Joint ABS-UKCGG-CanGene-CanVar consensus regarding the use of CanRisk in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The CanRisk tool, which operationalises the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) is used by Clinical Geneticists, Genetic Counsellors, Breast Oncologists, Surgeons and Family History Nurses for breast cancer risk assessments both nationally and internationally. There are currently no guidelines with respect to the day-to-day clinical application of CanRisk and differing inputs to the model can result in different recommendations for practice. METHODS: To address this gap, the UK Cancer Genetics Group in collaboration with the Association of Breast Surgery and the CanGene-CanVar programme held a workshop on 16th of May 2023, with the aim of establishing best practice guidelines. RESULTS: Using a pre-workshop survey followed by structured discussion and in-meeting polling, we achieved consensus for UK best practice in use of CanRisk in making recommendations for breast cancer surveillance, eligibility for genetic testing and the input of available information to undertake an individualised risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst consensus recommendations were achieved, the meeting highlighted some of the barriers limiting the use of CanRisk in clinical practice and identified areas that require further work and collaboration with relevant national bodies and policy makers to incorporate wider use of CanRisk into routine breast cancer risk assessments.

Validation of the BOADICEA model in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

BACKGROUND: No validation has been conducted for the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model specifically in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers to date. Here, we evaluated the performance of BOADICEA in predicting 5-year breast cancer risks in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 PV carriers ascertained through clinical genetic centres. METHODS: We evaluated the model calibration and discriminatory ability in the prospective TRANsIBCCS cohort study comprising 1614 BRCA1 and 1365 BRCA2 PV carriers (209 incident cases). Study participants had lifestyle, reproductive, hormonal, anthropometric risk factor information, a polygenic risk score based on 313 SNPs and family history information. RESULTS: The full multifactorial model considering family history together with all other risk factors was well calibrated overall (E/O=1.07, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24) and in quintiles of predicted risk. Discrimination was maximised when all risk factors were considered (Harrell's C-index=0.70, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.74; area under the curve=0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). The model performance was similar when evaluated separately in BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV carriers. The full model identified 5.8%, 12.9% and 24.0% of BRCA1/2 PV carriers with 5-year breast cancer risks of <1.65%, <3% and <5%, respectively, risk thresholds commonly used for different management and risk-reduction options. CONCLUSION: BOADICEA may be used to aid personalised cancer risk management and decision-making for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers. It is implemented in the free-access CanRisk tool (https://www.canrisk.org/).

Implementing Multifactorial Risk Assessment with Polygenic Risk Scores for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening in the Population Setting: Challenges and Opportunities.

Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40-69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p-values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older (p = 0.021), not born in Canada (p = 0.043), visible minorities (p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education (p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health (p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities (p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education (p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened.

Breast cancer risk assessment for prescription of menopausal hormone therapy in women with a family history of breast cancer: an epidemiological modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) can alleviate menopausal symptoms but has been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. MHT prescription should be preceded by individualised risk/benefit evaluation; however, data outlining the impact of family history alongside different MHT therapeutic approaches are lacking. AIM: To quantify the risks associated with MHT use in women with varying breast cancer family histories of developing and dying from breast cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: An epidemiological modelling study for women in England using the BOADICEA breast cancer prediction model and data relating to MHT use and breast cancer risk taken from research by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. METHOD: The risk of developing and dying from breast cancer between the ages of 50 and 80 years was modelled in women with four different breast cancer family history profiles: 'average', 'modest', 'intermediate', and 'strong' by using 1) background risks of breast cancer by age and family history, 2) relative risks for breast cancer associated with MHT use, and 3) 10-year breast cancer-specific net mortality rates. This study modelled use of combined oestrogen-progestogen MHT (cyclical or continuous) and oestrogen-only MHT. RESULTS: For a woman of 'average' family history taking no MHT, the cumulative breast cancer risk (age 50-80 years) is 9.8%, and the risk of dying from the breast cancer is 1.7%. In this model, 5 years' exposure to combined-cyclical MHT (age 50-55 years) was calculated to increase these risks to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively. For a woman with a 'strong' family history taking no MHT, the cumulative breast cancer risk is 19.6% (age 50-80 years), and the risk of dying from the breast cancer is 3.2%. With 5 years' exposure to MHT (age 50-55 years), this model showed that these risks increase to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this model, both family history and MHT are associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Estimates of the risks of breast cancer associated with MHT for women with different family histories can be used to support decision making around MHT prescription for women experiencing menopausal symptoms.

Risks of second primary cancers among 584,965 female and male breast cancer survivors in England: a 25-year retrospective cohort study.

Background: Second primary cancers (SPCs) after breast cancer (BC) present an increasing public health burden, with little existing research on socio-demographic, tumour, and treatment effects. We addressed this in the largest BC survivor cohort to date, using a novel linkage of National Disease Registration Service datasets. Methods: The cohort included 581,403 female and 3562 male BC survivors diagnosed between 1995 and 2019. We estimated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for combined and site-specific SPCs using incidences for England, overall and by age at BC and socioeconomic status. We estimated incidences and Kaplan-Meier cumulative risks stratified by age at BC, and assessed risk variation by socio-demographic, tumour, and treatment characteristics using Cox regression. Findings: Both genders were at elevated contralateral breast (SIR: 2.02 (95% CI: 1.99-2.06) females; 55.4 (35.5-82.4) males) and non-breast (1.10 (1.09-1.11) females, 1.10 (1.00-1.20) males) SPC risks. Non-breast SPC risks were higher for females younger at BC diagnosis (SIR: 1.34 (1.31-1.38) <50 y, 1.07 (1.06-1.09) ≥50 y) and more socioeconomically deprived (SIR: 1.00 (0.98-1.02) least deprived quintile, 1.34 (1.30-1.37) most). Interpretation: Enhanced SPC surveillance may benefit BC survivors, although specific recommendations require more detailed multifactorial risk and cost-benefit analyses. The associations between deprivation and SPC risks could provide clinical management insights. Funding: CRUK Catalyst Award CanGene-CanVar (C61296/A27223). Cancer Research UK grant: PPRPGM-Nov 20∖100,002. This work was supported by core funding from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Disentangling the relationships of body mass index and circulating sex hormone concentrations in mammographic density using Mendelian randomization.

PURPOSE: Mammographic density phenotypes, adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI), are strong predictors of breast cancer risk. BMI is associated with mammographic density measures, but the role of circulating sex hormone concentrations is less clear. We investigated the relationship between BMI, circulating sex hormone concentrations, and mammographic density phenotypes using Mendelian randomization (MR). METHODS: We applied two-sample MR approaches to assess the association between genetically predicted circulating concentrations of sex hormones [estradiol, testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG)], BMI, and mammographic density phenotypes (dense and non-dense area). We created instrumental variables from large European ancestry-based genome-wide association studies and applied estimates to mammographic density phenotypes in up to 14,000 women of European ancestry. We performed analyses overall and by menopausal status. RESULTS: Genetically predicted BMI was positively associated with non-dense area (IVW: ß = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.58, 2.00; p = 9.57 × 10-63) and inversely associated with dense area (IVW: ß = - 0.37; 95% CI = - 0.51,- 0.23; p = 4.7 × 10-7). We observed weak evidence for an association of circulating sex hormone concentrations with mammographic density phenotypes, specifically inverse associations between genetically predicted testosterone concentration and dense area (ß = - 0.22; 95% CI = - 0.38, - 0.053; p = 0.009) and between genetically predicted estradiol concentration and non-dense area (ß = - 3.32; 95% CI = - 5.83, - 0.82; p = 0.009), although results were not consistent across a range of MR approaches. CONCLUSION: Our findings support a positive causal association between BMI and mammographic non-dense area and an inverse association between BMI and dense area. Evidence was weaker and inconsistent for a causal effect of circulating sex hormone concentrations on mammographic density phenotypes. Based on our findings, associations between circulating sex hormone concentrations and mammographic density phenotypes are weak at best.

Implementation and external validation of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score in the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple conditions present a growing challenge for healthcare provision. Measures of multimorbidity may support clinical management, healthcare resource allocation and accounting for the health of participants in purpose-designed cohorts. The recently developed Cambridge Multimorbidity scores (CMS) have the potential to achieve these aims using primary care records, however, they have not yet been validated outside of their development cohort. METHODS: The CMS, developed in the Clinical Research Practice Dataset (CPRD), were validated in UK Biobank participants whose data is not available in CPRD (the cohort used for CMS development) with available primary care records (n = 111,898). This required mapping of the 37 pre-existing conditions used in the CMS to the coding frameworks used by UK Biobank data providers. We used calibration plots and measures of discrimination to validate the CMS for two of the three outcomes used in the development study (death and primary care consultation rate) and explored variation by age and sex. We also examined the predictive ability of the CMS for the outcome of cancer diagnosis. The results were compared to an unweighted count score of the 37 pre-existing conditions. RESULTS: For all three outcomes considered, the CMS were poorly calibrated in UK Biobank. We observed a similar discriminative ability for the outcome of primary care consultation rate to that reported in the development study (C-index: 0.67 (95%CI:0.66-0.68) for both, 5-year follow-up); however, we report lower discrimination for the outcome of death than the development study (0.69 (0.68-0.70) and 0.89 (0.88-0.90) respectively). Discrimination for cancer diagnosis was adequate (0.64 (0.63-0.65)). The CMS performs favourably to the unweighted count score for death, but not for the outcomes of primary care consultation rate or cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK Biobank, CMS discriminates reasonably for the outcomes of death, primary care consultation rate and cancer diagnosis and may be a valuable resource for clinicians, public health professionals and data scientists. However, recalibration will be required to make accurate predictions when cohort composition and risk levels differ substantially from the development cohort. The generated resources (including codelists for the conditions and code for CMS implementation in UK Biobank) are available online.

Identification of Genes with Rare Loss of Function Variants Associated with Aggressive Prostate Cancer and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PrCa) is a substantial cause of mortality among men globally. Rare germline mutations in BRCA2 have been validated robustly as increasing risk of aggressive forms with a poorer prognosis; however, evidence remains less definitive for other genes. OBJECTIVE: To detect genes associated with PrCa aggressiveness, through a pooled analysis of rare variant sequencing data from six previously reported studies in the UK Genetic Prostate Cancer Study (UKGPCS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We accumulated a cohort of 6805 PrCa cases, in which a set of ten candidate genes had been sequenced in all samples. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We examined the association between rare putative loss of function (pLOF) variants in each gene and aggressive classification (defined as any of death from PrCa, metastatic disease, stage T4, or both stage T3 and Gleason score ≥8). Secondary analyses examined staging phenotypes individually. Cox proportional hazards modelling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to further examine the relationship between mutation status and survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed associations between PrCa aggressiveness and pLOF mutations in ATM, BRCA2, MSH2, and NBN (odds ratio = 2.67-18.9). These four genes and MLH1 were additionally associated with one or more secondary analysis phenotype. Carriers of germline mutations in these genes experienced shorter PrCa-specific survival (hazard ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.79-2.59, p = 4 × 10-16) than noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides further support that rare pLOF variants in specific genes are likely to increase aggressive PrCa risk and may help define the panel of informative genes for screening and treatment considerations. PATIENT SUMMARY: By combining data from several previous studies, we have been able to enhance knowledge regarding genes in which inherited mutations would be expected to increase the risk of more aggressive PrCa. This may, in the future, aid in the identification of men at an elevated risk of dying from PrCa.

Age-specific breast and ovarian cancer risks associated with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants - an Asian study of 572 families.

Background: Clinical management of Asian BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PV) carriers remains challenging due to imprecise age-specific breast (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risks estimates. We aimed to refine these estimates using six multi-ethnic studies in Asia. Methods: Data were collected on 271 BRCA1 and 301 BRCA2 families from Malaysia and Singapore, ascertained through population/hospital-based case-series (88%) and genetic clinics (12%). Age-specific cancer risks were estimated using a modified segregation analysis method, adjusted for ascertainment. Findings: BC and OC relative risks (RRs) varied across age groups for both BRCA1 and BRCA2. The age-specific RR estimates were similar across ethnicities and country of residence. For BRCA1 carriers of Malay, Indian and Chinese ancestry born between 1950 and 1959 in Malaysia, the cumulative risk (95% CI) of BC by age 80 was 40% (36%-44%), 49% (44%-53%) and 55% (51%-60%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for BRCA2 were 29% (26-32%), 36% (33%-40%) and 42% (38%-45%). The corresponding cumulative BC risks for Singapore residents from the same birth cohort, where the underlying population cancer incidences are higher compared to Malaysia, were higher, varying by ancestry group between 57 and 61% for BRCA1, and between 43 and 47% for BRCA2 carriers. The cumulative risk of OC by age 80 was 31% (27-36%) for BRCA1 and 12% (10%-15%) for BRCA2 carriers in Malaysia born between 1950 and 1959; and 42% (34-50%) for BRCA1 and 20% (14-27%) for BRCA2 carriers of the same birth cohort in Singapore. There was evidence of increased BC and OC risks for women from >1960 birth cohorts (p-value = 3.6 × 10-5 for BRCA1 and 0.018 for BRCA2). Interpretation: The absolute age-specific cancer risks of Asian carriers vary depending on the underlying population-specific cancer incidences, and hence should be customised to allow for more accurate cancer risk management. Funding: Wellcome Trust [grant no: v203477/Z/16/Z]; CRUK (PPRPGM-Nov20∖100002).

Estimation of age of onset and progression of breast cancer by absolute risk dependent on polygenic risk score and other risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Genetic, lifestyle, reproductive, and anthropometric factors are associated with the risk of developing breast cancer. However, it is not yet known whether polygenic risk score (PRS) and absolute risk based on a combination of risk factors are associated with the risk of progression of breast cancer. This study aims to estimate the distribution of sojourn time (pre-clinical screen-detectable period) and mammographic sensitivity by absolute breast cancer risk derived from polygenic profile and the other risk factors. METHODS: The authors used data from a population-based case-control study. Six categories of 10-year absolute risk based on different combinations of risk factors were derived using the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm. Women were classified into low, medium, and high-risk groups. The authors constructed a continuous-time multistate model. To calculate the sojourn time, they simulated the trajectories of subjects through the disease states. RESULTS: There was little difference in sojourn time with a large overlap in the 95% confidence interval (CI) between the risk groups across the six risk categories and PRS studied. However, the age of entry into the screen-detectable state varied by risk category, with the mean age of entry of 53.4 years (95% CI, 52.2-54.1) and 57.0 years (95% CI, 55.1-57.7) in the high-risk and low-risk women, respectively. CONCLUSION: In risk-stratified breast screening, the age at the start of screening, but not necessarily the frequency of screening, should be tailored to a woman's risk level. The optimal risk-stratified screening strategy that would improve the benefit-to-harm balance and the cost-effectiveness of the screening programs needs to be studied.

Long-term outcomes of hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide an up-to-date systematic review of "the long-term outcomes of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of hysterectomy" and perform a meta-analysis for the reported associations. DATA SOURCES: Our study updated a previous systematic review by searching the literature using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase for publications between January 2015 and August 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Our study included studies of women who had a hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy vs women who had a hysterectomy with ovarian conservation or no surgery. METHODS: The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Adjusted hazard ratios were extracted and combined to obtain fixed effect estimates. RESULTS: Compared with hysterectomy or no surgery, hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in young women was associated with decreased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.84) but with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.47). In addition, it was associated with an increased risk of total cardiovascular diseases, coronary heart disease, and stroke with hazard ratios of 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.25), 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.25), and 1.20 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.31), respectively. Compared with no surgery, hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy before the age of 50 years was associated with an increased risk of hyperlipidemia (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.65), diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.24), hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.20), dementia (hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.69), and depression (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.60). The evidence on the association with all-cause mortality in young women showed substantial heterogeneity between the studies (I2=85%; P<.01). CONCLUSION: Hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with multiple long-term outcomes. The benefits of the addition of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to hysterectomy should be balanced against the risks.

Recommendations for laboratory workflow that better support centralised amalgamation of genomic variant data: findings from CanVIG-UK national molecular laboratory survey.

BACKGROUND: National and international amalgamation of genomic data offers opportunity for research and audit, including analyses enabling improved classification of variants of uncertain significance. Review of individual-level data from National Health Service (NHS) testing of cancer susceptibility genes (2002-2023) submitted to the National Disease Registration Service revealed heterogeneity across participating laboratories regarding (1) the structure, quality and completeness of submitted data, and (2) the ease with which that data could be assembled locally for submission. METHODS: In May 2023, we undertook a closed online survey of 51 clinical scientists who provided consensus responses representing all 17 of 17 NHS molecular genetic laboratories in England and Wales which undertake NHS diagnostic analyses of cancer susceptibility genes. The survey included 18 questions relating to 'next-generation sequencing workflow' (11), 'variant classification' (3) and 'phenotypical context' (4). RESULTS: Widely differing processes were reported for transfer of variant data into their local LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System), for the formatting in which the variants are stored in the LIMS and which classes of variants are retained in the local LIMS. Differing local provisions and workflow for variant classifications were also reported, including the resources provided and the mechanisms by which classifications are stored. CONCLUSION: The survey responses illustrate heterogeneous laboratory workflow for preparation of genomic variant data from local LIMS for centralised submission. Workflow is often labour-intensive and inefficient, involving multiple manual steps which introduce opportunities for error. These survey findings and adoption of the concomitant recommendations may support improvement in laboratory dataflows, better facilitating submission of data for central amalgamation.

Evaluation of European-based polygenic risk score for breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish women in Israel.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk score (PRS), calculated based on genome-wide association studies (GWASs), can improve breast cancer (BC) risk assessment. To date, most BC GWASs have been performed in individuals of European (EUR) ancestry, and the generalisation of EUR-based PRS to other populations is a major challenge. In this study, we examined the performance of EUR-based BC PRS models in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) women. METHODS: We generated PRSs based on data on EUR women from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). We tested the performance of the PRSs in a cohort of 2161 AJ women from Israel (1437 cases and 724 controls) from BCAC (BCAC cohort from Israel (BCAC-IL)). In addition, we tested the performance of these EUR-based BC PRSs, as well as the established 313-SNP EUR BC PRS, in an independent cohort of 181 AJ women from Hadassah Medical Center (HMC) in Israel. RESULTS: In the BCAC-IL cohort, the highest OR per 1 SD was 1.56 (±0.09). The OR for AJ women at the top 10% of the PRS distribution compared with the middle quintile was 2.10 (±0.24). In the HMC cohort, the OR per 1 SD of the EUR-based PRS that performed best in the BCAC-IL cohort was 1.58±0.27. The OR per 1 SD of the commonly used 313-SNP BC PRS was 1.64 (±0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Extant EUR GWAS data can be used for generating PRSs that identify AJ women with markedly elevated risk of BC and therefore hold promise for improving BC risk assessment in AJ women.

Polygenic scores in cancer.

Since the publication of the first genome-wide association study for cancer in 2007, thousands of common alleles that are associated with the risk of cancer have been identified. The relative risk associated with individual variants is small and of limited clinical significance. However, the combined effect of multiple risk variants as captured by polygenic scores (PGSs) may be much greater and therefore provide risk discrimination that is clinically useful. We review the considerable research efforts over the past 15 years for developing statistical methods for PGSs and their application in large-scale genome-wide association studies to develop PGSs for various cancers. We review the predictive performance of these PGSs and the multiple challenges currently limiting the clinical application of PGSs. Despite this, PGSs are beginning to be incorporated into clinical multifactorial risk prediction models to stratify risk in both clinical trials and clinical implementation studies.

Associations of height, body mass index, and weight gain with breast cancer risk in carriers of a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2: the BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Height, body mass index (BMI), and weight gain are associated with breast cancer risk in the general population. It is unclear whether these associations also exist for carriers of pathogenic variants in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international pooled cohort of 8091 BRCA1/2 variant carriers was used for retrospective and prospective analyses separately for premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cox regression was used to estimate breast cancer risk associations with height, BMI, and weight change. RESULTS: In the retrospective analysis, taller height was associated with risk of premenopausal breast cancer for BRCA2 variant carriers (HR 1.20 per 10 cm increase, 95% CI 1.04-1.38). Higher young-adult BMI was associated with lower premenopausal breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 (HR 0.75 per 5 kg/m2, 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and BRCA2 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89) variant carriers in the retrospective analysis, with consistent, though not statistically significant, findings from the prospective analysis. In the prospective analysis, higher BMI and adult weight gain were associated with higher postmenopausal breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers (HR 1.20 per 5 kg/m2, 95% CI 1.02-1.42; and HR 1.10 per 5 kg weight gain, 95% CI 1.01-1.19, respectively). CONCLUSION: Anthropometric measures are associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers, with relative risk estimates that are generally consistent with those for women from the general population.

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care. AIM: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England. METHOD: Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools. CONCLUSION: There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

Co-Creation of Breast Cancer Risk Communication Tools and an Assessment of Risk Factor Awareness: A Qualitative Study of Patients and the Public in India.

BACKGROUND: Low awareness of BC and its associated risk factors causes delays in diagnosis and impacts survival. It is critical to communicate BC risk to patients in a format that they are easily able to understand. Our study aim was to develop easy-to-follow transmedia prototypes to communicate BC risk and evaluate user preferences, alongside exploring awareness of BC and its risk factors. METHODS: Prototypes of transmedia tools for risk communication were developed with multidisciplinary input. A qualitative in-depth online interview study was undertaken using a pre-defined topic guide of BC patients (7), their relatives (6), the general public (6), and health professionals (6). Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach. FINDINGS: Most participants preferred pictographic representations (frequency format) of lifetime risk and risk factors and storytelling using short animations and comic strips (infographics) for communicating genetic risk and testing: "In a short time, they explained it very well, and I liked it". Suggestions included minimizing technical terminology, decreasing the delivery speed, "two-way dialogue", and using local "language for different locations". There was low awareness of BC, with some understanding of age and hereditary risk factors but limited knowledge of reproductive factors. INTERPRETATION: Our findings support use of multiple context-specific multimedia tools in communicating cancer risk in an easy-to-understand way. The preference for storytelling using animations and infographics is a novel finding and should be more widely explored.

Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients with breast cancer and a germline-BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant undergoing radiation.

BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced secondary breast cancer (BC) may be a concern after radiation therapy (RT) for primary breast cancer (PBC), especially in young patients with germline (g)BRCA-associated BC who already have high contralateral BC (CBC) risk and potentially increased genetic susceptibility to radiation. We sought to investigate whether adjuvant RT for PBC increases the risk of CBC in patients with gBRCA1/2-associated BC. METHODS: The gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers diagnosed with PBC were selected from the prospective International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the association between RT (yes vs no) and CBC risk. We further stratified for BRCA status and age at PBC diagnosis (<40 and >40 years). Statistical significance tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 3602 eligible patients, 2297 (64%) received adjuvant RT. Median follow-up was 9.6 years. The RT group had more patients with stage III PBC than the non-RT group (15% vs 3%, P < .001), received chemotherapy more often (81% vs 70%, P < .001), and received endocrine therapy more often (50% vs 35%, P < .001). The RT group had an increased CBC risk compared with the non-RT group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 1.86). Statistical significance was observed in gBRCA2 (HR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.77) but not in gBRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers (HR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.77; P = .39 for interaction). In the combined gBRCA1/2 group, patients irradiated when they were younger than or older than 40 years of age at PBC diagnosis showed similar risks (HR = 1.38; 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.04 and HR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.19, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RT regimens minimizing contralateral breast dose should be considered in gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Risks of second non-breast primaries following breast cancer in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Second primary cancer incidence is rising among breast cancer survivors. We examined the risks of non-breast second primaries, in combination and at specific cancer sites, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, seeking studies published by March 2022. We included studies that reported standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with associated standard errors, assessing the combined risk of second non-breast primaries following breast cancer. We performed meta-analyses of combined second primary risks, stratifying by age, follow-up duration, and geographic region. We also assessed second primary risks at several specific sites, stratifying by age. The inverse variance method with DerSimonian-Laird estimators was used in all meta-analyses, assuming a random-effects model. Associated biases and study quality were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: One prospective and twenty-seven retrospective cohort studies were identified. SIRs for second non-breast primaries combined ranged from 0.84 to 1.84. The summary SIR estimate was 1.24 (95% CI 1.14-1.36, I2: 99%). This varied by age: the estimate was 1.59 (95% CI 1.36-1.85) when breast cancer was diagnosed before age 50, which was significantly higher than in women first diagnosed at 50 or over (SIR: 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.36, p for difference: < 0.001). SPC risks were also significantly higher when based on Asian, rather than European, registries (Asia-SIR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.29-1.67. Europe-SIR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.28). There were significantly increased risks of second thyroid (SIR: 1.89, 95% CI 1.49-2.38), corpus uteri (SIR: 1.84, 95% CI 1.53-2.23), ovary (SIR: 1.53, 95% CI 1.35-1.73), kidney (SIR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.73), oesophagus (SIR: 1.39, 95% CI 1.26-1.55), skin (melanoma) (SIR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.18-1.52), blood (leukaemia) (SIR: 1.30, 95% CI 1.17-1.45), lung (SIR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.51), stomach (SIR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.36) and bladder (SIR: 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26) primaries. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors are at significantly increased risk of second primaries at many sites. Risks are higher for those diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 and in Asian breast cancer survivors compared to European breast cancer survivors. This study is limited by a lack of data on potentially confounding variables. The conclusions may inform clinical management decisions following breast cancer, although specific clinical recommendations lie outside the scope of this review.