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... Show moreBackground 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 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. Show less
Background: BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the... Show moreBackground: BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors. Methods: BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous.Results: BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010. Conclusions: These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options. Show less
Obstetrical complications, often referred to as the "great obstetrical syndromes," are among the most common global causes of mortality and morbidity in young women and their infants. However,... Show moreObstetrical complications, often referred to as the "great obstetrical syndromes," are among the most common global causes of mortality and morbidity in young women and their infants. However, treatments for these syndromes are underdeveloped compared with other fields of medicine and are urgently needed. This current paucity of treatments for obstetrical complications is a reflection of the challenges of drug development in pregnancy. The appetite of pharmaceutical companies to invest in research for obstetrical syndromes is generally reduced by concerns for maternal, fetal, and infant safety, poor definition, and high-risk regulatory paths toward product approval. Notably, drug candidates require large investments for development with an unguaranteed return on investment. Furthermore, the discovery of promising drug candidates is hampered by a poor understanding of the pathophysiology of obstetrical syndromes and their uniqueness to human pregnancies. This limits translational extrapolation and de-risking strategies in preclinical studies, as available for other medical areas, compounded with limited fetal safety monitoring to capture early prenatal adverse reactions. In addition, the ethical review committees are reluctant to approve the inclusion of pregnant women in trials, and in the absence of regulatory guidance in obstetrics, clinical development programs are subject to unpredictable regulatory paths. To develop effective and safe drugs for pregnancy complications, substantial commitment, and investment in research for innovative therapies are needed in parallel with the creation of an enabling ethical, legislative, and guidance framework. Solutions are proposed to enable stakeholders to work with a common set of expectations to facilitate progress in this medical discipline. Addressing this significant unmet need to advance maternal and possibly perinatal health requires the involvement of all stakeholders and specifically patients, couples, and cli-nicians facing pregnancy complications in the dearth of appropriate therapies. This paper focused on the key pharmaceutical research and development challenges to achieve effective and safe treatments for obstetrical syndromes. Show less
Purpose We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks forBRCA1andBRCA2pathogenic variant... Show morePurpose We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks forBRCA1andBRCA2pathogenic variant carriers. Methods Retrospective cohort data on 18,935BRCA1and 12,339BRCA2female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. Results The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk forBRCA1carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33],P = 3x10(-72)). ForBRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36],P = 7x10(-50)). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk forBRCA1(HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40],P = 3x10(-22)) andBRCA2(HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60],P = 4x10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. Conclusion Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks forBRCA1/2carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes. Show less
Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. Weevaluated whether PSVs inBRCA1/2 were associated with risk of... Show morePathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. Weevaluated whether PSVs inBRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 30 region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63-5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71-4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12-11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype-phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer.Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual. Show less
Background The effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective... Show moreBackground The effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective effect but may be substantially biased. Prospective studies have had limited power, particularly for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further, previous studies have not considered the effect of RRSO in the context of natural menopause. Methods A multi-centre prospective cohort of 2272 BRCA1 and 1605 BRCA2 mutation carriers was followed for a mean of 5.4 and 4.9 years, respectively; 426 women developed incident breast cancer. RRSO was modelled as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression, and its effect assessed in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Results There was no association between RRSO and breast cancer for BRCA1 (HR = 1.23; 95% CI 0.94-1.61) or BRCA2 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.62-1.24) mutation carriers. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, HRs were 0.68 (95% CI 0.40-1.15) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64) for RRSO carried out before or after age 45 years, respectively. The HR for BRCA2 mutation carriers decreased with increasing time since RRSO (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26-0.99 for 5 years or longer after RRSO). Estimates for premenopausal women were similar. Conclusion We found no evidence that RRSO reduces breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. A potentially beneficial effect for BRCA2 mutation carriers was observed, particularly after 5 years following RRSO. These results may inform counselling and management of carriers with respect to RRSO. Show less
BACKGROUND: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown... Show moreBACKGROUND: Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown.METHODS: We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models.RESULTS: Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06-1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08-2.33) per 5-kg/m(2) increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (P-interaction < 0.05).CONCLUSION: Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population. Show less
Background: BRCA1/2 mutations confer high lifetime risk of breast cancer, although other factors may modify this risk. Whether height or body mass index (BMI) modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2... Show moreBackground: BRCA1/2 mutations confer high lifetime risk of breast cancer, although other factors may modify this risk. Whether height or body mass index (BMI) modifies breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remains unclear.Methods: We used Mendelian randomization approaches to evaluate the association of height and BMI on breast cancer risk, using data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 with 14 676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 11 451 cases of breast cancer. We created a height genetic score using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score using 93 BMI-associated variants. We examined both observed and genetically determined height and BMI with breast cancer risk using weighted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: Observed height was positively associated with breast cancer risk (HR = 1.09 per 10 cm increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0 to 1.17; P = 1.17). Height genetic score was positively associated with breast cancer, although this was not statistically significant (per 10 cm increase in genetically predicted height, HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.17; P = .47). Observed BMI was inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m(2) increase, HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.90 to 0.98; P = .007). BMI genetic score was also inversely associated with breast cancer risk (per 5 kg/m2 increase in genetically predicted BMI, HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.98; P = .02). BMI was primarily associated with premenopausal breast cancer.Conclusion: Height is associated with overall breast cancer and BMI is associated with premenopausal breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Incorporating height and BMI, particularly genetic score, into risk assessment may improve cancer management. Show less
