Ethical, social and economic issues in familial breast cancer: a compilation of views from the EC biomed II demonstration project

ABSTRACT: Demand for clinical services for familial breast cancer is continuing to rise across Europe. Service provision is far from uniform and, in most centres, its evolution has been determined by local conditions, specifically by local research interests, rather than by central planning. However, in a number of countries there is evidence of progress towards co-ordinated development and audit of clinics providing risk assessment, counselling, screening and, in some cases, prophylactic intervention. Much important information should emerge from continued observation and comparative assessment of these developments. In most countries for which relevant data are available, there is a distinct bias towards higher social class among those who avail themselves of clinic facilities (in line with findings from many other health-promotion initiatives). This should be addressed when considering future organisation of clinical services. Molecular genetic studies designed to identify the underlying mutations responsible for familial breast cancer are not generally regarded as part of the clinical service and are funded through research grants (if at all). Economic considerations suggest that there is a case for keeping this policy under review. Familial cancers throw into sharp relief certain ethical and legal issues that have received much recent attention from government advisory bodies, patients ’ representatives, professional commentators and the popular media. Two are of particular importance; first, the right to gain access to medical records of relatives, in order to provide accurate risk assessment for a given family member, versus the right to privacy in respect of personal medical information and, second, the obligation (or otherwise) to inform family members of their risk status if they have not actively sought that knowledge. The legal position seems to vary from country to country and, in many cases, is unclear. In view of pressures to establish uniform approaches to medical confidentiality across the EC, it is important to evaluate the experience of participants in this Demonstration Programme and to apply the principle of “ non-malfeasance ” in formulating regu- lations that should govern future practice in this field. Data on economic aspects of familial breast cancer are remarkably sparse and outdated. As evidence accrues on the influence of screening and intervention programmes on morbidity and mortality, there is a strong case for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different models of service provisi

Risk estimation as a decision-making tool for genetic analysis of the breast cancer susceptibility genes. EC Demonstration Project on Familial Breast Cancer.

For genetic counselling of a woman on familial breast cancer, an accurate evaluation of the probability that she carries a germ-line mutation is needed to assist in making decisions about genetic-testing. We used data from eight collaborating centres comprising 618 families (346 breast cancer only, 239 breast or ovarian cancer) recruited as research families or counselled for familial breast cancer, representing a broad range of family structures. Screening was performed in affected women from 618 families for germ-line mutations in BRCA1 and in 176 families for BRCA2 mutations, using different methods including SSCP, CSGE, DGGE, FAMA and PTT analysis followed by direct sequencing. Germ-line BRCA1 mutations were detected in 132 families and BRCA2 mutations in 16 families. The probability of being a carrier of a dominant breast cancer gene was calculated for the screened individual under the established genetic model for breast cancer susceptibility, first, with parameters for age-specific penetrances for breast cancer only [7] and, second, with age-specific penetrances for ovarian cancer in addition [20]. Our results indicate that the estimated probability of carrying a dominant breast cancer gene gives a direct measure of the likelihood of detecting mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. For breast/ovarian cancer families, the genetic model according to Narod et al. [20] is preferable for calculating the proband's genetic risk, and gives detection rates that indicate a 50% sensitivity of the gene test. Due to the incomplete BRCA2 screening of the families, we cannot yet draw any conclusions with respect to the breast cancer only families

Performance of BOADICEA and BRCAPRO genetic models and of empirical criteria based on cancer family history for predicting BRCA mutation carrier probabilities: A retrospective study in a sample of Italian cancer genetics clinics

Abstract Purpose To evaluate in current practice the performance of BOADICEA and BRCAPRO risk models and empirical criteria based on cancer family history for the selection of individuals for BRCA genetic testing. Patients and methods The probability of BRCA mutation according to the three tools was retrospectively estimated in 918 index cases consecutively undergone BRCA testing at 15 Italian cancer genetics clinics between 2006 and 2008. Results 179 of 918 cases (19.5%) carried BRCA mutations. With the strict use of the criteria based on cancer family history 173 BRCA (21.9%) mutations would have been detected in 789 individuals. At the commonly used 10% threshold of BRCA mutation carrier probability, the genetic models showed a similar performance [PPV (38% and 37%), sensitivity (76% and 77%) and specificity (70% and 69%)]. Their strict use would have avoided around 60% of the tests but would have missed approximately 1 every 4 carriers. Conclusion Our data highlight the complexity of BRCA testing referral in routine practice and question the strict use of genetic models for BRCA risk assessment

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB

The FANCM:p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM -/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors

Guidelines for follow-up of women at high risk for inherited breast cancer: Consensus statement from the Biomed 2 Demonstration Programme on Inherited Breast Cancer

Protocols for activity aiming at early diagnosis and treatment of inherited breast or breast-ovarian cancer have been reported. Available reports on outcome of such programmes are considered here. It is concluded that the ongoing activities should continue with minor modifications. Direct evidence of a survival benefit from breast and ovarian screening is not yet available. On the basis of expert opinion and preliminary results from intervention programmes indicating good detection rates for early breast cancers and 5-year survival concordant with early diagnosis, we propose that women at high risk for inherited breast cancer be offered genetic counselling, education in ‘breast awareness’ and annual mammography and clinical expert examination from around 30 years of age. Mammography every second year may be sufficient from 60 years on. BRCA1 mutation carriers may benefit from more frequent examinations and cancer risk may be reduced by oophorectomy before 40–50 years of age. We strongly advocate that all activities should be organized as multicentre studies subjected to continuous evaluation to measure the effects of the interventions on long-term mortality, to match management options more precisely to individual risks and to prepare the ground for studies on chemoprevention