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
BackgroundPTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS) is a rare syndrome with a broad phenotypic spectrum, including increased risks of breast (BC, 67%-78% at age 60 years), endometrial (EC, 19%-28%), and... Show moreBackgroundPTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS) is a rare syndrome with a broad phenotypic spectrum, including increased risks of breast (BC, 67%-78% at age 60 years), endometrial (EC, 19%-28%), and thyroid cancer (TC, 6%-38%). Current risks are likely overestimated due to ascertainment bias. We aimed to provide more accurate and personalized cancer risks.MethodsThis was a European, adult PHTS cohort study with data from medical files, registries, and/or questionnaires. Cancer risks and hazard ratios were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses, and standardized incidence ratios were calculated. Bias correction consisted of excluding cancer index cases and incident case analyses.ResultsA total of 455 patients were included, including 50.5% index cases, 372 with prospective follow-up (median 6 years, interquartile range = 3-10 years), and 159 of 281 females and 39 of 174 males with cancer. By age 60 years, PHTS-related cancer risk was higher in females (68.4% to 86.3%) than males (16.4% to 20.8%). Female BC risks ranged from 54.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.0% to 66.4%) to 75.8% (95% CI = 60.7% to 88.4%), with two- to threefold increased risks for PTEN truncating and approximately twofold for phosphatase domain variants. EC risks ranged from 6.4% (95% CI = 2.1% to 18.6%) to 22.1% (95% CI = 11.6% to 39.6%) and TC risks from 8.9% (95% CI = 5.1% to 15.3%) to 20.5% (95% CI = 11.3% to 35.4%). Colorectal cancer, renal cancer, and melanoma risks were each less than 10.0%.ConclusionsFemales have a different BC risk depending on their PTEN germline variant. PHTS patients are predominantly at risk of BC (females), EC, and TC. This should be the main focus of surveillance. These lower, more unbiased and personalized risks provide guidance for optimized cancer risk management. Show less
Background: Endometrial cancer (EC) risk in BReast CAncer gene 1/2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers is uncertain; therefore, we assessed this in a large Dutch nationwide cohort study. Methods: We... Show moreBackground: Endometrial cancer (EC) risk in BReast CAncer gene 1/2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers is uncertain; therefore, we assessed this in a large Dutch nationwide cohort study. Methods: We selected 5980 BRCA1/2 (3788 BRCA1, 2151 gBRCA2, 41 both BRCA1/BRCA2) and 8451 non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study, the Netherlands cohort. Follow-up started at the date of the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry coverage (January 1, 1989) or at the age of 25 years (whichever came last) and ended at date of EC diagnosis, last follow-up, or death (whichever came first). EC risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was compared with 1) the general population, estimating standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) based on Dutch population-based incidence rates; and 2) non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, using Cox-regression analyses, expressed as hazard ratio (HR). Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Fifty-eight BRCA1/2 and 33 non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers developed EC over 119 296 and 160 841 person-years, respectively (SIR = 2.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18 to 3.65; and HR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.53 to 3.69, respectively). gBRCA1 mutation carriers showed increased risks for EC overall (SIR = 3.51, 95% CI = 2.61 to 4.72; HR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.83 to 4.66), serous-like EC (SIR = 12.64, 95% CI = 7.62 to 20.96; HR = 10.48, 95% CI = 2.95 to 37.20), endometrioid EC (SIR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.80 to 3.83; HR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.18 to 3.45), and TP53-mutated EC (HR = 15.71, 95% CI = 4.62 to 53.40). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, overall (SIR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.01 to 2.87) and serous-like EC risks (SIR = 5.11, 95% CI = 1.92 to 13.63) were increased compared with the general population. Absolute risks by 75 years remained low (overall EC = 3.0%; serous-like EC = 1.1%). Conclusions: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a two- to threefold increased risk for EC, with highest risk observed for the rare subgroups of serous-like and p53-abnormal EC in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Show less
Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate... Show moreBackground: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management. Show less
Vries, S. de; Schaapveld, M.; Janus, C.P.M.; Daniels, L.A.; Petersen, E.J.; Maazen, R.W.M. van der; ... ; Leeuwen, F.E. van 2021
Background: Few studies have examined the impact of treatment-related morbidity on long-term, cause-specific mortality in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. Methods: This multicenter cohort included... Show moreBackground: Few studies have examined the impact of treatment-related morbidity on long-term, cause-specific mortality in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. Methods: This multicenter cohort included 4919 HL patients, treated before age 51 years between 1965 and 2000, with a median follow-up of 20.2 years. Standardized mortality ratios, absolute excess mortality (AEM) per 10 000 person-years, and cause-specific cumulative mortality by stage and primary treatment, accounting for competing risks, were calculated. Results: HL patients experienced a 5.1-fold (AEM = 123 excess deaths per 10000 person-years) higher risk of death due to causes other than HL. This risk remained increased in 40-year survivors (standardized mortality ratio = 5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.2 to 6.5, AEM = 619). At age 54 years, HL survivors experienced similar cumulative mortality (20.0%) from causes other than HL to 71-year-old individuals from the general population. Whereas HL mortality statistically significantly decreased over the calendar period (P < .001), solid tumor mortality did not change in the most recent treatment era. Patients treated in 1989-2000 had lower 25-year cardiovascular disease mortality than patients treated in 1965-1976 (4.3% vs 5.7%; subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.93). Infectious disease mortality was not only increased after splenectomy but also after spleen irradiation (hazard ratio = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.55 to 5.07). For stage I-II, primary treatment with chemotherapy (CT) alone was associated with statistically significantly higher HL mortality (P < .001 for CT vs radiotherapy [RT]; P = .04 for CT vs RT+CT) but lower 30-year mortality from causes other than HL (15.8%, 95% CI = 9.7% to 23.3%) compared with RT alone (36.9%, 95% CI = 34.0% to 39.8%, P = .001) and RT and CT combined (29.8%, 95% CI = 26.8% to 32.9%, P = .02). Conclusions: Compared with the general population, HL survivors have a substantially reduced life expectancy. Optimal selection of patients for primary CT is crucial, weighing risks of HL relapse and long-term toxicity. Show less
Spaan, M.; Belt-Dusebout, A.W. van den; Lambalk, C.B.; H.H. van boven; Schats, R.; Kortman, M.; ... ; Leeuwen, F.E. van 2021
Background: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. Methods: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian... Show moreBackground: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. Methods: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend = .001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time. Conclusions: Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed. Show less
