Search

Background: Clinical guidelines often use predicted lifetime risk from birth to define criteria for making decisions regarding breast cancer screening rather than thresholds based on absolute 5-year risk from current age.Methods: We used the Prospective Family Cohort Study of 14 657 women without breast cancer at baseline in which, during a median follow-up of 10 years, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. We examined the performances of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) risk models when using the alternative thresholds by comparing predictions based on 5-year risk with those based on lifetime risk from birth and remaining lifetime risk. All statistical tests were 2-sided.Results: Using IBIS, the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.66 (95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.68) and 0.56 (95% confidence interval = 0.54 to 0.59) for 5-year and lifetime risks, respectively (Pdiff < .001). For equivalent sensitivities, the 5-year incidence almost always had higher specificities than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 20-39 years, 5-year risk performed better than lifetime risk from birth. For women aged 40 years or older, receiver-operating characteristic curves were similar for 5-year and lifetime IBIS risk from birth. Classifications based on remaining lifetime risk were inferior to 5-year risk estimates. Results were similar using BOADICEA.Conclusions: Our analysis shows that risk stratification using clinical models will likely be more accurate when based on predicted 5-year risk compared with risks based on predicted lifetime and remaining lifetime, particularly for women aged 20-39 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The performance of breast cancer risk models for women with a family history but negative BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation test results is uncertain. We calculated the cumulative 10-year invasive breast cancer risk at cohort entry for 14 657 unaffected women (96.1% had an affected relative) not known to carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at baseline using three pedigree-based models (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm, BRCAPRO, and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study). During follow-up, 482 women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Mutation testing was conducted independent of incident cancers. All models underpredicted risk by 26.3%-56.7% for women who tested negative but whose relatives had not been tested (n = 1363; 63 breast cancers). Although replication studies with larger sample sizes are needed, until these models are recalibrated for women who test negative and have no relatives tested, caution should be used when considering changing the breast cancer risk management intensity of such women based on risk estimates from these models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pathogenic germline variants in ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a gene that plays a role in DNA damage response and cell cycle checkpoints, confer an increased breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we investigated the phenotypic characteristics and landscape of somatic genetic alterations in 24 BCs from ATM germline mutation carriers by whole-exome and targeted sequencing. ATM-associated BCs were consistently hormone receptor positive and largely displayed minimal immune infiltrate. Although 79.2% of these tumors exhibited loss of heterozygosity of the ATM wild-type allele, none displayed high activity of mutational signature 3 associated with defective homologous recombination DNA (HRD) repair. No TP53 mutations were found in the ATM-associated BCs. Analysis of an independent data set confirmed that germline ATM variants and TP53 somatic mutations are mutually exclusive. Our findings indicate that ATM-associated BCs often harbor bi-allelic inactivation of ATM, are phenotypically distinct from BRCA1/2-associated BCs, lack HRD-related mutational signatures, and that TP53 and ATM genetic alterations are likely epistatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]