 2 h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L) in a UK tertiary obstetric centre (2015–2019) with a singleton infant. Data regarding demographic characteristics, total insulin requirements and neonatal outcomes were extracted from contemporaneous electronic medical records. Linear/logistic regression models using month of the year as a predictor of outcomes were used to assess annual variation. Results: In all, 791 women (50.6% receiving pharmacological treatment) and 790 neonates were included. The likelihood of requiring insulin treatment was highest in November (p < 0.05). The average total daily insulin dose was higher at peak (January) compared to average by 19 units/day (p < 0.05). There was no temporal variation in neonatal intensive care admission, or neonatal capillary blood glucose. However, rates of neonatal hypoglycaemia (defined as <2.6 mmol/L) were highest in December (40% above average; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Women with GDM diagnosed in winter are more likely to require insulin treatment and to require higher insulin doses. Neonates born to winter‐diagnosed mothers had a corresponding increased risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Maternal treatment requirements and neonatal outcomes of GDM vary significantly throughout the year, even in a relatively temperate climate

High penetrances of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confirmed in a prospective series

Penetrances of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been derived from retrospective studies, implying the possibility of ascertainment biases to influence the results

Variation in breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations can provide important information for women who are concerned about their breast and ovarian cancer risks and need to make relevant prevention and medical management decisions. However, lifetime risks of breast cancer in individual BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have been confusing to apply in clinical decision-making. Published risk estimates vary significantly and are very dependent on the characteristics of the population under study. Recently, Begg and colleagues estimated cancer risks in a population-based study of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Here, we discuss the clinical decision-making implications of this research in the context of risk factors that may influence risk estimates in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

Efficiency of BRCAPRO and Myriad II mutation probability thresholds versus cancer history criteria alone for BRCA1/2 mutation detection

Considerable differences exist amongst countries in the mutation probability methods and thresholds used to select patients for BRCA1/2 genetic screening. In order to assess the added value of mutation probability methods, we have retrospectively calculated the BRCAPRO and Myriad II probabilities in 306 probands who had previously been selected for DNA-analysis according to criteria based on familial history of cancer. DNA-analysis identified 52 mutations (16.9%) and 11 unclassified variants (UVs, 3.6%). Compared to cancer history, a threshold ≥10% with BRCAPRO or with Myriad II excluded about 40% of the patients from analysis, including four with a mutation and probabilities <10% with both programs. All four probands had a BRCA2 mutation. BRCAPRO and Myriad II showed similar specificity at 10% threshold, overall BRCAPRO was more sensitive than Myriad II for the detection of mutations. Only two of the probands with an UV had probabilities >20% with BRCAPRO and Myriad II. In summary, BRCAPRO and Myriad II are more efficient than cancer history alone to exclude patients without a mutation. BRCAPRO performs better for the detection of BRCA1 mutations than of BRCA2 mutations. The Myriad II scores provided no additional information than the BRCAPRO scores alone for the detection of patients with a mutation. The use of thresholds excluded from analysis the majority of patients carrying an UV

Penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a Clinical Cancer Genetics service setting: Risks of breast/ovarian cancer quoted should reflect the cancer burden in the family

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The identification of a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>mutation in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at risk relatives. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the cancer risks in women who test positive for the family mutation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed 385 unrelated families (223 with <it>BRCA1 </it>and 162 with <it>BRCA2 </it>mutations) ascertained through two regional cancer genetics services. We estimated the penetrance for both breast and ovarian cancer in female mutation carriers (904 proven mutation carriers – 1442 females in total assumed to carry the mutation) and also assessed the effect on penetrance of mutation position and birth cohort.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Breast cancer penetrance to 70 and to 80 years was 68% (95%CI 64.7–71.3%) and 79.5% (95%CI 75.5–83.5%) respectively for <it>BRCA1 </it>and 75% (95%CI 71.7–78.3%) and 88% (95%CI 85.3–91.7%) for <it>BRCA2</it>. Ovarian cancer risk to 70 and to 80 years was 60% (95%CI 65–71%) and 65% (95%CI 75–84%) for <it>BRCA1 </it>and 30% (95%CI 25.5–34.5%) and 37% (95%CI 31.5–42.5%) for <it>BRCA2</it>. These risks were borne out by a prospective study of cancer in the families and genetic testing of unaffected relatives. We also found evidence of a strong cohort effect with women born after 1940 having a cumulative risk of 22% for breast cancer by 40 years of age compared to 8% in women born before 1930 (p = 0.0005).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In high-risk families, selected in a genetics service setting, women who test positive for the familial <it>BRCA1/BRCA2 </it>mutation are likely to have cumulative breast cancer risks in keeping with the estimates obtained originally from large families. This is particularly true for women born after 1940.</p

Morphological predictors of BRCA1 germline mutations in young women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Knowing a young woman with newly diagnosed breast cancer has a germline BRCA1 mutation informs her clinical management and that of her relatives. We sought an optimal strategy for identifying carriers using family history, breast cancer morphology and hormone receptor status data.METHODS: We studied a population-based sample of 452 Australian women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed before age 40 years for whom we conducted extensive germline mutation testing (29 carried a BRCA1 mutation) and a systematic pathology review, and collected three-generational family history and tumour ER and PR status. Predictors of mutation status were identified using multiple logistic regression. Areas under receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were estimated using five-fold stratified cross-validation.RESULTS: The probability of being a BRCA1 mutation carrier increased with number of selected histology features even after adjusting for family history and ER and PR status (Po0.0001). From the most parsimonious multivariate model, the odds ratio for being a carrier were: 9.7 (95% confidence interval: 2.6-47.0) for trabecular growth pattern (P=0.001); 7.8 (2.7-25.7) for mitotic index over 50 mitoses per 10 high-powered field (P 0.0003); and 2.7 (1.3-5.9) for each first-degree relative with breast cancer diagnosed before age 60 years (P 0.01). The area under the ROC curve was 0.87 (0.83-0.90).CONCLUSION: Pathology review, with attention to a few specific morphological features of invasive breast cancers, can identify almost all BRCA1 germline mutation carriers among women with early-onset breast cancer without taking into account family history. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 903-909. doi: 10.1038/ bjc. 2011.41 www. bjcancer. co

A PALB2 mutation associated with high risk of breast cancer

Introduction: As a group, women who carry germline mutations in partner and localizer of breast cancer 2 susceptibility protein (PALB2) are at increased risk of breast cancer. Little is known about by how much or whether risk differs by mutation or family history, owing to the paucity of studies of cases unselected for family history.Methods: We screened 1,403 case probands for PALB2 mutations in a population-based study of Australian women with invasive breast cancer stratified by age at onset. The age-specific risk of breast cancer was estimated from the cancer histories of first- and second-degree relatives of mutation-carrying probands using a modified segregation analysis that included a polygenic modifier and was conditioned on the carrier case proband. Further screening for PALB2 c.3113G > A (W1038X) was conducted for 779 families with multiple cases of breast cancer ascertained through family cancer clinics in Australia and New Zealand and 764 population-based controls.Results: We found five independent case probands in the population-based sample with the protein-truncating mutation PALB2 c.3113G > A (W1038X); 2 of 695 were diagnosed before age 40 years and 3 of 708 were diagnosed when between ages 40 and 59 years. Both of the two early-onset carrier case probands had very strong family histories of breast cancer. Further testing found that the mutation segregated with breast cancer in these families. No c.3113G > A (W1038X) carriers were found in 764 population-based unaffected controls. The hazard ratio was estimated to be 30.1 (95% confidence interval (CI), 7.5 to 120; P A mutation appears to be associated with substantial risks of breast cancer that are of clinical relevance. © 2010 Southey et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary ovarian cancer is inefficient

To determine the effectiveness of annual gynaecological screening (pelvic examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and CA-125), a prospective cohort study of women at high risk for hereditary ovarian cancer was conducted. Women were offered DNA analysis followed by either annual screening or prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Study population consisted of 512 high-risk women (median follow-up 2.07 years, range 0–9.4 years): 265 women (52%) had a BRCA mutation. Persisting abnormalities indicated diagnostic surgery in 24 women resulting in one primary ovarian cancer FIGO stage IIIc was found. The effectiveness of screening was studied by calculating the probability of finding ovarian cancers in the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 carrier group and comparing this to the identified number of ovarian cancers. The number of ovarian cancer patients found at surveillance was in accordance with the predicted number of ovarian cancers. A total number of 169 women underwent prophylactic BSO: one ovarian cancer stage IIb was found. In conclusion, the surveillance programme for hereditary ovarian cancer does identify patients with ovarian cancer but is very inefficient considering the high number of surveillance visits and the advanced stage of ovarian cancer in the identified patient. For prevention of advanced stage ovarian cancer, prophylactic BSO from age 35–40 years is a more efficient alternative

Testing for Gene-Environment Interactions Using a Prospective Family Cohort Design: Body Mass Index in Early and Later Adulthood and Risk of Breast Cancer

The ability to classify people according to their underlying genetic susceptibility to a disease is increasing with new knowledge, better family data, and more sophisticated risk prediction models, allowing for more effective prevention and screening. To do so, however, we need to know whether risk associations are the same for people with different genetic susceptibilities. To illustrate one way to estimate such gene-environment interactions, we used prospective data from 3 Australian family cancer cohort studies, 2 enriched for familial risk of breast cancer. There were 288 incident breast cancers in 9,126 participants from 3,222 families. We used Cox proportional hazards models to investigate whether associations of breast cancer with body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)$^2$ ) at age 18–21 years, BMI at baseline, and change in BMI differed according to genetic risk based on lifetime breast cancer risk from birth, as estimated by BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) software, adjusted for age at baseline data collection. Although no interactions were statistically signifi- cant, we have demonstrated the power with which gene-environment interactions can be investigated using a cohort enriched for persons with increased genetic risk and a continuous measure of genetic risk based on family history.The Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR) was supported in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Cancer Australia, and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The ABCFR was also supported by the National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, under Request for Application CA-06-503 and through cooperative agreements with members of the Breast Cancer Family Registry: the University of Melbourne (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) (grant U01 CA69638); the Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (grant U01 CA69631); the Huntsman Cancer Institute (Salt Lake City, Utah) (grant U01 CA69446); Columbia University (New York, New York) (grant U01 CA69398); the Cancer Prevention Institute of California (Fremont, California) (grant U01 CA69417); and Cancer Care Ontario (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (grant U01 CA69467). The Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab) was supported by a grant from the Australian National Breast Cancer Foundation and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. The Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) was supported by grant UM1 CA167551 from the National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, and through cooperative agreements with the members and Principal Investigators of the ACCFR (grants U01 CA074778 and U01/U24 CA097735). A.K.W. is a National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellow. M.A.J. is a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellow. K.A.P. is an Australian National Breast Cancer Foundation Fellow