Search

Simple Summary: A risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening has gained international interest as a mechanism to better balance the benefits, harms and costs of screening programmes. The aim of our agenda setting meeting was to identify key uncertainties to resolve in order to implement a risk-stratified breast screening programme within England. Findings from a 5-year programme of research assessing the feasibility of such an approach in England were presented before individual discussion groups and an open plenary session regarding what preparation needs to take place. Key findings highlight the need to further develop risk modelling to ensure equity of access to breast cancer risk assessment and ensure a risk-stratified programme is cost-effective. Other issues highlighted related to capacity and capability of the health services to offer an integrated risk assessment pathway that is accessible. Attendees identified ways in which risk-stratification could be implemented to minimise inequity of access to screening. It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Previous studies reporting large gene panels in breast cancer have mainly reported on the contribution of additional genes compared to BRCA1/2. We have shown a very large differential additional effect from non-BRCA genes dependent on a priori likelihood of BRCA1 and BRCA2 combined. We have undertaken panel testing beyond BRCA1/2 in 1398 patients with breast cancer and identified 95 (6.3%) with actionable breast cancer genes. The highest rate was found for grade 3 ER+ Her2− breast cancers. Those with the lowest likelihood of BRCA1/2 by Manchester score had a 3-fold higher rate of non-BRCA genes whereas those with predicted rates of ~80% had 5-fold higher rate of BRCA1/2. Unless those referring patients with breast cancer for extended panel testing are certain there is no loss of sensitivity for BRCA1/2 they should opt of a bespoke BRCA1/2 test first in those with high prior likelihoods of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Whilst panel testing of an extended group of genes including BRCA1/2 is commonplace, these studies have not been subdivided by histiotype or by a priori BRCA1/2 probability. Patients with a breast cancer diagnosis undergoing extended panel testing were assessed for frequency of actionable variants in breast cancer genes other than BRCA1/2 by histiotype and Manchester score (MS) to reflect a priori BRCA1/2 likelihood. Rates were adjusted by prior testing for BRCA1/2 in an extended series. 95/1398 (6.3%) who underwent panel testing were found to be positive for actionable non-BRCA1/2 breast/ovarian cancer genes (ATM, BARD1, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, TP53). As expected, PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM were predominant with 80-(5.3%). The highest rate occurred in Grade-3 ER+/HER2− breast cancers-(9.6%). Rates of non-BRCA actionable genes was fairly constant over all likelihoods of BRCA1/2 but adjusted rates were three times higher with MS < 9 (BRCA1/2 = 1.5%, other = 4.7%), but was only 1.6% compared to 79.3% with MS ≥ 40. Although rates of detection of non-BRCA actionable genes are relatively constant across BRCA1/2 likelihoods this disguises an overall adjusted low frequency in high-likelihood families which have been heavily pre-tested for BRCA1/2. Any loss of detection sensitivity for BRCA1/2 actionable variants in breast cancer panels should lead to bespoke BRCA1/2 testing being conducted first. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: There is growing international interest in adopting a risk-based approach to breast cancer screening, where an individual's risk would inform screening practices. It has been suggested that primary care will contribute to the delivery of this service by conducting risk assessment and providing primary prevention advice. The aim of our review was to understand what primary care providers think and feel about performing these tasks by examining their attitudes and typical activity in clinical practice (routine behaviours). The results suggest that primary care providers mainly assess breast cancer risk by collecting family history information but feel less comfortable advising on risk-reducing medications. Primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk for women to get the most benefit from risk-based screening and prevention. To promote risk assessment and prevention activities, improved education/training and changes to resources (integrated risk assessment tools, better patient materials etc.) will be necessary. Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July–August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early age at diagnosis of breast cancer is a known risk factor for hereditary predisposition and some studies show a high risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 carriers diagnosed at very young ages. However, little is published on the risk of TP53 carriers. 397 women with breast cancer diagnosed <36 years of age were obtained from three sources: (i) a population-based study of 283 women diagnosed sequentially from 1980–1997 in North-West England, (ii) referrals to the Genomic Medicine Department at St Mary's Hospital from 1990–2018, and (iii) individuals from (i) and the Family History Clinic at Wythenshawe Hospital South Manchester who tested negative for pathogenic variants (PV) in all three genes. Sequencing of BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 genes was carried out alongside tests for copy number for PV on all referred women. Rates of contralateral breast cancer were censored at death, last assessment, or risk-reducing mastectomy. In total, 47 TP53, 218 BRCA1, and 132 BRCA2 PV carriers were identified with breast cancer diagnosed aged 35 years and under, as well as a representative sample of 261 not known to carry a PV in BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53. Annual rates of contralateral breast cancer (and percentage of synchronous breast cancers) were TP53: 7.03% (4.3%), BRCA1: 3.57% (1.8%), and BRCA2: 2.63% (1.5%). In non-PV carriers, contralateral rates in isolated presumed/tested non-carrier cases with no family history were 0.56%, and for those with a family history, 0.69%. Contralateral breast cancer rates are substantial in TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2 PV carriers diagnosed with breast cancer aged 35 and under. Women need to be advised to help make informed decisions on contralateral mastectomy, guided by life expectancy from their index tumor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]