Next-generation sequencing of BRCA1/2 in breast cancer patients: potential effects on clinical decision-making using rapid, high-accuracy genetic results

PURPOSE: We evaluated the clinical role of rapid next-generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying BRCA1/2 mutations compared to traditional Sanger sequencing. METHODS: Twenty-four paired samples from 12 patients were analyzed in this prospective study to compare the performance of NGS to the Sanger method. Both NGS and Sanger sequencing were performed in 2 different laboratories using blood samples from patients with breast cancer. We then analyzed the accuracy of NGS in terms of variant calling and determining concordance rates of BRCA1/2 mutation detection. RESULTS: The overall concordance rate of BRCA1/2 mutation identification was 100%. Variants of unknown significance (VUS) were reported in two cases of BRCA1 and 3 cases of BRCA2 after Sanger sequencing, whereas NGS reported only 1 case of BRCA1 VUS, likely due to differences in reference databases used for mutation identification. The median turnaround time of Sanger sequencing was 22 days (range, 14–26 days), while the median time of NGS was only 6 days (range, 3–21 days). CONCLUSION: NGS yielded comparably accurate results to Sanger sequencing and in a much shorter time with respect to BRCA1/2 mutation identification. The shorter turnaround time and higher accuracy of NGS may help clinicians make more timely and informed decisions regarding surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Survival Outcomes in T1–2 Breast Cancer Patients Who Receive Breast-Conserving Therapy / 한국유방암학회지

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on survival outcomes for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 954 patients who had T1–2 breast cancer and received breast-conserving therapy (BCT) between 2007 and 2010 were enrolled. We divided the patients according to whether they received preoperative MRI or not. Survival outcomes, including locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. RESULTS: Preoperative MRI was performed in 743 of 954 patients. Clinicopathological features were not significantly different between patients with and without preoperative MRI. In the univariate analyses, larger tumors were marginally associated with poor LRRFS compared to smaller tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 3.22; p=0.053). Tumor size, histologic grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), hormonal therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy status were associated with RFS. Larger tumor size, higher histologic grade, lack of ER and PR expression, and no hormonal therapy were associated with decreased OS. Tumor size was associated with LRRFS in the multivariate analyses (HR, 4.19; p=0.048). However, preoperative MRI was not significantly associated with LRRFS, RFS, or OS in either univariate or multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Preoperative MRI did not influence survival outcomes in T1–2 breast cancer patients who underwent BCT. Routine use of preoperative MRI in T1–2 breast cancer may not translate into longer RFS and OS.