Search

Background: Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is offered to women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, however, there are limited data on the impact on breast cancer mortality. Methods: Participants were identified from a registry of women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. We used a pseudo-randomised trial design and matched one woman with a RRM to one woman without a RRM on year of birth, gene, and country. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dying of breast cancer in the follow-up period. Results: There were 1654 women included; 827 assigned to the RRM arm and 827 assigned to the control arm. After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 20 incident breast cancers (including 15 occult cancers) and two breast cancer deaths in the RRM arm, and 100 incident breast cancers and 7 breast cancer deaths in the control arm (HR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.05–1.35; p = 0.11). The probability of dying of breast cancer within 15 years after RRM was 0.95%. Conclusions: In women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, RRM reduces the risk of breast cancer, and the probability of dying of breast cancer is low.

Background BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation carriers face a high lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer. Oral contraceptives are protective in this population; however, the impact of other types of contraception (e.g. intrauterine devices, implants, injections) is unknown. We undertook a matched case-control study to evaluate the relationship between type of contraception and risk of ovarian cancer among women with BRCA mutations. Methods A total of 1733 matched pairs were included in this analysis. Women were matched according to year of birth, date of study entry, country of residence, BRCA mutation type and history of breast cancer. Detailed information on hormonal, reproductive and lifestyle exposures were collected from a routinely administered questionnaire. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with each contraceptive exposure. Results Ever use of any contraceptive was significantly associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.52–0.75; P < 0.0001), which was driven by significant inverse associations with oral contraceptives (OR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.54–0.79; P < 0.0001) and contraceptive implants (OR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.12–0.73; P = 0.008). We observed a similar effect with use of injections (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.10–1.38; P = 0.14), but this did not achieve significance. No significant associations were observed between patterns of intrauterine device use and risk of ovarian cancer. Conclusions These findings support a protective effect of oral contraceptives and implants on risk of ovarian cancer among women with BRCA mutations. The possible protective effect of injections requires further evaluation.

Purpose: It is not known whether the risk of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers after age 60 is high enough to justify intensive screening or prophylactic surgery. Thus, we conducted a prospective analysis of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from age 60 until age 80. Methods: Subjects had no history of cancer and both breasts intact at age 60 (n = 699). Women were followed until a breast cancer diagnosis, prophylactic bilateral mastectomy or death. We calculated the annual cancer rate and cumulative incidence of breast cancer (invasive and in situ) from age 60 to age 80. We assessed the associations between hormone replacement therapy, family history of breast cancer and bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, 61 invasive and 20 in situ breast cancers were diagnosed in the cohort. The mean annual rate of invasive breast cancer was 1.8% for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 1.7% for BRCA2 mutation carriers. The cumulative risk of invasive breast cancer from age 60 to 80 was 20.1% for women with a BRCA1 mutation and was 17.3% for women with a BRCA2 mutation. Hormone replacement therapy, family history and oophorectomy were not associated with breast cancer risk. Conclusions: Findings from this large prospective study indicate that the risk of developing breast cancer remains high after age 60 in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. These findings warrant further evaluation of the role of breast cancer screening in older mutation carriers.

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This

There is growing impetus to include measures of personal utility, the nonmedical value of information, in addition to clinical utility in health technology assessment (HTA) of genomic tests such as genomic sequencing (GS). However, personal utility and clinical utility are challenging to define and measure. This study aimed to explore what drives patients' preferences for hypothetically learning medically actionable and non-medically actionable secondary findings (SF), capturing clinical and personal utility; this may inform development of measures to evaluate patient outcomes following return of SF. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adults with a personal or family cancer history participating in a trial of a decision aid for selection of SF from genomic sequencing (GS) ( www.GenomicsADvISER.com ). Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison. Preserving health-related and non-health-related quality of life was an overarching motivator for both learning and not learning SF. Some participants perceived that learning SF would help them "have a good quality of life" through informing actions to maintain physical health or leading to psychological benefits such as emotional preparation for disease. Other participants preferred not to learn SF because results "could ruin your quality of life," such as by causing negative psychological impacts. Measuring health-related and non-health-related quality of life may capture outcomes related to clinical and personal utility of GS and SF, which have previously been challenging to measure. Without appropriate measures, generating and synthesizing evidence to evaluate genomic technologies such as GS will continue to be a challenge, and will undervalue potential benefits of GS and SF.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session. RESULTS: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.