Suchergebnisse

<i>Objectives:</i> To describe and compare women's risk perceptions and recall of breast cancer risk information in a cohort of first-time attendees at a family history clinic. <i>Methods:</i> We conducted a 1-year prospective study of 158 women aged 18–45 years with a confirmed lifetime risk of breast cancer of 1 in 6 or greater. Risk perception and recall were assessed using a self-report questionnaire, completed pre-counselling and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-counselling, and through interviews conducted at 3 and 12 months. <i>Results:</i> The proportion of women with accurate personal risk perceptions based on 'gambling' odds ('1 chance in x') significantly improved after risk counselling from 12% pre-counselling to 67% 3 months post-counselling (p < 0.001), which was maintained for 1 year. This was the method of reporting perceived risk associated with the best level of risk accuracy and the women's preferred format for describing risk, but the concept of lifetime risk was understood by only 44% of women. Qualitative risk categories ('high', moderate' or 'low') correlated significantly with women's self-reported odds values, but each category comprised a wide range of women's perceived numeric risks. Describing risk as the 'likelihood of breast cancer' resulted in a broad and somewhat inaccurate reporting of risk, compared with numeric ratings made at the same time. There was an increase of up to 4-fold in the proportion of women who failed to recall their risk value over time, and women were unable to accurately put the breast cancer risk in context compared with other health threats. <i>Conclusions:</i> All methods of describing risk have limitations, but the results of the present study provide good support for women's accurate recall of numeric risk values and their preference for use of these 'gambling' odds. This may have been influenced by consistency of the use of this method both in risk communication and in personal summary letters. Descriptive risk formats reflected higher levels of perceived vulnerability to breast cancer, and genetic counsellors need to be aware of these different perceptions.

Funder: Victorian Cancer Agency ; Funder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre ; Funder: Cancer Research UK ; Funder: Cancer Council Tasmania ; Funder: Instituto de Salud Carlos III ; Funder: Cancer Australia ; Funder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre ; Funder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer ; Funder: Cancer Council South Australia ; Funder: Swedish Cancer Society ; Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre ; Funder: Institut Català de la Salut ; Funder: Cancer Council Victoria ; Funder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia ; Funder: National Institutes of Health ; BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

While interplay between BRCA1 and AURKA-RHAMM-TPX2-TUBG1 regulates mammary epithelial polarization, common genetic variation in HMMR (gene product RHAMM) may be associated with risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Following on these observations, we further assessed the link between the AURKA-HMMR-TPX2-TUBG1 functional module and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Forty-one single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers and subsequently analyzed using a retrospective likelihood approach. The association of HMMR rs299290 with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers was confirmed: per-allele hazard ratio (HR) = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 - 1.15, p = 1.9 x 10(-4) (false discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted p = 0.043). Variation in CSTF1, located next to AURKA, was also found to be associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers: rs2426618 per-allele HR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.16, p = 0.005 (FDR-adjusted p = 0.045). Assessment of pairwise interactions provided suggestions (FDR-adjusted p(interaction) values greater than 0.05) for deviations from the multiplicative model for rs299290 and CSTF1 rs6064391, and rs299290 and TUBG1 rs11649877 in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Following these suggestions, the expression of HMMR and AURKA or TUBG1 in sporadic breast tumors was found to potentially interact, influencing patients survival. Together, the results of this study support the hypothesis of a causative link between altered function of AURKA-HMMR-TPX2-TUBG1 and breast carcinogenesis in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. ; Funding Agencies|National Cancer Institute [UM1 CA164920]; Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant [LIG-07/2012]; Hereditary Cancer Association (Paveldimo vezio asociacija); LSC grant [10.0010.08]; ESF [2009/0220/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/09/APIA/VIAA/016]; Liepajas municipal council; Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA); Morris and Horowitz Familes Endowed Professorship; NEYE Foundation; Spanish Association against Cancer [AECC08, RTICC 06/0020/1060, FISPI08/1120]; Mutua Madrilena Foundation (FMMA); COH-CCGCRN: City of Hope Clinical Cancer Genetics Community Network from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Hereditary Cancer Research Registry from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health [RC4CA153828]; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; Cancer Research-United Kingdom grant [C12292/A11174, C1287/ A10118]; NHMRC Program Grant; DKFZ; European Union (European Social Fund-ESF); Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)-Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research and Technology: ARISTEIA; European Social Fund; Cancer Research United Kingdom Grants [C1287/A10118, C1287/A11990]; National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) grant; NIHR grant; Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Cancer Research United Kingdom Grant [C5047/A8385]; University of Kansas Cancer Center [P30 CA168524]; Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program; Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship; AKG [5U01CA113916, R01CA140323]; German Cancer Aid [109076]; Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC); Ligue National Contre le Cancer; Association "Le cancer du sein, parlonsen!" Award; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO); National Cancer Institute grant [CA 27469]; GOG Statistical and Data Center [CA 37517]; GOGs Cancer Prevention and Control Committee [CA 101165]; Intramural Research Program, NCI; ISCIII (Spain) [RD12/00369/0006, 12/00539]; European Regional Development FEDER funds; Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund; Academy of Finland [132473]; Finnish Cancer Society; Sigrid Juselius Foundation; Dutch Cancer Society grant [NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756]; Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research [NWO 91109024]; Pink Ribbon grant [110005]; BBMRI grant [NWO 184.021.007/CP46]; Hungarian Research Grant [KTIA-OTKA CK-80745]; Norwegian EEA Financial Mechanism [HU0115/NA/2008-3/OP-9]; Spanish Ministry of Health ISCIII FIS [PI10/01422, PI12/01528, PI13/00285]; RTICC [RD12/0036/0008]; Ramon Areces (XV) Foundation; Eugenio Rodriguez Pascual Foundation; Roses Contra el Cancer Foundation; Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC); AGAUR Generalitat de Catalunya [2009-SGR290, 2009-SGR293]; Polish Foundation of Science; Icelandic Association "Walking for Breast Cancer Research"; Nordic Cancer Union; Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund; Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program; Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance-grant [019511]; Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade-grant [PSR-SIIRI-701]; Ministero dellIstruzione, dellUniversita e della Ricerca and Ministero della Salute; Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro; National Breast Cancer Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); Queensland Cancer Fund; Cancer Council of New South Wales; Cancer Council of Victoria; Cancer Foundation of Western Australia; Cancer Councils of Tasmania; National Institutes of Health grant [CA128978]; NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201]; United States Department of Defence Ovarian Cancer Idea award [W81XWH-10-1-0341]; Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Jewish General Hospital Weekend; Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade; Cancer Councils of South Australia; European Regional Development Fund; State Budget of the Czech Republic (RECAMO) [CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0101]; MH CZ-DRO (MMCI) [00209805]; Niehaus Family Genetics Research Fund; STARR Cancer Consortium Grant; NAROD [1R01 CA149429-01]; NCI Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health [NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-65504]; Westat, Inc, Rockville, Maryland; Clalit Health Services in Israel; Israel Cancer Association; Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), New York; Russian Federation for Basic Research [11-04-00227, 12-04-00928, 12-04-01490]; Federal Agency for Science and Innovations, Russia [02.740.11.0780]; Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the "CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer" program and grant from the National Cancer Institute [UM1 CA164920]; Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR); United States Government or the BCFR; Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center; Isreal cancer association; Israeli Inherited breast cancer consortium; Swedish Cancer Society; Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust; Entertainment Industry Fund National Womens Cancer Research Alliance; National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01-CA102776, R01-CA083855]; Rooney Family Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center; American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship [SIOP-06-258-01-COUN]; SAF2010-20493; [PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004]