Background The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific... Show moreBackground The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. Methods Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2-17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. Results Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease (p < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR](wks2-8): 2.04, ORwks9-11: 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (ORwks12-13: 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (ORwks14-17: 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (ORwks9-11: 0.59, ORwks12-13: 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (ORwks14-17: 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (ORwks2-8: 1.23, ORwks9-11: 1.92, ORwks12-13: 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2-8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. Conclusion The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes. 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
Purpose: Whether endometrial carcinoma (EC) should be considered part of the gBRCA1/2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is topic of debate. We sought to assess whether... Show morePurpose: Whether endometrial carcinoma (EC) should be considered part of the gBRCA1/2-associated hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is topic of debate. We sought to assess whether ECs occurring in gBRCA carriers are enriched for clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics, thereby supporting a causal relationship.Experimental Design: Thirty-eight gBRCA carriers that developed EC were selected from the nationwide cohort study on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the Netherlands (HEBON), and these were supplemented with four institutional cases. Tumor tissue was retrieved via PALGA (Dutch Pathology Registry). Nineteen morphologic features were scored and histotype was determined by three expert gyneco-logic pathologists, blinded for molecular analyses (UCM-OncoPlus Assay including 1213 genes). ECs with LOH of the gBRCA-wild-type allele (gBRCA/LOHpos) were defined "gBRCA-associated," those without LOH (gBRCA/LOHneg) were defined "sporadic."Results: LOH could be assessed for 40 ECs (30 gBRCA1, 10 gBRCA2), of which 60% were gBRCA/LOHpos. gBRCA/LOHpos ECs were more frequently of nonendometrioid (58%, P = 0.001) and grade 3 histology (79%, P < 0.001). All but two were in the TP53-mutated TCGA-subgroup (91.7%, P < 0.001). In contrast, gBRCA/LOHneg ECs were mainly grade 1 endometrioid EC (94%) and showed a more heterogeneous distribution of TCGA-molecular subgroups: POLE-mutated (6.3%), MSI-high (25%), NSMP (62.5%), and TP53-mutated (6.3%).Conclusions: We provide novel evidence in favor of EC being part of the gBRCA-associated HBOC-syndrome. gBRCA-associated ECs are enriched for EC subtypes associated with unfavorable clinical outcome. These findings have profound therapeutic consequences as these patients may benefit from treatment strategies such as PARP inhibitors. In addition, it should influence counseling and surveillance of gBRCA carriers. Show less
Veneklaas, L.; Geus-Oei, L.F. de; Verloop, J.; Klaase, J.; Ticheler, C.; Bavelaar-Croon, C.; Siesling, S. 2016
