Introduction

General Information

Among women in the United States, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer, and it is the second leading cause of cancer deaths after lung cancer. In 2020, an estimated 279,100 new cases of breast cancer (including 2,620 cases in men) will be diagnosed, and 42,690 deaths (including 520 deaths in men) will occur.

The incidence of breast cancer, particularly for estrogen receptor (ER)–positive cancers occurring after age 50 years, is declining and has declined at a faster rate since 2003; this may be temporally related to a decrease in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after early reports from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI).

An estimated 21,750 new cases of ovarian cancer are expected in the United States in 2020, with an estimated 13,940 deaths. Ovarian cancer is the fifth most deadly cancer in women.

An estimated 65,620 new cases of endometrial cancer are expected in the United States in 2020, with an estimated 12,590 deaths.

(Refer to the PDQ summaries on Breast Cancer Treatment [Adult]; Ovarian Epithelial, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Treatment; and Endometrial Cancer Treatment for more information about breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer rates, diagnosis, and management.)

A possible genetic contribution to both breast and ovarian cancer risk is indicated by the increased incidence of these cancers among women with a family history (refer to the Risk Factors for Breast Cancer, Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer, and Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer sections below for more information), and by the observation of some families in which multiple family members are affected with breast and/or ovarian cancer, in a pattern compatible with an inheritance of autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility. Formal studies of families (linkage analysis) have subsequently proven the existence of autosomal dominant predispositions to breast and ovarian cancer and have led to the identification of several highly penetrant genes as the cause of inherited cancer risk in many families. (Refer to the PDQ summary Cancer Genetics Overview for more information about linkage analysis.) Pathogenic variants in these genes are rare in the general population and are estimated to account for no more than 5% to 10% of breast and ovarian cancer cases overall. It is likely that other genetic factors contribute to the etiology of some of these cancers.

Risk Factors for Breast Cancer

Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Prevention for information about risk factors for breast cancer in the general population.

Age

The cumulative risk of breast cancer increases with age, with most breast cancers occurring after age 50 years.

Breast cancer (and ovarian cancer, to a lesser degree) tends to occur at an earlier age in women with a genetic susceptibility than it does in women with sporadic cases.

Family history including inherited cancer genes

In cross-sectional studies of adult populations, 5% to 10% of women have a mother or sister with breast cancer, and about twice as many have either a first-degree relative (FDR) or a second-degree relative with breast cancer.

The risk conferred by a family history of breast cancer has been assessed in case-control and cohort studies, using volunteer and population-based samples, with generally consistent results.

In a pooled analysis of 38 studies, the relative risk (RR) of breast cancer conferred by an FDR with breast cancer was 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0–2.2).

Risk increases with the number of affected relatives, age at diagnosis, the occurrence of bilateral or multiple ipsilateral breast cancers in a family member, and the number of affected male relatives.

A large population-based study from the Swedish Family Cancer Database confirmed the finding of a significantly increased risk of breast cancer in women who had a mother or a sister with breast cancer. The hazard ratio (HR) for women with a single breast cancer in the family was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.8–1.9) and was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.6–2.9) for women with a family history of multiple breast cancers. For women who had multiple breast cancers in the family, with one occurring before age 40 years, the HR was 3.8 (95% CI, 3.1–4.8). However, the study also found a significant increase in breast cancer risk if the relative was aged 60 years or older, suggesting that breast cancer at any age in the family carries some increase in risk.

Another study in women with unilateral versus contralateral breast cancer (CBC) evaluated breast cancer risk among family members.

Results indicated that among women with affected FDRs, CBC risk was 8.1% at 10 years. This risk was higher among relatives diagnosed before age 40 years or with CBC, and approached the lower risk estimates among BRCA carriers. (Refer to the Contralateral breast cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants section in the High-Penetrance Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes section of this summary for information about cancer risk estimates in that population.) These risk estimates remained unchanged when the analysis was restricted to women who tested negative for a deleterious variant in BRCA1/BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2.

One of the largest studies of twins ever conducted, with 80,309 monozygotic twins and 123,382 dizygotic twins, reported a heritability estimate for breast cancer of 31% (95% CI, 11%–51%).

If a monozygotic twin had breast cancer, her twin sister had a 28.1% probability of developing breast cancer (95% CI, 23.9%–32.8%), and if a dizygotic twin had breast cancer, her twin sister had a 19.9% probability of developing breast cancer (95% CI, 17%–23.2%). These estimates suggest a 10% higher risk of breast cancer for monozygotic twins than for dizygotic twins. However, a high rate of discordance even between monozygotic twins suggests that environmental factors also have a role in modifying breast cancer risk.

(Refer to the Penetrance of BRCA pathogenic variants section of this summary for a discussion of familial risk in women from families with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants who themselves test negative for the family pathogenic variant.)

Reproductive history

In general, breast cancer risk increases with early menarche and late menopause and is reduced by early first full-term pregnancy. There may be an increased risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with pregnancy at a younger age (before age 30 y), with a more significant effect seen for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants.

Likewise, breastfeeding can reduce breast cancer risk in carriers of BRCA1 (but not BRCA2) pathogenic variants.

Regarding the effect of pregnancy on breast cancer outcomes, neither diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy nor pregnancy after breast cancer seems to be associated with adverse survival outcomes in women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Parity appears to be protective for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, with an additional protective effect for live birth before age 40 years.

Reproductive history can also affect the risk of ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer. (Refer to the Reproductive History sections in the Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer and Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer sections of this summary for more information.)

Oral contraceptives

Oral contraceptives (OCs) may produce a slight increase in breast cancer risk among long-term users, but this appears to be a short-term effect. In a meta-analysis of data from 54 studies, the risk of breast cancer associated with OC use did not vary in relationship to a family history of breast cancer.

OCs are sometimes recommended for ovarian cancer prevention in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. (Refer to the Oral Contraceptives section in the Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer section of this summary for more information.) Although the data are not entirely consistent, a meta-analysis concluded that there was no significant increased risk of breast cancer with OC use in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

However, use of OCs formulated before 1975 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (summary relative risk [SRR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06–2.04).

(Refer to the Reproductive factors section in the Clinical Management of Carriers of BRCA Pathogenic Variants section of this summary for more information.)

Hormone replacement therapy

Data exist from both observational and randomized clinical trials regarding the association between postmenopausal HRT and breast cancer. A meta-analysis of data from 51 observational studies indicated a RR of breast cancer of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.21–1.49) for women who had used HRT for 5 or more years after menopause.

The WHI (NCT00000611), a randomized controlled trial of about 160,000 postmenopausal women, investigated the risks and benefits of HRT. The estrogen-plus-progestin arm of the study, in which more than 16,000 women were randomly assigned to receive combined HRT or placebo, was halted early because health risks exceeded benefits.

Adverse outcomes prompting closure included significant increase in both total (245 vs. 185 cases) and invasive (199 vs. 150 cases) breast cancers (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.5, P < . 001) and increased risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. Similar findings were seen in the estrogen-progestin arm of the prospective observational Million Women’s Study in the United Kingdom.

The risk of breast cancer was not elevated, however, in women randomly assigned to estrogen-only versus placebo in the WHI study (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59–1.01). Eligibility for the estrogen-only arm of this study required hysterectomy, and 40% of these patients also had undergone oophorectomy, which potentially could have impacted breast cancer risk.

The association between HRT and breast cancer risk among women with a family history of breast cancer has not been consistent; some studies suggest risk is particularly elevated among women with a family history, while others have not found evidence for an interaction between these factors.

The increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT use in the large meta-analysis did not differ significantly between subjects with and without a family history.

The WHI study has not reported analyses stratified on breast cancer family history, and subjects have not been systematically tested for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Short-term use of hormones for treatment of menopausal symptoms appears to confer little or no breast cancer risk.

The effect of HRT on breast cancer risk among carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants has been studied in the context of bilateral risk-reducing oophorectomy, in which short-term replacement does not appear to reduce the protective effect of oophorectomy on breast cancer risk.

(Refer to the Hormone replacement therapy in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information.)

Hormone use can also affect the risk of developing endometrial cancer. (Refer to the Hormones section in the Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer section of this summary for more information.)

Radiation exposure

Observations in survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and in women who have received therapeutic radiation treatments to the chest and upper body document increased breast cancer risk as a result of radiation exposure. The significance of this risk factor in women with a genetic susceptibility to breast cancer is unclear.

Preliminary data suggest that increased sensitivity to radiation could be a cause of cancer susceptibility in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants,

and in association with germline ATM and TP53 variants.

The possibility that genetic susceptibility to breast cancer occurs via a mechanism of radiation sensitivity raises questions about radiation exposure. It is possible that diagnostic radiation exposure, including mammography, poses more risk in genetically susceptible women than in women of average risk. Therapeutic radiation could also pose a carcinogenic risk. A cohort study of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants treated with breast-conserving therapy, however, showed no evidence of increased radiation sensitivity or sequelae in the breast, lung, or bone marrow of carriers.

This finding was confirmed in a retrospective cohort study of 691 patients with BRCA1/BRCA2-associated breast cancer who were followed up for a median of 8.6 years. No association between receiving adjuvant radiation therapy and increased risk of CBC was observed in the entire cohort, including the subset of patients younger than 40 years at primary breast cancer diagnosis.

Conversely, radiation sensitivity could make tumors in women with genetic susceptibility to breast cancer more responsive to radiation treatment. Studies examining the impact of radiation exposure, including, but not limited to, mammography, in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants have had conflicting results.

A large European study showed a dose-response relationship of increased risk with total radiation exposure, but this was primarily driven by nonmammographic radiation exposure before age 20 years.

Subsequently, no significant association was observed between prior mammography exposure and breast cancer risk in a prospective study of 1,844 BRCA1 carriers and 502 BRCA2 carriers without a breast cancer diagnosis at time of study entry; average follow-up time was 5.3 years.

(Refer to the Mammography section in the Clinical Management of Carriers of BRCA Pathogenic Variants section of this summary for more information about radiation.)

Alcohol intake

The risk of breast cancer increases by approximately 10% for each 10 g of daily alcohol intake (approximately one drink or less) in the general population.

Prior studies of carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants have found no increased risk associated with alcohol consumption.

Physical activity and anthropometry

Weight gain and being overweight are commonly recognized risk factors for breast cancer. In general, overweight women are most commonly observed to be at increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer and at reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer. Sedentary lifestyle may also be a risk factor.

These factors have not been systematically evaluated in women with a positive family history of breast cancer or in carriers of cancer-predisposing pathogenic variants, but one study suggested a reduced risk of cancer associated with exercise among carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Benign breast disease and mammographic density

Benign breast disease (BBD) is a risk factor for breast cancer, independent of the effects of other major risk factors for breast cancer (age, age at menarche, age at first live birth, and family history of breast cancer).

There may also be an association between BBD and family history of breast cancer.

An increased risk of breast cancer has also been demonstrated for women who have increased density of breast tissue as assessed by mammogram,

and breast density is likely to have a genetic component in its etiology.

Other factors

Other risk factors, including those that are only weakly associated with breast cancer and those that have been inconsistently associated with the disease in epidemiologic studies (e.g., cigarette smoking), may be important in women who are in specific genotypically defined subgroups. One study

found a reduced risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants who smoked, but an expanded follow-up study failed to find an association.

Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer

Refer to the PDQ summary on Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Prevention for information about risk factors for ovarian cancer in the general population.

Age

Ovarian cancer incidence rises in a linear fashion from age 30 years to age 50 years and continues to increase, though at a slower rate, thereafter. Before age 30 years, the risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer is remote, even in hereditary cancer families.

Family history including inherited cancer genes

Although reproductive, demographic, and lifestyle factors affect risk of ovarian cancer, the single greatest ovarian cancer risk factor is a family history of the disease. A large meta-analysis of 15 published studies estimated an odds ratio of 3.1 for the risk of ovarian cancer associated with at least one FDR with ovarian cancer.

Reproductive history

Nulliparity is consistently associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, including among carriers of BRCA/BRCA2 pathogenic variants, yet a meta-analysis identified a risk reduction only in women with four or more live births.

Risk may also be increased among women who have used fertility drugs, especially those who remain nulligravid.

Several studies have reported a risk reduction in ovarian cancer after OC use in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants;

a risk reduction has also been shown after tubal ligation in BRCA1 carriers, with a statistically significant decreased risk of 22% to 80% after the procedure.

Breastfeeding for more than 12 months may also be associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer among carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

On the other hand, evidence is growing that the use of menopausal HRT is associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, particularly in long-time users and users of sequential estrogen-progesterone schedules.

Surgical history

Bilateral tubal ligation and hysterectomy are associated with reduced ovarian cancer risk,

including in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Ovarian cancer risk is reduced more than 90% in women with documented BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants who chose risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). In this same population, risk-reducing oophorectomy also resulted in a nearly 50% reduction in the risk of subsequent breast cancer.

While some studies have shown more benefit for breast cancer reduction in patients with BRCA2 versus BRCA1 pathogenic variants, others have shown no benefit for BRCA1 carriers. Additionally, many of the studies remain underpowered to demonstrate benefit.

(Refer to the RRSO section of this summary for more information about these studies.)

Oral contraceptives

Use of OCs for 4 or more years is associated with an approximately 50% reduction in ovarian cancer risk in the general population.

A majority of, but not all, studies also support OCs being protective among carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

A meta-analysis of 18 studies including 13,627 carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants reported a significantly reduced risk of ovarian cancer (SRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33–0.75) associated with OC use.

(Refer to the Oral contraceptives section in the Chemoprevention section of this summary for more information.)

Risk Factors for Endometrial Cancer

Refer to the PDQ summary on Endometrial Cancer Prevention for information about risk factors for endometrial cancer in the general population.

Age

Age is an important risk factor for endometrial cancer. Most women with endometrial cancer are diagnosed after menopause. Only 15% of women are diagnosed with endometrial cancer before age 50 years, and fewer than 5% are diagnosed before age 40 years.

Women with Lynch syndrome tend to develop endometrial cancer at an earlier age, with the median age at diagnosis of 48 years.

Family history including inherited cancer genes

Although the hyperestrogenic state is the most common predisposing factor for endometrial cancer, family history also plays a significant role in a woman’s risk for disease. Approximately 3% to 5% of uterine cancer cases are attributable to a hereditary cause,

with the main hereditary endometrial cancer syndrome being Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant genetic condition with a population prevalence of 1 in 300 to 1 in 1,000 individuals.

(Refer to the Lynch Syndrome section in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Colorectal Cancer for more information.)

Non-Lynch syndrome genes may also contribute to endometrial cancer risk. In an unselected endometrial cancer cohort undergoing multigene panel testing, approximately 3% of patients tested positive for a germline pathogenic variant in non-Lynch syndrome genes, including CHEK2, APC, ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, NBN, PTEN, and RAD51C.

Notably, patients with pathogenic variants in non-Lynch syndrome genes were more likely to have serous tumor histology than were patients without pathogenic variants. Furthermore, although the overall risk of endometrial cancer after RRSO was not increased among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, these patients seemed to have an increased risk of serous and serous-like endometrial cancer.

Reproductive history

Reproductive factors such as multiparity, late menarche, and early menopause decrease the risk of endometrial cancer because of the lower cumulative exposure to estrogen and the higher relative exposure to progesterone.

Hormones

Hormonal factors that increase the risk of type I endometrial cancer are better understood. All endometrial cancers share a predominance of estrogen relative to progesterone. Prolonged exposure to estrogen or unopposed estrogen increases the risk of endometrial cancer. Endogenous exposure to estrogen can result from obesity, polycystic ovary syndrome, and nulliparity, while exogenous estrogen can result from taking unopposed estrogen or tamoxifen. Unopposed estrogen increases the risk of developing endometrial cancer by twofold to twentyfold, proportional to the duration of use.

Tamoxifen, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, acts as an estrogen agonist on the endometrium while acting as an estrogen antagonist in breast tissue, and increases the risk of endometrial cancer.

In contrast, OCs, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, and combination estrogen-progesterone hormone replacement therapy all reduce the risk of endometrial cancer through the antiproliferative effect of progesterone acting on the endometrium.

Autosomal Dominant Inheritance of Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Predisposition

Autosomal dominant inheritance of breast and gynecologic cancers is characterized by transmission of cancer predisposition from generation to generation, through either the mother’s or the father’s side of the family, with the following characteristics:

Inheritance risk of 50%. When a parent carries an autosomal dominant genetic predisposition, each child has a 50:50 chance of inheriting the predisposition. Although the risk of inheriting the predisposition is 50%, not everyone with the predisposition will develop cancer because of incomplete penetrance and/or gender-restricted or gender-related expression.

Both males and females can inherit and transmit an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition. A male who inherits a cancer predisposition can still pass the altered gene on to his sons and daughters.

Breast and ovarian cancer are components of several autosomal dominant cancer syndromes. The syndromes most strongly associated with both cancers are the syndromes associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Breast cancer is also a common feature of Li-Fraumeni syndrome due to TP53 pathogenic variants and of Cowden syndrome due to PTEN pathogenic variants.

Other genetic syndromes that may include breast cancer as an associated feature include heterozygous carriers of the ataxia telangiectasia gene and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Ovarian cancer has also been associated with Lynch syndrome, basal cell nevus (Gorlin) syndrome, and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1.

Lynch syndrome is mainly associated with colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer, although several studies have demonstrated that patients with Lynch syndrome are also at risk of developing transitional cell carcinoma of the ureters and renal pelvis; cancers of the stomach, small intestine, liver and biliary tract, brain, breast, prostate, and adrenal cortex; and sebaceous skin tumors (Muir-Torre syndrome).

Germline pathogenic variants in the genes responsible for these autosomal dominant cancer syndromes produce different clinical phenotypes of characteristic malignancies and, in some instances, associated nonmalignant abnormalities.

The family characteristics that suggest hereditary cancer predisposition include the following:

Multiple cancers within a family.

Cancers typically occur at an earlier age than in sporadic cases (defined as cases not associated with genetic risk).

Two or more primary cancers in a single individual. These could be multiple primary cancers of the same type (e.g., bilateral breast cancer) or primary cancer of different types (e.g., breast cancer and ovarian cancer in the same individual or endometrial and colon cancer in the same individual).

Cases of male breast cancer. The inheritance risk for autosomal dominant genetic conditions is 50% for both males and females, but the differing penetrance of the genes may result in some unaffected individuals in the family.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 depict some of the classic inheritance features of a BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant, respectively. Figure 3 depicts a classic family with Lynch syndrome. (Refer to the Standard Pedigree Nomenclature figure in the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for definitions of the standard symbols used in these pedigrees.)

Figure 1. BRCA1 pedigree. This pedigree shows some of the classic features of a family with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant across three generations, including affected family members with breast cancer or ovarian cancer and a young age at onset. BRCA1 families may exhibit some or all of these features. As an autosomal dominant syndrome, a BRCA1 pathogenic variant can be transmitted through maternal or paternal lineages, as depicted in the figure.

Figure 2. BRCA2 pedigree. This pedigree shows some of the classic features of a family with a BRCA2 pathogenic variant across three generations, including affected family members with breast (including male breast cancer), ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancers and a relatively young age at onset. BRCA2 families may exhibit some or all of these features. As an autosomal dominant syndrome, a BRCA2 pathogenic variant can be transmitted through maternal or paternal lineages, as depicted in the figure.

Figure 3. Lynch syndrome pedigree. This pedigree shows some of the classic features of a family with Lynch syndrome, including affected family members with colon cancer or endometrial cancer, a young age at onset in some individuals, and incomplete penetrance. Lynch syndrome families may exhibit some or all of these features. Lynch syndrome families may also include individuals with other gastrointestinal, gynecologic, and genitourinary cancers, or other extracolonic cancers. As an autosomal dominant syndrome, Lynch syndrome can be transmitted through maternal or paternal lineages, as depicted in the figure. Because the cancer risk is not 100%, individuals who have Lynch syndrome may not develop cancer, such as the mother of the female with colon cancer diagnosed at age 37 years in this pedigree (called incomplete penetrance).

There are no pathognomonic features distinguishing breast and ovarian cancers occurring in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants from those occurring in noncarriers. Breast cancers occurring in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants are more likely to be ER-negative, progesterone receptor–negative, HER2/neu receptor–negative (i.e., triple-negative breast cancers [TNBC]), and have a basal phenotype. BRCA1-associated ovarian cancers are more likely to be high-grade and of serous histopathology. (Refer to the Pathology of breast cancer and Pathology of ovarian cancer sections of this summary for more information.)

Some pathologic features distinguish carriers of Lynch syndrome–associated pathogenic variants from noncarriers. The hallmark feature of endometrial cancers occurring in Lynch syndrome is mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies, including the presence of microsatellite instability (MSI), and the absence of specific MMR proteins. In addition to these molecular changes, there are also histologic changes including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, peritumoral lymphocytes, undifferentiated tumor histology, lower uterine segment origin, and synchronous tumors.

Considerations in Risk Assessment and in Identifying a Family History of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk

The accuracy and completeness of family histories must be taken into account when they are used to assess risk. A reported family history may be erroneous, or a person may be unaware of relatives affected with cancer. In addition, small family sizes and premature deaths may limit the information obtained from a family history. Breast or ovarian cancer on the paternal side of the family usually involves more distant relatives than does breast or ovarian cancer on the maternal side, so information may be more difficult to obtain. When self-reported information is compared with independently verified cases, the sensitivity of a history of breast cancer is relatively high, at 83% to 97%, but lower for ovarian cancer, at 60%.

Additional limitations of relying on family histories include adoption; families with a small number of women; limited access to family history information; and incidental removal of the uterus, ovaries, and/or fallopian tubes for noncancer indications. Family histories will evolve, therefore it is important to update family histories from both parents over time. (Refer to the Accuracy of the family history section in the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for more information.)

Models for Prediction of Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Risk

Models to predict an individual’s lifetime risk of developing breast and/or gynecologic cancer are available.

In addition, models exist to predict an individual’s likelihood of having a pathogenic variant in BRCA1, BRCA2, or one of the MMR genes associated with Lynch syndrome. (Refer to the Models for prediction of the likelihood of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant section of this summary for more information about some of these models.) Not all models can be appropriately applied to all patients. Each model is appropriate only when the patient’s characteristics and family history are similar to those of the study population on which the model was based. Different models may provide widely varying risk estimates for the same clinical scenario, and the validation of these estimates has not been performed for many models.

Breast cancer risk assessment models

In general, breast cancer risk assessment models are designed for two types of populations: 1) women without a pathogenic variant or strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer; and 2) women at higher risk because of a personal or family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

Models designed for women of the first type (e.g., the Gail model, which is the basis for the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool [BCRAT])

, and the Colditz and Rosner model

) require only limited information about family history (e.g., number of FDRs with breast cancer). Models designed for women at higher risk require more detailed information about personal and family cancer history of breast and ovarian cancers, including ages at onset of cancer and/or carrier status of specific breast cancer-susceptibility alleles. The genetic factors used by the latter models differ, with some assuming one risk locus (e.g., the Claus model

), others assuming two loci (e.g., the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study [IBIS] model

and the BRCAPRO model

), and still others assuming an additional polygenic component in addition to multiple loci (e.g., the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm [BOADICEA] model

). The models also differ in whether they include information about nongenetic risk factors. Three models (Gail/BCRAT, Pfeiffer,

and IBIS) include nongenetic risk factors but differ in the risk factors they include (e.g., the Pfeiffer model includes alcohol consumption, whereas the Gail/BCRAT does not). These models have limited ability to discriminate between individuals who are affected and those who are unaffected with cancer; a model with high discrimination would be close to 1, and a model with little discrimination would be close to 0.5; the discrimination of the models currently ranges between 0.56 and 0.63).

The existing models generally are more accurate in prospective studies that have assessed how well they predict future cancers.

An analysis comparing the 10-year performance of the BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, BCRAT, and IBIS models demonstrated superiority of the models with more detailed pedigree inclusion—specifically, BOADICEA and IBIS.

In the United States, BRCAPRO, the Claus model,

and the Gail/BCRAT

are widely used in clinical counseling. Risk estimates derived from the models differ for an individual patient. Several other models that include more detailed family history information are also in use and are discussed below.

Additional considerations for clinical use of breast cancer risk assessment models

The Gail model is the basis for the BCRAT, a computer program available from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) by calling the Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237). This version of the Gail model estimates only the risk of invasive breast cancer. The Gail/BCRAT model has been found to be reasonably accurate at predicting breast cancer risk in large groups of white women who undergo annual screening mammography; however, reliability varies depending on the cohort studied.

Risk can be overestimated in the following populations:

Women who do not adhere to screening recommendations.

Women in the highest-risk strata.

The Gail/BCRAT model is valid for women aged 35 years and older. The model was primarily developed for white women.

Extensions of the Gail model for African American women have been subsequently developed to calibrate risk estimates using data from more than 1,600 African American women with invasive breast cancer and more than 1,600 controls.

Additionally, extensions of the Gail model have incorporated high-risk single nucleotide polymorphisms and pathogenic variants; however, no software exists to calculate risk in these extended models.

Other risk assessment models incorporating breast density have been developed but are not ready for clinical use.

Generally, the Gail/BCRAT model should not be the sole model used for families with one or more of the following characteristics:

Multiple affected individuals with breast cancer or ovarian cancer (especially when one or more breast cancers are diagnosed before age 50 y).

A woman with both breast and ovarian cancer.

Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry with at least one case of breast or ovarian cancer (as these families are more likely to have a hereditary cancer susceptibility syndrome).

Commonly used models that incorporate family history include the IBIS, BOADICEA, and BRCAPRO models. The IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model incorporates both genetic and nongenetic factors.

A three-generation pedigree is used to estimate the likelihood that an individual carries either a BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant or a hypothetical low-penetrance gene. In addition, the model incorporates personal risk factors such as parity, body mass index (BMI); height; and age at menarche, first live birth, menopause, and HRT use. Both genetic and nongenetic factors are combined to develop a risk estimate. The BOADICEA model examines family history to estimate breast cancer risk and also incorporates both BRCA1/BRCA2 and non-BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic risk factors.

The most important difference between BOADICEA and the other models using information on BRCA1/BRCA2 is that BOADICEA assumes an additional polygenic component in addition to multiple loci,

which is more in line with what is known about the underlying genetics of breast cancer. The BOADICEA model has also been expanded to include additional pathogenic variants, including CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2.

However, the discrimination and calibration for these models differ significantly when compared in independent samples;

the IBIS and BOADICEA models are more comparable when estimating risk over a shorter fixed time horizon (e.g., 10 years),

than when estimating remaining lifetime risk. As all risk assessment models for cancers are typically validated over a shorter time horizon (e.g., 5 or 10 years), fixed time horizon estimates rather than remaining lifetime risk may be more accurate and useful measures to convey in a clinical setting.

In addition, readily available models that provide information about an individual woman’s risk in relation to the population-level risk depending on her risk factors may be useful in a clinical setting (e.g., Your Disease Risk). Although this tool was developed using information about average-risk women and does not calculate absolute risk estimates, it still may be useful when counseling women about prevention. Risk assessment models are being developed and validated in large cohorts to integrate genetic and nongenetic data, breast density, and other biomarkers.

Ovarian cancer risk assessment models

Two risk prediction models have been developed for ovarian cancer.

The Rosner model

included age at menopause, age at menarche, oral contraception use, and tubal ligation; the concordance statistic was 0.60 (0.57–0.62). The Pfeiffer model

included oral contraceptive use, menopausal hormone therapy use, and family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer, with a similar discriminatory power of 0.59 (0.56–0.62). Although both models were well calibrated, their modest discriminatory power limited their screening potential.

Endometrial cancer risk assessment models

The Pfeiffer model has been used to predict endometrial cancer risk in the general population.

For endometrial cancer, the relative risk model included BMI, menopausal hormone therapy use, menopausal status, age at menopause, smoking status, and OC use. The discriminatory power of the model was 0.68 (0.66–0.70); it overestimated observed endometrial cancers in most subgroups but underestimated disease in women with the highest BMI category, in premenopausal women, and in women taking menopausal hormone therapy for 10 years or more.

In contrast, MMRpredict, PREMM5 (PREdiction Model for gene Mutations), and MMRpro are three quantitative predictive models used to identify individuals who may potentially have Lynch syndrome.

MMRpredict incorporates only colorectal cancer patients but does include MSI and immunohistochemistry (IHC) tumor testing results. PREMM5 is an update of PREMM(1,2,6) and includes each of the five genes associated with Lynch syndrome, including PMS2 and EPCAM. It accounts for other Lynch syndrome–associated tumors but does not include tumor testing results.

MMRpro incorporates tumor testing and germline testing results, but is more time intensive because it includes affected and unaffected individuals in the risk-quantification process. All three predictive models are comparable to the traditional Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria in identifying individuals with colorectal cancer who carry MMR gene pathogenic variants.

However, because these models were developed and validated in colorectal cancer patients, the discriminative abilities of these models to identify Lynch syndrome are lower among individuals with endometrial cancer than among those with colon cancer.

In fact, the sensitivity and specificity of MSI and IHC in identifying carriers of pathogenic variants are considerably higher than the prediction models and support the use of molecular tumor testing to screen for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer.

Table 1 summarizes salient aspects of breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment models that are commonly used in the clinical setting. These models differ by the extent of family history included, whether nongenetic risk factors are included, and whether carrier status and polygenic risk are included (inputs to the models). The models also differ in the type of risk estimates that are generated (outputs of the models). These factors may be relevant in choosing the model that best applies to a particular individual.

Table 1. Summary of Prediction Models Used to Calculate Age-Specific Absolute Risks of Breast and Gynecologic Cancers

Considerations When Conducting Genetic Testing

Indications for genetic testing

Model	Family History (input)	Pathogenic Variants (input)	Risk Factors (input)	Risk Estimate Generated (output)
Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Models
Models for Average-Risk Women
Gail/BCRAT	First-degree relatives (breast cancer)	No	Yes	Breast cancer
Pfeiffer (breast)	First-degree relatives (breast, ovarian cancers)	No	Yes	Breast cancer
Colditz and Rosner	None	No	Yes	Breast cancer
Models for High-Risk Women
Claus	Multigenerational (breast cancer)	No	No	Breast cancer
BRCAPRO	Multigenerational (breast, ovarian cancers)	BRCA1/BRCA2	No	Breast cancer; % risk of carrying BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant
IBIS	Multigenerational (ovarian cancer)	BRCA1/BRCA2	Yes	Breast cancer; % risk of carrying BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant
BOADICEA	Multigenerational (pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancers)	BRCA1/BRCA2	No	Breast and ovarian cancer; % risk of carrying BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant
Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment Models
Models for Average-Risk Women
Rosner	None	No	Yes	Ovarian cancer
Pfeiffer (ovarian)	First-degree relatives (breast, ovarian cancers)	No	Yes	Breast cancer
Models for High-Risk Womena
BOADICEA	Multigenerational (pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancers)	BRCA1/BRCA2	No	Breast and ovarian cancer; % risk of carrying BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant
Endometrial Cancer Risk Assessment Models
Models for Average-Risk Women
Pfeiffer (endometrial)	None	No	Yes	Endometrial cancer
PREMM5	Multigenerational (colon, endometrial and other Lynch syndrome–associated cancers and polyps)	No	No	% risk of carrying MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 pathogenic variant
MMRpro	Multigenerational (colon, endometrial cancers)	No	No	% risk of carrying MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 pathogenic variant
MMRpredict	Multigenerational (colon, endometrial cancers)	No	No	% risk of carrying MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 pathogenic variant
BCRAT = Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool; BOADICEA = Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm; IBIS = International Breast Cancer Intervention Study; PREMM = PREdiction Model for gene Mutations.
aHigh risk is defined as those with a personal or family history of the designated cancer type.
bTakes into account polygenes as an underlying assumption of the model.

Models for Average-Risk Women

Models for Average-Risk Women

Models for High-Risk Womena

Models for Average-Risk Women

Considerations When Conducting Genetic Testing

Indications for genetic testing

Several professional organizations and expert panels— including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Human Genetics, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists — have developed clinical criteria and practice guidelines that can be helpful to health care providers in identifying individuals who may have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

In 2019, the American Society of Breast Surgeons published a recommendation to make genetic testing for “BRCA1/BRCA2, and PALB2, with other genes as appropriate for the clinical scenario and family history” available to all breast cancer patients.

This recommendation was based on a study that suggested similar pathogenic variant rates identified through an extended multigene panel in patients with breast cancer who did or did not meet the NCCN guidelines for genetic testing.

This study had important methodologic challenges that need to be considered, including exclusion of participants previously tested, uncertain accuracy of the reported risk criteria for study participants, inclusion of genes with uncertain management guidelines, and difference in the specific genes in which pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified across the two groups. For example, there was a statistically significant difference between participants who met and who did not meet NCCN criteria in the detection of BRCA1/BRCA2 variants. Other studies have also found that the NCCN criteria have good sensitivity when predicting BRCA1/BRCA2 variants; however, less is known about many other genes. For example, one study showed that the NCCN criteria were able to detect 88.9% of the BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

and others have found that, if more than one NCCN criterion is met, then the positive predictive value does pass the 10% threshold (e.g., 12% for more than two NCCN criteria).

As the cost of genetic testing continues to decrease, the indications for testing, including the cost-benefit impact on screening, prevention, and treatment, may expand once unbiased evidence becomes available.

Benefits of offering genetic testing at the time of cancer diagnosis

At the time of a new cancer diagnosis, genetic testing for inherited cancer predisposition may guide patient care including decisions about surgery, chemotherapy and other biologics, and radiation treatment.

Among high-risk patients, the option of genetic testing is an important part of the shared decision-making process regarding cancer treatments at the time of diagnosis. Tools are available to facilitate decision making about genetic testing in this context.

Breast cancer diagnosis

Benefits of offering genetic testing at the time of breast cancer diagnosis include, but are not limited to, the following:

Surgery: The identification of inherited susceptibility to breast cancer may influence surgical treatment decisions. As an example, the high risk of a second primary breast cancer among BRCA pathogenic variant carriers, particularly those diagnosed at an early age, may influence their decision to choose a bilateral mastectomy (versus a lumpectomy or unilateral/subtotal mastectomy) for surgical treatment of their breast cancer.

(Refer to the Contralateral breast cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information about the risk of a second primary breast cancer.) Discussion of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is indicated,

and referral to a gynecologic provider may be considered.

Chemotherapy and other biologics: Medical treatments may be guided by the identification of a pathogenic variant in an inherited cancer predisposing gene. As an example, among BRCA pathogenic variant carriers, breast cancer treatment may include the use of platinum-based agents.

Furthermore, novel agents such as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors may be used in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Radiation therapy: Decisions about the use of radiation treatment may be guided by the presence of a pathogenic variant in an inherited breast cancer susceptibility gene. In particular, the poorer wound healing in irradiated breasts is an important consideration for those who may consider risk-reducing mastectomy with reconstruction. As an example, individuals with a pathogenic variant in TP53 may experience higher risks from radiation, including increased risks for subsequent new cancers.

Thus, identification of TP53 carriers in the context of an active breast cancer diagnosis may influence radiation treatment decisions and reconstruction options.

Ovarian cancer diagnosis

Benefits of offering genetic testing at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis include, but are not limited to, the following:

Surgery: In most cases, the decision for ovarian cancer surgery is made on the basis of an adnexal mass or abdominal symptoms. When possible, considering the likelihood of a heritable genetic variant at the time of diagnosis may add value to surgical decision-making. The identification of inherited susceptibility to ovarian/fallopian tube cancer may influence surgical treatment decisions. For a questionable adnexal mass in a younger woman who is at risk of carrying a pathogenic variant of a highly penetrant ovarian cancer gene, knowledge of this information may help guide a decision for risk-reducing or therapeutic surgery.

For women who may be considering fertility preservation surgery, genetic knowledge may motivate consideration of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and in the case of carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, a more detailed discussion regarding aggressive uterine cancer risk.

Chemotherapy and other biologics: First-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer still relies on a backbone of platinum and taxane chemotherapy. Current treatment options for optimally resected stage III ovarian carcinoma include intravenous (IV) chemotherapy, dose-dense IV chemotherapy, and a combination of IV paclitaxel plus intraperitoneal (IP) cisplatin, followed by IP paclitaxel 1 week later. Carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants are considered more platinum sensitive, with longer progression-free survival times compared with BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild-type patients,

so it is unclear whether a particular treatment strategy is driven more by antiangiogenesis effects, peritoneal dose intensity, or platinum dose intensity. The advent of PARP as a biologic target (in combination with chemotherapy or as maintenance) may also increase the armory of first-line treatment of ovarian cancer, pending the results of clinical trials that have completed accrual. (Refer to the Systemic therapy in ovarian cancer treatment section in the Ovarian cancer section of this summary for more information about PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer treatment.)

Endometrial cancer diagnosis

Benefits of offering genetic testing at the time of endometrial cancer diagnosis include, but are not limited to, the following:

Surgery: The most common treatment for a newly diagnosed endometrial cancer includes hysterectomy with removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes, as well as assessment of lymph nodes.

An exception to this practice might apply to a younger woman who wishes to retain fertility or retain her adnexa. Immunohistochemistry of endometrial sampling may allow for an assessment of the likelihood of a heritable genetic variant at the time of diagnosis, which may add value to the surgical decision-making process. For a young woman who is found to have Lynch syndrome, knowledge of this information may help guide a decision for hormonal management of endometrial cancer to allow future childbearing, or salpingo-oophorectomy if her risk of ovarian cancer is deemed high enough on the basis of a specific genetic variant. For a young woman who is found to carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1/BRCA2, or one of the other homologous recombination deficiencies increasing ovarian cancer risk, she may wish to decide between salpingo-oophorectomy or, at least, salpingectomy.

Chemotherapy and other biologics: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are now approved for use in endometrial cancers that have MSI or MMR deficiency.

While MSI and MMR status can be assessed at either the time of diagnosis or recurrent disease, it may be beneficial to perform tumor testing at diagnosis with the primary pathology processing, usually at the time of hysterectomy.

Multigene (panel) testing

Since the availability of next-generation sequencing and the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that human genes cannot be patented, several clinical laboratories now offer genetic testing through multigene panels at a cost comparable to that of single-gene testing. Even testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is a limited panel test of two genes. Approximately 25% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers are caused by a heritable genetic condition. Of these, about one-quarter (6% of all ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancers) are caused by genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2, including many genes associated with the Fanconi anemia pathway or otherwise involved with homologous recombination.

In a population of ovarian cancer patients who test negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, multigene panel testing can reveal actionable pathogenic variants.

In general, multigene panel testing increases the yield of non-BRCA pathogenic variants across a variety of populations.

In an unselected population of breast cancer patients, the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants was 6.1%, while the prevalence of pathogenic variants in other breast/ovarian cancer–predisposing genes was 4.6%.

In an unselected population of endometrial cancer patients, the prevalence of Lynch syndrome pathogenic variants (MLH1, MSH2, EPCAM-MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) was 5.8%; the prevalence of pathogenic variants in other actionable genes was 3.4%.

Similarly, in a study of 35,409 women with breast cancer tested with the Myriad 25-gene panel, a pathogenic variant was found in 9.3% of women.

Among that 9.3%, 48.5% of the women carried a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The majority of other breast cancer genes with pathogenic variants identified included CHEK2 (11.7%), ATM (9.7%), and PALB2 (9.3%). The prevalence of pathogenic variants in the other breast cancer genes on the panel ranged from 0.05% to 0.31%. Pathogenic variants in Lynch syndrome genes accounted for 7.0% of variants identified; 3.7% were found in other genes included in the panel. The rate of pathogenic variants was higher in women with TNBC diagnosed before age 40 years. A similar trend of identifying pathogenic variants in non-BRCA susceptibility genes in male breast cancer patients has also been described.

In two studies of women who had previously tested negative for BRCA1/BRCA2, reflex testing with a multigene panel identified pathogenic variants in additional genes among 8% to 11% of cases.

In a study of 77,085 patients with breast cancer and 6,001 patients with ovarian cancer, 24.1% and 30.9% had genetic testing, respectively. Of those tested, pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 7.8% of patients with breast cancer and 14.5% of patients with ovarian cancer. Prevalent non-BRCA pathogenic variants identified in patients with breast cancer included CHEK2 (1.6%), PALB2 (1.0%), ATM (0.7%), and NBN (0.4%). In patients with ovarian cancer, non-BRCA pathogenic variants included CHEK2 (1.4%), BRIP1 (0.9%), MSH2 (0.8%), and ATM (0.6%).

Women younger than 60 years diagnosed with TNBC are currently recommended to undergo BRCA1/BRCA2 testing to guide treatment decisions.

A large study utilizing multigene (panel) testing comprising two separate cohorts reported that, in addition to BRCA1/BRCA2 genes, six other breast cancer susceptibility genes were also related to a higher risk of TNBC. Specifically, pathogenic variants in BARD1, PALB2, and RAD51D, in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2, were each associated with more than a fivefold increase in breast cancer.

Pathogenic variants in three other genes —BRIP1, RAD51C, and TP53— were each associated with an increased TNBC risk of more than twofold. Pathogenic variants in these eight genes were reported in 12% of the TNBC cases (8.3% BRCA1/BRCA2, 3.7% non-BRCA1/BRCA2). The study was conducted in a clinical testing cohort of 140,449 individuals (8,753 TNBC cases) who received genetic testing using a 21-gene panel (sample A). In addition, a second sample (sample B) examined gene frequency rates in a pooled consortium of 2,143 individuals using a 17-gene panel. The overall frequency of pathogenic variants in the 21 genes examined in sample A was 14.4% (8.4% BRCA1/BRCA2, 6.0% non-BRCA1/BRCA2). The two samples had very consistent findings with respect to the risk estimates despite differences in age, race/ethnicity, and family history of cancer with sample A being younger, more racially and ethnically diverse, and more likely to have a family history of cancer. The pathogenic variant frequency detection in these 21 genes was also similar for whites (14% overall, 7.8% BRCA1/BRCA2, 6.2% non-BRCA1/BRCA2) and African Americans (14.6% overall, 9.0% BRCA1/BRCA2, 5.6% non-BRCA1/BRCA2) supporting that the higher rates of TNBC in African Americans versus whites is driven by environmental factors.

There are caveats of multigene testing. Genes identified as part of multigene panel testing can be associated with varied breast cancer risk or confer no known risk.

There is also the possibility of finding a variant of uncertain significance. Even within a given gene, there may be differential risks on the basis of specific pathogenic variants.

Many centers now offer a multigene panel test instead of just BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing if there is a concerning family history of syndromes other than hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or more importantly, to gain as much genetic information as possible with one test, particularly if there may be insurance limitations.

(Refer to the Multigene [panel] testing section in the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for more information about multigene testing, including genetic education and counseling considerations and research examining the use of multigene testing.)

ReferenceSection

American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures 2020. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2020. Available online. Last accessed January 17, 2020.

Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N, et al.: The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med 356 (16): 1670-4, 2007.

Feuer EJ, Wun LM, Boring CC, et al.: The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85 (11): 892-7, 1993.

Yang Q, Khoury MJ, Rodriguez C, et al.: Family history score as a predictor of breast cancer mortality: prospective data from the Cancer Prevention Study II, United States, 1982-1991. Am J Epidemiol 147 (7): 652-9, 1998.

Colditz GA, Willett WC, Hunter DJ, et al.: Family history, age, and risk of breast cancer. Prospective data from the Nurses' Health Study. JAMA 270 (3): 338-43, 1993.

Slattery ML, Kerber RA: A comprehensive evaluation of family history and breast cancer risk. The Utah Population Database. JAMA 270 (13): 1563-8, 1993.

Johnson N, Lancaster T, Fuller A, et al.: The prevalence of a family history of cancer in general practice. Fam Pract 12 (3): 287-9, 1995.

Pharoah PD, Day NE, Duffy S, et al.: Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 71 (5): 800-9, 1997.

Bevier M, Sundquist K, Hemminki K: Risk of breast cancer in families of multiple affected women and men. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132 (2): 723-8, 2012.

Kharazmi E, Chen T, Narod S, et al.: Effect of multiplicity, laterality, and age at onset of breast cancer on familial risk of breast cancer: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144 (1): 185-92, 2014.

Reiner AS, Sisti J, John EM, et al.: Breast Cancer Family History and Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in Young Women: An Update From the Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Study. J Clin Oncol 36 (15): 1513-1520, 2018.

Mucci LA, Hjelmborg JB, Harris JR, et al.: Familial Risk and Heritability of Cancer Among Twins in Nordic Countries. JAMA 315 (1): 68-76, 2016.

Johannsson O, Loman N, Borg A, et al.: Pregnancy-associated breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers. Lancet 352 (9137): 1359-60, 1998.

Jernström H, Lerman C, Ghadirian P, et al.: Pregnancy and risk of early breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Lancet 354 (9193): 1846-50, 1999.

Friebel TM, Domchek SM, Rebbeck TR: Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 106 (6): dju091, 2014.

Jernström H, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, et al.: Breast-feeding and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (14): 1094-8, 2004.

Valentini A, Lubinski J, Byrski T, et al.: The impact of pregnancy on breast cancer survival in women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 142 (1): 177-85, 2013.

Milne RL, Osorio A, Ramón y Cajal T, et al.: Parity and the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119 (1): 221-32, 2010.

Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 347 (9017): 1713-27, 1996.

Iodice S, Barile M, Rotmensz N, et al.: Oral contraceptive use and breast or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 46 (12): 2275-84, 2010.

Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 350 (9084): 1047-59, 1997.

Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288 (3): 321-33, 2002.

Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, et al.: Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 289 (24): 3243-53, 2003.

Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators: Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 362 (9382): 419-27, 2003.

Anderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, et al.: Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291 (14): 1701-12, 2004.

Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA: Exogenous hormone use and the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: results from The Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control 6 (5): 416-24, 1995.

Steinberg KK, Thacker SB, Smith SJ, et al.: A meta-analysis of the effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer. JAMA 265 (15): 1985-90, 1991.

Sellers TA, Mink PJ, Cerhan JR, et al.: The role of hormone replacement therapy in the risk for breast cancer and total mortality in women with a family history of breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 127 (11): 973-80, 1997.

Stanford JL, Weiss NS, Voigt LF, et al.: Combined estrogen and progestin hormone replacement therapy in relation to risk of breast cancer in middle-aged women. JAMA 274 (2): 137-42, 1995.

Colditz GA, Egan KM, Stampfer MJ: Hormone replacement therapy and risk of breast cancer: results from epidemiologic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 168 (5): 1473-80, 1993.

Gorsky RD, Koplan JP, Peterson HB, et al.: Relative risks and benefits of long-term estrogen replacement therapy: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 83 (2): 161-6, 1994.

Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Wagner T, et al.: Effect of short-term hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 23 (31): 7804-10, 2005.

Helzlsouer KJ, Harris EL, Parshad R, et al.: Familial clustering of breast cancer: possible interaction between DNA repair proficiency and radiation exposure in the development of breast cancer. Int J Cancer 64 (1): 14-7, 1995.

Helzlsouer KJ, Harris EL, Parshad R, et al.: DNA repair proficiency: potential susceptiblity factor for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (11): 754-5, 1996.

Abbott DW, Thompson ME, Robinson-Benion C, et al.: BRCA1 expression restores radiation resistance in BRCA1-defective cancer cells through enhancement of transcription-coupled DNA repair. J Biol Chem 274 (26): 18808-12, 1999.

Abbott DW, Freeman ML, Holt JT: Double-strand break repair deficiency and radiation sensitivity in BRCA2 mutant cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (13): 978-85, 1998.

Easton DF: Cancer risks in A-T heterozygotes. Int J Radiat Biol 66 (6 Suppl): S177-82, 1994.

Kleihues P, Schäuble B, zur Hausen A, et al.: Tumors associated with p53 germline mutations: a synopsis of 91 families. Am J Pathol 150 (1): 1-13, 1997.

Pierce LJ, Strawderman M, Narod SA, et al.: Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving treatment in women with breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutations. J Clin Oncol 18 (19): 3360-9, 2000.

Drooger J, Akdeniz D, Pignol JP, et al.: Adjuvant radiotherapy for primary breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and risk of contralateral breast cancer with special attention to patients irradiated at younger age. Breast Cancer Res Treat 154 (1): 171-80, 2015.

Narod SA, Lubinski J, Ghadirian P, et al.: Screening mammography and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol 7 (5): 402-6, 2006.

Andrieu N, Easton DF, Chang-Claude J, et al.: Effect of chest X-rays on the risk of breast cancer among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the international BRCA1/2 carrier cohort study: a report from the EMBRACE, GENEPSO, GEO-HEBON, and IBCCS Collaborators' Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (21): 3361-6, 2006.

Goldfrank D, Chuai S, Bernstein JL, et al.: Effect of mammography on breast cancer risk in women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (11): 2311-3, 2006.

Gronwald J, Pijpe A, Byrski T, et al.: Early radiation exposures and BRCA1-associated breast cancer in young women from Poland. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112 (3): 581-4, 2008.

Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF, et al.: Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). BMJ 345: e5660, 2012.

Giannakeas V, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, et al.: Mammography screening and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147 (1): 113-8, 2014.

Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS, et al.: Alcohol and breast cancer in women: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. JAMA 279 (7): 535-40, 1998.

Hamajima N, Hirose K, Tajima K, et al.: Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer--collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 women without the disease. Br J Cancer 87 (11): 1234-45, 2002.

McGuire V, John EM, Felberg A, et al.: No increased risk of breast cancer associated with alcohol consumption among carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations ages <50 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (8): 1565-7, 2006.

Dennis J, Ghadirian P, Little J, et al.: Alcohol consumption and the risk of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast 19 (6): 479-83, 2010.

Cybulski C, Lubinski J, Huzarski T, et al.: Prospective evaluation of alcohol consumption and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151 (2): 435-41, 2015.

McTiernan A: Behavioral risk factors in breast cancer: can risk be modified? Oncologist 8 (4): 326-34, 2003.

King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB, et al.: Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302 (5645): 643-6, 2003.

Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, et al.: Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (17): 1215-26, 2006.

Dupont WD, Page DL, Parl FF, et al.: Long-term risk of breast cancer in women with fibroadenoma. N Engl J Med 331 (1): 10-5, 1994.

Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al.: Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 87 (9): 670-5, 1995.

Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al.: Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 87 (21): 1622-9, 1995.

Pankow JS, Vachon CM, Kuni CC, et al.: Genetic analysis of mammographic breast density in adult women: evidence of a gene effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 89 (8): 549-56, 1997.

Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Martin LJ, et al.: Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer among subjects with a family history of this disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (16): 1404-8, 1999.

Vachon CM, King RA, Atwood LD, et al.: Preliminary sibpair linkage analysis of percent mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (20): 1778-9, 1999.

Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, Rebbeck TR, et al.: Effect of smoking on breast cancer in carriers of mutant BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (10): 761-6, 1998.

Ghadirian P, Lubinski J, Lynch H, et al.: Smoking and the risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA mutations. Int J Cancer 110 (3): 413-6, 2004.

Amos CI, Struewing JP: Genetic epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer 71 (2 Suppl): 566-72, 1993.

Stratton JF, Pharoah P, Smith SK, et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis of family history and risk of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105 (5): 493-9, 1998.

Whittemore AS, Harris R, Itnyre J: Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol 136 (10): 1184-203, 1992.

Brinton LA, Lamb EJ, Moghissi KS, et al.: Ovarian cancer risk after the use of ovulation-stimulating drugs. Obstet Gynecol 103 (6): 1194-203, 2004.

Gronwald J, Byrski T, Huzarski T, et al.: Influence of selected lifestyle factors on breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers from Poland. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95 (2): 105-9, 2006.

McLaughlin JR, Risch HA, Lubinski J, et al.: Reproductive risk factors for ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol 8 (1): 26-34, 2007.

Antoniou AC, Rookus M, Andrieu N, et al.: Reproductive and hormonal factors, and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18 (2): 601-10, 2009.

Narod SA, Sun P, Ghadirian P, et al.: Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet 357 (9267): 1467-70, 2001.

Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, et al.: Factors influencing ovulation and the risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 137 (5): 1136-46, 2015.

Rodriguez C, Patel AV, Calle EE, et al.: Estrogen replacement therapy and ovarian cancer mortality in a large prospective study of US women. JAMA 285 (11): 1460-5, 2001.

Riman T, Dickman PW, Nilsson S, et al.: Hormone replacement therapy and the risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer in Swedish women. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (7): 497-504, 2002.

Lacey JV, Mink PJ, Lubin JH, et al.: Menopausal hormone replacement therapy and risk of ovarian cancer. JAMA 288 (3): 334-41, 2002.

Anderson GL, Judd HL, Kaunitz AM, et al.: Effects of estrogen plus progestin on gynecologic cancers and associated diagnostic procedures: the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. JAMA 290 (13): 1739-48, 2003.

Tortolero-Luna G, Mitchell MF: The epidemiology of ovarian cancer. J Cell Biochem Suppl 23: 200-7, 1995.

Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, et al.: Tubal ligation, hysterectomy, and risk of ovarian cancer. A prospective study. JAMA 270 (23): 2813-8, 1993.

Rutter JL, Wacholder S, Chetrit A, et al.: Gynecologic surgeries and risk of ovarian cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi founder mutations: an Israeli population-based case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (14): 1072-8, 2003.

Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 346 (21): 1609-15, 2002.

Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, et al.: Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346 (21): 1616-22, 2002.

Kotsopoulos J, Huzarski T, Gronwald J, et al.: Bilateral Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 109 (1): , 2017.

John EM, Whittemore AS, Harris R, et al.: Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of seven U.S. case-control studies. Epithelial ovarian cancer in black women. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 85 (2): 142-7, 1993.

Narod SA, Risch H, Moslehi R, et al.: Oral contraceptives and the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group. N Engl J Med 339 (7): 424-8, 1998.

Whittemore AS, Balise RR, Pharoah PD, et al.: Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk among carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Br J Cancer 91 (11): 1911-5, 2004.

McGuire V, Felberg A, Mills M, et al.: Relation of contraceptive and reproductive history to ovarian cancer risk in carriers and noncarriers of BRCA1 gene mutations. Am J Epidemiol 160 (7): 613-8, 2004.

Modan B, Hartge P, Hirsh-Yechezkel G, et al.: Parity, oral contraceptives, and the risk of ovarian cancer among carriers and noncarriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 345 (4): 235-40, 2001.

Soliman PT, Oh JC, Schmeler KM, et al.: Risk factors for young premenopausal women with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 105 (3): 575-80, 2005.

Vasen HF, Stormorken A, Menko FH, et al.: MSH2 mutation carriers are at higher risk of cancer than MLH1 mutation carriers: a study of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. J Clin Oncol 19 (20): 4074-80, 2001.

Daniels MS: Genetic testing by cancer site: uterus. Cancer J 18 (4): 338-42, 2012 Jul-Aug.

Dunlop MG, Farrington SM, Nicholl I, et al.: Population carrier frequency of hMSH2 and hMLH1 mutations. Br J Cancer 83 (12): 1643-5, 2000.

de la Chapelle A: The incidence of Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 4 (3): 233-7, 2005.

Ring KL, Bruegl AS, Allen BA, et al.: Germline multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing in an unselected endometrial cancer cohort. Mod Pathol 29 (11): 1381-1389, 2016.

Shu CA, Pike MC, Jotwani AR, et al.: Uterine Cancer After Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy Without Hysterectomy in Women With BRCA Mutations. JAMA Oncol 2 (11): 1434-1440, 2016.

McPherson CP, Sellers TA, Potter JD, et al.: Reproductive factors and risk of endometrial cancer. The Iowa Women's Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 143 (12): 1195-202, 1996.

Dossus L, Allen N, Kaaks R, et al.: Reproductive risk factors and endometrial cancer: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Cancer 127 (2): 442-51, 2010.

Shapiro S, Kelly JP, Rosenberg L, et al.: Risk of localized and widespread endometrial cancer in relation to recent and discontinued use of conjugated estrogens. N Engl J Med 313 (16): 969-72, 1985.

Ziel HK, Finkle WD: Increased risk of endometrial carcinoma among users of conjugated estrogens. N Engl J Med 293 (23): 1167-70, 1975.

Fisher B, Costantino JP, Redmond CK, et al.: Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-14. J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (7): 527-37, 1994.

Pike MC, Peters RK, Cozen W, et al.: Estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and endometrial cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 89 (15): 1110-6, 1997.

Fournier A, Dossus L, Mesrine S, et al.: Risks of endometrial cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies in the E3N cohort, 1992-2008. Am J Epidemiol 180 (5): 508-17, 2014.

Weiss NS, Sayvetz TA: Incidence of endometrial cancer in relation to the use of oral contraceptives. N Engl J Med 302 (10): 551-4, 1980.

Soini T, Hurskainen R, Grénman S, et al.: Cancer risk in women using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in Finland. Obstet Gynecol 124 (2 Pt 1): 292-9, 2014.

Lindor NM, McMaster ML, Lindor CJ, et al.: Concise handbook of familial cancer susceptibility syndromes - second edition. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr (38): 1-93, 2008.

Vasen HF, Offerhaus GJ, den Hartog Jager FC, et al.: The tumour spectrum in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: a study of 24 kindreds in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer 46 (1): 31-4, 1990.

Watson P, Lynch HT: Extracolonic cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer 71 (3): 677-85, 1993.

Watson P, Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, et al.: The risk of endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Am J Med 96 (6): 516-20, 1994.

Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA, et al.: Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer 64 (6): 430-3, 1995.

Raymond VM, Everett JN, Furtado LV, et al.: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a lynch syndrome-associated cancer. J Clin Oncol 31 (24): 3012-8, 2013.

Raymond VM, Mukherjee B, Wang F, et al.: Elevated risk of prostate cancer among men with Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol 31 (14): 1713-8, 2013.

Suspiro A, Fidalgo P, Cravo M, et al.: The Muir-Torre syndrome: a rare variant of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer associated with hMSH2 mutation. Am J Gastroenterol 93 (9): 1572-4, 1998.

Kerber RA, Slattery ML: Comparison of self-reported and database-linked family history of cancer data in a case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 146 (3): 244-8, 1997.

Parent ME, Ghadirian P, Lacroix A, et al.: The reliability of recollections of family history: implications for the medical provider. J Cancer Educ 12 (2): 114-20, 1997 Summer.

Ready K, Litton JK, Arun BK: Clinical application of breast cancer risk assessment models. Future Oncol 6 (3): 355-65, 2010.

Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, et al.: Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102 (10): 680-91, 2010.

Rosner BA, Colditz GA, Webb PM, et al.: Mathematical models of ovarian cancer incidence. Epidemiology 16 (4): 508-15, 2005.

Pfeiffer RM, Park Y, Kreimer AR, et al.: Risk prediction for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer in white women aged 50 y or older: derivation and validation from population-based cohort studies. PLoS Med 10 (7): e1001492, 2013.

Gail MH, Mai PL: Comparing breast cancer risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102 (10): 665-8, 2010.

Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T, et al.: Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance. Breast Cancer Res 14 (6): R144, 2012.

Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al.: Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81 (24): 1879-86, 1989.

Colditz GA, Rosner B: Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses' Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 152 (10): 950-64, 2000.

Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD: Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73 (3): 643-51, 1994.

Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J: A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23 (7): 1111-30, 2004.

Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O: Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 62 (1): 145-58, 1998.

Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, McMullan G, et al.: A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer 86 (1): 76-83, 2002.

Antoniou AC, Pharoah PP, Smith P, et al.: The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 91 (8): 1580-90, 2004.

Antoniou AC, Cunningham AP, Peto J, et al.: The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br J Cancer 98 (8): 1457-66, 2008.

Anothaisintawee T, Teerawattananon Y, Wiratkapun C, et al.: Risk prediction models of breast cancer: a systematic review of model performances. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133 (1): 1-10, 2012.

Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A, et al.: Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40 (11): 807-14, 2003.

Laitman Y, Simeonov M, Keinan-Boker L, et al.: Breast cancer risk prediction accuracy in Jewish Israeli high-risk women using the BOADICEA and IBIS risk models. Genet Res (Camb) 95 (6): 174-7, 2013.

MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, Apicella C, et al.: Prospective validation of the breast cancer risk prediction model BOADICEA and a batch-mode version BOADICEACentre. Br J Cancer 109 (5): 1296-301, 2013.

Terry MB, Liao Y, Whittemore AS, et al.: 10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study. Lancet Oncol 20 (4): 504-517, 2019.

Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD: The calculation of breast cancer risk for women with a first degree family history of ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 28 (2): 115-20, 1993.

Bondy ML, Lustbader ED, Halabi S, et al.: Validation of a breast cancer risk assessment model in women with a positive family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (8): 620-5, 1994.

Spiegelman D, Colditz GA, Hunter D, et al.: Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (8): 600-7, 1994.

Rockhill B, Spiegelman D, Byrne C, et al.: Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 93 (5): 358-66, 2001.

Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, et al.: Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (18): 1541-8, 1999.

Bondy ML, Newman LA: Breast cancer risk assessment models: applicability to African-American women. Cancer 97 (1 Suppl): 230-5, 2003.

Schonfeld SJ, Pee D, Greenlee RT, et al.: Effect of changing breast cancer incidence rates on the calibration of the Gail model. J Clin Oncol 28 (14): 2411-7, 2010.

Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al.: Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (23): 1782-92, 2007.

Gail MH: Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 100 (14): 1037-41, 2008.

Gail MH: Value of adding single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes to a breast cancer risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (13): 959-63, 2009.

Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, et al.: Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (17): 1204-14, 2006.

Tice JA, Cummings SR, Ziv E, et al.: Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat 94 (2): 115-22, 2005.

Lee AJ, Cunningham AP, Tischkowitz M, et al.: Incorporating truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk model. Genet Med 18 (12): 1190-1198, 2016.

Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM, et al.: Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med 354 (26): 2751-63, 2006.

Kastrinos F, Uno H, Ukaegbu C, et al.: Development and Validation of the PREMM5 Model for Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Lynch Syndrome. J Clin Oncol 35 (19): 2165-2172, 2017.

Chen S, Wang W, Lee S, et al.: Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome. JAMA 296 (12): 1479-87, 2006.

Khan O, Blanco A, Conrad P, et al.: Performance of Lynch syndrome predictive models in a multi-center US referral population. Am J Gastroenterol 106 (10): 1822-7; quiz 1828, 2011.

Mercado RC, Hampel H, Kastrinos F, et al.: Performance of PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro in detecting Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer cases. Genet Med 14 (7): 670-80, 2012.

Robson ME, Storm CD, Weitzel J, et al.: American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 28 (5): 893-901, 2010.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic. Version 1.2020. Plymouth Meeting, Pa: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2019. Available online with free registration. Last accessed December 23, 2019.

Statement of the American Society of Human Genetics on genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. Am J Hum Genet 55 (5): i-iv, 1994.

Hampel H, Bennett RL, Buchanan A, et al.: A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med 17 (1): 70-87, 2015.

Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al.: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 322 (7): 652-665, 2019.

Lancaster JM, Powell CB, Kauff ND, et al.: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Education Committee statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 107 (2): 159-62, 2007.

Manahan ER, Kuerer HM, Sebastian M, et al.: Consensus Guidelines on Genetic` Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer from the American Society of Breast Surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 26 (10): 3025-3031, 2019.

Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Hughes K, et al.: Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle? J Clin Oncol 37 (6): 453-460, 2019.

Cropper C, Woodson A, Arun B, et al.: Evaluating the NCCN Clinical Criteria for Recommending BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15 (6): 797-803, 2017.

Grindedal EM, Heramb C, Karsrud I, et al.: Current guidelines for BRCA testing of breast cancer patients are insufficient to detect all mutation carriers. BMC Cancer 17 (1): 438, 2017.

Couch FJ, Nathanson KL, Offit K: Two decades after BRCA: setting paradigms in personalized cancer care and prevention. Science 343 (6178): 1466-70, 2014.

Theobald KA, Susswein LR, Marshall ML, et al.: Utility of Expedited Hereditary Cancer Testing in the Surgical Management of Patients with a New Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Ann Surg Oncol 25 (12): 3556-3562, 2018.

Gornick MC, Kurian AW, An LC, et al.: Knowledge regarding and patterns of genetic testing in patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer participating in the iCanDecide trial. Cancer 124 (20): 4000-4009, 2018.

Chiba A, Hoskin TL, Hallberg EJ, et al.: Impact that Timing of Genetic Mutation Diagnosis has on Surgical Decision Making and Outcome for BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers with Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23 (10): 3232-8, 2016.

Obermair A, Youlden DR, Baade PD, et al.: The impact of risk-reducing hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on survival in patients with a history of breast cancer--a population-based data linkage study. Int J Cancer 134 (9): 2211-22, 2014.

Byrski T, Dent R, Blecharz P, et al.: Results of a phase II open-label, non-randomized trial of cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1-positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 14 (4): R110, 2012.

Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, et al.: Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med 377 (6): 523-533, 2017.

Heymann S, Delaloge S, Rahal A, et al.: Radio-induced malignancies after breast cancer postoperative radiotherapy in patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Radiat Oncol 5: 104, 2010.

Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman JM, et al.: Revisiting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome From TP53 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol 33 (21): 2345-52, 2015.

Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM: Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (2): 80-7, 2009.

Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, et al.: Oophorectomy after menopause and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21 (7): 1089-96, 2012.

Cass I, Baldwin RL, Varkey T, et al.: Improved survival in women with BRCA-associated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 97 (9): 2187-95, 2003.

Tan DS, Rothermundt C, Thomas K, et al.: "BRCAness" syndrome in ovarian cancer: a case-control study describing the clinical features and outcome of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Clin Oncol 26 (34): 5530-6, 2008.

Practice Bulletin No. 149: Endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 125 (4): 1006-26, 2015.

Ott PA, Bang YJ, Berton-Rigaud D, et al.: Safety and Antitumor Activity of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Programmed Death Ligand 1-Positive Endometrial Cancer: Results From the KEYNOTE-028 Study. J Clin Oncol 35 (22): 2535-2541, 2017.

Walsh T, Casadei S, Lee MK, et al.: Mutations in 12 genes for inherited ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma identified by massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108 (44): 18032-7, 2011.

Frey MK, Kim SH, Bassett RY, et al.: Rescreening for genetic mutations using multi-gene panel testing in patients who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening. Gynecol Oncol 139 (2): 211-5, 2015.

Desmond A, Kurian AW, Gabree M, et al.: Clinical Actionability of Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment. JAMA Oncol 1 (7): 943-51, 2015.

Couch FJ, Shimelis H, Hu C, et al.: Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol 3 (9): 1190-1196, 2017.

Weitzel JN, Neuhausen SL, Adamson A, et al.: Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and other known breast cancer susceptibility genes among 1054 BRCA-negative Hispanics with breast cancer. Cancer 125 (16): 2829-2836, 2019.

Frey MK, Kopparam RV, Ni Zhou Z, et al.: Prevalence of nonfounder BRCA1/2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish patients presenting for genetic testing at a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer center. Cancer 125 (5): 690-697, 2019.

Eoh KJ, Kim JE, Park HS, et al.: Detection of Germline Mutations in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Using Multi-gene Panels: Beyond BRCA1/2. Cancer Res Treat 50 (3): 917-925, 2018.

Tung N, Lin NU, Kidd J, et al.: Frequency of Germline Mutations in 25 Cancer Susceptibility Genes in a Sequential Series of Patients With Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 34 (13): 1460-8, 2016.

Buys SS, Sandbach JF, Gammon A, et al.: A study of over 35,000 women with breast cancer tested with a 25-gene panel of hereditary cancer genes. Cancer 123 (10): 1721-1730, 2017.

Pritzlaff M, Summerour P, McFarland R, et al.: Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: insights and unexpected results. Breast Cancer Res Treat 161 (3): 575-586, 2017.

Yadav S, Reeves A, Campian S, et al.: Outcomes of retesting BRCA negative patients using multigene panels. Fam Cancer 16 (3): 319-328, 2017.

Crawford B, Adams SB, Sittler T, et al.: Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer predisposition in unsolved high-risk breast and ovarian cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 163 (2): 383-390, 2017.

Kurian AW, Ward KC, Howlader N, et al.: Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients. J Clin Oncol 37 (15): 1305-1315, 2019.

Shimelis H, LaDuca H, Hu C, et al.: Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Risk Genes Identified by Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 110 (8): 855-862, 2018.

Southey MC, Goldgar DE, Winqvist R, et al.: PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM rare variants and cancer risk: data from COGS. J Med Genet 53 (12): 800-811, 2016.

Penetrance of Inherited Susceptibility to Hereditary Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancers

The proportion of individuals carrying a pathogenic variant who will manifest a certain disease is referred to as penetrance. In general, common genetic variants that are associated with cancer susceptibility have a lower penetrance than rare genetic variants. This is depicted in Figure 4. For adult-onset diseases, penetrance is usually described by the individual carrier's age, sex, and organ site. For example, the penetrance for breast cancer in female carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants is often quoted by age 50 years and by age 70 years. Of the numerous methods for estimating penetrance, none are without potential biases, and determining an individual carrier's risk of cancer involves some level of imprecision.

Figure 4. Genetic architecture of cancer risk. This graph depicts the general finding of a low relative risk associated with common, low-penetrance genetic variants, such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified in genome-wide association studies, and a higher relative risk associated with rare, high-penetrance genetic variants, such as pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and the mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome.

Throughout this summary, we discuss studies that report on relative and absolute risks. These are two important but different concepts. Relative risk (RR) refers to an estimate of risk relative to another group (e.g., risk of an outcome like breast cancer for women who are exposed to a risk factor relative to the risk of breast cancer for women who are unexposed to the same risk factor). RR measures that are greater than 1 mean that the risk for those captured in the numerator (i.e., the exposed) is higher than the risk for those captured in the denominator (i.e., the unexposed). RR measures that are less than 1 mean that the risk for those captured in the numerator (i.e., the exposed) is lower than the risk for those captured in the denominator (i.e., the unexposed). Measures with similar relative interpretations include the odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio, and risk ratio.

Absolute risk measures take into account the number of people who have a particular outcome, the number of people in a population who could have the outcome, and person-time (the period of time during which an individual was at risk of having the outcome), and reflect the absolute burden of an outcome in a population. Absolute measures include risks and rates and can be expressed over a specific time frame (e.g., 1 year, 5 years) or overall lifetime. Cumulative risk is a measure of risk that occurs over a defined time period. For example, overall lifetime risk is a type of cumulative risk that is usually calculated on the basis of a given life expectancy (e.g., 80 or 90 years). Cumulative risk can also be presented over other time frames (e.g., up to age 50 years).

Large relative risk measures do not mean that there will be large effects in the actual number of individuals at a population level because the disease outcome may be quite rare. For example, the relative risk for smoking is much higher for lung cancer than for heart disease, but the absolute difference between smokers and nonsmokers is greater for heart disease, the more-common outcome, than for lung cancer, the more-rare outcome.

Therefore, in evaluating the effect of exposures and biological markers on disease prevention across the continuum, it is important to recognize the differences between relative and absolute effects in weighing the overall impact of a given risk factor. For example, the magnitude is in the range of 30% (e.g., ORs or RRs of 1.3) for many breast cancer risk factors, which means that women with a risk factor (e.g., alcohol consumption, late age at first birth, oral contraceptive use, postmenopausal body size) have a 30% relative increase in breast cancer in comparison with what they would have if they did not have that risk factor. But the absolute increase in risk is based on the underlying absolute risk of disease. Figure 5 and Table 2 show the impact of a relative risk factor in the range of 1.3 on absolute risk. (Refer to the Standard Pedigree Nomenclature figure in the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling for definitions of the standard symbols used in these pedigrees.) As shown, women with a family history of breast cancer have a much higher benefit from risk factor reduction on an absolute scale.

Figure 5. These five pedigrees depict probands with varying degrees of family history. Table 2 accompanies this figure.

Table 2. Effect of Altering a Risk Factor With Relative Risk of 1.3 Across Women With Different Family Histories of Breast Cancer

Family History	Lifetime Risk (%)	Lifetime Risk After Risk Factor Modification (%)	Absolute Risk Difference (%)	Relative Risk
Low (Family 1)	10.9	8.4	2.50	1.29 (29% increased risk)
Moderate (Family 2)	21.6	16.8	4.80	1.28 (28% increased risk)
Moderate/high (Family 3)	27.1	21.3	5.80	1.27 (27% increased risk)
High (Family 4)	32.0	25.3	6.70	1.26 (26% increased risk)
BRCA1 pathogenic variant (Family 5)	53.7	44.2	9.50	1.21 (21% increased risk)
aRefer to Figure 5, which accompanies this table.

With the increasing use of multigene panel tests, a framework for cancer risk management among individuals with pathogenic variants detected in novel genes has been described

that incorporates data on age-specific, lifetime, and absolute cancer risks. The framework suggests initiating screening in these individuals at the age when their 5-year cancer risk approaches that at which screening is routinely initiated for women in the general population (approximately 1% for breast cancer in the United States). As a result, the age at which to begin screening will vary depending on the gene. (Refer to the Multigene [panel] testing section in the Introduction section of this summary for more information on multigene panel tests.)

ReferenceSection

Quante AS, Herz J, Whittemore AS, et al.: Assessing absolute changes in breast cancer risk due to modifiable risk factors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 152 (1): 193-7, 2015.

Tung N, Domchek SM, Stadler Z, et al.: Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13 (9): 581-8, 2016.

Genes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility

Several genes are found to be associated with the development of breast and/or gynecologic cancers. These genes are categorized as high-penetrance, moderate-penetrance, and low-penetrance in this summary. The high- and moderate-penetrance genes are summarized in Table 3. Low-penetrance genes and loci primarily include polymorphisms that have been associated with cancer susceptibility. (Refer to the High-Penetrance Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes, Moderate-Penetrance Genes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer, and Low-Penetrance Genes and Loci sections of this summary for more information.)

Table 3. Genes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility

Cancer Susceptibility	Moderate-Penetrance Genes	High-Penetrance Genes
Breast cancer	ATM, BRIP1, CHEK2, FANCD2, RAD51C	BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53
Ovarian cancer	ATM, BRIP1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, RAD51C	BRCA1, BRCA2
Endometrial cancer		EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, PTEN
aOther cancers may be associated with the genes in this table.
bOther genes discussed in the Moderate-Penetrance Genes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer section of this summary but for which penetrance is unknown include CASP8, TGFB1, Abraxas, RECQL, and SMARCA4.

High-Penetrance Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes

Introduction

Epidemiologic studies have clearly established the role of family history as an important risk factor for both breast and ovarian cancers. After gender and age, a positive family history is the strongest known predictive risk factor for breast cancer. However, it has long been recognized that in some families, there is hereditary breast cancer, which is characterized by an early age of onset, bilaterality, and the presence of breast cancer in multiple generations in an apparent autosomal dominant pattern of transmission (through either the maternal or the paternal lineage), sometimes including tumors of other organs, particularly the ovary and prostate gland.

It is now known that the cancer in some of these families can be explained by specific pathogenic variants in single cancer susceptibility genes. The isolation of several of these genes, which when altered are associated with a significantly increased risk of breast/ovarian cancer, makes it possible to identify individuals at risk. Although such cancer susceptibility genes are very important, highly penetrant germline pathogenic variants are estimated to account for only 5% to 10% of breast cancers overall.

A 1988 study reported the first quantitative evidence that breast cancer segregated as an autosomal dominant trait in some families.

The search for genes associated with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer has been facilitated by studies of large kindreds with multiple affected individuals and has led to the identification of several susceptibility genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PTEN/MMAC1, and STK11. Other genes, such as the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, have been associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, but have not been consistently associated with breast cancer.

In 1990, a susceptibility gene for breast cancer was mapped by genetic linkage to the long arm of chromosome 17, in the interval 17q12-21.

The linkage between breast cancer and genetic markers on chromosome 17q was soon confirmed by others, and evidence for the coincident transmission of both breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in linked families was observed.

The BRCA1 gene was subsequently identified by positional cloning methods and has been found to contain 24 exons that encode a protein of 1,863 amino acids. Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 are associated with early-onset breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and fallopian tube cancer. (Refer to the Penetrance of BRCA pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information.) Male breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, testicular cancer, and early-onset prostate cancer may also be associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA1;

however, male breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer are more strongly associated with pathogenic variants in BRCA2.

A second breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, was localized to the long arm of chromosome 13 through linkage studies of 15 families with multiple cases of breast cancer that were not linked to BRCA1. Pathogenic variants in BRCA2 are associated with multiple cases of breast cancer in families, and are also associated with male breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer.

(Refer to the Penetrance of BRCA pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information.) BRCA2 is a large gene with 27 exons that encode a protein of 3,418 amino acids.

While not homologous genes, both BRCA1 and BRCA2 have an unusually large exon 11 and translational start sites in exon 2. Like BRCA1, BRCA2 appears to behave like a tumor suppressor gene. In tumors associated with both BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, there is often loss of the wild-type allele.

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 appear to be responsible for disease in 45% of families with multiple cases of breast cancer only and in up to 90% of families with both breast and ovarian cancer.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 function

Most BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants are predicted to produce a truncated protein product, and thus loss of protein function, although some missense pathogenic variants cause loss of function without truncation. Because inherited breast/ovarian cancer is an autosomal dominant condition, persons with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant on one copy of chromosome 17 or 13 also carry a normal allele on the other paired chromosome. In most breast and ovarian cancers that have been studied from carriers of pathogenic variants, deletion of the normal allele results in loss of all function, leading to the classification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 as tumor suppressor genes. In addition to, and as part of, their roles as tumor suppressor genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are involved in myriad functions within cells, including homologous DNA repair, genomic stability, transcriptional regulation, protein ubiquitination, chromatin remodeling, and cell cycle control.

Nearly 2,000 distinct variants and sequence variations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have already been described.

Approximately 1 in 400 to 800 individuals in the general population may carry a germline pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2.

The variants that have been associated with increased risk of cancer result in missing or nonfunctional proteins, supporting the hypothesis that BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes. While a small number of these pathogenic variants have been found repeatedly in unrelated families, most have not been reported in more than a few families.

Variant-screening methods vary in their sensitivity. Methods widely used in research laboratories, such as single-stranded conformational polymorphism analysis and conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis, miss nearly a third of the variants that are detected by DNA sequencing.

In addition, large genomic alterations such as translocations, inversions, or large deletions or insertions are missed by most of the techniques, including direct DNA sequencing, but testing for these is commercially available. Such rearrangements are believed to be responsible for 12% to 18% of BRCA1 inactivating variants but are less frequently seen in BRCA2 and in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) descent.

Furthermore, studies have suggested that these rearrangements may be more frequently seen in Hispanic and Caribbean populations.

Variants of uncertain significance

Germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes are associated with an approximately 60% lifetime risk of breast cancer and a 15% to 40% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. There are no definitive functional tests for BRCA1 or BRCA2; therefore, the classification of nucleotide changes to predict their functional impact as deleterious or benign relies on imperfect data. The majority of accepted pathogenic variants result in protein truncation and/or loss of important functional domains. However, 10% to 15% of all individuals undergoing genetic testing with full sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 will not have a clearly pathogenic variant detected but will have a variant of uncertain (or unknown) significance (VUS). VUS may cause substantial challenges in counseling, particularly in terms of cancer risk estimates and risk management. Clinical management of such patients needs to be highly individualized and must take into consideration factors such as the patient’s personal and family cancer history, in addition to sources of information to help characterize the VUS as benign or deleterious. Thus an improved classification and reporting system may be of clinical utility.

A comprehensive analysis of 7,461 consecutive full gene sequence analyses performed by Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., described the frequency of VUS over a 3-year period.

Among subjects who had no clearly pathogenic variant, 13% had VUS defined as “missense mutations and mutations that occur in analyzed intronic regions whose clinical significance has not yet been determined, chain-terminating mutations that truncate BRCA1 and BRCA2 distal to amino acid positions 1853 and 3308, respectively, and mutations that eliminate the normal stop codons for these proteins.” The classification of a sequence variant as a VUS is a moving target. An additional 6.8% of subjects with no clear pathogenic variants had sequence alterations that were once considered VUS but were reclassified as a polymorphism, or occasionally as a pathogenic variant.

The frequency of VUS varies by ethnicity within the U.S. population. African Americans appear to have the highest rate of VUS.

In a 2009 study of data from Myriad, 16.5% of individuals of African ancestry had VUS, the highest rate among all ethnicities. The frequency of VUS in Asian, Middle Eastern, and Hispanic populations clusters between 10% and 14%, although these numbers are based on limited sample sizes. Over time, the rate of changes classified as VUS has decreased in all ethnicities, largely the result of improved variant classification algorithms.

VUS continue to be reclassified as additional information is curated and interpreted.

Such information may impact the continuing care of affected individuals.

A number of methods for discriminating deleterious from neutral VUS exist and others are in development

including integrated methods (see below).

Interpretation of VUS is greatly aided by efforts to track VUS in the family to determine if there is cosegregation of the VUS with the cancer in the family. In general, a VUS observed in individuals who also have a pathogenic variant, especially when the same VUS has been identified in conjunction with different pathogenic variants, is less likely to be in itself deleterious, although there are rare exceptions. As an adjunct to the clinical information, models to interpret VUS have been developed, based on sequence conservation, biochemical properties of amino acid changes,

incorporation of information on pathologic characteristics of BRCA1- and BRCA2-related tumors (e.g., BRCA1-related breast cancers are usually estrogen receptor [ER]–negative),

and functional studies to measure the influence of specific sequence variations on the activity of BRCA1 or BRCA2 proteins.

When attempting to interpret a VUS, all available information should be examined.

Population estimates of the likelihood of having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant

Statistics regarding the percentage of individuals found to be carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants among samples of women and men with a variety of personal cancer histories regardless of family history are provided below. These data can help determine who might best benefit from a referral for cancer genetic counseling and consideration of genetic testing but cannot replace a personalized risk assessment, which might indicate a higher or lower pathogenic variant likelihood based on additional personal and family history characteristics.

In some cases, the same pathogenic variant has been found in multiple apparently unrelated families. This observation is consistent with a founder effect, wherein a pathogenic variant identified in a contemporary population can be traced to a small group of founders isolated by geographic, cultural, or other factors. Most notably, two specific BRCA1 pathogenic variants (185delAG and 5382insC) and a BRCA2 pathogenic variant (6174delT) have been reported to be common in AJs. However, other founder pathogenic variants have been identified in African Americans and Hispanics.

The presence of these founder pathogenic variants has practical implications for genetic testing. Many laboratories offer directed testing specifically for ethnic-specific alleles. This greatly simplifies the technical aspects of the test but is not without limitations. Nonfounder BRCA pathogenic variants in the AJ population have been reported to be between 3% and 15%.

Among the general population, the likelihood of having any BRCA pathogenic variant is as follows:

General population (excluding Ashkenazim): about 1 in 400 (~0.25%).

Women with breast cancer (any age): 1 in 50 (2%).

Women with breast cancer (younger than 40 y): 1 in 10 (10%).

Men with breast cancer (any age): 1 in 20 (5%).

Women with ovarian cancer (any age): 1 in 8 to 1 in 10 (10%–15%).

Among AJ individuals, the likelihood of having any BRCA pathogenic variant is as follows:

General AJ population: 1 in 40 (1.1%–2.5%).

Women with breast cancer (any age): 1 in 10 (10%).

Women with breast cancer (younger than 40 y): 1 in 3 (30%–35%).

Men with breast cancer (any age): 1 in 5 (19%).

Women with ovarian cancer or primary peritoneal cancer (all ages): 1 in 3 (36%–41%).

Two large U.S. population-based studies of breast cancer patients younger than 65 years examined the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in various ethnic groups. The prevalence of BRCA1 pathogenic variants in breast cancer patients by ethnic group was 3.5% in Hispanics, 1.3% to 1.4% in African Americans, 0.5% in Asian Americans, 2.2% to 2.9% in non-AJ whites, and 8.3% to 10.2% in AJ individuals. The prevalence of BRCA2 pathogenic variants by ethnic group was 2.6% in African Americans and 2.1% in whites.

A study of Hispanic patients with a personal or family history of breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer, who were enrolled through multiple clinics in the southwestern United States, examined the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. BRCA pathogenic variants were identified in 189 of 746 patients (25%) (124 BRCA1, 65 BRCA2);

21 of the 189 (11%) BRCA pathogenic variants identified were large rearrangements, of which 13 (62%) were the BRCA1 exon 9–12 deletion. An unselected cohort of 810 women of Mexican ancestry with breast cancer were tested; 4.3% had a BRCA pathogenic variant. Eight of the 35 pathogenic variants identified also were the BRCA1 exon 9–12 deletion.

In another population-based cohort of 492 Hispanic women with breast cancer, the BRCA1 exon 9–12 deletion was found in three patients, suggesting that this variant may be a Mexican founder pathogenic variant and may represent 10% to 12% of all BRCA1 pathogenic variants in similar clinic- and population-based cohorts in the United States. Within the clinic-based cohort, there were nine recurrent pathogenic variants, which accounted for 53% of all variants observed in this cohort, suggesting the existence of additional founder pathogenic variants in this population.

A retrospective review of 29 AJ patients with primary fallopian tube tumors identified germline BRCA pathogenic variants in 17%.

Another study of 108 women with fallopian tube cancer identified pathogenic variants in 55.6% of the Jewish women and 26.4% of non-Jewish women (30.6% overall).

Estimates of the frequency of fallopian tube cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants are limited by the lack of precision in the assignment of site of origin for high-grade, metastatic, serous carcinomas at initial presentation.

Population screening

Population screening has identified carriers in a number of AJ populations who would not have met criteria for family-based testing.

This could potentially expand the number of individuals who could benefit from preventive strategies. A study has suggested that population screening (compared with personal/family history–based testing) for AJ founder variants is cost-effective on the basis of data from the United States and the United Kingdom.

The authors used a decision-analytic model that estimated lifetime costs and the effects of genetic testing to assess cost-effectiveness; the model included costs of pretest genetic counseling and genetic testing and the anticipated risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Additional analyses conducted by the same group also suggested cost-effectiveness when testing was expanded to include all pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and PALB2.

These studies are based on various assumptions, some of which are imprecise (e.g., population prevalence estimates for some genes). Furthermore, as acknowledged by the authors, these types of efforts would require implementation of clinical support across the care continuum, in order for patients identified with pathogenic variants to benefit from this information. Consequently, there remain significant resource implications as population screening efforts are considered, which are the focus of ongoing research efforts. Because the detection rate is highly dependent on the prevalence of pathogenic variants in a population, it is not clear how applicable this approach would be for other populations, including other founder pathogenic variant populations. Another unanswered question is whether adequate genetic counseling can be provided for whole populations.

Clinical criteria and models for prediction of the likelihood of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant

Several studies have assessed the frequency of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants in women with breast or ovarian cancer.

Personal characteristics associated with an increased likelihood of a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant include the following:

Breast cancer diagnosed at an early age. (Some studies use age 40 y as a cutoff, while others use age 50 y.)

Ovarian cancer.

Bilateral breast cancer.

A history of both breast and ovarian cancer.

Breast cancer diagnosed in a male at any age.

Triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed in women younger than 60 years.

AJ background.

Family history characteristics associated with an increased likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 pathogenic variant include the following:

Multiple cases of breast cancer.

Both breast and ovarian cancer.

One or more breast cancers in male family members.

AJ background.

Clinical criteria and practice guidelines for identifying individuals who may have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant

Several professional organizations and expert panels, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Human Genetics, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, have developed clinical criteria and practice guidelines that can be helpful to health care providers in identifying individuals who may have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Models for prediction of the likelihood of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant

Many models have been developed to predict the probability of identifying germline BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants in individuals or families. These models include those using logistic regression, genetic models using Bayesian analysis (BRCAPRO and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm [BOADICEA]), and empiric observations, including the Myriad prevalence tables.

In addition to BOADICEA, BRCAPRO is commonly used for genetic counseling in the clinical setting. BRCAPRO and BOADICEA predict the probability of being a carrier and produce estimates of breast cancer risk (refer to Table 4). The discrimination and accuracy (factors used to evaluate the performance of prediction models) of these models are much higher for these models' ability to report on carrier status than for their ability to predict fixed or remaining lifetime risk.

BOADICEA is a polygenetic model that uses complex segregation analysis to examine both breast cancer risk and the probability of having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Even among experienced providers, the use of prediction models has been shown to increase the power to discriminate which patients are most likely to be carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Most models do not include other cancers seen in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 spectrum, such as pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer. Interventions that decrease the likelihood that an individual will develop cancer (such as oophorectomy and mastectomy) may influence the ability to predict BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant status.

One study has shown that the prediction models for genetic risk are sensitive to the amount of family history data available and do not perform as well with limited family information.

BOADICEA is being expanded to incorporate additional risk variants (genome-wide association study [GWAS] single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]) to better predict pathogenic variant status and to improve the accuracy of breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk estimates.

The performance of the models can vary in specific ethnic groups. The BRCAPRO model appeared to best fit a series of French Canadian families.

There have been variable results in the performance of the BRCAPRO model among Hispanics, and both the BRCAPRO model and Myriad tables underestimated the proportion of carriers of pathogenic variants in an Asian American population.

BOADICEA was developed and validated in British women. Thus, the major models used for both overall risk (Table 1) and genetic risk (Table 4) have not been developed or validated in large populations of racially and ethnically diverse women. Of the commonly used clinical models for assessing genetic risk, only the Tyrer-Cuzick model contains nongenetic risk factors.

The power of several of the models has been compared in different studies.

Four breast cancer genetic-risk models, BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, and eCLAUS, were evaluated for their diagnostic accuracy in predicting BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants in a cohort of 7,352 German families.

The family member with the highest likelihood of carrying a pathogenic variant from each family was screened for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Carrier probabilities from each model were calculated and compared with the actual variants detected. BRCAPRO and BOADICEA had significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than IBIS or eCLAUS. Accuracy for the BOADICEA model was further improved when statuses of the tumor markers ER, progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/neu) were included in the model. The inclusion of these biomarkers has been shown to improve the performance of BRCAPRO.

Table 4. Characteristics of Common Models for Estimating the Likelihood of a BRCA1/BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant

	Myriad Prevalence Tables	BRCAPRO	BOADICEA	Tyrer-Cuzick
Method	Empiric data from Myriad Genetics based on personal and family history reported on requisition forms	Statistical model, assumes autosomal dominant inheritance	Statistical model, assumes polygenic risk	Statistical model, assumes autosomal dominant inheritance
Features of the model	Proband may or may not have breast or ovarian cancer	Proband may or may not have breast or ovarian cancer	Proband may or may not have breast or ovarian cancer	Proband must be unaffected
	Considers age of breast cancer diagnosis as <50 y, >50 y	Considers exact age at breast and ovarian cancer diagnosis	Considers exact age at breast and ovarian cancer diagnosis	Also includes reproductive factors and body mass index to estimate breast cancer risk
	Considers breast cancer in ≥1 affected relative only if diagnosed <50 y	Considers prior genetic testing in family (i.e., BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant–negative relatives)	Includes all FDR and SDR with and without cancer
	Considers ovarian cancer in ≥1 relative at any age	Considers oophorectomy status	Includes AJ ancestry
	Includes AJ ancestry	Includes all FDR and SDR with and without cancer
	Very easy to use	Includes AJ ancestry
Limitations	Simplified/limited consideration of family structure	Requires computer software and time-consuming data entry	Requires computer software and time-consuming data entry	Designed for individuals unaffected with breast cancer
		Incorporates only FDR and SDR; may need to change proband to best capture risk and to account for disease in the paternal lineage
		May overestimate risk in bilateral breast cancer
	Early age of breast cancer onset	May perform better in whites than minority populations	Incorporates only FDR and SDR; may need to change proband to best capture risk
		May underestimate risk of BRCA pathogenic variant in high-grade serous ovarian cancers but overestimate the risk for other histologies
AJ = Ashkenazi Jewish; BOADICEA = Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm; FDR = first-degree relatives; SDR = second-degree relatives.

Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants has been available to the public since 1996. As more individuals have undergone testing, risk assessment models have improved. This, in turn, gives providers better data to estimate an individual patient’s risk of carrying a pathogenic variant, but risk assessment continues to be an art. There are factors that might limit the ability to provide an accurate risk assessment (i.e., small family size, paucity of women, or ethnicity) including the specific circumstances of the individual patient (such as history of disease or risk-reducing surgeries).

Penetrance of BRCA pathogenic variants

The proportion of individuals carrying a pathogenic variant who will manifest the disease is referred to as penetrance. (Refer to the Penetrance of Inherited Susceptibility to Hereditary Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancers section of this summary for more information.)

Numerous studies have estimated breast and ovarian cancer penetrance in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Risk of both breast and ovarian cancer is consistently estimated to be higher in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants than in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Results from two large meta-analyses are shown in Table 5.

One study analyzed pooled pedigree data from 22 studies involving 289 BRCA1 and 221 BRCA2 pathogenic variant–positive individuals. Index cases from these studies had female breast cancer, male breast cancer, or ovarian cancer but were unselected for family history. A subsequent study combined penetrance estimates from the previous study and nine others that included an additional 734 BRCA1 and 400 BRCA2 pathogenic variant–positive families. The estimated cumulative risks of breast cancer by age 70 years in these two meta-analyses were 55% to 65% for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 45% to 47% for carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Ovarian cancer risks were 39% for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 11% to 17% for carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Table 5. Estimated Cumulative Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risks in Carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants

Study	Breast Cancer Risk (%) (95% CI)		Ovarian Cancer Risk (%) (95% CI)
	BRCA1	BRCA2	BRCA1	BRCA2
Antoniou et al. (2003)	65 (44–78)	45 (31–56)	39 (18–54)	11 (2.4–19)
Chen et al. (2007)	55 (50–59)	47 (42–51)	39 (34–45)	17 (13–21)
Kuchenbaecker et al. (2017)	72 (65–79)	69 (61–77)	44 (36–53)	17 (11–25)
CI = confidence interval.
aRisk estimate calculated up to age 70 years.
bRisk estimate calculated up to age 80 years.

While the cumulative risks of developing cancer by age 70 years are higher for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants than for BRCA2 pathogenic variants, the relative risks (RRs) of breast cancer decline more with age in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants.

Studies of penetrance for carriers of specific individual variants are not usually large enough to provide stable estimates, but numerous studies of the Ashkenazi founder pathogenic variants have been conducted. One group of researchers analyzed the subset of families with one of the Ashkenazi founder pathogenic variants from their larger meta-analyses and found that the estimated penetrance for the individual pathogenic variants was very similar to the corresponding estimates among all carriers.

A later study of 4,649 women with BRCA pathogenic variants reported significantly lower RRs of breast cancer in those with the BRCA2 6174delT variant than in those with other BRCA2 variants (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; confidence interval [CI], 0.18–0.69).

One study provided prospective 10-year risks of developing cancer among asymptomatic carriers at various ages.

Nonetheless, making precise penetrance estimates in an individual carrier is difficult. The lifetime risks of ovarian cancer are 5.2% in carriers of RAD51C pathogenic variants, 5.8% in carriers of BRIP1 pathogenic variants, and 12% in carriers of RAD51D pathogenic variants. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) may be considered for these patients upon completion of childbearing.

Data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA), comprising 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants, were analyzed to estimate HRs for breast cancer and ovarian cancer by pathogenic variant type, function, and nucleotide position.

Breast cancer cluster regions and ovarian cancer cluster regions were found in both genes. Risks for incidence of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and age at diagnosis differed by variant class. Further evaluation of these findings is needed before they can be translated into clinical practice.

Another study from the CIMBA group looked at the phenotype of women with breast cancer who had inherited pathogenic variants in both BRCA1 and BRCA2.

The majority of women carried the common Jewish pathogenic variants. Compared with women who were heterozygous for the same pathogenic variant (heterozygote controls), women who were heterozygous for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 were more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than women who were heterozygote controls, and more likely to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer than women who were heterozygote controls with BRCA2, but not those with BRCA1 pathogenic variants. Similarly, age at onset of breast cancer was younger in carriers of both variants compared with women who were heterozygote controls with BRCA2, but not compared with those with BRCA1 pathogenic variants. The percentage of women with both variants and estrogen receptor–positive and progesterone receptor–positive breast cancer was intermediate between the heterozygote controls with BRCA1 pathogenic variants and those with BRCA2 pathogenic variants. The authors concluded that women who inherit pathogenic variants in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be managed similarly to carriers of only a BRCA1 variant.

Several studies have suggested that BRCA pathogenic variants may be associated with genetic anticipation. One study evaluated 176 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants and at least two consecutive generations of the same cancer. The probands’ generations were diagnosed with breast cancer an estimated 6.8 years earlier than the parents’ generations and 9.8 years earlier than the grandparents' generations.

Similarly, another study showed a difference in age at breast cancer diagnosis between 80 mother-and-daughter paired pathogenic variant carriers but only if the mother was diagnosed with breast cancer after age 50 years.

Another cohort study of 106 paired women from two consecutive generations with a known BRCA pathogenic variant in the family estimated a 6- to 8-year earlier age at onset in subsequent generations.

RRSO and/or use of oral contraceptives have been associated with the risk of breast cancer.

(Refer to the RRSO section and the Oral contraceptives section of this summary for more information.) Other potentially modifiable reproductive and hormonal factors can also affect risk.

Genetic modifiers of penetrance of breast cancer and ovarian cancer are increasingly under study but are not clinically useful at this time.

(Refer to the Modifiers of risk in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants section for more information.) While the average breast cancer and ovarian cancer penetrances may not be as high as initially estimated, they are substantial, both in relative and absolute terms, particularly in women born after 1940. A higher risk before age 50 years has been consistently seen in more recent birth cohorts,

and additional studies will be required to further characterize potential modifying factors to arrive at more precise individual risk projections. Precise penetrance estimates for less common cancers, such as pancreatic cancer, are lacking.

Contralateral breast cancer (CBC) in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants

The increased risk of CBC among carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants has been confirmed in several large studies, with fairly consistent results, as summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Contralateral Breast Cancer 10-Year Cumulative Risk Estimates for Carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants

Study	BRCA1 Carriers (%)	BRCA2 Carriers (%)
Graeser et al. (2009)	18.5	13.2
Malone et al. (2010)	20.5	15.9
van der Kolk et al. (2010)	34.2	29.2
Metcalfe et al. (2011)	23.8	18.7
Molina-Montes et al. (2014)	27	19
Basu et al. (2015)	25.7	19.5
van den Broek et al. (2016)	21.1	10.8

Published results include a large study by the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, which estimated the risk of CBC in members of families with known BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. At 25 years after the first breast cancer, the risk of CBC was close to 50% in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 families. The risk was also inversely correlated with age in this study, with the highest risks seen in women whose first breast cancer was before age 40 years.

Subsequently, results from the Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) study, a large, population-based, nested case-control study of CBC, reported a 10-year risk of CBC of 15.9% among carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants and a risk of 4.9% among noncarriers. Risks were also inversely related to age at first diagnosis in this study and were 1.8-fold higher in those with a first-degree relative (FDR) with breast cancer.

A larger study of members of BRCA1/BRCA2 families in the Netherlands reported similar 10-year risks of CBC for women from BRCA1 and BRCA2 families (34.2% and 29.2%, respectively).

A comparison of 655 women with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants undergoing either breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy noted that both treatment groups experienced high rates of CBC, exceeding 50% by 20 years of follow-up. Rates were significantly higher among women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants than in women with BRCA2 pathogenic variants, and among women whose first breast cancer occurred at or before age 35 years.

In a study of 810 women with stage I or stage II breast cancer who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant identified in the family, 149 (18.4%) developed CBC; the 15-year actuarial risk was 36.1% among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 28.5% among carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Risks were higher among women diagnosed before age 50 years than among women diagnosed at age 50 years or older (37.6% vs. 16.8%; P = .003). Furthermore, the risk of CBC varied by family history among women whose initial breast cancer was diagnosed before age 50 years. For these women, the CBC risk among those with 0, 1, or 2 or more FDRs with breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 years was 33.4%, 39.1%, and 49.7%, respectively.

The risk of CBC after a first breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been examined in both retrospective and prospective observational epidemiological studies. A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of these epidemiologic studies (18 retrospective and 2 prospective cohort studies) reported 5-year cumulative risks of CBC of 15% (95% CI, 9.50%–20%) in BRCA1 carriers and 9% (95% CI, 5%–14%) in BRCA2 carriers.

When the prospective studies were analyzed separately, the 5-year cumulative risk increased to 23.4% (95% CI, 9.1%–39.5%) in BRCA1 carriers and to 17.5% (95% CI, 9.1%–39.5%) in BRCA2 carriers. The discrepancies in the reported frequencies may be inherent due to the potential for biases introduced in retrospective series.

Similarly, in a Dutch cohort of 6,294 patients (including 200 BRCA1 carriers and 71 BRCA2 carriers) with invasive breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 years, and a median follow-up of 12.5 years, the 10-year risks of CBC were 21.1% (95% CI, 15.4%–27.4%) for BRCA1 carriers, 10.8% (95% CI, 4.7%–19.6%) for BRCA2 carriers, and 5.1% (95% CI, 4.5%–5.7%) for noncarriers.

Age at first breast cancer diagnosis was predictive of the 10-year cumulative risk of CBC among BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers only. Specifically, the CBC risk among BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers diagnosed before age 41 years was 23.9% (BRCA1, 25.5%; BRCA2, 17.2%); in contrast, CBC among those diagnosed between 41 and 49 years was 12.6% (BRCA1, 15.6%; BRCA2, 7.2%).

In an English study of 506 BRCA1 carriers and 505 BRCA2 carriers with a diagnosis of breast cancer at any age and median follow-up of 7.8 years, the 10-year risks for CBC were 25.7% for BRCA1 carriers and 19.5% for BRCA2 carriers.

Earlier age at first breast cancer diagnosis for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers combined was significantly associated with a higher CBC risk, with a 20-year rate of 55.4% among those younger than 40 years, compared with 36.4% among those older than 50 years. Additionally, differences were more pronounced among BRCA1 carriers compared with BRCA2 carriers.

An international, multicenter, prospective cohort study followed 1,305 BRCA1 and 908 BRCA2 female carriers with a diagnosis of breast cancer (without any other cancers) for a median follow-up time of 4 years (range, 2–7 y).

Participants had a median age of 47 years (range, 40–55 y) at the start of follow-up. The authors reported a cumulative risk of CBC 20 years after the initial breast cancer diagnosis of 40% (95% CI, 35%–45%) for BRCA1 carriers and 26% (95% CI, 20%–33%) for BRCA2 carriers. These 20-year estimates are in line with the 10-year cumulative risk estimates reported in Table 6.

Thus, in summary, despite differences in study design, study sites, and sample sizes, the data on CBC among women with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants show several consistent findings:

The risk at all time points studied is significantly higher than that among sporadic controls.

The risk continues to rise with time since first breast cancer, and reaches 20% to 30% at 10 years of follow-up, and 40% to 50% at 20 years in most studies.

Some, but not all, studies show an excess of CBC among BRCA1 carriers compared with BRCA2 carriers.

The risk of CBC is greatest among women whose first breast cancer occurs at a young age, and thus is inversely associated with age.

Risk-reducing strategies

Refer to the Risk-reducing mastectomy section of this summary for information about the use of risk-reducing surgery in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. Refer to the Chemoprevention section of this summary for information about the use of tamoxifen as a risk-reduction strategy for CBC in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants.

Breast cancer as a second malignancy in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants

Two genetic registry–based studies have recently explored the risk of primary breast cancer after BRCA-related ovarian cancer. In one study, 164 BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers with primary epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer were followed for subsequent events.

The risk of metachronous breast cancer at 5 years after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer was lower than previously reported for unaffected BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers. In this series, overall survival was dominated by ovarian cancer-related deaths. A similar study compared the risk of primary breast cancer in BRCA-related ovarian cancer patients and unaffected carriers.

The 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year risks of primary breast cancer were all statistically significantly lower in patients with ovarian cancer. The risk of CBC among women with a unilateral breast cancer before their ovarian cancer diagnosis was also lower than in women without ovarian cancer, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. These studies suggest that treatment for ovarian cancer, namely oophorectomy and platinum-based chemotherapy, may confer protection against subsequent breast cancer. In a single-institution cohort study of 364 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA pathogenic variant testing, 135 (37.1%) were found to carry a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant. Of the 135 BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers, 12 (8.9%) developed breast cancer. All breast cancers were stage 0 to stage II and diagnosed as follows: mammogram (7), palpable mass (3), and incidental finding during risk-reducing mastectomy (2). At median follow-up of 6.3 years, of the 12 patients with breast cancer after ovarian cancer, three died of recurrent ovarian cancer and one died of metastatic breast cancer.

The majority of these cancers were detected with mammogram or clinical exam, suggesting additional breast surveillance with other modalities or risk-reducing surgery may be of questionable value. Mathematical modeling suggests that for women with BRCA-associated ovarian cancer, breast cancer screening should consist of mammography and clinical breast exam. The consideration of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or risk-reducing mastectomies may be beneficial for women with early-stage ovarian cancer or for long-term ovarian cancer survivors.

Cancers other than female breast/ovarian

Female breast and ovarian cancers are clearly the dominant cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2. BRCA pathogenic variants also confer an increased risk of fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas. One large study from a familial registry of carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants has found a 120-fold RR of fallopian tube cancer among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants compared with the general population.

The risk of primary peritoneal cancer among carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants with intact ovaries is increased but remains poorly quantified, despite a residual risk of 3% to 4% in the 20 years after RRSO.

(Refer to the RRSO section in the Ovarian cancer section of this summary for more information.)

Pancreatic, male breast, and prostate cancers have also been consistently associated with BRCA pathogenic variants, particularly with BRCA2. Other cancers have been associated in some studies. The strength of the association of these cancers with BRCA pathogenic variants has been more difficult to estimate because of the lower numbers of these cancers observed in carriers of pathogenic variants.

Men with BRCA2 pathogenic variants, and to a lesser extent BRCA1 pathogenic variants, are at increased risk of breast cancer with lifetime risks estimated at 5% to 10% and 1% to 2%, respectively.

Men carrying BRCA2 pathogenic variants, and to a lesser extent BRCA1 pathogenic variants, have an approximately threefold to sevenfold increased risk of prostate cancer.

BRCA2-associated prostate cancer also appears to be more aggressive.

(Refer to the section in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Prostate Cancer for more information.)

Studies of familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) and unselected series of pancreatic cancer have also supported an association with BRCA2, and to a lesser extent, BRCA1.

Overall, it appears that between 3% to 15% of families with FPC may have germline BRCA2 pathogenic variants, with risks increasing with more affected relatives.

Similarly, studies of unselected pancreatic cancers have reported BRCA2 pathogenic variant frequencies between 3% to 7%, with these numbers approaching 10% in those of AJ descent.

The lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer in BRCA2 carriers is estimated to be 3% to 5%,

compared with an estimated lifetime risk of 0.5% by age 70 years in the general population.

A large, single-institution study of more than 1,000 carriers of pathogenic variants found a 21-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer among BRCA2 carriers and a 4.7-fold increased risk among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, compared with incidence in the general population.

Other cancers associated with BRCA2 pathogenic variants in some, but not all, studies include melanoma, biliary cancers, and head and neck cancers, but these risks appear modest (<5% lifetime risk) and are less well studied.

Table 7. Spectrum of Cancers in Carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants

Cancer Sites	BRCA1		BRCA2
	Strength of Evidence	Magnitude of Absolute Risk	Strength of Evidence	Magnitude of Absolute Risk
Breast (female)	+++	High	+++	High
Ovary, fallopian tube, peritoneum	+++	High	+++	Moderate
Breast (male)	+	Undefined	+++	Low
Pancreas	++	Very Low	+++	Low
Prostate	+	Undefined	+++	High
aRefer to the PDQ summary on Genetics of Prostate Cancer for more information about the association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with prostate cancer.
+++ Multiple studies demonstrated association and are relatively consistent.
++ Multiple studies and the predominance of the evidence are positive.
+ May be an association, predominantly single studies; smaller limited studies and/or inconsistent but weighted toward positive.

The first Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium study investigating cancer risks reported an excess of colorectal cancer in BRCA1 carriers (RR, 4.1; 95% CI, 2.4–7.2).

This finding was supported by some, but not all, family-based studies. However, unselected series of colorectal cancer that have been exclusively performed in the AJ population have not shown elevated rates of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Taken together, the data suggest little, if any, increased risk of colorectal cancer, and possibly only in specific population groups. Therefore, at this time, carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants should adhere to population-screening recommendations for colorectal cancer.

No increased prevalence of hereditary BRCA pathogenic variants was found among 200 Jewish women with endometrial carcinoma or 56 unselected women with uterine papillary serous carcinoma.

(Refer to the Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy section in the Ovarian cancer section of this summary for more information.)

Cancer risk in individuals who test negative for a known familial BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant ("true negative")

There is conflicting evidence as to the residual familial risk among women who test negative for the BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant segregating in the family. An initial study based on prospective evaluation of 353 women who tested negative for the BRCA1 pathogenic variant segregating in the family found that five incident breast cancers occurred during more than 6,000 person-years of observation, for a lifetime risk of 6.8%, a rate similar to the general population.

A report that the risk may be as high as fivefold in women who tested negative for the BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant in the family

was followed by numerous letters to the editor suggesting that ascertainment biases account for much of this observed excess risk.

Four additional analyses have suggested an approximate 1.5-fold to 2-fold excess risk.

In one study, two cases of ovarian cancer were reported.

Several studies have involved retrospective analyses; all studies have been based on small observed numbers of cases and have been of uncertain statistical and clinical significance.

Results from numerous other prospective studies have found no increased risk. A study of 375 women who tested negative for a known familial pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 reported two invasive breast cancers, two in situ breast cancers, and no ovarian cancers diagnosed, with a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. Four invasive breast cancers were expected, whereas two were observed.

Another study of similar size but longer follow-up (395 women and 7,008 person-years of follow-up) also found no statistically significant overall increase in breast cancer risk among variant-negative women (observed/expected [O/E], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39–1.51), although women who had at least one FDR with breast cancer had a nonsignificant increased risk (O/E, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.41–2.91).

A study of 160 BRCA1 and 132 BRCA2 pathogenic variant–positive families from the Breast Cancer Family Registry found no evidence for increased risk among noncarriers in these families.

In a large study of 722 variant-negative women from Australia in whom six invasive breast cancers were observed after a median follow-up of 6.3 years, the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was not significantly elevated (SIR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.51–2.53).

Based on available data, it appears that women testing negative for known familial BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants can adhere to general population screening guidelines unless they have sufficient additional risk factors, such as a personal history of atypical hyperplasia of the breast or family history of breast cancer in relatives who do not carry the familial pathogenic variant.

Breast and ovarian cancer risk in breast cancer families without detectable BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants ("indeterminate")

The majority of families with site-specific breast cancer test negative for BRCA1/BRCA2 and have no features consistent with Cowden syndrome or Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Five studies using population-based and clinic-based approaches have demonstrated no increased risk of ovarian cancer in such families. Although ovarian cancer risk was not increased, breast cancer risk remained elevated.

Modifiers of risk in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 confer high risks of breast and ovarian cancers. The risks, however, are not equal in all pathogenic variant carriers and have been found to vary by several factors, including type of cancer, age at onset, and variant position.

This observed variation in penetrance has led to the hypothesis that other genetic and/or environmental factors modify cancer risk in carriers of pathogenic variants. There is a growing body of literature identifying genetic and nongenetic factors that contribute to the observed variation in rates of cancers seen in families with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Genetic modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk

The largest studies investigating genetic modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk to date have come from CIMBA, a large international effort with genotypic and phenotypic data on more than 15,000 BRCA1 and 10,000 BRCA2 carriers.

Using candidate gene analysis and GWAS, CIMBA has identified several loci associated both with increased and decreased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Some of the SNPs are related to subtypes of breast cancer, such as hormone-receptor and HER2/neu status. The risks conferred are all modest but if operating in a multiplicative fashion could significantly impact risk of cancer in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Currently, these SNPs are not being tested for or used in clinical decision making.

Genotype-phenotype correlations

Some genotype-phenotype correlations have been identified in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant families. None of the studies have had sufficient numbers of pathogenic variant–positive individuals to make definitive conclusions, and the findings are probably not sufficiently established to use in individual risk assessment and management. In 25 families with BRCA2 pathogenic variants, an ovarian cancer cluster region was identified in exon 11 bordered by nucleotides 3,035 and 6,629.

A study of 164 families with BRCA2 pathogenic variants collected by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium confirmed the initial finding. Pathogenic variants within the ovarian cancer cluster region were associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer and a decreased risk of breast cancer in comparison with families with variants on either side of this region.

In addition, a study of 356 families with protein-truncating BRCA1 pathogenic variants collected by the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium reported breast cancer risk to be lower with variants in the central region (nucleotides 2,401–4,190) compared with surrounding regions. Ovarian cancer risk was significantly reduced with variants 3’ to nucleotide 4,191.

These observations have generally been confirmed in subsequent studies.

Studies in Ashkenazim, in whom substantial numbers of families with the same pathogenic variant can be studied, have also found higher rates of ovarian cancer in carriers of the BRCA1:185delAG variant, in the 5' end of BRCA1, compared with carriers of the BRCA1:5382insC variant in the 3' end of the gene.

The risk of breast cancer, particularly bilateral breast cancer, and the occurrence of both breast and ovarian cancer in the same individual, however, appear to be higher in carriers of the BRCA1:5382insC pathogenic variant compared with carriers of BRCA1:185delAG and BRCA2:6174delT variants. Ovarian cancer risk is considerably higher in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, and it is uncommon before age 45 years in carriers of the BRCA2:6174delT pathogenic variant.

In an Australian study of 122 families with a pathogenic variant in BRCA1, large genomic rearrangement variants were associated with higher-risk features in breast and ovarian cancers, including younger age at breast cancer diagnosis and higher incidence of bilateral breast cancer.

Pathology of breast cancer

BRCA1 pathology

Several studies evaluating pathologic patterns seen in BRCA1-associated breast cancers have suggested an association with adverse pathologic and biologic features. These findings include higher than expected frequencies of medullary histology, high histologic grade, areas of necrosis, trabecular growth pattern, aneuploidy, high S-phase fraction, high mitotic index, and frequent TP53 variants.

In a large international series of 3,797 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, the median age at breast cancer diagnosis was 40 years.

Of breast tumors arising in BRCA1 carriers, 78% were ER-negative; 79% were PR-negative; 90% were HER2-negative; and 69% were triple-negative. These findings were consistent with multiple smaller series.

In addition, the proportion of ER-negative tumors significantly decreased as the age at breast cancer diagnosis increased.

There is considerable, but not complete, overlap between the triple-negative and basal-like subtype cancers, both of which are common in BRCA1-associated breast cancer,

particularly in women diagnosed before age 50 years.

A small proportion of BRCA1-related breast cancers are ER-positive, which are associated with later age of onset.

These ER-positive cancers have clinical behavior features that are intermediate between ER-negative BRCA1 cancers and ER-positive sporadic breast cancers, raising the possibility that there may be a unique mechanism by which they develop.

The prevalence of germline BRCA1 pathogenic variants in women with triple-negative breast cancer is significant, both in women undergoing clinical genetic testing (and thus selected in large part for family history) and in unselected triple-negative patients, with pathogenic variants reported in 9% to 35%.

Notably, studies have demonstrated a high rate of BRCA1 pathogenic variants in unselected women with triple-negative breast cancer, particularly in those diagnosed before age 50 years. A large report of 1,824 patients with triple-negative breast cancer unselected for family history, recruited through 12 studies, identified 14.6% with a pathogenic variant in an inherited cancer susceptibility gene.

BRCA1 pathogenic variants accounted for the largest proportion (8.5%), followed by BRCA2 (2.7%); PALB2 (1.2%); and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C and BRIP1 (0.3%–0.5% for each gene). In this study, those with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/BRCA2 or other inherited cancer genes were diagnosed at an earlier age and had higher grade tumors than those without pathogenic variants. Specifically, among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, the average age at diagnosis was 44 years, and 94% had high-grade tumors. One study examined 308 individuals with triple-negative breast cancer; BRCA1 pathogenic variants were present in 45. Pathogenic variants were seen both in women unselected for family history (11 of 58; 19%) and in those with family history (26 of 111; 23%).

A meta-analysis based on 2,533 patients from 12 studies was conducted to assess the risk of a BRCA1 pathogenic variant in high-risk women with triple-negative breast cancer.

Results indicated that the RR of a BRCA1 pathogenic variant among women with versus without triple-negative breast cancer is 5.65 (95% CI, 4.15–7.69), and approximately two in nine women with triple-negative disease harbor a BRCA1 pathogenic variant. Interestingly, a study of 77 unselected patients with triple-negative breast cancer in which 15 (19.5%) had a germline pathogenic variant or somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation demonstrated a lower risk of relapse in those with BRCA1 pathogenic variant–associated triple-negative breast cancer than in those with non-BRCA1-associated triple-negative breast cancer; this study was limited by its size.

A second study examining clinical outcomes in BRCA1-associated versus non-BRCA1-associated triple-negative breast cancer showed no difference, although there was a trend toward more brain metastases in those with BRCA1-associated breast cancer. In both of these studies, all but one carrier of BRCA1 pathogenic variants received chemotherapy.

In contrast, HER2 positivity and young age alone in the absence of family history or a second primary cancer does not increase the likelihood of a pathogenic variant in BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53.

It has been hypothesized that many BRCA1 tumors are derived from the basal epithelial layer of cells of the normal mammary gland, which account for 3% to 15% of unselected invasive ductal cancers. If the basal epithelial cells of the breast represent the breast stem cells, the regulatory role suggested for wild-type BRCA1 may partly explain the aggressive phenotype of BRCA1-associated breast cancer when BRCA1 function is damaged.

Further studies are needed to fully appreciate the significance of this subtype of breast cancer within the hereditary syndromes.

The most accurate method for identifying basal-like breast cancers is through gene expression studies, which have been used to classify breast cancers into biologically and clinically meaningful groups.

This technology has also been shown to correctly differentiate BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated tumors from sporadic tumors in a high proportion of cases.

Notably, among a set of breast tumors studied by gene expression array to determine molecular phenotype, all tumors with BRCA1 alterations fell within the basal tumor subtype;

however, this technology is not in routine use due to its high cost. Instead, immunohistochemical markers of basal epithelium have been proposed to identify basal-like breast cancers, which are typically negative for ER, PR, and HER2, and stain positive for cytokeratin 5/6, or epidermal growth factor receptor.

Based on these methods to measure protein expression, a number of studies have shown that the majority of BRCA1-associated breast cancers are positive for basal epithelial markers.

There is growing evidence that preinvasive lesions are a component of the BRCA phenotype. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium initially reported a relative lack of an in situ component in BRCA1-associated breast cancers,

also seen in two subsequent studies of BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers.

However, in a study of 369 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases, BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants were detected in 0.8% and 2.4%, respectively, which is only slightly lower than previously reported prevalence in studies of invasive breast cancer patients.

A retrospective study of breast cancer cases in a high-risk clinic found similar rates of preinvasive lesions, particularly DCIS, among 73 BRCA-associated breast cancers and 146 pathogenic variant–negative cases.

A study of AJ women, stratified by whether they were referred to a high-risk clinic or were unselected, showed similar prevalence of DCIS and invasive breast cancers in referred patients compared with one-third lower DCIS cases among unselected subjects.

Similarly, data about the prevalence of hyperplastic lesions have been inconsistent, with reports of increased and decreased prevalence.

Similar to invasive breast cancer, DCIS diagnosed at an early age and/or with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer is more likely to be associated with a BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

Overall evidence suggests DCIS is part of the BRCA1/BRCA2 spectrum, particularly BRCA2; however, the prevalence of pathogenic variants in DCIS patients, unselected for family history, is less than 5%.

BRCA2 pathology

The phenotype for BRCA2-related tumors appears to be more heterogeneous and is less well-characterized than that of BRCA1, although they are generally positive for ER and PR.

A large international series of 2,392 carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants found that only 23% of tumors arising in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants were ER-negative; 36% were PR-negative; 87% were HER2-negative; and 16% were triple-negative.

A large report of 1,824 patients with triple-negative breast cancer unselected for family history, recruited through 12 studies, identified 2.7% with a BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

(Refer to the BRCA1 pathology section of this summary for more information about this study.) A report from Iceland found less tubule formation, more nuclear pleomorphism, and higher mitotic rates in BRCA2-related tumors than in sporadic controls; however, a single BRCA2 founder pathogenic variant (999del5) accounts for nearly all hereditary breast cancer in this population, thus limiting the generalizability of this observation.

A large case series from North America and Europe described a greater proportion of BRCA2-associated tumors with continuous pushing margins (a histopathologic description of a pattern of invasion), fewer tubules and lower mitotic counts.

Other reports suggest that BRCA2-related tumors include an excess of lobular and tubulolobular histology.

In summary, histologic characteristics associated with BRCA2 pathogenic variants have been inconsistent.

Role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in sporadic breast cancer

Given that germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 lead to a very high probability of developing breast cancer, it was a natural assumption that these genes would also be involved in the development of the more common nonhereditary forms of the disease. Although somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are not common in sporadic breast cancer tumors, there is increasing evidence that hypermethylation of the gene promoter (BRCA1) and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) (BRCA2) are frequent events. In fact, many breast cancers have low levels of the BRCA1 mRNA, which may result from hypermethylation of the gene promoter.

Approximately 10% to 15% of sporadic breast cancers appear to have BRCA1 promoter hypermethylation, and even more have downregulation of BRCA1 by other mechanisms. Basal-type breast cancers (ER negative, PR negative, HER2 negative, and cytokeratin 5/6 positive) more commonly have BRCA1 dysregulation than other tumor types.

BRCA1-related tumor characteristics have also been associated with constitutional methylation of the BRCA1 promoter. In a study of 255 breast cancers diagnosed before age 40 years in women without germline BRCA1 pathogenic variants, methylation of BRCA1 in peripheral blood was observed in 31% of women whose tumors had multiple BRCA1-associated pathological characteristics (e.g., high mitotic index and growth pattern including multinucleated cells) compared with less than 4% methylation in controls.

(Refer to the BRCA1 pathology section for more information.) Although hypermethylation has not been reported for BRCA2 pathogenic variants, the BRCA2 locus on chromosome 13q is the target of frequent LOH in breast cancer.

Targeted therapies are being developed for tumors with loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 protein expression.

Pathology of ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancers in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants are more likely to be high-grade serous adenocarcinomas and are less likely to be mucinous or borderline tumors.

Fallopian tube cancer and peritoneal carcinomas are also part of the BRCA-associated disease spectrum.

Histopathologic examinations of fallopian tubes removed from women with a hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer show dysplastic and hyperplastic lesions that suggest a premalignant phenotype.

Occult carcinomas have been reported in 2% to 11% of adnexa removed from carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants at the time of risk-reducing surgery.

Most of these occult lesions are seen in the fallopian tubes, which has led to the hypothesis that many BRCA-associated ovarian cancers may actually have originated in the fallopian tubes. Specifically, the distal segment of the fallopian tubes (containing the fimbriae) has been implicated as a common origin of the high-grade serous cancers seen in BRCA pathogenic variant carriers, based on the close proximity of the fimbriae to the ovarian surface, exposure of the fimbriae to the peritoneal cavity, and the broad surface area in the fimbriae.

Because of the multicentric origin of high-grade serous carcinomas from Müllerian-derived tissue, staging of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinomas is now considered collectively by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. The term high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma may be used to represent high-grade pelvic serous carcinoma for consistency in language.

High-grade serous ovarian carcinomas have a higher incidence of somatic TP53 mutations.

DNA microarray technology suggests distinct molecular pathways of carcinogenesis between BRCA1, BRCA2, and sporadic ovarian cancer.

Furthermore, data suggest that BRCA-related ovarian cancers metastasize more frequently to the viscera, while sporadic ovarian cancers remain confined to the peritoneum.

Unlike high-grade serous carcinomas, low-grade serous ovarian cancers are less likely to be part of the BRCA1/BRCA2 spectrum.

Role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in sporadic ovarian cancer

Given that germline variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 lead to a very high probability of developing ovarian cancer, it was a natural assumption that these genes would also be involved in the development of the more common nonhereditary forms of the disease. Although somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are not common in sporadic ovarian cancer tumors,

there is increasing evidence that hypermethylation of the gene promoter (BRCA1) and LOH (BRCA2) are frequent events. Loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 protein expression is more common in ovarian cancer than in breast cancer,

and downregulation of BRCA1 is associated with enhanced sensitivity to cisplatin and improved survival in this disease.

Targeted therapies are being developed for tumors with loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 protein expression.

Other High-Penetrance Syndromes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancers

Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome is characterized by autosomal dominant inheritance of susceptibility to predominantly right-sided colon cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, and other extracolonic cancers (including cancer of the renal pelvis, ureter, small bowel, and pancreas), multiple primary cancers, and a young age of onset of cancer.

The condition is caused by germline variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, which are involved in repair of DNA mismatch variants.

The MLH1 and MSH2 genes are the most common susceptibility genes for Lynch syndrome, accounting for 80% to 90% of observed pathogenic variants,

followed by MSH6 and PMS2.

(Refer to the Lynch Syndrome section in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Colorectal Cancer for more information about this syndrome.)

After colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer is the second hallmark cancer of a family with Lynch syndrome. Even in the original Family G, described by Dr. Aldred Scott Warthin, numerous family members were noted to have extracolonic cancers including endometrial cancer. Although the first version of the Amsterdam criteria did not include endometrial cancer,

in 1999, the Amsterdam criteria were revised to include endometrial cancer as extracolonic tumors associated with Lynch syndrome to identify families at risk.

In addition, the Bethesda guidelines in 1997 (revised in 2004) did include endometrial and ovarian cancers as Lynch syndrome–related cancers to prompt tumor testing for Lynch syndrome.

The lifetime risk of ovarian carcinoma in females with Lynch syndrome is estimated to be as high as 12%, and the reported RR of ovarian cancer has ranged from 3.6 to 13, based on families ascertained from high-risk clinics with known or suspected Lynch syndrome.

There may be differences in ovarian cancer risk depending on the Lynch syndrome–associated pathogenic variant. In PMS2-associated Lynch syndrome, one study of 284 families was unable to identify an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

Another prospective registry of 3,119 Lynch syndrome–pathogenic variant carriers described the cumulative risk of ovarian cancer to range from 10% to 17% in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 carriers. In contrast, 0 of 67 women with a pathogenic variant in PMS2 developed ovarian cancer in 303 follow-up years.

Overall, there are too few cases of PMS2 pathogenic variant carriers to make definitive recommendations for ovarian cancer management. Characteristics of Lynch syndrome–associated ovarian cancers may include overrepresentation of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages I and II at diagnosis (reported as 81.5%), underrepresentation of serous subtypes (reported as 22.9%), and a better 10-year survival (reported as 80.6%) than reported both in population-based series and in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants.

The issue of breast cancer risk in Lynch syndrome has been controversial. Retrospective studies have been inconsistent, but several have demonstrated microsatellite instability in a proportion of breast cancers from individuals with Lynch syndrome;

one of these studies evaluated breast cancer risk in individuals with Lynch syndrome and found that it is not elevated.

However, the largest prospective study to date of 446 unaffected carriers of pathogenic variants from the Colon Cancer Family Registry

who were followed for up to 10 years reported an elevated SIR of 3.95 for breast cancer (95% CI, 1.59–8.13; P = .001).

The same group subsequently analyzed data on 764 carriers of MMR gene pathogenic variants with a prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Results showed that the 10-year risk of breast cancer following colorectal cancer was 2% (95% CI, 1%–4%) and that the SIR was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.07–2.59).

A series from the United Kingdom composed of clinically referred Lynch syndrome kindreds, with efforts to correct for ascertainment, showed a twofold increased risk of breast cancer in 157 MLH1 carriers but not in carriers of other MMR variants.

Results from a meta-analysis of breast cancer risk in Lynch syndrome among 15 studies with molecular tumor testing results revealed that 62 of 122 breast cancers (51%; 95% CI, 42%–60%) in MMR pathogenic variant carriers were MMR-deficient. In addition, breast cancer risk estimates among a total of 21 studies showed an increased risk of twofold to 18-fold in eight studies that compared MMR variant carriers with noncarriers, while 13 studies did not observe statistical evidence for an association of breast cancer risk with Lynch syndrome.

A number of subsequent studies have suggested the presence of higher breast cancer risks than previously published,

although this has not been consistently observed.

Through a study of 325 Canadian families with Lynch syndrome, primarily encompassing MLH1 and MSH2 carriers, the lifetime cumulative risk for breast cancer among MSH2 carriers was reported to be 22%.

Similarly, breast cancer risks were elevated in a study of 423 women with Lynch syndrome, with substantially higher risks among those with MSH6 and PMS2 pathogenic variants, compared with MLH1 and MSH2 pathogenic variants.

In fact, breast cancer risk to age 60 years was 37.7% for PMS2, 31.1% for MSH6, 16.1% for MSH2, and 15.5% for MLH1. These findings are consistent with another study of 528 patients with Lynch syndrome–associated pathogenic variants (including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM) in which PMS2 and MSH6 variants were much more frequent among patients with only breast cancer, compared with those with only colorectal cancer (P = 2.3 x 10-5).

Additional data to support an association of MSH6 with breast cancer were provided through a study of over 10,000 cancer patients across the United States who had genetic testing.

Findings indicated that MSH6 was associated with breast cancer with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.59 (95% CI, 1.35–5.44). Taken together, these studies highlight how the risk profile among patients with Lynch syndrome is continuing to evolve as more individuals are tested through multigene panel testing, with representation of larger numbers of individuals with PMS2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants compared with prior studies. In the absence of definitive risk estimates, individuals with Lynch syndrome are screened for breast cancer on the basis of family history.

Refer to the Lynch Syndrome section of the Clinical Management of Other Hereditary Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Syndromes section of this summary for information about clinical management of Lynch syndrome.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS)

Breast cancer is also a component of the rare LFS, in which germline variants of the TP53 gene on chromosome 17p have been documented. Located on chromosome 17p, TP53 encodes a 53kd nuclear phosphoprotein that binds DNA sequences and functions as a negative regulator of cell growth and proliferation in the setting of DNA damage. It is also an active component of programmed cell death.

Inactivation of the TP53 gene or disruption of the protein product is thought to allow the persistence of damaged DNA and the possible development of malignant cells.

Widely used clinical diagnostic criteria for LFS were originally developed by Chompret et al. in 2001 (called the Chompret Criteria)

and revised in 2009 based on additional emerging data.

LFS is characterized by premenopausal breast cancer in combination with childhood sarcoma, brain tumors, leukemia, and adrenocortical carcinoma.

Germline variants in TP53 are thought to account for fewer than 1% of breast cancer cases.

TP53-associated breast cancer is often HER2/neu-positive, in addition to being ER-positive, PR-positive, or both.

Evidence also exists that patients treated for a TP53-related tumor with chemotherapy or radiation therapy may be at risk of a treatment-related second malignancy.

Historical criteria for defining LFS

The term Li-Fraumeni syndrome was used for the first time in 1982,

and the following criteria, which subsequently became the classical definition of the syndrome, were proposed by Li and Fraumeni in 1988 :

Sarcoma before age 45 years;

An FDR with cancer before age 45 years; AND

Another close relative (FDR or second-degree relative [SDR]) with either cancer before age 45 years or a sarcoma at any age.

Subsequently in 2001, Chompret et al. systematically developed clinical criteria for recommending TP53 genetic testing, with the narrow LFS tumor spectrum defined as sarcoma, brain tumors, breast cancer, and adrenocortical carcinoma. The criteria were as follows:

A proband affected by a narrow-spectrum tumor before age 36 years AND at least one FDR or SDR affected by a narrow-spectrum tumor (other than breast cancer if the proband is affected by breast cancer) before age 46 years or multiple primary tumors; OR

A proband with multiple primary tumors, two of which belong to the narrow spectrum and the first of which occurred before age 36 years, irrespective of family history; OR

A proband with adrenocortical carcinoma irrespective of the age at onset and family history.

These criteria were revised in 2009

based on additional emerging data

as follows:

A proband with a tumor belonging to the LFS tumor spectrum* before age 46 years AND at least one FDR or SDR with an LFS tumor (except breast cancer if proband has breast cancer) before age 56 years or with multiple tumors; OR

A proband with multiple tumors (except multiple breast tumors), two of which belong to the LFS tumor spectrum and the first of which occurred before age 46 years; OR

A patient with adrenocortical carcinoma or choroid plexus, irrespective of family history.

*The 2009 Chompret criteria defined the LFS tumor spectrum as including the following cancers: soft tissue sarcoma, osteosarcoma, brain tumor, premenopausal breast cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, leukemia, and lung bronchoalveolar cancer.

In 2015, Bougeard et al. revised the criteria based on data from 415 carriers of pathogenic variants, to include the presence of childhood anaplastic rhabdomyosarcoma and breast cancer before age 31 years as an indication for testing, similar to what is recommended for choroid plexus carcinoma and adrenocortical carcinoma. The criteria were revised as follows:

A proband with a tumor belonging to the LFS tumor spectrum** before age 46 years AND at least one FDR or SDR with LFS tumor (except breast cancer if proband has breast cancer) before age 56 years or with multiple tumors; OR

A proband with multiple tumors (except multiple breast tumors), two of which belong to the LFS tumor spectrum and the first of which occurred before age 46 years; OR

A patient with adrenocortical carcinoma, choroid plexus tumor, or rhabdomyosarcoma of embryonal anaplastic subtype, irrespective of family history; OR

Breast cancer before age 31 years.

**The 2015 Chompret criteria defined the LFS tumor spectrum as including the following cancers: premenopausal breast cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, osteosarcoma, central nervous system (CNS) tumor, and adrenocortical carcinoma.

Clinical characteristics of LFS

Germline TP53 pathogenic variants were identified in 17% (n = 91) of 525 samples submitted to City of Hope laboratories for clinical TP53 testing.

All families with a TP53 pathogenic variant had at least one family member with a sarcoma, breast cancer, brain cancer, or adrenocortical cancer (core cancers). In addition, all eight individuals with a choroid plexus tumor had a TP53 pathogenic variant, as did 14 of the 21 individuals with childhood adrenocortical cancer. In women aged 30 to 49 years who had breast cancer but no family history of other core cancers, no TP53 variants were found.

Subsequently, a large clinical series of patients from France who were tested primarily based on the 2009 version of the Chompret criteria included 415 carriers of pathogenic variants from 214 families.

In this study, 43% of carriers had multiple malignancies, and the mean age at first tumor onset was 24.9 years. The childhood tumor spectrum was characterized by osteosarcomas, adrenocortical carcinomas, CNS tumors, and soft tissue sarcomas (present in 23%–30% collectively), whereas the adult tumor spectrum primarily encompassed breast cancer (79% of females) and soft tissue sarcomas (27% of carriers). The TP53 pathogenic variant detection rate was 6% among females younger than 31 years with breast cancer and no additional features suggestive of LFS. Evaluation of genotype-phenotype correlations indicated a gradient of clinical severity, with a significantly lower mean age at onset among those with dominant-negative missense variants (21.3 years), compared with those with all types of loss-of-function variants (28.5 years) or genomic rearrangements (35.8 years). With the exception of adrenocortical carcinoma, affected children mostly harbored dominant-negative missense pathogenic variants. Among 127 female carriers of pathogenic variants with breast cancer, 31% developed CBC. Receptor status information was available for 40 tumors, which indicated 55% were HER2-positive, and 37% were triple-positive (i.e., ER-positive, PR-positive, and HER2-positive). There was an exceptionally high rate of multiple malignancies (43%) among carriers of pathogenic variants, of which 83% were metachronous. Treatment records were available for 64 carriers who received radiation therapy for treatment of their first tumor; of these, 19 (30%) developed 26 secondary tumors within a radiation field, with a latency of 2 to 26 years (mean, 10.7 y).

Similarly, results of 286 TP53 pathogenic variant–positive individuals in the National Cancer Institute’s LFS Study indicated a cumulative cancer incidence of almost 100% by age 70 years for both males and females.

They reported substantial variations by sex, age, and cancer type. Specifically, cumulative cancer incidence reached 50% by age 31 years in females and age 46 years in males, although male risks were higher in childhood and late adulthood. Cumulative cancer incidence by sex for the top four cancers is included in Table 8. Of those with one cancer, 49% developed at least one additional cancer after a median of 10 years. Age-specific risks for developing first and second cancers were comparable.

Table 8. Cumulative Cancer Risks for the Most Common Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS)-Associated Cancers

	Cumulative Cancer Risk by Age 70 Years
Cancer Type	Females(%)	Males(%)
Breast cancer	54	–
Soft tissue sarcoma	15	22
Brain cancer	6	19
Osteosarcoma	5	11
aAdapted from Mai et al.
bOther cancers, such as adrenocortical carcinoma, leukemia, and lung bronchoalveolar cancer, have been considered part of the LFS cancer spectrum.

With the increasing use of multigene (panel) tests, it is important to recognize that pathogenic variants in TP53 are unexpectedly being identified in individuals without a family history characteristic of LFS.

The clinical significance of finding an isolated TP53 pathogenic variant in an individual or family who does not meet the Chompret criteria is uncertain. Consequently, it remains important to interpret cancer risks and determine optimal management strategies for individuals who are unexpectedly found to have a germline TP53 pathogenic variant, while taking into account their personal and family histories.

One cohort study evaluated 116 individuals with a germline TP53 pathogenic variant yearly at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center using multimodality screening with and without gadolinium. Baseline screening identified a cancer in eight patients (6.9%) with a false-positive rate of 34.5% for MRI (n = 40).

Screening for breast cancer with annual breast MRI is recommended;

additional screening for other cancers has been studied and is evolving.

PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes (including Cowden syndrome)

Cowden syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome (BRRS) are part of a spectrum of conditions known collectively as PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes. Approximately 85% of patients diagnosed with Cowden syndrome, and approximately 60% of patients with BRRS have an identifiable PTEN pathogenic variant.

In addition, PTEN pathogenic variants have been identified in patients with very diverse clinical phenotypes.

The term PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes refers to any patient with a PTEN pathogenic variant, irrespective of clinical presentation.

PTEN functions as a dual-specificity phosphatase that removes phosphate groups from tyrosine, serine, and threonine. Pathogenic variants of PTEN are diverse, including nonsense, missense, frameshift, and splice-site variants. Approximately 40% of variants are found in exon 5, which encodes the phosphatase core motif, and several recurrent pathogenic variants have been observed.

Individuals with variants in the 5’ end or within the phosphatase core of PTEN tend to have more organ systems involved.

Operational criteria for the diagnosis of Cowden syndrome have been published and subsequently updated.

These included major, minor, and pathognomonic criteria consisting of certain mucocutaneous manifestations and adult-onset dysplastic gangliocytoma of the cerebellum (Lhermitte-Duclos disease). An updated set of criteria based on a systematic literature review has been suggested and is currently utilized in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

Contrary to previous criteria, the authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence for any features to be classified as pathognomonic. With increased utilization of genetic testing, especially the use of multigene panels, clinical criteria for Cowden syndrome will need to be reconciled with the phenotype of individuals with documented germline PTEN pathogenic variants who do not meet these criteria. Until then, whether Cowden syndrome and the other PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes will be defined clinically or based on the results of genetic testing remains ambiguous. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) suggests that referral for genetics consultation be considered for individuals with a personal history of or a first-degree relative with 1) adult-onset Lhermitte-Duclos disease or 2) any three of the major or minor criteria that have been established for the diagnosis of Cowden syndrome.

Detailed recommendations, including diagnostic criteria for Cowden syndrome, can be found in the NCCN and ACMG guidelines.

Additionally, a predictive model that uses clinical criteria to estimate the probability of a PTEN pathogenic variant is available; a cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that germline PTEN testing is cost effective if the probability of a variant is greater than 10%.

Over a 10-year period, the International Cowden Consortium (ICC) prospectively recruited a consecutive series of adult and pediatric patients meeting relaxed ICC criteria for PTEN testing in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

Most individuals did not meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of Cowden syndrome or BRRS. Of the 3,399 individuals recruited and tested, 295 probands (8.8%) and an additional 73 family members were found to harbor germline PTEN pathogenic variants. In addition to breast, thyroid, and endometrial cancers, the authors concluded that on the basis of cancer risk, melanoma, kidney cancer, and colorectal cancers should be considered part of the cancer spectra arising from germline PTEN pathogenic variants. A second study of approximately 100 patients with a germline PTEN pathogenic variant confirmed these findings and suggested a cumulative cancer risk of 85% by age 70 years.

Although PTEN pathogenic variants, which are estimated to occur in 1 in 200,000 individuals,

account for a small fraction of hereditary breast cancer, the characterization of PTEN function will provide valuable insights into the signal pathway and the maintenance of normal cell physiology.

Lifetime breast cancer risk is estimated to be between 25% and 50% among women with Cowden syndrome.

Other studies have reported risks as high as 85%;

however, there are concerns regarding selection bias in these studies. As in other forms of hereditary breast cancer, onset is often at a young age and may be bilateral.

Lifetime risk of endometrial cancer is estimated to be between 19% and 28%, depending on the cohort studied, with an increased risk of premenopausal onset.

Because of the low prevalence of PTEN pathogenic variants in the population, the proportion of endometrial cancer attributable to Cowden syndrome is small. There are no data that link PTEN pathogenic variants to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Skin manifestations include multiple trichilemmomas, oral fibromas and papillomas, and acral, palmar, and plantar keratoses. History or observation of the characteristic skin features raises a suspicion of Cowden syndrome. CNS manifestations include macrocephaly, developmental delay, and dysplastic gangliocytomas of the cerebellum.

(Refer to the PDQ summaries on Genetics of Colorectal Cancer and Genetics of Skin Cancer for more information about PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes [including Cowden syndrome].)

Diffuse gastric and lobular breast cancer syndrome

The E-cadherin gene CDH1 was first described in 1998 in three Maori families with multiple cases of diffuse gastric cancer (DGC), leading to the designation of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC). There have been multiple subsequent reports of an excess of lobular breast cancer in HDGC families.

CDH1 is located on chromosome 16q22.1 and encodes the E-cadherin protein, a calcium-dependent homophilic adhesion molecule that plays a key role in cellular adhesion, cell polarity, cell signaling, and maintenance of cellular differentiation and tissue morphology.

E-cadherin binds to various catenins to stabilize the cytoplasmic cell adhesion complex and to maintain the E-cadherin interaction with actin filament.

Loss of CDH1 can occur as a result of somatic mutations, LOH, or hypermethylation, and can result in dedifferentiation and invasiveness in human cancers.

Classic histopathologic findings in gastrectomy specimens include in situ signet ring cells and/or pagetoid spread of signet ring cells. Of all gastric cancers, 1% to 3% are attributed to inherited gastric cancer syndromes.

HDGC is an autosomal dominant syndrome associated with poorly differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma of the stomach presenting as linitis plastica. It is a highly penetrant and highly fatal syndrome, with a risk of clinical DGC ranging from 40% to 83%.

The risk of lobular breast cancer, which is characterized by small uniform cells that tend to invade in “single files,” is also increased in HDGC. Although invasive lobular breast cancer represents only 10% to 15% of all breast cancers, the lifetime risk of lobular breast cancer in carriers of CDH1 pathogenic variants ranges from 30% to 50%.

Guidelines for screening for CDH1 vary but include multiple cases of DGC in a family, early age of DGC, or lobular breast cancer in a family with DGC. Approximately 25% of families meeting these criteria are found to have a pathogenic variant in CDH1.

CDH1 pathogenic variants have been found in some families with lobular breast cancer but no gastric cancer.

The management of individuals with CDH1 pathogenic variants without a family history of gastric cancer is unclear.

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS)

PJS is an early-onset autosomal dominant disorder characterized by melanocytic macules on the lips, the perioral region, and buccal region; and multiple gastrointestinal polyps, both hamartomatous and adenomatous.

Germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene at chromosome 19p13.3 have been identified in the vast majority of PJS families.

The most common cancers in PJS are gastrointestinal. However, other organs are at increased risk of developing malignancies. For example, the cumulative risks have been estimated to be 32% to 54% for breast cancer

and 21% for ovarian cancer (mainly ovarian sex-cord tumors).

The risk for pancreatic cancer has been estimated to be more than 100-fold higher than that in the general population.

A systematic review found a lifetime cumulative cancer risk, all sites combined, of up to 93% in patients with PJS.

Table 9 shows the cumulative risk of these tumors.

Females with PJS are also predisposed to the development of cervical adenoma malignum, a rare and very aggressive adenocarcinoma of the cervix.

In addition, females with PJS commonly develop benign ovarian sex-cord tumors with annular tubules, whereas males with PJS are predisposed to development of Sertoli-cell testicular tumors;

although neither of these two tumor types is malignant, they can cause symptoms related to increased estrogen production.

Although the risk of malignancy appears to be exceedingly high in individuals with PJS based on the published literature, the possibility that selection and referral biases have resulted in overestimates of these risks should be considered.

Table 9. Cumulative Cancer Risks in Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome Up To Specified Age

Peutz-Jeghers gene(s)

Site	Age (y)	Cumulative Risk (%)
Any cancer	60–70	37–93
GI cancer	60–70	38–66
Gynecological cancer	60–70	13–18
Per origin
Stomach	65	29
Small bowel	65	13
Colorectum	65	39
Pancreas	65–70	11–36
Lung	65–70	7–17
Breast	60–70	32–54
Uterus	65	9
Ovary	65	21
Cervix	65	10
Testes	65	9
GI = gastrointestinal.
aReprinted with permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Gastroenterology , copyright 2010.
bAll cumulative risks were increased compared with the general population (P < .05), with the exception of cervix and testes.
cGI cancers include colorectal, small intestinal, gastric, esophageal, and pancreatic.
dWesterman et al.: GI cancer does not include pancreatic cancer.
eDid not include adenoma malignum of the cervix or Sertoli cell tumors of the testes.

Per origin

Peutz-Jeghers gene(s)

PJS is caused by pathogenic variants in the STK11 (also called LKB1) tumor suppressor gene located on chromosome 19p13.

Unlike the adenomas seen in familial adenomatous polyposis, the polyps arising in PJS are hamartomas. Studies of the hamartomatous polyps and cancers of PJS show allelic imbalance (LOH) consistent with the two-hit hypothesis, demonstrating that STK11 is a tumor suppressor gene.

However, heterozygous STK11 knockout mice develop hamartomas without inactivation of the remaining wild-type allele, suggesting that haploinsufficiency may be sufficient for initial tumor development in PJS.

Subsequently, the cancers that develop in STK11 +/- mice do show LOH;

indeed, compound mutant mice heterozygous for pathogenic variants in STK11 +/- and homozygous for pathogenic variants in TP53 -/- have accelerated development of both hamartomas and cancers.

Germline variants of the STK11 gene represent a spectrum of nonsense, frameshift, and missense variants, and splice-site variants and large deletions.

Approximately 85% of variants are localized to regions of the kinase domain of the expressed protein. No strong genotype-phenotype correlations have been identified.

Up to 30% of variants are large deletions involving one or more exons of STK11, underscoring the importance of deletion analysis in suspected cases of PJS.

STK11 has been unequivocally demonstrated to cause PJS. Although earlier estimates using direct DNA sequencing showed a 50% pathogenic variant detection rate in STK11, studies adding techniques to detect large deletions have found pathogenic variants in up to 94% of individuals meeting clinical criteria for PJS.

Given the results of these studies, it is unlikely that other major genes cause PJS.

Clinical management

The high cumulative risk of cancers in PJS has led to the various screening recommendations summarized in the table of Published Recommendations for Diagnosis and Surveillance of Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome (PJS) in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Colorectal Cancer.

PALB2 (partner and localizer of BRCA2) interacts with the BRCA2 protein and plays a role in homologous recombination and double-stranded DNA repair. Similar to BRIP1 and BRCA2, biallelic pathogenic variants in PALB2 have also been shown to cause Fanconi anemia.

PALB2 pathogenic variants have been screened for in multiple small studies of familial and early-onset breast cancer in multiple populations.

Pathogenic variant prevalence has ranged from 0.4% to 3.9%. Similar to BRIP1 and CHEK2, there was incomplete segregation of PALB2 pathogenic variants in families with hereditary breast cancer.

Among 559 cases with CBC and 565 matched controls with unilateral breast cancer, pathogenic (truncating) PALB2 pathogenic variants were identified in 0.9% of cases and in none of the controls (RR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.8–13.2).

Data based on 154 families with loss-of-function PALB2 variants suggest that this gene may be an important cause of hereditary breast cancer, with risks that overlap with BRCA2.

In this study, analysis of 362 family members from 154 families with PALB2 pathogenic variants indicated that the absolute risk of female breast cancer by age 70 years ranged from 33% (95% CI, 24%–44%) for those with no family history of breast cancer to 58% (95% CI, 50%–66%) for those with two or more FDRs with early-onset breast cancer. Furthermore, among 63 breast cancer cases in which HER2 status was known, 30% had triple-negative disease. An earlier Finnish study reported on a PALB2 founder pathogenic variant (c.1592delT) that confers a 40% risk of breast cancer to age 70 years

and is associated with a high incidence (54%) of triple-negative disease and lower survival.

Pathogenic variants have been observed in early-onset and familial breast cancer in many populations.

A large report of 1,824 patients with triple-negative breast cancer unselected for family history, recruited through 12 studies, identified 1.2% with a PALB2 pathogenic variant.

(Refer to the BRCA1 pathology section of this summary for more information about this study.)

In a later Polish study of more than 12,529 unselected women with breast cancer and 4,702 controls, PALB2 pathogenic variants were detected in 116 cases (0.93%; 95% CI, 0.76%–1.09%) and 10 controls (0.21%; 95% CI, 0.08%–0.34%), with an OR for breast cancer of 4.39 (95% CI, 2.30–8.37).

The study findings confirm a substantially elevated risk of breast cancer (24%–40%) among women with a PALB2 pathogenic variant up to age 75 years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of CBC was 10% among those with a PALB2 pathogenic variant, compared with 17% among those with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 3% among those without a variant in either gene. Furthermore, the 10-year survival for women with a PALB2 pathogenic variant and breast cancer was 48% (95% CI, 36.5%–63.2%), compared with 72.0% among those with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 74.7% among those without a variant in either gene. Among PALB2 carriers, breast tumors 2 cm or larger had substantially worse outcomes (32.4% 10-year survival), compared with tumors smaller than 2 cm (82.4% 10-year survival). Approximately one-third of those with a PALB2 pathogenic variant had triple-negative breast cancer, and the average age at breast cancer diagnosis was 53.3 years.

Male breast cancer has been observed in PALB2 pathogenic variant–positive breast cancer families.

In a study of 115 male breast cancer cases in which 18 men had BRCA2 pathogenic variants, an additional two men had either a pathogenic or predicted pathogenic PALB2 variant (accounting for about 10% of germline variants in the study and 1%–2% of the total sample).

The RR of breast cancer for male carriers of PALB2 pathogenic variants compared with that seen in the general population was estimated to be 8.30 (95% CI, 0.77–88.56; P = .08) in the study of 154 families.

After the identification of PALB2 pathogenic variants in pancreatic tumors and the detection of germline pathogenic variants in 3% of 96 familial pancreatic patients,

numerous studies have pointed to a role for PALB2 in pancreatic cancer. PALB2 pathogenic variants were detected in 3.7% of 81 familial pancreatic cancer families

and in 2.1% of 94 BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant–negative breast cancer patients who had either a personal or family history of pancreatic cancer.

Two relatively small studies—one of 77 BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant–negative probands with a personal or family history of pancreatic cancer, one-half of whom were of AJ descent, and another study of 29 Italian pancreatic cancer patients with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer—failed to detect any PALB2 pathogenic variants.

A sixfold increase in pancreatic cancer was observed in the relatives of 33 BRCA1/BRCA2-negative, PALB2 pathogenic variant–positive breast cancer probands.

Overall, the observed prevalence of PALB2 pathogenic variants in familial breast cancer varied depending on ascertainment relative to personal and family history of pancreatic and ovarian cancers, but in all studies, the observed pathogenic variant rate was lower than 4%. Data suggest that the RR of breast cancer may overlap with that of BRCA2, particularly in those with a strong family history; thus, it remains important to refine cancer risk estimates in larger studies. Furthermore, the risk of other cancers (e.g., pancreatic) is poorly defined. Given the low PALB2 pathogenic variant prevalence in the population, additional data are needed to define best candidates for testing and appropriate management.

De Novo Pathogenic Variant Rate

Until the 1990s, the diagnosis of genetically inherited breast and ovarian cancer syndromes was based on clinical manifestations and family history. Now that some of the genes involved in these syndromes have been identified, a few studies have attempted to estimate the spontaneous pathogenic variant rate (de novo pathogenic variant rate) in these populations. Interestingly, PJS, PTEN hamartoma syndromes, and LFS are all thought to have high rates of spontaneous pathogenic variants, in the 10% to 30% range, while estimates of de novo pathogenic variants in the BRCA genes are thought to be low, primarily on the basis of the few case reports published. Additionally, there has been only one case series of breast cancer patients who were tested for BRCA pathogenic variants in which a de novo variant was identified. Specifically, in this study of 193 patients with sporadic breast cancer, 17 pathogenic variants were detected, one of which was confirmed to be a de novo pathogenic variant. As such, the de novo pathogenic variant rate appears to be low and fall into the 5% or less range, based on the limited studies performed. Similarly, estimates of de novo pathogenic variants in the MMR genes associated with Lynch syndrome are thought to be low, in the 0.9% to 5% range. However, these estimates of spontaneous pathogenic variant rates in the BRCA genes and Lynch syndrome genes seem to overlap with the estimates of nonpaternity rates in various populations (0.6%–3.3%), making the de novo pathogenic variant rate for these genes relatively low.

ReferenceSection

Phipps RF, Perry PM: Familial breast cancer. Postgrad Med J 64 (757): 847-9, 1988.

Sellers TA, Potter JD, Rich SS, et al.: Familial clustering of breast and prostate cancers and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (24): 1860-5, 1994.

Newman B, Austin MA, Lee M, et al.: Inheritance of human breast cancer: evidence for autosomal dominant transmission in high-risk families. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 85 (9): 3044-48, 1988.

Hall JM, Lee MK, Newman B, et al.: Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 250 (4988): 1684-9, 1990.

Narod SA, Feunteun J, Lynch HT, et al.: Familial breast-ovarian cancer locus on chromosome 17q12-q23. Lancet 338 (8759): 82-3, 1991.

Brose MS, Rebbeck TR, Calzone KA, et al.: Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (18): 1365-72, 2002.

Thompson D, Easton DF; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium: Cancer Incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (18): 1358-65, 2002.

Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al.: Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: a kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (23): 1694-706, 2006.

Tai YC, Domchek S, Parmigiani G, et al.: Breast cancer risk among male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (23): 1811-4, 2007.

Wooster R, Neuhausen SL, Mangion J, et al.: Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12-13. Science 265 (5181): 2088-90, 1994.

Gayther SA, Mangion J, Russell P, et al.: Variation of risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with different germline mutations of the BRCA2 gene. Nat Genet 15 (1): 103-5, 1997.

Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (15): 1310-6, 1999.

Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA: Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 22 (4): 735-42, 2004.

Ding YC, Steele L, Kuan CJ, et al.: Mutations in BRCA2 and PALB2 in male breast cancer cases from the United States. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126 (3): 771-8, 2011.

Tonin P, Weber B, Offit K, et al.: Frequency of recurrent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer families. Nat Med 2 (11): 1179-83, 1996.

Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, et al.: Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 52 (4): 678-701, 1993.

Venkitaraman AR: Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cell 108 (2): 171-82, 2002.

Narod SA, Foulkes WD: BRCA1 and BRCA2: 1994 and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer 4 (9): 665-76, 2004.

An Open Access On-Line Breast Cancer Mutation Data Base [Database]. Bethesda, Md: National Human Genome Research Institute, 2002. Available online. Last accessed January 22, 2020.

Ford D, Easton DF, Peto J: Estimates of the gene frequency of BRCA1 and its contribution to breast and ovarian cancer incidence. Am J Hum Genet 57 (6): 1457-62, 1995.

Whittemore AS, Gong G, John EM, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA1 mutation carriers among U.S. non-Hispanic Whites. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13 (12): 2078-83, 2004.

Eng C, Brody LC, Wagner TM, et al.: Interpreting epidemiological research: blinded comparison of methods used to estimate the prevalence of inherited mutations in BRCA1. J Med Genet 38 (12): 824-33, 2001.

Unger MA, Nathanson KL, Calzone K, et al.: Screening for genomic rearrangements in families with breast and ovarian cancer identifies BRCA1 mutations previously missed by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis or sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 67 (4): 841-50, 2000.

Walsh T, Casadei S, Coats KH, et al.: Spectrum of mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in families at high risk of breast cancer. JAMA 295 (12): 1379-88, 2006.

Palma MD, Domchek SM, Stopfer J, et al.: The relative contribution of point mutations and genomic rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in high-risk breast cancer families. Cancer Res 68 (17): 7006-14, 2008.

Stadler ZK, Saloustros E, Hansen NA, et al.: Absence of genomic BRCA1 and BRCA2 rearrangements in Ashkenazi breast and ovarian cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 123 (2): 581-5, 2010.

Judkins T, Rosenthal E, Arnell C, et al.: Clinical significance of large rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer 118 (21): 5210-6, 2012.

Shannon KM, Rodgers LH, Chan-Smutko G, et al.: Which individuals undergoing BRACAnalysis need BART testing? Cancer Genet 204 (8): 416-22, 2011.

Jackson SA, Davis AA, Li J, et al.: Characteristics of individuals with breast cancer rearrangements in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer 120 (10): 1557-64, 2014.

Weitzel JN, Lagos VI, Herzog JS, et al.: Evidence for common ancestral origin of a recurring BRCA1 genomic rearrangement identified in high-risk Hispanic families. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16 (8): 1615-20, 2007.

Plon SE, Eccles DM, Easton D, et al.: Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat 29 (11): 1282-91, 2008.

Frank TS, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE, et al.: Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. J Clin Oncol 20 (6): 1480-90, 2002.

Nanda R, Schumm LP, Cummings S, et al.: Genetic testing in an ethnically diverse cohort of high-risk women: a comparative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in American families of European and African ancestry. JAMA 294 (15): 1925-33, 2005.

Hall MJ, Reid JE, Burbidge LA, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women of different ethnicities undergoing testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Cancer 115 (10): 2222-33, 2009.

Szabo C, Masiello A, Ryan JF, et al.: The breast cancer information core: database design, structure, and scope. Hum Mutat 16 (2): 123-31, 2000.

Spurdle AB, Healey S, Devereau A, et al.: ENIGMA--evidence-based network for the interpretation of germline mutant alleles: an international initiative to evaluate risk and clinical significance associated with sequence variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Hum Mutat 33 (1): 2-7, 2012.

Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Deffenbaugh AM, et al.: Integrated evaluation of DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance: application to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 75 (4): 535-44, 2004.

Thompson D, Easton DF, Goldgar DE: A full-likelihood method for the evaluation of causality of sequence variants from family data. Am J Hum Genet 73 (3): 652-5, 2003.

Spearman AD, Sweet K, Zhou XP, et al.: Clinically applicable models to characterize BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance. J Clin Oncol 26 (33): 5393-400, 2008.

Gómez García EB, Oosterwijk JC, Timmermans M, et al.: A method to assess the clinical significance of unclassified variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes based on cancer family history. Breast Cancer Res 11 (1): R8, 2009.

Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Byrnes GB, et al.: Genetic evidence and integration of various data sources for classifying uncertain variants into a single model. Hum Mutat 29 (11): 1265-72, 2008.

Fleming MA, Potter JD, Ramirez CJ, et al.: Understanding missense mutations in the BRCA1 gene: an evolutionary approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100 (3): 1151-6, 2003.

Tavtigian SV, Deffenbaugh AM, Yin L, et al.: Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral. J Med Genet 43 (4): 295-305, 2006.

Mirkovic N, Marti-Renom MA, Weber BL, et al.: Structure-based assessment of missense mutations in human BRCA1: implications for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. Cancer Res 64 (11): 3790-7, 2004.

Abkevich V, Zharkikh A, Deffenbaugh AM, et al.: Analysis of missense variation in human BRCA1 in the context of interspecific sequence variation. J Med Genet 41 (7): 492-507, 2004.

Couch FJ, Rasmussen LJ, Hofstra R, et al.: Assessment of functional effects of unclassified genetic variants. Hum Mutat 29 (11): 1314-26, 2008.

Chenevix-Trench G, Healey S, Lakhani S, et al.: Genetic and histopathologic evaluation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 DNA sequence variants of unknown clinical significance. Cancer Res 66 (4): 2019-27, 2006.

Ostrow KL, McGuire V, Whittemore AS, et al.: The effects of BRCA1 missense variants V1804D and M1628T on transcriptional activity. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 153 (2): 177-80, 2004.

Wu K, Hinson SR, Ohashi A, et al.: Functional evaluation and cancer risk assessment of BRCA2 unclassified variants. Cancer Res 65 (2): 417-26, 2005.

Weitzel JN, Lagos V, Blazer KR, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA mutations and founder effect in high-risk Hispanic families. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14 (7): 1666-71, 2005.

Mefford HC, Baumbach L, Panguluri RC, et al.: Evidence for a BRCA1 founder mutation in families of West African ancestry. Am J Hum Genet 65 (2): 575-8, 1999.

Rosenthal E, Moyes K, Arnell C, et al.: Incidence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 non-founder mutations in patients of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149 (1): 223-7, 2015.

Frey MK, Kopparam RV, Ni Zhou Z, et al.: Prevalence of nonfounder BRCA1/2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish patients presenting for genetic testing at a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer center. Cancer 125 (5): 690-697, 2019.

Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases. Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. Br J Cancer 83 (10): 1301-8, 2000.

Papelard H, de Bock GH, van Eijk R, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA1 in a hospital-based population of Dutch breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 83 (6): 719-24, 2000.

Loman N, Johannsson O, Kristoffersson U, et al.: Family history of breast and ovarian cancers and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of early-onset breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93 (16): 1215-23, 2001.

Malone KE, Daling JR, Doody DR, et al.: Prevalence and predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based study of breast cancer in white and black American women ages 35 to 64 years. Cancer Res 66 (16): 8297-308, 2006.

Newman B, Mu H, Butler LM, et al.: Frequency of breast cancer attributable to BRCA1 in a population-based series of American women. JAMA 279 (12): 915-21, 1998.

Basham VM, Lipscombe JM, Ward JM, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based study of male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 4 (1): R2, 2002.

Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al.: Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 68 (3): 700-10, 2001.

Rubin SC, Blackwood MA, Bandera C, et al.: BRCA1, BRCA2, and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer gene mutations in an unselected ovarian cancer population: relationship to family history and implications for genetic testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178 (4): 670-7, 1998.

Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Betts JA, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for a large proportion of ovarian carcinoma cases. Cancer 104 (12): 2807-16, 2005.

Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, et al.: The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 336 (20): 1401-8, 1997.

Gabai-Kapara E, Lahad A, Kaufman B, et al.: Population-based screening for breast and ovarian cancer risk due to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111 (39): 14205-10, 2014.

Metcalfe KA, Poll A, Royer R, et al.: Screening for founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in unselected Jewish women. J Clin Oncol 28 (3): 387-91, 2010.

King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB, et al.: Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 302 (5645): 643-6, 2003.

Gershoni-Baruch R, Dagan E, Fried G, et al.: Significantly lower rates of BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations in Ashkenazi women with sporadic compared with familial early onset breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 36 (8): 983-6, 2000.

Hodgson SV, Heap E, Cameron J, et al.: Risk factors for detecting germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish women with breast or ovarian cancer. J Med Genet 36 (5): 369-73, 1999.

Struewing JP, Coriaty ZM, Ron E, et al.: Founder BRCA1/2 mutations among male patients with breast cancer in Israel. Am J Hum Genet 65 (6): 1800-2, 1999.

Hirsh-Yechezkel G, Chetrit A, Lubin F, et al.: Population attributes affecting the prevalence of BRCA mutation carriers in epithelial ovarian cancer cases in Israel. Gynecol Oncol 89 (3): 494-8, 2003.

Moslehi R, Chu W, Karlan B, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis of 208 Ashkenazi Jewish women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 66 (4): 1259-72, 2000.

Levine DA, Argenta PA, Yee CJ, et al.: Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas associated with BRCA mutations. J Clin Oncol 21 (22): 4222-7, 2003.

John EM, Miron A, Gong G, et al.: Prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1 mutation carriers in 5 US racial/ethnic groups. JAMA 298 (24): 2869-76, 2007.

Weitzel JN, Clague J, Martir-Negron A, et al.: Prevalence and type of BRCA mutations in Hispanics undergoing genetic cancer risk assessment in the southwestern United States: a report from the Clinical Cancer Genetics Community Research Network. J Clin Oncol 31 (2): 210-6, 2013.

Torres-Mejía G, Royer R, Llacuachaqui M, et al.: Recurrent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Mexican women with breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24 (3): 498-505, 2015.

Vicus D, Finch A, Cass I, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germ line mutations among women with carcinoma of the fallopian tube. Gynecol Oncol 118 (3): 299-302, 2010.

Aziz S, Kuperstein G, Rosen B, et al.: A genetic epidemiological study of carcinoma of the fallopian tube. Gynecol Oncol 80 (3): 341-5, 2001.

Manchanda R, Loggenberg K, Sanderson S, et al.: Population testing for cancer predisposing BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in the Ashkenazi-Jewish community: a randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (1): 379, 2015.

Manchanda R, Legood R, Burnell M, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of population screening for BRCA mutations in Ashkenazi jewish women compared with family history-based testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (1): 380, 2015.

Metcalfe KA, Poll A, Royer R, et al.: A comparison of the detection of BRCA mutation carriers through the provision of Jewish population-based genetic testing compared with clinic-based genetic testing. Br J Cancer 109 (3): 777-9, 2013.

Manchanda R, Patel S, Antoniou AC, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of population based BRCA testing with varying Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217 (5): 578.e1-578.e12, 2017.

Manchanda R, Patel S, Gordeev VS, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of Population-Based BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1, PALB2 Mutation Testing in Unselected General Population Women. J Natl Cancer Inst 110 (7): 714-725, 2018.

Couch FJ, DeShano ML, Blackwood MA, et al.: BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 336 (20): 1409-15, 1997.

Shattuck-Eidens D, Oliphant A, McClure M, et al.: BRCA1 sequence analysis in women at high risk for susceptibility mutations. Risk factor analysis and implications for genetic testing. JAMA 278 (15): 1242-50, 1997.

Spiegelman D, Colditz GA, Hunter D, et al.: Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individual breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (8): 600-7, 1994.

Frank TS, Manley SA, Olopade OI, et al.: Sequence analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: correlation of mutations with family history and ovarian cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 16 (7): 2417-25, 1998.

Chang-Claude J, Dong J, Schmidt S, et al.: Using gene carrier probability to select high risk families for identifying germline mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Med Genet 35 (2): 116-21, 1998.

Couch FJ, Hartmann LC: BRCA1 testing--advances and retreats. JAMA 279 (12): 955-7, 1998.

Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O: Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 62 (1): 145-58, 1998.

Ready K, Litton JK, Arun BK: Clinical application of breast cancer risk assessment models. Future Oncol 6 (3): 355-65, 2010.

Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, et al.: Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst 102 (10): 680-91, 2010.

Lakhani SR, Reis-Filho JS, Fulford L, et al.: Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 11 (14): 5175-80, 2005.

Kwon JS, Gutierrez-Barrera AM, Young D, et al.: Expanding the criteria for BRCA mutation testing in breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 28 (27): 4214-20, 2010.

Young SR, Pilarski RT, Donenberg T, et al.: The prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among young women with triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 9: 86, 2009.

Greenup R, Buchanan A, Lorizio W, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA mutations among women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a genetic counseling cohort. Ann Surg Oncol 20 (10): 3254-8, 2013.

Robson ME, Storm CD, Weitzel J, et al.: American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 28 (5): 893-901, 2010.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic. Version 1.2020. Plymouth Meeting, Pa: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2019. Available online with free registration. Last accessed December 23, 2019.

Statement of the American Society of Human Genetics on genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. Am J Hum Genet 55 (5): i-iv, 1994.

Hampel H, Bennett RL, Buchanan A, et al.: A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med 17 (1): 70-87, 2015.

Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al.: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 322 (7): 652-665, 2019.

Lancaster JM, Powell CB, Kauff ND, et al.: Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Education Committee statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 107 (2): 159-62, 2007.

Evans DG, Eccles DM, Rahman N, et al.: A new scoring system for the chances of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation outperforms existing models including BRCAPRO. J Med Genet 41 (6): 474-80, 2004.

Apicella C, Dowty JG, Dite GS, et al.: Validation study of the LAMBDA model for predicting the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier status of North American Ashkenazi Jewish women. Clin Genet 72 (2): 87-97, 2007.

Antoniou AC, Pharoah PP, Smith P, et al.: The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 91 (8): 1580-90, 2004.

Struewing JP, Abeliovich D, Peretz T, et al.: The carrier frequency of the BRCA1 185delAG mutation is approximately 1 percent in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals. Nat Genet 11 (2): 198-200, 1995.

Oddoux C, Struewing JP, Clayton CM, et al.: The carrier frequency of the BRCA2 6174delT mutation among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals is approximately 1%. Nat Genet 14 (2): 188-90, 1996.

Warner E, Foulkes W, Goodwin P, et al.: Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations in unselected Ashkenazi Jewish women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (14): 1241-7, 1999.

Euhus DM, Smith KC, Robinson L, et al.: Pretest prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (11): 844-51, 2002.

de la Hoya M, Díez O, Pérez-Segura P, et al.: Pre-test prediction models of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in breast/ovarian families attending familial cancer clinics. J Med Genet 40 (7): 503-10, 2003.

Katki HA: Incorporating medical interventions into carrier probability estimation for genetic counseling. BMC Med Genet 8: 13, 2007.

Weitzel JN, Lagos VI, Cullinane CA, et al.: Limited family structure and BRCA gene mutation status in single cases of breast cancer. JAMA 297 (23): 2587-95, 2007.

Jervis S, Song H, Lee A, et al.: A risk prediction algorithm for ovarian cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2, common alleles and other familial effects. J Med Genet 52 (7): 465-75, 2015.

Oros KK, Ghadirian P, Maugard CM, et al.: Application of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier prediction models in breast and/or ovarian cancer families of French Canadian descent. Clin Genet 70 (4): 320-9, 2006.

Vogel KJ, Atchley DP, Erlichman J, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in Hispanic patients: mutation prevalence and evaluation of the BRCAPRO risk assessment model. J Clin Oncol 25 (29): 4635-41, 2007.

Kurian AW, Gong GD, John EM, et al.: Performance of prediction models for BRCA mutation carriage in three racial/ethnic groups: findings from the Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18 (4): 1084-91, 2009.

Kurian AW, Gong GD, Chun NM, et al.: Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in Asian Americans. J Clin Oncol 26 (29): 4752-8, 2008.

Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, et al.: Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 89 (3): 227-38, 1997.

Barcenas CH, Hosain GM, Arun B, et al.: Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families. J Clin Oncol 24 (3): 354-60, 2006.

Kang HH, Williams R, Leary J, et al.: Evaluation of models to predict BRCA germline mutations. Br J Cancer 95 (7): 914-20, 2006.

Antoniou AC, Hardy R, Walker L, et al.: Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J Med Genet 45 (7): 425-31, 2008.

Fischer C, Kuchenbäcker K, Engel C, et al.: Evaluating the performance of the breast cancer genetic risk models BOADICEA, IBIS, BRCAPRO and Claus for predicting BRCA1/2 mutation carrier probabilities: a study based on 7352 families from the German Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Consortium. J Med Genet 50 (6): 360-7, 2013.

Biswas S, Tankhiwale N, Blackford A, et al.: Assessing the added value of breast tumor markers in genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133 (1): 347-55, 2012.

Tai YC, Chen S, Parmigiani G, et al.: Incorporating tumor immunohistochemical markers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carrier prediction. Breast Cancer Res 10 (2): 401, 2008.

Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J: A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23 (7): 1111-30, 2004.

Ready KJ, Vogel KJ, Atchley DP, et al.: Accuracy of the BRCAPRO model among women with bilateral breast cancer. Cancer 115 (4): 725-30, 2009.

Huo D, Senie RT, Daly M, et al.: Prediction of BRCA Mutations Using the BRCAPRO Model in Clinic-Based African American, Hispanic, and Other Minority Families in the United States. J Clin Oncol 27 (8): 1184-90, 2009.

Daniels MS, Babb SA, King RH, et al.: Underestimation of risk of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer by BRCAPRO: a multi-institution study. J Clin Oncol 32 (12): 1249-55, 2014.

Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al.: Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72 (5): 1117-30, 2003.

Chen S, Parmigiani G: Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25 (11): 1329-33, 2007.

Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al.: Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA 317 (23): 2402-2416, 2017.

Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al.: Breast and ovarian cancer risks to carriers of the BRCA1 5382insC and 185delAG and BRCA2 6174delT mutations: a combined analysis of 22 population based studies. J Med Genet 42 (7): 602-3, 2005.

Finkelman BS, Rubinstein WS, Friedman S, et al.: Breast and ovarian cancer risk and risk reduction in Jewish BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 30 (12): 1321-8, 2012.

Ramus SJ, Song H, Dicks E, et al.: Germline Mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN Genes in Women With Ovarian Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (11): , 2015.

Song H, Dicks E, Ramus SJ, et al.: Contribution of Germline Mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D Genes to Ovarian Cancer in the Population. J Clin Oncol 33 (26): 2901-7, 2015.

Rebbeck TR, Mitra N, Wan F, et al.: Association of type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with risk of breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA 313 (13): 1347-61, 2015.

Rebbeck TR, Friebel TM, Mitra N, et al.: Inheritance of deleterious mutations at both BRCA1 and BRCA2 in an international sample of 32,295 women. Breast Cancer Res 18 (1): 112, 2016.

Guindalini RS, Song A, Fackenthal JD, et al.: Genetic anticipation in BRCA1/BRCA2 families after controlling for ascertainment bias and cohort effect. Cancer 122 (12): 1913-20, 2016.

Agranat S, Baris H, Kedar I, et al.: Earlier Age of Breast Cancer Onset in Israeli BRCA Carriers-Is it a Real Phenomenon? Breast J 22 (6): 662-666, 2016.

Litton JK, Ready K, Chen H, et al.: Earlier age of onset of BRCA mutation-related cancers in subsequent generations. Cancer 118 (2): 321-5, 2012.

Wang WW, Spurdle AB, Kolachana P, et al.: A single nucleotide polymorphism in the 5' untranslated region of RAD51 and risk of cancer among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10 (9): 955-60, 2001.

Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A, Eisenberg S, et al.: A single nucleotide polymorphism in the RAD51 gene modifies cancer risk in BRCA2 but not BRCA1 carriers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98 (6): 3232-6, 2001.

Narod SA: Modifiers of risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2 (2): 113-23, 2002.

Kramer JL, Velazquez IA, Chen BE, et al.: Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer penetrance during prospective, long-term follow-up of BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 23 (34): 8629-35, 2005.

Antoniou AC, Spurdle AB, Sinilnikova OM, et al.: Common breast cancer-predisposition alleles are associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet 82 (4): 937-48, 2008.

Iodice S, Barile M, Rotmensz N, et al.: Oral contraceptive use and breast or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 46 (12): 2275-84, 2010.

Antoniou AC, Rookus M, Andrieu N, et al.: Reproductive and hormonal factors, and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18 (2): 601-10, 2009.

Milne RL, Osorio A, Ramón y Cajal T, et al.: Parity and the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119 (1): 221-32, 2010.

Friedman E, Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, et al.: Spontaneous and therapeutic abortions and the risk of breast cancer among BRCA mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 8 (2): R15, 2006.

Jernström H, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, et al.: Breast-feeding and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (14): 1094-8, 2004.

Breast Cancer Family Registry, Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (Australasia), Ontario Cancer Genetics Network (Canada): Smoking and risk of breast cancer in carriers of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 aged less than 50 years. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109 (1): 67-75, 2008.

Antoniou AC, Beesley J, McGuffog L, et al.: Common breast cancer susceptibility alleles and the risk of breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: implications for risk prediction. Cancer Res 70 (23): 9742-54, 2010.

Ramus SJ, Kartsonaki C, Gayther SA, et al.: Genetic variation at 9p22.2 and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 103 (2): 105-16, 2011.

Milne RL, Antoniou AC: Genetic modifiers of cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Ann Oncol 22 (Suppl 1): i11-7, 2011.

Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K, et al.: Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 27 (35): 5887-92, 2009.

Malone KE, Begg CB, Haile RW, et al.: Population-based study of the risk of second primary contralateral breast cancer associated with carrying a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 28 (14): 2404-10, 2010.

van der Kolk DM, de Bock GH, Leegte BK, et al.: Penetrance of breast cancer, ovarian cancer and contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 families: high cancer incidence at older age. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124 (3): 643-51, 2010.

Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Lynch HT, et al.: Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 104 (9): 1384-92, 2011.

Molina-Montes E, Pérez-Nevot B, Pollán M, et al.: Cumulative risk of second primary contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers with a first breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 23 (6): 721-42, 2014.

Basu NN, Ingham S, Hodson J, et al.: Risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a 30-year semi-prospective analysis. Fam Cancer 14 (4): 531-8, 2015.

van den Broek AJ, van 't Veer LJ, Hooning MJ, et al.: Impact of Age at Primary Breast Cancer on Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol 34 (5): 409-18, 2016.

Pierce LJ, Phillips KA, Griffith KA, et al.: Local therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with operable breast cancer: comparison of breast conservation and mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121 (2): 389-98, 2010.

Domchek SM, Jhaveri K, Patil S, et al.: Risk of metachronous breast cancer after BRCA mutation-associated ovarian cancer. Cancer 119 (7): 1344-8, 2013.

Vencken PM, Kriege M, Hooning M, et al.: The risk of primary and contralateral breast cancer after ovarian cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: Implications for counseling. Cancer 119 (5): 955-62, 2013.

Gangi A, Cass I, Paik D, et al.: Breast cancer following ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. JAMA Surg 149 (12): 1306-13, 2014.

McGee J, Giannakeas V, Karlan B, et al.: Risk of breast cancer after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers: Is preventive mastectomy warranted? Gynecol Oncol 145 (2): 346-351, 2017.

Casey MJ, Synder C, Bewtra C, et al.: Intra-abdominal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy in women of hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome kindreds associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Gynecol Oncol 97 (2): 457-67, 2005.

Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al.: Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation. JAMA 296 (2): 185-92, 2006.

Evans DG, Susnerwala I, Dawson J, et al.: Risk of breast cancer in male BRCA2 carriers. J Med Genet 47 (10): 710-1, 2010.

Edwards SM, Kote-Jarai Z, Meitz J, et al.: Two percent of men with early-onset prostate cancer harbor germline mutations in the BRCA2 gene. Am J Hum Genet 72 (1): 1-12, 2003.

Giusti RM, Rutter JL, Duray PH, et al.: A twofold increase in BRCA mutation related prostate cancer among Ashkenazi Israelis is not associated with distinctive histopathology. J Med Genet 40 (10): 787-92, 2003.

van Asperen CJ, Brohet RM, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, et al.: Cancer risks in BRCA2 families: estimates for sites other than breast and ovary. J Med Genet 42 (9): 711-9, 2005.

Mersch J, Jackson MA, Park M, et al.: Cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations other than breast and ovarian. Cancer 121 (2): 269-75, 2015.

Mitra A, Fisher C, Foster CS, et al.: Prostate cancer in male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has a more aggressive phenotype. Br J Cancer 98 (2): 502-7, 2008.

Tryggvadóttir L, Vidarsdóttir L, Thorgeirsson T, et al.: Prostate cancer progression and survival in BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (12): 929-35, 2007.

Agalliu I, Gern R, Leanza S, et al.: Associations of high-grade prostate cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations. Clin Cancer Res 15 (3): 1112-20, 2009.

Narod SA, Neuhausen S, Vichodez G, et al.: Rapid progression of prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation. Br J Cancer 99 (2): 371-4, 2008.

Edwards SM, Evans DG, Hope Q, et al.: Prostate cancer in BRCA2 germline mutation carriers is associated with poorer prognosis. Br J Cancer 103 (6): 918-24, 2010.

Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, et al.: Germline BRCA mutations denote a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16 (7): 2115-21, 2010.

Couch FJ, Johnson MR, Rabe KG, et al.: The prevalence of BRCA2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16 (2): 342-6, 2007.

Hahn SA, Greenhalf B, Ellis I, et al.: BRCA2 germline mutations in familial pancreatic carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (3): 214-21, 2003.

Murphy KM, Brune KA, Griffin C, et al.: Evaluation of candidate genes MAP2K4, MADH4, ACVR1B, and BRCA2 in familial pancreatic cancer: deleterious BRCA2 mutations in 17%. Cancer Res 62 (13): 3789-93, 2002.

Real FX, Malats N, Lesca G, et al.: Family history of cancer and germline BRCA2 mutations in sporadic exocrine pancreatic cancer. Gut 50 (5): 653-7, 2002.

Dagan E: Predominant Ashkenazi BRCA1/2 mutations in families with pancreatic cancer. Genet Test 12 (2): 267-71, 2008.

Goggins M, Schutte M, Lu J, et al.: Germline BRCA2 gene mutations in patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic carcinomas. Cancer Res 56 (23): 5360-4, 1996.

Lal G, Liu G, Schmocker B, et al.: Inherited predisposition to pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role of family history and germ-line p16, BRCA1, and BRCA2 mutations. Cancer Res 60 (2): 409-16, 2000.

Ozçelik H, Schmocker B, Di Nicola N, et al.: Germline BRCA2 6174delT mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish pancreatic cancer patients. Nat Genet 16 (1): 17-8, 1997.

Ferrone CR, Levine DA, Tang LH, et al.: BRCA germline mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27 (3): 433-8, 2009.

National Cancer Institute: DevCan: Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software. Version 6.7.7. Bethesda, Md: Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2017. Available online with free registration. Last accessed January 22, 2020.

Ford D, Easton DF, Bishop DT, et al.: Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Lancet 343 (8899): 692-5, 1994.

Anton-Culver H, Cohen PF, Gildea ME, et al.: Characteristics of BRCA1 mutations in a population-based case series of breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 36 (10): 1200-8, 2000.

Peelen T, de Leeuw W, van Lent K, et al.: Genetic analysis of a breast-ovarian cancer family, with 7 cases of colorectal cancer linked to BRCA1, fails to support a role for BRCA1 in colorectal tumorigenesis. Int J Cancer 88 (5): 778-82, 2000.

Berman DB, Costalas J, Schultz DC, et al.: A common mutation in BRCA2 that predisposes to a variety of cancers is found in both Jewish Ashkenazi and non-Jewish individuals. Cancer Res 56 (15): 3409-14, 1996.

Aretini P, D'Andrea E, Pasini B, et al.: Different expressivity of BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 179 Italian pedigrees with identified mutation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 81 (1): 71-9, 2003.

Kirchhoff T, Satagopan JM, Kauff ND, et al.: Frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in unselected Ashkenazi Jewish patients with colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (1): 68-70, 2004.

Niell BL, Rennert G, Bonner JD, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations and the risk of colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (1): 15-21, 2004.

Chen-Shtoyerman R, Figer A, Fidder HH, et al.: The frequency of the predominant Jewish mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in unselected Ashkenazi colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 84 (4): 475-7, 2001.

Levine DA, Lin O, Barakat RR, et al.: Risk of endometrial carcinoma associated with BRCA mutation. Gynecol Oncol 80 (3): 395-8, 2001.

Goshen R, Chu W, Elit L, et al.: Is uterine papillary serous adenocarcinoma a manifestation of the hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome? Gynecol Oncol 79 (3): 477-81, 2000.

Smith A, Moran A, Boyd MC, et al.: Phenocopies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 families: evidence for modifier genes and implications for screening. J Med Genet 44 (1): 10-15, 2007.

Goldgar D, Venne V, Conner T, et al.: BRCA phenocopies or ascertainment bias? J Med Genet 44 (8): e86; author reply e88, 2007.

Eisinger F: Phenocopies: actual risk or self-fulfilling prophecy? J Med Genet 44 (8): e87; author reply e88, 2007.

Sasieni P: Phenocopies in families seen by cancer geneticists. J Med Genet 44 (6): e82, 2007.

Tilanus-Linthorst MM: No screening yet after a negative test for the family mutation. J Med Genet 44 (5): e79, 2007.

Katki HA, Gail MH, Greene MH: Breast-cancer risk in BRCA-mutation-negative women from BRCA-mutation-positive families. Lancet Oncol 8 (12): 1042-3, 2007.

Raskin L, Lejbkowicz F, Barnett-Griness O, et al.: BRCA1 breast cancer risk is modified by CYP19 polymorphisms in Ashkenazi Jews. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18 (5): 1617-23, 2009.

Gronwald J, Cybulski C, Lubinski J, et al.: Phenocopies in breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) families: implications for genetic counselling. J Med Genet 44 (4): e76, 2007.

Rowan E, Poll A, Narod SA: A prospective study of breast cancer risk in relatives of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 44 (8): e89; author reply e88, 2007.

Vos JR, de Bock GH, Teixeira N, et al.: Proven non-carriers in BRCA families have an earlier age of onset of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 49 (9): 2101-6, 2013.

Domchek SM, Gaudet MM, Stopfer JE, et al.: Breast cancer risks in individuals testing negative for a known family mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119 (2): 409-14, 2010.

Korde LA, Mueller CM, Loud JT, et al.: No evidence of excess breast cancer risk among mutation-negative women from BRCA mutation-positive families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125 (1): 169-73, 2011.

Kurian AW, Gong GD, John EM, et al.: Breast cancer risk for noncarriers of family-specific BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: findings from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. J Clin Oncol 29 (34): 4505-9, 2011.

Harvey SL, Milne RL, McLachlan SA, et al.: Prospective study of breast cancer risk for mutation negative women from BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130 (3): 1057-61, 2011.

Kauff ND, Mitra N, Robson ME, et al.: Risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-negative hereditary breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (18): 1382-4, 2005.

Lee JS, John EM, McGuire V, et al.: Breast and ovarian cancer in relatives of cancer patients, with and without BRCA mutations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (2): 359-63, 2006.

Metcalfe KA, Finch A, Poll A, et al.: Breast cancer risks in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who have tested negative for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Br J Cancer 100 (2): 421-5, 2009.

Liede A, Karlan BY, Baldwin RL, et al.: Cancer incidence in a population of Jewish women at risk of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 20 (6): 1570-7, 2002.

Ingham SL, Warwick J, Buchan I, et al.: Ovarian cancer among 8,005 women from a breast cancer family history clinic: no increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Med Genet 50 (6): 368-72, 2013.

Barnes DR, Antoniou AC: Unravelling modifiers of breast and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: update on genetic modifiers. J Intern Med 271 (4): 331-43, 2012.

Chenevix-Trench G, Milne RL, Antoniou AC, et al.: An international initiative to identify genetic modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (CIMBA). Breast Cancer Res 9 (2): 104, 2007.

Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al.: Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62 (3): 676-89, 1998.

Thompson D, Easton D; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium: Variation in cancer risks, by mutation position, in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Am J Hum Genet 68 (2): 410-9, 2001.

Thompson D, Easton D; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium: Variation in BRCA1 cancer risks by mutation position. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 11 (4): 329-36, 2002.

Scott CL, Jenkins MA, Southey MC, et al.: Average age-specific cumulative risk of breast cancer according to type and site of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 estimated from multiple-case breast cancer families attending Australian family cancer clinics. Hum Genet 112 (5-6): 542-51, 2003.

Lubinski J, Phelan CM, Ghadirian P, et al.: Cancer variation associated with the position of the mutation in the BRCA2 gene. Fam Cancer 3 (1): 1-10, 2004.

Satagopan JM, Boyd J, Kauff ND, et al.: Ovarian cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Clin Cancer Res 8 (12): 3776-81, 2002.

Rennert G, Dishon S, Rennert HS, et al.: Differences in the characteristics of families with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Israel. Eur J Cancer Prev 14 (4): 357-61, 2005.

James PA, Sawyer S, Boyle S, et al.: Large genomic rearrangements in the familial breast and ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 are associated with an increased frequency of high risk features. Fam Cancer 14 (2): 287-95, 2015.

Eisinger F, Jacquemier J, Charpin C, et al.: Mutations at BRCA1: the medullary breast carcinoma revisited. Cancer Res 58 (8): 1588-92, 1998.

Pathology of familial breast cancer: differences between breast cancers in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and sporadic cases. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Lancet 349 (9064): 1505-10, 1997.

Armes JE, Egan AJ, Southey MC, et al.: The histologic phenotypes of breast carcinoma occurring before age 40 years in women with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations: a population-based study. Cancer 83 (11): 2335-45, 1998.

Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, et al.: Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (19): 1482-5, 2003.

Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, et al.: Survival and tumour characteristics of breast-cancer patients with germline mutations of BRCA1. Lancet 351 (9099): 316-21, 1998.

Manié E, Vincent-Salomon A, Lehmann-Che J, et al.: High frequency of TP53 mutation in BRCA1 and sporadic basal-like carcinomas but not in BRCA1 luminal breast tumors. Cancer Res 69 (2): 663-71, 2009.

Southey MC, Ramus SJ, Dowty JG, et al.: Morphological predictors of BRCA1 germline mutations in young women with breast cancer. Br J Cancer 104 (6): 903-9, 2011.

Mavaddat N, Barrowdale D, Andrulis IL, et al.: Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21 (1): 134-47, 2012.

Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al.: The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 20 (9): 2310-8, 2002.

Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al.: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100 (14): 8418-23, 2003.

Lee E, McKean-Cowdin R, Ma H, et al.: Characteristics of triple-negative breast cancer in patients with a BRCA1 mutation: results from a population-based study of young women. J Clin Oncol 29 (33): 4373-80, 2011.

Anders C, Carey LA: Understanding and treating triple-negative breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 22 (11): 1233-9; discussion 1239-40, 1243, 2008.

Atchley DP, Albarracin CT, Lopez A, et al.: Clinical and pathologic characteristics of patients with BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26 (26): 4282-8, 2008.

Tung N, Wang Y, Collins LC, et al.: Estrogen receptor positive breast cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers: clinical risk factors and pathologic features. Breast Cancer Res 12 (1): R12, 2010.

Lakhani SR, Khanna KK, Chenevix-Trench G: Are estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers sporadic? Breast Cancer Res 12 (2): 104, 2010.

Foulkes WD, Metcalfe K, Sun P, et al.: Estrogen receptor status in BRCA1- and BRCA2-related breast cancer: the influence of age, grade, and histological type. Clin Cancer Res 10 (6): 2029-34, 2004.

Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Timms KM, Liu S, et al.: Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 17 (5): 1082-9, 2011.

Rummel S, Varner E, Shriver CD, et al.: Evaluation of BRCA1 mutations in an unselected patient population with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 137 (1): 119-25, 2013.

Couch FJ, Hart SN, Sharma P, et al.: Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 33 (4): 304-11, 2015.

Robertson L, Hanson H, Seal S, et al.: BRCA1 testing should be offered to individuals with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed below 50 years. Br J Cancer 106 (6): 1234-8, 2012.

Tun NM, Villani G, Ong K, et al.: Risk of having BRCA1 mutation in high-risk women with triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Genet 85 (1): 43-8, 2014.

Lee LJ, Alexander B, Schnitt SJ, et al.: Clinical outcome of triple negative breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers and noncarriers. Cancer 117 (14): 3093-100, 2011.

Eccles DM, Li N, Handwerker R, et al.: Genetic testing in a cohort of young patients with HER2-amplified breast cancer. Ann Oncol 27 (3): 467-73, 2016.

Foulkes WD: BRCA1 functions as a breast stem cell regulator. J Med Genet 41 (1): 1-5, 2004.

Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al.: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406 (6797): 747-52, 2000.

Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al.: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98 (19): 10869-74, 2001.

Hedenfalk I, Duggan D, Chen Y, et al.: Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 344 (8): 539-48, 2001.

Wessels LF, van Welsem T, Hart AA, et al.: Molecular classification of breast carcinomas by comparative genomic hybridization: a specific somatic genetic profile for BRCA1 tumors. Cancer Res 62 (23): 7110-7, 2002.

Palacios J, Honrado E, Osorio A, et al.: Immunohistochemical characteristics defined by tissue microarray of hereditary breast cancer not attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: differences from breast carcinomas arising in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Clin Cancer Res 9 (10 Pt 1): 3606-14, 2003.

Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al.: Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10 (16): 5367-74, 2004.

Palacios J, Honrado E, Osorio A, et al.: Phenotypic characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors based in a tissue microarray study with 37 immunohistochemical markers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 90 (1): 5-14, 2005.

Laakso M, Loman N, Borg A, et al.: Cytokeratin 5/14-positive breast cancer: true basal phenotype confined to BRCA1 tumors. Mod Pathol 18 (10): 1321-8, 2005.

Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, et al.: Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 14 (5): 1368-76, 2008.

Hwang ES, McLennan JL, Moore DH, et al.: Ductal carcinoma in situ in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 25 (6): 642-7, 2007.

Adem C, Reynolds C, Soderberg CL, et al.: Pathologic characteristics of breast parenchyma in patients with hereditary breast carcinoma, including BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer 97 (1): 1-11, 2003.

Claus EB, Petruzella S, Matloff E, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA 293 (8): 964-9, 2005.

Arun B, Vogel KJ, Lopez A, et al.: High prevalence of preinvasive lesions adjacent to BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 2 (2): 122-7, 2009.

Garber JE: BRCA1/2-associated and sporadic breast cancers: fellow travelers or not? Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 2 (2): 100-3, 2009.

Smith KL, Adank M, Kauff N, et al.: BRCA mutations in women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Cancer Res 13 (14): 4306-10, 2007.

Hoogerbrugge N, Bult P, Bonenkamp JJ, et al.: Numerous high-risk epithelial lesions in familial breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 42 (15): 2492-8, 2006.

Kauff ND, Brogi E, Scheuer L, et al.: Epithelial lesions in prophylactic mastectomy specimens from women with BRCA mutations. Cancer 97 (7): 1601-8, 2003.

Hall MJ, Reid JE, Wenstrup RJ: Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women with breast carcinoma In Situ and referred for genetic testing. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 3 (12): 1579-85, 2010.

Marcus JN, Watson P, Page DL, et al.: Hereditary breast cancer: pathobiology, prognosis, and BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene linkage. Cancer 77 (4): 697-709, 1996.

Marcus JN, Watson P, Page DL, et al.: BRCA2 hereditary breast cancer pathophenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat 44 (3): 275-7, 1997.

Agnarsson BA, Jonasson JG, Björnsdottir IB, et al.: Inherited BRCA2 mutation associated with high grade breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 47 (2): 121-7, 1998.

Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP, et al.: Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (15): 1138-45, 1998.

Futreal PA, Liu Q, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al.: BRCA1 mutations in primary breast and ovarian carcinomas. Science 266 (5182): 120-2, 1994.

Lancaster JM, Wooster R, Mangion J, et al.: BRCA2 mutations in primary breast and ovarian cancers. Nat Genet 13 (2): 238-40, 1996.

Miki Y, Katagiri T, Kasumi F, et al.: Mutation analysis in the BRCA2 gene in primary breast cancers. Nat Genet 13 (2): 245-7, 1996.

Teng DH, Bogden R, Mitchell J, et al.: Low incidence of BRCA2 mutations in breast carcinoma and other cancers. Nat Genet 13 (2): 241-4, 1996.

Berchuck A, Heron KA, Carney ME, et al.: Frequency of germline and somatic BRCA1 mutations in ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 4 (10): 2433-7, 1998.

Thompson ME, Jensen RA, Obermiller PS, et al.: Decreased expression of BRCA1 accelerates growth and is often present during sporadic breast cancer progression. Nat Genet 9 (4): 444-50, 1995.

Dobrovic A, Simpfendorfer D: Methylation of the BRCA1 gene in sporadic breast cancer. Cancer Res 57 (16): 3347-50, 1997.

Birgisdottir V, Stefansson OA, Bodvarsdottir SK, et al.: Epigenetic silencing and deletion of the BRCA1 gene in sporadic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 8 (4): R38, 2006.

Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS, Russell AM, et al.: BRCA1 dysfunction in sporadic basal-like breast cancer. Oncogene 26 (14): 2126-32, 2007.

Rakha EA, El-Sheikh SE, Kandil MA, et al.: Expression of BRCA1 protein in breast cancer and its prognostic significance. Hum Pathol 39 (6): 857-65, 2008.

Wong EM, Southey MC, Fox SB, et al.: Constitutional methylation of the BRCA1 promoter is specifically associated with BRCA1 mutation-associated pathology in early-onset breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 4 (1): 23-33, 2011.

Cleton-Jansen AM, Collins N, Lakhani SR, et al.: Loss of heterozygosity in sporadic breast tumours at the BRCA2 locus on chromosome 13q12-q13. Br J Cancer 72 (5): 1241-4, 1995.

Hamann U, Herbold C, Costa S, et al.: Allelic imbalance on chromosome 13q: evidence for the involvement of BRCA2 and RB1 in sporadic breast cancer. Cancer Res 56 (9): 1988-90, 1996.

Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al.: Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434 (7035): 917-21, 2005.

Lakhani SR, Manek S, Penault-Llorca F, et al.: Pathology of ovarian cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Clin Cancer Res 10 (7): 2473-81, 2004.

Evans DG, Young K, Bulman M, et al.: Probability of BRCA1/2 mutation varies with ovarian histology: results from screening 442 ovarian cancer families. Clin Genet 73 (4): 338-45, 2008.

Tonin PN, Maugard CM, Perret C, et al.: A review of histopathological subtypes of ovarian cancer in BRCA-related French Canadian cancer families. Fam Cancer 6 (4): 491-7, 2007.

Bolton KL, Chenevix-Trench G, Goh C, et al.: Association between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and survival in women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. JAMA 307 (4): 382-90, 2012.

Liu J, Cristea MC, Frankel P, et al.: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of BRCA-associated ovarian cancer: genotype and survival. Cancer Genet 205 (1-2): 34-41, 2012 Jan-Feb.

Crum CP, Drapkin R, Kindelberger D, et al.: Lessons from BRCA: the tubal fimbria emerges as an origin for pelvic serous cancer. Clin Med Res 5 (1): 35-44, 2007.

Piek JM, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP, et al.: Dysplastic changes in prophylactically removed Fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol 195 (4): 451-6, 2001.

Carcangiu ML, Radice P, Manoukian S, et al.: Atypical epithelial proliferation in fallopian tubes in prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy specimens from BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers. Int J Gynecol Pathol 23 (1): 35-40, 2004.

Mehra K, Mehrad M, Ning G, et al.: STICS, SCOUTs and p53 signatures; a new language for pelvic serous carcinogenesis. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 3: 625-34, 2011.

Powell CB, Chen LM, McLennan J, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA mutation carriers: experience with a consecutive series of 111 patients using a standardized surgical-pathological protocol. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21 (5): 846-51, 2011.

Finch A, Shaw P, Rosen B, et al.: Clinical and pathologic findings of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomies in 159 BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol 100 (1): 58-64, 2006.

Medeiros F, Muto MG, Lee Y, et al.: The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol 30 (2): 230-6, 2006.

Prat J; FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology: Staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 124 (1): 1-5, 2014.

Schorge JO, Muto MG, Lee SJ, et al.: BRCA1-related papillary serous carcinoma of the peritoneum has a unique molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res 60 (5): 1361-4, 2000.

Jazaeri AA, Yee CJ, Sotiriou C, et al.: Gene expression profiles of BRCA1-linked, BRCA2-linked, and sporadic ovarian cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (13): 990-1000, 2002.

Gourley C, Michie CO, Roxburgh P, et al.: Increased incidence of visceral metastases in scottish patients with BRCA1/2-defective ovarian cancer: an extension of the ovarian BRCAness phenotype. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2505-11, 2010.

Vineyard MA, Daniels MS, Urbauer DL, et al.: Is low-grade serous ovarian cancer part of the tumor spectrum of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer? Gynecol Oncol 120 (2): 229-32, 2011.

Norquist BM, Harrell MI, Brady MF, et al.: Inherited Mutations in Women With Ovarian Carcinoma. JAMA Oncol 2 (4): 482-90, 2016.

Hilton JL, Geisler JP, Rathe JA, et al.: Inactivation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (18): 1396-406, 2002.

Quinn JE, James CR, Stewart GE, et al.: BRCA1 mRNA expression levels predict for overall survival in ovarian cancer after chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 13 (24): 7413-20, 2007.

Geisler JP, Hatterman-Zogg MA, Rathe JA, et al.: Frequency of BRCA1 dysfunction in ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (1): 61-7, 2002.

Vasen HF: Clinical description of the Lynch syndrome [hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)]. Fam Cancer 4 (3): 219-25, 2005.

Jascur T, Boland CR: Structure and function of the components of the human DNA mismatch repair system. Int J Cancer 119 (9): 2030-5, 2006.

Papadopoulos N, Nicolaides NC, Wei YF, et al.: Mutation of a mutL homolog in hereditary colon cancer. Science 263 (5153): 1625-9, 1994.

Peltomäki P, Vasen HF: Mutations predisposing to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: database and results of a collaborative study. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 113 (4): 1146-58, 1997.

Akiyama Y, Sato H, Yamada T, et al.: Germ-line mutation of the hMSH6/GTBP gene in an atypical hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer kindred. Cancer Res 57 (18): 3920-3, 1997.

Miyaki M, Konishi M, Tanaka K, et al.: Germline mutation of MSH6 as the cause of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 17 (3): 271-2, 1997.

Huang J, Kuismanen SA, Liu T, et al.: MSH6 and MSH3 are rarely involved in genetic predisposition to nonpolypotic colon cancer. Cancer Res 61 (4): 1619-23, 2001.

Nicolaides NC, Papadopoulos N, Liu B, et al.: Mutations of two PMS homologues in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Nature 371 (6492): 75-80, 1994.

Hendriks YM, Jagmohan-Changur S, van der Klift HM, et al.: Heterozygous mutations in PMS2 cause hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (Lynch syndrome). Gastroenterology 130 (2): 312-22, 2006.

Worthley DL, Walsh MD, Barker M, et al.: Familial mutations in PMS2 can cause autosomal dominant hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 128 (5): 1431-6, 2005.

Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, et al.: The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 34 (5): 424-5, 1991.

Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, et al.: New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 116 (6): 1453-6, 1999.

Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR, et al.: A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome: meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 89 (23): 1758-62, 1997.

Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al.: Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (4): 261-8, 2004.

Watson P, Lynch HT: Cancer risk in mismatch repair gene mutation carriers. Fam Cancer 1 (1): 57-60, 2001.

Vasen HF, Wijnen JT, Menko FH, et al.: Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology 110 (4): 1020-7, 1996.

Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA, et al.: Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer 64 (6): 430-3, 1995.

Watson P, Lynch HT: Extracolonic cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer 71 (3): 677-85, 1993.

Brown GJ, St John DJ, Macrae FA, et al.: Cancer risk in young women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: implications for gynecologic surveillance. Gynecol Oncol 80 (3): 346-9, 2001.

Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, et al.: Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer 81 (2): 214-8, 1999.

Ten Broeke SW, van der Klift HM, Tops CMJ, et al.: Cancer Risks for PMS2-Associated Lynch Syndrome. J Clin Oncol 36 (29): 2961-2968, 2018.

Møller P, Seppälä TT, Bernstein I, et al.: Cancer risk and survival in path_MMR carriers by gene and gender up to 75 years of age: a report from the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database. Gut 67 (7): 1306-1316, 2018.

Grindedal EM, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Vasen H, et al.: Survival in women with MMR mutations and ovarian cancer: a multicentre study in Lynch syndrome kindreds. J Med Genet 47 (2): 99-102, 2010.

Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Sellers TA: A review of the clinical relevance of mismatch-repair deficiency in ovarian cancer. Cancer 113 (4): 733-42, 2008.

Jensen UB, Sunde L, Timshel S, et al.: Mismatch repair defective breast cancer in the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120 (3): 777-82, 2010.

Shanley S, Fung C, Milliken J, et al.: Breast cancer immunohistochemistry can be useful in triage of some HNPCC families. Fam Cancer 8 (3): 251-5, 2009.

Walsh MD, Buchanan DD, Cummings MC, et al.: Lynch syndrome-associated breast cancers: clinicopathologic characteristics of a case series from the colon cancer family registry. Clin Cancer Res 16 (7): 2214-24, 2010.

Buerki N, Gautier L, Kovac M, et al.: Evidence for breast cancer as an integral part of Lynch syndrome. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 51 (1): 83-91, 2012.

Win AK, Young JP, Lindor NM, et al.: Colorectal and other cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 30 (9): 958-64, 2012.

Win AK, Lindor NM, Young JP, et al.: Risks of primary extracolonic cancers following colorectal cancer in lynch syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst 104 (18): 1363-72, 2012.

Harkness EF, Barrow E, Newton K, et al.: Lynch syndrome caused by MLH1 mutations is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer: a cohort study. J Med Genet 52 (8): 553-6, 2015.

Win AK, Lindor NM, Jenkins MA: Risk of breast cancer in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res 15 (2): R27, 2013.

Goldberg M, Bell K, Aronson M, et al.: Association between the Lynch syndrome gene MSH2 and breast cancer susceptibility in a Canadian familial cancer registry. J Med Genet 54 (11): 742-746, 2017.

Roberts ME, Jackson SA, Susswein LR, et al.: MSH6 and PMS2 germ-line pathogenic variants implicated in Lynch syndrome are associated with breast cancer. Genet Med 20 (10): 1167-1174, 2018.

Espenschied CR, LaDuca H, Li S, et al.: Multigene Panel Testing Provides a New Perspective on Lynch Syndrome. J Clin Oncol 35 (22): 2568-2575, 2017.

Lu HM, Li S, Black MH, et al.: Association of Breast and Ovarian Cancers With Predisposition Genes Identified by Large-Scale Sequencing. JAMA Oncol 5 (1): 51-57, 2019.

Latham A, Srinivasan P, Kemel Y, et al.: Microsatellite Instability Is Associated With the Presence of Lynch Syndrome Pan-Cancer. J Clin Oncol 37 (4): 286-295, 2019.

Harris CC, Hollstein M: Clinical implications of the p53 tumor-suppressor gene. N Engl J Med 329 (18): 1318-27, 1993.

Malkin D: The Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology Updates 7(7): 1-14, 1993.

Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al.: Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 27 (8): 1250-6, 2009.

Chompret A, Abel A, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, et al.: Sensitivity and predictive value of criteria for p53 germline mutation screening. J Med Genet 38 (1): 43-7, 2001.

Tinat J, Bougeard G, Baert-Desurmont S, et al.: 2009 version of the Chompret criteria for Li Fraumeni syndrome. J Clin Oncol 27 (26): e108-9; author reply e110, 2009.

Bottomley RH, Condit PT: Cancer families. Cancer Bull 20: 22-24, 1968.

Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman JM, et al.: Revisiting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome From TP53 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol 33 (21): 2345-52, 2015.

Sidransky D, Tokino T, Helzlsouer K, et al.: Inherited p53 gene mutations in breast cancer. Cancer Res 52 (10): 2984-6, 1992.

Wilson JR, Bateman AC, Hanson H, et al.: A novel HER2-positive breast cancer phenotype arising from germline TP53 mutations. J Med Genet 47 (11): 771-4, 2010.

Melhem-Bertrandt A, Bojadzieva J, Ready KJ, et al.: Early onset HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with germline TP53 mutations. Cancer 118 (4): 908-13, 2012.

Masciari S, Dillon DA, Rath M, et al.: Breast cancer phenotype in women with TP53 germline mutations: a Li-Fraumeni syndrome consortium effort. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133 (3): 1125-30, 2012.

Pearson AD, Craft AW, Ratcliffe JM, et al.: Two families with the Li-Fraumeni cancer family syndrome. J Med Genet 19 (5): 362-5, 1982.

Li FP, Fraumeni JF, Mulvihill JJ, et al.: A cancer family syndrome in twenty-four kindreds. Cancer Res 48 (18): 5358-62, 1988.

Bougeard G, Sesboüé R, Baert-Desurmont S, et al.: Molecular basis of the Li-Fraumeni syndrome: an update from the French LFS families. J Med Genet 45 (8): 535-8, 2008.

Mai PL, Best AF, Peters JA, et al.: Risks of first and subsequent cancers among TP53 mutation carriers in the National Cancer Institute Li-Fraumeni syndrome cohort. Cancer 122 (23): 3673-3681, 2016.

Kamihara J, Rana HQ, Garber JE: Germline TP53 mutations and the changing landscape of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Hum Mutat 35 (6): 654-62, 2014.

Mai PL, Khincha PP, Loud JT, et al.: Prevalence of Cancer at Baseline Screening in the National Cancer Institute Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Cohort. JAMA Oncol 3 (12): 1640-1645, 2017.

Villani A, Tabori U, Schiffman J, et al.: Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 12 (6): 559-67, 2011.

Masciari S, Van den Abbeele AD, Diller LR, et al.: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography screening in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. JAMA 299 (11): 1315-9, 2008.

Zhou XP, Waite KA, Pilarski R, et al.: Germline PTEN promoter mutations and deletions in Cowden/Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome result in aberrant PTEN protein and dysregulation of the phosphoinositol-3-kinase/Akt pathway. Am J Hum Genet 73 (2): 404-11, 2003.

Mester J, Eng C: When overgrowth bumps into cancer: the PTEN-opathies. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 163C (2): 114-21, 2013.

Eng C: PTEN: one gene, many syndromes. Hum Mutat 22 (3): 183-98, 2003.

Marsh DJ, Kum JB, Lunetta KL, et al.: PTEN mutation spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations in Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome suggest a single entity with Cowden syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 8 (8): 1461-72, 1999.

Pilarski R, Eng C: Will the real Cowden syndrome please stand up (again)? Expanding mutational and clinical spectra of the PTEN hamartoma tumour syndrome. J Med Genet 41 (5): 323-6, 2004.

Eng C: PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS). In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Bird TD, et al., eds.: GeneReviews. Seattle, Wash: University of Washington, 1993-2018, pp. Available online. Last accessed December 19, 2019.

Pilarski R, Burt R, Kohlman W, et al.: Cowden syndrome and the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome: systematic review and revised diagnostic criteria. J Natl Cancer Inst 105 (21): 1607-16, 2013.

Ngeow J, Liu C, Zhou K, et al.: Detecting Germline PTEN Mutations Among At-Risk Patients With Cancer: An Age- and Sex-Specific Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Clin Oncol 33 (23): 2537-44, 2015.

Tan MH, Mester JL, Ngeow J, et al.: Lifetime cancer risks in individuals with germline PTEN mutations. Clin Cancer Res 18 (2): 400-7, 2012.

Bubien V, Bonnet F, Brouste V, et al.: High cumulative risks of cancer in patients with PTEN hamartoma tumour syndrome. J Med Genet 50 (4): 255-63, 2013.

Myers MP, Tonks NK: PTEN: sometimes taking it off can be better than putting it on. Am J Hum Genet 61 (6): 1234-8, 1997.

Hobert JA, Eng C: PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome: an overview. Genet Med 11 (10): 687-94, 2009.

Nieuwenhuis MH, Kets CM, Murphy-Ryan M, et al.: Cancer risk and genotype-phenotype correlations in PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome. Fam Cancer 13 (1): 57-63, 2014.

Ngeow J, Stanuch K, Mester JL, et al.: Second malignant neoplasms in patients with Cowden syndrome with underlying germline PTEN mutations. J Clin Oncol 32 (17): 1818-24, 2014.

Olopade OI, Weber BL: Breast cancer genetics: toward molecular characterization of individuals at increased risk for breast cancer: part I. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology Updates 12 (10): 1-12, 1998.

Pilarski R, Stephens JA, Noss R, et al.: Predicting PTEN mutations: an evaluation of Cowden syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome clinical features. J Med Genet 48 (8): 505-12, 2011.

Nelen MR, Padberg GW, Peeters EA, et al.: Localization of the gene for Cowden disease to chromosome 10q22-23. Nat Genet 13 (1): 114-6, 1996.

Lachlan KL, Lucassen AM, Bunyan D, et al.: Cowden syndrome and Bannayan Riley Ruvalcaba syndrome represent one condition with variable expression and age-related penetrance: results of a clinical study of PTEN mutation carriers. J Med Genet 44 (9): 579-85, 2007.

Benusiglio PR, Malka D, Rouleau E, et al.: CDH1 germline mutations and the hereditary diffuse gastric and lobular breast cancer syndrome: a multicentre study. J Med Genet 50 (7): 486-9, 2013.

Beeghly-Fadiel A, Lu W, Gao YT, et al.: E-cadherin polymorphisms and breast cancer susceptibility: a report from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121 (2): 445-52, 2010.

McVeigh TP, Choi JK, Miller NM, et al.: Lobular breast cancer in a CDH1 splice site mutation carrier: case report and review of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 14 (2): e47-51, 2014.

Petridis C, Shinomiya I, Kohut K, et al.: Germline CDH1 mutations in bilateral lobular carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 110 (4): 1053-7, 2014.

Tipirisetti NR, Govatati S, Govatati S, et al.: Association of E-cadherin single-nucleotide polymorphisms with the increased risk of breast cancer: a study in South Indian women. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 17 (6): 494-500, 2013.

Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D, et al.: Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet 47 (7): 436-44, 2010.

Xie ZM, Li LS, Laquet C, et al.: Germline mutations of the E-cadherin gene in families with inherited invasive lobular breast carcinoma but no diffuse gastric cancer. Cancer 117 (14): 3112-7, 2011.

Peutz JL: Very remarkable case of familial polyposis of mucous membrane of intestinal tract and nasopharynx accompanied by peculiar pigmentations of skin and mucous membrane. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 10: 134-146, 1921.

Jeghers H, McKusick VA, Katz KH: Generalized intestinal polyposis and melanin spots of the oral mucosa, lips and digits; a syndrome of diagnostic significance. N Engl J Med 241 (26): 1031-6, 1949.

Spigelman AD, Murday V, Phillips RK: Cancer and the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gut 30 (11): 1588-90, 1989.

Aretz S, Stienen D, Uhlhaas S, et al.: High proportion of large genomic STK11 deletions in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Hum Mutat 26 (6): 513-9, 2005.

Hemminki A, Markie D, Tomlinson I, et al.: A serine/threonine kinase gene defective in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Nature 391 (6663): 184-7, 1998.

Jenne DE, Reimann H, Nezu J, et al.: Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is caused by mutations in a novel serine threonine kinase. Nat Genet 18 (1): 38-43, 1998.

Boudeau J, Kieloch A, Alessi DR, et al.: Functional analysis of LKB1/STK11 mutants and two aberrant isoforms found in Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome patients. Hum Mutat 21 (2): 172, 2003.

Lim W, Hearle N, Shah B, et al.: Further observations on LKB1/STK11 status and cancer risk in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Br J Cancer 89 (2): 308-13, 2003.

Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Tersmette AC, et al.: Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gastroenterology 119 (6): 1447-53, 2000.

Hearle N, Schumacher V, Menko FH, et al.: Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res 12 (10): 3209-15, 2006.

Lim W, Olschwang S, Keller JJ, et al.: Relative frequency and morphology of cancers in STK11 mutation carriers. Gastroenterology 126 (7): 1788-94, 2004.

van Lier MG, Wagner A, Mathus-Vliegen EM, et al.: High cancer risk in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a systematic review and surveillance recommendations. Am J Gastroenterol 105 (6): 1258-64; author reply 1265, 2010.

Srivatsa PJ, Keeney GL, Podratz KC: Disseminated cervical adenoma malignum and bilateral ovarian sex cord tumors with annular tubules associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 53 (2): 256-64, 1994.

Scully RE: Sex cord tumor with annular tubules a distinctive ovarian tumor of the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Cancer 25 (5): 1107-21, 1970.

Westerman AM, Entius MM, de Baar E, et al.: Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: 78-year follow-up of the original family. Lancet 353 (9160): 1211-5, 1999.

Mehenni H, Resta N, Park JG, et al.: Cancer risks in LKB1 germline mutation carriers. Gut 55 (7): 984-90, 2006.

Gruber SB, Entius MM, Petersen GM, et al.: Pathogenesis of adenocarcinoma in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Cancer Res 58 (23): 5267-70, 1998.

Wang ZJ, Ellis I, Zauber P, et al.: Allelic imbalance at the LKB1 (STK11) locus in tumours from patients with Peutz-Jeghers' syndrome provides evidence for a hamartoma-(adenoma)-carcinoma sequence. J Pathol 188 (1): 9-13, 1999.

Miyoshi H, Nakau M, Ishikawa TO, et al.: Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis in Lkb1 heterozygous knockout mice. Cancer Res 62 (8): 2261-6, 2002.

Nakau M, Miyoshi H, Seldin MF, et al.: Hepatocellular carcinoma caused by loss of heterozygosity in Lkb1 gene knockout mice. Cancer Res 62 (16): 4549-53, 2002.

Takeda H, Miyoshi H, Kojima Y, et al.: Accelerated onsets of gastric hamartomas and hepatic adenomas/carcinomas in Lkb1+/-p53-/- compound mutant mice. Oncogene 25 (12): 1816-20, 2006.

Amos CI, Keitheri-Cheteri MB, Sabripour M, et al.: Genotype-phenotype correlations in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. J Med Genet 41 (5): 327-33, 2004.

Reid S, Schindler D, Hanenberg H, et al.: Biallelic mutations in PALB2 cause Fanconi anemia subtype FA-N and predispose to childhood cancer. Nat Genet 39 (2): 162-4, 2007.

Rahman N, Seal S, Thompson D, et al.: PALB2, which encodes a BRCA2-interacting protein, is a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 39 (2): 165-7, 2007.

Erkko H, Dowty JG, Nikkilä J, et al.: Penetrance analysis of the PALB2 c.1592delT founder mutation. Clin Cancer Res 14 (14): 4667-71, 2008.

Heikkinen T, Kärkkäinen H, Aaltonen K, et al.: The breast cancer susceptibility mutation PALB2 1592delT is associated with an aggressive tumor phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 15 (9): 3214-22, 2009.

Ding YC, Steele L, Chu LH, et al.: Germline mutations in PALB2 in African-American breast cancer cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126 (1): 227-30, 2011.

Foulkes WD, Ghadirian P, Akbari MR, et al.: Identification of a novel truncating PALB2 mutation and analysis of its contribution to early-onset breast cancer in French-Canadian women. Breast Cancer Res 9 (6): R83, 2007.

Casadei S, Norquist BM, Walsh T, et al.: Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 71 (6): 2222-9, 2011.

Southey MC, Teo ZL, Dowty JG, et al.: A PALB2 mutation associated with high risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 12 (6): R109, 2010.

Hellebrand H, Sutter C, Honisch E, et al.: Germline mutations in the PALB2 gene are population specific and occur with low frequencies in familial breast cancer. Hum Mutat 32 (6): E2176-88, 2011.

Bogdanova N, Sokolenko AP, Iyevleva AG, et al.: PALB2 mutations in German and Russian patients with bilateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126 (2): 545-50, 2011.

Wong MW, Nordfors C, Mossman D, et al.: BRIP1, PALB2, and RAD51C mutation analysis reveals their relative importance as genetic susceptibility factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127 (3): 853-9, 2011.

Zheng Y, Zhang J, Niu Q, et al.: Novel germline PALB2 truncating mutations in African American breast cancer patients. Cancer 118 (5): 1362-70, 2012.

Tischkowitz M, Capanu M, Sabbaghian N, et al.: Rare germline mutations in PALB2 and breast cancer risk: a population-based study. Hum Mutat 33 (4): 674-80, 2012.

Fernandes PH, Saam J, Peterson J, et al.: Comprehensive sequencing of PALB2 in patients with breast cancer suggests PALB2 mutations explain a subset of hereditary breast cancer. Cancer 120 (7): 963-7, 2014.

Janatova M, Kleibl Z, Stribrna J, et al.: The PALB2 gene is a strong candidate for clinical testing in BRCA1- and BRCA2-negative hereditary breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22 (12): 2323-32, 2013.

Teo ZL, Sawyer SD, James PA, et al.: The incidence of PALB2 c.3113G>A in women with a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer attending familial cancer centres in Australia. Fam Cancer 12 (4): 587-95, 2013.

Snyder C, Metcalfe K, Sopik V, et al.: Prevalence of PALB2 mutations in the Creighton University Breast Cancer Family Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150 (3): 637-41, 2015.

Nguyen-Dumont T, Hammet F, Mahmoodi M, et al.: Mutation screening of PALB2 in clinically ascertained families from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149 (2): 547-54, 2015.

Damiola F, Schultz I, Barjhoux L, et al.: Mutation analysis of PALB2 gene in French breast cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 154 (3): 463-71, 2015.

Antoniou AC, Casadei S, Heikkinen T, et al.: Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med 371 (6): 497-506, 2014.

Cybulski C, Kluźniak W, Huzarski T, et al.: Clinical outcomes in women with breast cancer and a PALB2 mutation: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet Oncol 16 (6): 638-44, 2015.

Jones S, Hruban RH, Kamiyama M, et al.: Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. Science 324 (5924): 217, 2009.

Slater EP, Langer P, Niemczyk E, et al.: PALB2 mutations in European familial pancreatic cancer families. Clin Genet 78 (5): 490-4, 2010.

Hofstatter EW, Domchek SM, Miron A, et al.: PALB2 mutations in familial breast and pancreatic cancer. Fam Cancer 10 (2): 225-31, 2011.

Stadler ZK, Salo-Mullen E, Sabbaghian N, et al.: Germline PALB2 mutation analysis in breast-pancreas cancer families. J Med Genet 48 (8): 523-5, 2011.

Ghiorzo P, Pensotti V, Fornarini G, et al.: Contribution of germline mutations in the BRCA and PALB2 genes to pancreatic cancer in Italy. Fam Cancer 11 (1): 41-7, 2012.

Westerman AM, Entius MM, Boor PP, et al.: Novel mutations in the LKB1/STK11 gene in Dutch Peutz-Jeghers families. Hum Mutat 13 (6): 476-81, 1999.

Schreibman IR, Baker M, Amos C, et al.: The hamartomatous polyposis syndromes: a clinical and molecular review. Am J Gastroenterol 100 (2): 476-90, 2005.

Gonzalez KD, Buzin CH, Noltner KA, et al.: High frequency of de novo mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Med Genet 46 (10): 689-93, 2009.

Bendig I, Mohr N, Kramer F, et al.: Identification of novel TP53 mutations in familial and sporadic cancer cases of German and Swiss origin. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 154 (1): 22-6, 2004.

De Leeneer K, Coene I, Crombez B, et al.: Prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations in sporadic breast/ovarian cancer patients and identification of a novel de novo BRCA1 mutation in a patient diagnosed with late onset breast and ovarian cancer: implications for genetic testing. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132 (1): 87-95, 2012.

Diez O, Gutiérrez-Enríquez S, Mediano C, et al.: A novel de novo BRCA2 mutation of paternal origin identified in a Spanish woman with early onset bilateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121 (1): 221-5, 2010.

Garcia-Casado Z, Romero I, Fernandez-Serra A, et al.: A de novo complete BRCA1 gene deletion identified in a Spanish woman with early bilateral breast cancer. BMC Med Genet 12: 134, 2011.

Hansen TV, Bisgaard ML, Jønson L, et al.: Novel de novo BRCA2 mutation in a patient with a family history of breast cancer. BMC Med Genet 9: 58, 2008.

Kwong A, Ng EK, Tang EY, et al.: A novel de novo BRCA1 mutation in a Chinese woman with early onset breast cancer. Fam Cancer 10 (2): 233-7, 2011.

Marshall M, Solomon S, Lawrence Wickerham D: Case report: de novo BRCA2 gene mutation in a 35-year-old woman with breast cancer. Clin Genet 76 (5): 427-30, 2009.

Robson M, Scheuer L, Nafa K, et al.: Unique de novo mutation of BRCA2 in a woman with early onset breast cancer. J Med Genet 39 (2): 126-8, 2002.

Tesoriero A, Andersen C, Southey M, et al.: De novo BRCA1 mutation in a patient with breast cancer and an inherited BRCA2 mutation. Am J Hum Genet 65 (2): 567-9, 1999.

van der Luijt RB, van Zon PH, Jansen RP, et al.: De novo recurrent germline mutation of the BRCA2 gene in a patient with early onset breast cancer. J Med Genet 38 (2): 102-5, 2001.

Morak M, Laner A, Scholz M, et al.: Report on de-novo mutation in the MSH2 gene as a rare event in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20 (11): 1101-5, 2008.

Plasilova M, Zhang J, Okhowat R, et al.: A de novo MLH1 germ line mutation in a 31-year-old colorectal cancer patient. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45 (12): 1106-10, 2006.

Win AK, Jenkins MA, Buchanan DD, et al.: Determining the frequency of de novo germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes. J Med Genet 48 (8): 530-4, 2011.

Anderson KG: How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Curr Anthropol 47 (3): 513-20, 2006. Also available online. Last accessed January 22, 2020.

Sasse G, Müller H, Chakraborty R, et al.: Estimating the frequency of nonpaternity in Switzerland. Hum Hered 44 (6): 337-43, 1994 Nov-Dec.

Voracek M, Haubner T, Fisher ML: Recent decline in nonpaternity rates: a cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychol Rep 103 (3): 799-811, 2008.

Moderate-Penetrance Genes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer

Background

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and the genes involved in other rare syndromes discussed in the High-Penetrance Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes section of this summary account for less than 25% of the familial risk of breast cancer.

Despite intensive genetic linkage studies, there do not appear to be other high-penetrance genes that account for a significant fraction of the remaining multiple-case familial clusters.

However, several moderate-penetrance genes associated with breast and/or gynecologic cancers have been identified. Genes such as CHEK2 and ATM are associated with a 20% or higher lifetime risk of breast cancer;

similarly, genes such as RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 are associated with a 5% to 10% risk of ovarian cancer.

Many of these genes are now included on multigene panels, although the clinical actionability of these findings remains uncertain and under investigation.

Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes Identified Through Candidate Gene Approaches

There is a very large literature of genetic epidemiology studies describing associations between various loci and breast cancer risk. Many of these studies suffer from significant design limitations. Perhaps as a consequence, most reported associations do not replicate in follow-up studies. This section is not a comprehensive review of all reported associations. This section describes associations that are believed by the editors to be clinically valid, in that they have been described in several studies or are supported by robust meta-analyses. The clinical utility of these observations remains unclear, however, as the risks associated with these variations usually fall below a threshold that would justify a clinical response.

Fanconi anemia genes

Fanconi anemia (FA) is a rare, inherited condition characterized by bone marrow failure, increased risk of malignancy, and physical abnormalities. To date, 16 FA-related genes, including , have been identified (as outlined in Table 10). FA is mainly an autosomal recessive condition, except when caused by pathogenic variants in FANCB, which is X-linked recessive. FANCA accounts for 60% to 70% of pathogenic variants, FANCC accounts for approximately 14%, and the remaining genes each account for 3% or fewer.

Table 10. Fanconi Anemia Genes and Breast Cancer Risk

High-Risk Genes
– BRCA1 (FANCS)a
– BRCA2 (FANCD1)a
– PALB2 (FANCN)b
Moderate-Risk Genes
– BRIP1 (FANCJ/BACH1)
– FANCD2
– RAD51C (FANCO)
Genes With Uncertain or No Significantly Increased Risk
-FANCA
– FANCB
– FANCC
– FANCE
– FANCF
– FANCG (XRCC9)
– FANCI (KIAA1794)
– FANCL
– SLX4 (FANCP)
– ERCC4 (FANCQ/XPF)
aRefer to the section of this summary for information about the cumulative risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.
bRefer to the section of this summary for information about the cumulative risk of breast cancer in carriers of PALB2 pathogenic variants.
cModerate risk is defined as a statistically significant, twofold or lower increased risk estimate.

Progressive bone marrow failure typically occurs in the first decade, with patients often presenting with thrombocytopenia or leucopenia. The incidence of bone marrow failure is 90% by age 40 to 50 years. The incidence is 10% to 30% for hematologic malignancies (primarily acute myeloid leukemia) and 25% to 30% for nonhematologic malignancies (solid tumors, particularly of the head and neck, skin, gastrointestinal [GI] tract, and genital tract). Physical abnormalities, including short stature, abnormal skin pigmentation, radial ray defects (including malformation of the thumbs), abnormalities of the urinary tract, eyes, ears, heart, GI system, and central nervous system, hypogonadism, and developmental delay are present in 60% to 75% of affected individuals.

Variants in some of the FA genes, most notably BRCA1 and BRCA2, but also PALB2, RAD51C (in the RAD51 family of genes), and BRIP1, among others, may predispose to breast cancer in heterozygotes. Given the widespread availability of multigene (panel) tests, genetic testing of many of the FA genes is frequently performed despite uncertain cancer risks and the lack of available evidence-based medical management recommendations for many of these genes.

FA gene pathogenic variant carrier status can have implications for reproductive decision making because pathogenic variants in these genes can lead to serious childhood onset of disease if both parents are carriers of pathogenic variants in the same gene. Partner testing may be considered.

BRIP1 (also known as BACH1) encodes a helicase that interacts with the BRCA1 C-terminal (BRCT) domain. This gene also has a role in BRCA1-dependent DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoint function. Biallelic pathogenic variants in BRIP1 are a cause of FA,

much like such pathogenic variants in BRCA2. Inactivating variants of BRIP1 are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. In one study, more than 3,000 individuals from BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant–negative families were examined for BRIP1 variants. Pathogenic variants were identified in 9 of 1,212 individuals with breast cancer but in only 2 of 2,081 controls (P = .003). The relative risk (RR) of breast cancer was estimated to be 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–3.2; P = .012). Of note, in families with BRIP1 pathogenic variants and multiple cases of breast cancer, there was incomplete segregation of the pathogenic variant with breast cancer, consistent with a low-penetrance allele and similar to that seen with CHEK2.

In a case-control study of 3,236 women with ovarian cancer, BRIP1 pathogenic variants were more frequently associated with ovarian cancer risk (RR, 11.2; 95% CI, 3.2–34.1).

CHEK2 is a gene involved in the DNA damage repair response pathway. Based on numerous studies, a polymorphism, 1100delC, appears to be a rare, moderate-penetrance cancer susceptibility allele.

One study identified the pathogenic variant in 1.2% of the European controls, 4.2% of the European BRCA1/BRCA2-negative familial breast cancer cases, and 1.4% of unselected female breast cancer cases.

In a group of 1,479 Dutch women younger than 50 years with invasive breast cancer, 3.7% were found to have the CHEK2 1100delC pathogenic variant.

In additional European and U.S. (where the pathogenic variant appears to be slightly less common) studies, including a large prospective study,

the frequency of CHEK2 pathogenic variants detected in familial breast or ovarian cancer cases has ranged from 0%

to 11%; overall, these studies have found an approximately 1.5-fold to 3-fold increased risk of female breast cancer.

A multicenter combined analysis and reanalysis of nearly 20,000 subjects from ten case-control studies, however, has verified a significant 2.3-fold excess of breast cancer among carriers of pathogenic variants.

A subsequent meta-analysis based on 29,154 cases and 37,064 controls from 25 case-control studies found a significant association between CHEK2 1100delC heterozygotes and breast cancer risk (odds ratio [OR], 2.75; 95% CI, 2.25–3.36). The ORs and CIs in unselected, familial, and early-onset breast cancer subgroups were 2.33 (1.79–3.05), 3.72 (2.61–5.31), and 2.78 (2.28–3.39), respectively. However, study limitations included pooling of populations without subgroup analysis, using a mix of population-based and hospital-based controls, and basing results on unadjusted estimates (as cases and controls were matched on only a few common factors); therefore, results should be interpreted in the context of these limitations.

In a series of male breast cancer patients, the CHEK2 1100delC variant was significantly more frequently identified than in controls, suggesting that this variant is also associated with an increased risk of male breast cancer.

Two studies have suggested that the risk associated with a CHEK2 1100delC pathogenic variant was stronger in the families of probands ascertained because of bilateral breast cancer.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of carriers of 1100delC pathogenic variants estimated the risk of breast cancer to be 42% by age 70 years in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Similarly, a Polish study reported that CHEK2 truncating pathogenic variants confer breast cancer risks based on a family history of breast cancer as follows: no family history: 20%; one second-degree relative: 28%; one first-degree relative: 34%; and both first- and second-degree relatives: 44%.

Moreover, a Dutch study suggested that female homozygotes for the CHEK2 1100delC variant have a greater-than-twofold increased breast cancer risk compared with heterozygotes.

Although there have been conflicting reports regarding cancers other than breast cancer associated with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, this may be dependent on variant type (i.e., missense vs. truncating) or population studied and is not currently of clinical utility.

The contribution of CHEK2 variants to breast cancer may depend on the population studied, with a potentially higher variant prevalence in Poland.

Carriers of CHEK2 variants in Poland may be more susceptible to estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer.

Currently, the clinical applicability of CHEK variants remains uncertain because of low variant prevalence and lack of guidelines for clinical management.

A large Dutch study of 86,975 individuals reported an increased risk of cancers other than breast and colon for carriers of the CHEK2 1100delC pathogenic variant,

although additional studies are needed to further refine these risks.

(Refer to the section in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Colorectal Cancer for more information.)

Ataxia telangiectasia (AT) is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by neurologic deterioration, telangiectasias, immunodeficiency states, and hypersensitivity to ionizing radiation. It is estimated that 1% of the general population may be heterozygote carriers of ATM variants.

More than 300 variants in the gene have been identified, most of which are truncating variants.

ATM proteins have been shown to play a role in cell cycle control.

In vitro, AT-deficient cells are sensitive to ionizing radiation and radiomimetic drugs, and lack cell cycle regulatory properties after exposure to radiation.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend against radiation therapy in carriers of a single ATM pathogenic variant (heterozygotes).

Initial studies searching for an excess of ATM pathogenic variants among breast cancer patients provided conflicting results, perhaps due to study design and variant testing strategies.

However, two large epidemiologic studies have demonstrated a statistically increased risk of breast cancer among female heterozygote carriers, with an estimated RR of approximately 2.0.

A meta-analysis modeled the risk of breast cancer to be 6.02% by age 50 years and 32.83% by age 80 years.

Given these risks, increased screening and other recommendations based on family history and age may be considered.

Some studies have shown an association between ATM and ovarian cancer,

although, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest an impact on risk management or disease characteristics.

The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), an international group of investigators, investigated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified in previous studies as possibly associated with excess breast cancer risk in 15,000 to 20,000 cases and 15,000 to 20,000 controls. Two SNPs, CASP8 D302H and TGFB1 L10P, were associated with invasive breast cancer with RRs of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84–0.92) and 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04–1.11), respectively.

RAD51 and the family of RAD51-related genes, also known as RAD51 paralogs, are thought to encode proteins that are involved in DNA damage repair through homologous recombination and interaction with numerous other DNA repair proteins, including BRCA1 and BRCA2. RAD51 protein plays a central role in single-strand annealing in the DNA damage response. RAD51 recruitment to break sites and recombinational DNA repair depend on the RAD51 paralogs, although their precise cellular functions are poorly characterized.

Variants in these genes are thought to result in loss of RAD51 focus formation in response to DNA damage.

One of five RAD51-related genes, RAD51C has been reported to be linked to both FA-like disorders and familial breast and ovarian cancers. The literature, however, has produced contradictory findings. In a study of 480 German families characterized by breast and ovarian cancers who were negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, six monoallelic variants in RAD51C were found (frequency of 1.3%).

Another study screened 286 BRCA1/BRCA2-negative patients with breast cancer and/or ovarian cancer and found one likely pathogenic variant in RAD51C-G153D.

RAD51C pathogenic variants have also been reported in Australian, British, Finnish, and Spanish non-BRCA1/BRCA2 ovarian cancer–only and breast/ovarian cancer families, and in unselected ovarian cancer cases, with frequencies ranging from 0% to 3% in these populations.

In a sample of 206 high-risk Jewish women (including 79 of Ashkenazi origin) previously tested for the common Jewish pathogenic variants, two previously described and possibly pathogenic missense variants were detected.

Four additional studies were unable to confirm an association between the RAD51C gene and hereditary breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

In addition to carriers of RAD51C pathogenic variants, there are other RAD51 paralogs, including RAD51B, RAD51D, RAD51L1, XRCC2, and XRCC3, that may be associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer risk,

although the clinical significance of these findings is unknown. In a case-control study of 3,429 ovarian cancer patients, RAD51C and RAD51D pathogenic variants were more commonly found in ovarian cancer cases (0.82%) than in controls (0.11%, P < .001).

In addition to germline variants, different polymorphisms of RAD51 have been hypothesized to have reduced capacity to repair DNA defects, resulting in increased susceptibility to familial breast cancer. The Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA) pooled data from 8,512 carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants and found evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer among women who were BRCA2 carriers and who were homozygous for CC at the RAD51 135G→C SNP (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91–1.51).

Several meta-analyses have investigated the association between the RAD51 135G→C polymorphism and breast cancer risk. There is significant overlap in the studies reported in these meta-analyses, significant variability in the characteristics of the populations included, and significant methodologic limitations to their findings.

A meta-analysis of nine epidemiologic studies involving 13,241 cases and 13,203 controls of unknown BRCA1/BRCA2 status found that women carrying the CC genotype had an increased risk of breast cancer compared with women with the GG or GC genotype (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04–1.74). A meta-analysis of 14 case-control studies involving 12,183 cases and 10,183 controls confirmed an increased risk only for women who were known BRCA2 carriers (OR, 4.92; 95% CI, 1.10–21.83).

Another meta-analysis of 12 studies included only studies of known BRCA-negative cases and found no association between RAD51 135G→C and breast cancer.

In summary, among this conflicting data is substantial evidence for a modest association between germline variants in RAD51C and breast cancer and ovarian cancer. There is also evidence of an association between polymorphisms in RAD51 135G→C among women with homozygous CC genotypes and breast cancer, particularly among BRCA2 carriers. These associations are plausible given the known role of RAD51 in the maintenance of genomic stability.

Pathogenic variants in the BRCA1-interacting gene Abraxas were found in three Finnish breast cancer families and no controls.

The significance of this finding outside of this population is not yet known.

Through full exome sequencing among high-risk Polish and Quebec-based French Canadian families, the RECQL gene was discovered to harbor multiple rare truncating variants in both populations.

(Refer to the Clinical Sequencing section in the Cancer Genetics Overview PDQ summary for more information about whole-exome sequencing.) In the same populations, truncating variants in this gene were also identified in two subsequent validation phases among additional breast cancer patients from high-risk families, and among additional breast cancer cases in which the variant frequency was higher than that observed among controls. A case-control study from Belarus and Germany looked at the most common pathogenic variant, c.1667_1667+3delA GTA, and found it to be linked to ER-positive breast cancer. The OR in this study alone was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.44–3.47; P = .69), but in a meta-analysis with a Polish study, the OR was 2.51 (95% CI, 1.13–5.57, P = .02).

Although study results suggest that truncating germline RECQL pathogenic variants are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, the exact magnitude of risk remains uncertain, and future studies are needed to determine clinical usefulness. Furthermore, the significance of this finding outside of these two populations is not yet known.

SMARCA4 encodes BRG1 and is a catalytic subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, which plays a major role in rendering chromatin accessible to regulation of gene expression.

Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT) is a rare, aggressive tumor that has an early age at onset (before age 40 y) and a poor prognosis.

Familial clustering is sometimes present. SCCOHT tumors may be unilateral or bilateral and have been characterized histologically by the presence of small hyperchromatic cells with brisk mitotic activity.

A multimodality approach including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has been suggested for the treatment of SCCOHT.

Given the paraneoplastic phenomenon of hypercalcemia in 60% of cases, tracking calcium levels is useful in monitoring the course of disease. With a wide range of differential diagnoses including germ cell tumors, sex cord–stromal tumors, and undifferentiated carcinomas, SCCOHT remains classified by the World Health Organization as a "miscellaneous tumor" but more recently has been sequenced to be a malignant rhabdoid tumor.

Through exome sequencing, most cases of SCCOHT have been found to lack functional SMARCA4/BRG1; in fact, pathogenic variants in SMARCA4 may be the sole variants responsible for SCCOHT.

Despite only approximately 300 cases in the literature, three separate research groups showed SCCOHT to be associated with germline pathogenic variants and somatic mutations in the SMARCA4 gene. In one study of 12 young women with SCCOHT, sequencing of paired tumor and normal samples identified inactivating biallelic SMARCA4 pathogenic variants in each case.

Only four additional nonrecurrent somatic genes were identified in any of the other 278 genes sequenced. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated loss of SMARCA4 protein expression in seven of nine tested cases, consistent with a tumor-suppressor gene function. In a second study of another 12 patients, next-generation sequencing also identified SMARCA4 as the only recurrently variant gene, with the majority of variants predicted to result in a truncated protein.

A third study included three families in whom whole-exome sequencing with Sanger sequencing confirmation identified at least one germline pathogenic variant or somatic mutation in 24 of 26 cases.

Overall, 38 of 43 (88%) of SCCOHT tumors showed loss of SMARCA4 expression, in comparison to only 1 of 139 (0.7%) other ovarian tumor types.

Because of the rarity of this tumor, the penetrance of SMARCA4 is unknown. There is currently no consensus for management, yet SMARCA4 is on the larger multigene panels currently available for genetic testing, and risk-reducing surgery has been offered to pathogenic variant carriers.

ReferenceSection

Easton DF: How many more breast cancer predisposition genes are there? Breast Cancer Res 1 (1): 14-7, 1999.

Smith P, McGuffog L, Easton DF, et al.: A genome wide linkage search for breast cancer susceptibility genes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45 (7): 646-55, 2006.

Cybulski C, Wokołorczyk D, Jakubowska A, et al.: Risk of breast cancer in women with a CHEK2 mutation with and without a family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29 (28): 3747-52, 2011.

Thompson D, Duedal S, Kirner J, et al.: Cancer risks and mortality in heterozygous ATM mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 97 (11): 813-22, 2005.

Pelttari LM, Heikkinen T, Thompson D, et al.: RAD51C is a susceptibility gene for ovarian cancer. Hum Mol Genet 20 (16): 3278-88, 2011.

Loveday C, Turnbull C, Ramsay E, et al.: Germline mutations in RAD51D confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 43 (9): 879-82, 2011.

Mehta PA, Tolar J: Fanconi Anemia. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al.: GeneReviews. Seattle, Wash: University of Washington, 1993-2018, pp. Available online. Last accessed January 22, 2020.

Levitus M, Waisfisz Q, Godthelp BC, et al.: The DNA helicase BRIP1 is defective in Fanconi anemia complementation group J. Nat Genet 37 (9): 934-5, 2005.

Levran O, Attwooll C, Henry RT, et al.: The BRCA1-interacting helicase BRIP1 is deficient in Fanconi anemia. Nat Genet 37 (9): 931-3, 2005.

Litman R, Peng M, Jin Z, et al.: BACH1 is critical for homologous recombination and appears to be the Fanconi anemia gene product FANCJ. Cancer Cell 8 (3): 255-65, 2005.

Seal S, Thompson D, Renwick A, et al.: Truncating mutations in the Fanconi anemia J gene BRIP1 are low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nat Genet 38 (11): 1239-41, 2006.

Ramus SJ, Song H, Dicks E, et al.: Germline Mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN Genes in Women With Ovarian Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (11): , 2015.

Meijers-Heijboer H, van den Ouweland A, Klijn J, et al.: Low-penetrance susceptibility to breast cancer due to CHEK2(*)1100delC in noncarriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Nat Genet 31 (1): 55-9, 2002.

Kuschel B, Auranen A, Gregory CS, et al.: Common polymorphisms in checkpoint kinase 2 are not associated with breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 12 (8): 809-12, 2003.

Sodha N, Bullock S, Taylor R, et al.: CHEK2 variants in susceptibility to breast cancer and evidence of retention of the wild type allele in tumours. Br J Cancer 87 (12): 1445-8, 2002.

Ingvarsson S, Sigbjornsdottir BI, Huiping C, et al.: Mutation analysis of the CHK2 gene in breast carcinoma and other cancers. Breast Cancer Res 4 (3): R4, 2002.

Vahteristo P, Bartkova J, Eerola H, et al.: A CHEK2 genetic variant contributing to a substantial fraction of familial breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet 71 (2): 432-8, 2002.

Meijers-Heijboer H, Wijnen J, Vasen H, et al.: The CHEK2 1100delC mutation identifies families with a hereditary breast and colorectal cancer phenotype. Am J Hum Genet 72 (5): 1308-14, 2003.

Schmidt MK, Tollenaar RA, de Kemp SR, et al.: Breast cancer survival and tumor characteristics in premenopausal women carrying the CHEK2*1100delC germline mutation. J Clin Oncol 25 (1): 64-9, 2007.

Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, et al.: Increased risk of breast cancer associated with CHEK2*1100delC. J Clin Oncol 25 (1): 57-63, 2007.

Iniesta MD, Gorin MA, Chien LC, et al.: Absence of CHEK2*1100delC mutation in families with hereditary breast cancer in North America. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 202 (2): 136-40, 2010.

Offit K, Pierce H, Kirchhoff T, et al.: Frequency of CHEK2*1100delC in New York breast cancer cases and controls. BMC Med Genet 4 (1): 1, 2003.

Oldenburg RA, Kroeze-Jansema K, Kraan J, et al.: The CHEK2*1100delC variant acts as a breast cancer risk modifier in non-BRCA1/BRCA2 multiple-case families. Cancer Res 63 (23): 8153-7, 2003.

Neuhausen S, Dunning A, Steele L, et al.: Role of CHEK2*1100delC in unselected series of non-BRCA1/2 male breast cancers. Int J Cancer 108 (3): 477-8, 2004.

Ohayon T, Gal I, Baruch RG, et al.: CHEK2*1100delC and male breast cancer risk in Israel. Int J Cancer 108 (3): 479-80, 2004.

CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case-Control Consortium: CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies. Am J Hum Genet 74 (6): 1175-82, 2004.

Yang Y, Zhang F, Wang Y, et al.: CHEK2 1100delC variant and breast cancer risk in Caucasians: a meta-analysis based on 25 studies with 29,154 cases and 37,064 controls. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13 (7): 3501-5, 2012.

Hallamies S, Pelttari LM, Poikonen-Saksela P, et al.: CHEK2 c.1100delC mutation is associated with an increased risk for male breast cancer in Finnish patient population. BMC Cancer 17 (1): 620, 2017.

Johnson N, Fletcher O, Naceur-Lombardelli C, et al.: Interaction between CHEK2*1100delC and other low-penetrance breast-cancer susceptibility genes: a familial study. Lancet 366 (9496): 1554-7, 2005 Oct 29-Nov 4.

Fletcher O, Johnson N, Dos Santos Silva I, et al.: Family history, genetic testing, and clinical risk prediction: pooled analysis of CHEK2 1100delC in 1,828 bilateral breast cancers and 7,030 controls. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18 (1): 230-4, 2009.

Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Ellervik C, et al.: CHEK2*1100delC genotyping for clinical assessment of breast cancer risk: meta-analyses of 26,000 patient cases and 27,000 controls. J Clin Oncol 26 (4): 542-8, 2008.

Adank MA, Jonker MA, Kluijt I, et al.: CHEK2*1100delC homozygosity is associated with a high breast cancer risk in women. J Med Genet 48 (12): 860-3, 2011.

Gronwald J, Cybulski C, Piesiak W, et al.: Cancer risks in first-degree relatives of CHEK2 mutation carriers: effects of mutation type and cancer site in proband. Br J Cancer 100 (9): 1508-12, 2009.

Wasielewski M, den Bakker MA, van den Ouweland A, et al.: CHEK2 1100delC and male breast cancer in the Netherlands. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116 (2): 397-400, 2009.

Osorio A, Rodríguez-López R, Díez O, et al.: The breast cancer low-penetrance allele 1100delC in the CHEK2 gene is not present in Spanish familial breast cancer population. Int J Cancer 108 (1): 54-6, 2004.

Syrjäkoski K, Kuukasjärvi T, Auvinen A, et al.: CHEK2 1100delC is not a risk factor for male breast cancer population. Int J Cancer 108 (3): 475-6, 2004.

Tsou HC, Teng DH, Ping XL, et al.: The role of MMAC1 mutations in early-onset breast cancer: causative in association with Cowden syndrome and excluded in BRCA1-negative cases. Am J Hum Genet 61 (5): 1036-43, 1997.

Olopade OI, Weber BL: Breast cancer genetics: toward molecular characterization of individuals at increased risk for breast cancer: part I. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology Updates 12 (10): 1-12, 1998.

Cybulski C, Górski B, Huzarski T, et al.: CHEK2-positive breast cancers in young Polish women. Clin Cancer Res 12 (16): 4832-5, 2006.

Cybulski C, Huzarski T, Byrski T, et al.: Estrogen receptor status in CHEK2-positive breast cancers: implications for chemoprevention. Clin Genet 75 (1): 72-8, 2009.

Offit K, Garber JE: Time to check CHEK2 in families with breast cancer? J Clin Oncol 26 (4): 519-20, 2008.

Näslund-Koch C, Nordestgaard BG, Bojesen SE: Increased Risk for Other Cancers in Addition to Breast Cancer for CHEK2*1100delC Heterozygotes Estimated From the Copenhagen General Population Study. J Clin Oncol 34 (11): 1208-16, 2016.

Savitsky K, Bar-Shira A, Gilad S, et al.: A single ataxia telangiectasia gene with a product similar to PI-3 kinase. Science 268 (5218): 1749-53, 1995.

Telatar M, Teraoka S, Wang Z, et al.: Ataxia-telangiectasia: identification and detection of founder-effect mutations in the ATM gene in ethnic populations. Am J Hum Genet 62 (1): 86-97, 1998.

Uhrhammer N, Bay JO, Bignon YJ: Seventh International Workshop on Ataxia-Telangiectasia. Cancer Res 58 (15): 3480-5, 1998.

Ahmed M, Rahman N: ATM and breast cancer susceptibility. Oncogene 25 (43): 5906-11, 2006.

Khanna KK, Chenevix-Trench G: ATM and genome maintenance: defining its role in breast cancer susceptibility. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 9 (3): 247-62, 2004.

Gilad S, Chessa L, Khosravi R, et al.: Genotype-phenotype relationships in ataxia-telangiectasia and variants. Am J Hum Genet 62 (3): 551-61, 1998.

FitzGerald MG, Bean JM, Hegde SR, et al.: Heterozygous ATM mutations do not contribute to early onset of breast cancer. Nat Genet 15 (3): 307-10, 1997.

Chen J, Birkholtz GG, Lindblom P, et al.: The role of ataxia-telangiectasia heterozygotes in familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 58 (7): 1376-9, 1998.

Bay JO, Grancho M, Pernin D, et al.: No evidence for constitutional ATM mutation in breast/gastric cancer families. Int J Oncol 12 (6): 1385-90, 1998.

Laake K, Vu P, Andersen TI, et al.: Screening breast cancer patients for Norwegian ATM mutations. Br J Cancer 83 (12): 1650-3, 2000.

Dörk T, Bendix R, Bremer M, et al.: Spectrum of ATM gene mutations in a hospital-based series of unselected breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 61 (20): 7608-15, 2001.

Teraoka SN, Malone KE, Doody DR, et al.: Increased frequency of ATM mutations in breast carcinoma patients with early onset disease and positive family history. Cancer 92 (3): 479-87, 2001.

Chenevix-Trench G, Spurdle AB, Gatei M, et al.: Dominant negative ATM mutations in breast cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (3): 205-15, 2002.

Thorstenson YR, Roxas A, Kroiss R, et al.: Contributions of ATM mutations to familial breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 63 (12): 3325-33, 2003.

Cavaciuti E, Laugé A, Janin N, et al.: Cancer risk according to type and location of ATM mutation in ataxia-telangiectasia families. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 42 (1): 1-9, 2005.

Olsen JH, Hahnemann JM, Børresen-Dale AL, et al.: Breast and other cancers in 1445 blood relatives of 75 Nordic patients with ataxia telangiectasia. Br J Cancer 93 (2): 260-5, 2005.

Renwick A, Thompson D, Seal S, et al.: ATM mutations that cause ataxia-telangiectasia are breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nat Genet 38 (8): 873-5, 2006.

Marabelli M, Cheng SC, Parmigiani G: Penetrance of ATM Gene Mutations in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Different Measures of Risk. Genet Epidemiol 40 (5): 425-31, 2016.

Lu HM, Li S, Black MH, et al.: Association of Breast and Ovarian Cancers With Predisposition Genes Identified by Large-Scale Sequencing. JAMA Oncol 5 (1): 51-57, 2019.

Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI, et al.: Germline and somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 20 (3): 764-75, 2014.

Cox Angela, Dunning Alison, Garcia-Closas Montserrat, et al.: Nature genetics. Nat Genet 39 (5): 352-8, 2007.

Suwaki N, Klare K, Tarsounas M: RAD51 paralogs: roles in DNA damage signalling, recombinational repair and tumorigenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol 22 (8): 898-905, 2011.

Vaz F, Hanenberg H, Schuster B, et al.: Mutation of the RAD51C gene in a Fanconi anemia-like disorder. Nat Genet 42 (5): 406-9, 2010.

Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C, et al.: Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 42 (5): 410-4, 2010.

Clague J, Wilhoite G, Adamson A, et al.: RAD51C germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer cases from high-risk families. PLoS One 6 (9): e25632, 2011.

Thompson ER, Boyle SE, Johnson J, et al.: Analysis of RAD51C germline mutations in high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families and ovarian cancer patients. Hum Mutat 33 (1): 95-9, 2012.

Vuorela M, Pylkäs K, Hartikainen JM, et al.: Further evidence for the contribution of the RAD51C gene in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130 (3): 1003-10, 2011.

Romero A, Pérez-Segura P, Tosar A, et al.: A HRM-based screening method detects RAD51C germ-line deleterious mutations in Spanish breast and ovarian cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129 (3): 939-46, 2011.

Osorio A, Endt D, Fernández F, et al.: Predominance of pathogenic missense variants in the RAD51C gene occurring in breast and ovarian cancer families. Hum Mol Genet 21 (13): 2889-98, 2012.

Blanco A, Gutiérrez-Enríquez S, Santamariña M, et al.: RAD51C germline mutations found in Spanish site-specific breast cancer and breast-ovarian cancer families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147 (1): 133-43, 2014.

Norquist BM, Harrell MI, Brady MF, et al.: Inherited Mutations in Women With Ovarian Carcinoma. JAMA Oncol 2 (4): 482-90, 2016.

Kushnir A, Laitman Y, Shimon SP, et al.: Germline mutations in RAD51C in Jewish high cancer risk families. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136 (3): 869-74, 2012.

Wong MW, Nordfors C, Mossman D, et al.: BRIP1, PALB2, and RAD51C mutation analysis reveals their relative importance as genetic susceptibility factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127 (3): 853-9, 2011.

Zheng Y, Zhang J, Hope K, et al.: Screening RAD51C nucleotide alterations in patients with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124 (3): 857-61, 2010.

Akbari MR, Tonin P, Foulkes WD, et al.: RAD51C germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res 12 (4): 404, 2010.

De Leeneer K, Van Bockstal M, De Brouwer S, et al.: Evaluation of RAD51C as cancer susceptibility gene in a large breast-ovarian cancer patient population referred for genetic testing. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133 (1): 393-8, 2012.

Thomas G, Jacobs KB, Kraft P, et al.: A multistage genome-wide association study in breast cancer identifies two new risk alleles at 1p11.2 and 14q24.1 (RAD51L1). Nat Genet 41 (5): 579-84, 2009.

Figueroa JD, Garcia-Closas M, Humphreys M, et al.: Associations of common variants at 1p11.2 and 14q24.1 (RAD51L1) with breast cancer risk and heterogeneity by tumor subtype: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Hum Mol Genet 20 (23): 4693-706, 2011.

Osher DJ, De Leeneer K, Michils G, et al.: Mutation analysis of RAD51D in non-BRCA1/2 ovarian and breast cancer families. Br J Cancer 106 (8): 1460-3, 2012.

Pelttari LM, Kiiski J, Nurminen R, et al.: A Finnish founder mutation in RAD51D: analysis in breast, ovarian, prostate, and colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 49 (7): 429-32, 2012.

Golmard L, Castéra L, Krieger S, et al.: Contribution of germline deleterious variants in the RAD51 paralogs to breast and ovarian cancers. Eur J Hum Genet 25 (12): 1345-1353, 2017.

Song H, Dicks E, Ramus SJ, et al.: Contribution of Germline Mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D Genes to Ovarian Cancer in the Population. J Clin Oncol 33 (26): 2901-7, 2015.

Antoniou AC, Sinilnikova OM, Simard J, et al.: RAD51 135G-->C modifies breast cancer risk among BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from a combined analysis of 19 studies. Am J Hum Genet 81 (6): 1186-200, 2007.

He XF, Su J, Zhang Y, et al.: Need for clarification of data in the recent meta-analysis about RAD51 135G>C polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129 (2): 649-51; author reply 652-3, 2011.

Lu W, Wang X, Lin H, et al.: Mutation screening of RAD51C in high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families. Fam Cancer 11 (3): 381-5, 2012.

Wang WW, Spurdle AB, Kolachana P, et al.: A single nucleotide polymorphism in the 5' untranslated region of RAD51 and risk of cancer among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10 (9): 955-60, 2001.

Wang Z, Dong H, Fu Y, et al.: RAD51 135G>C polymorphism contributes to breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis involving 26,444 subjects. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124 (3): 765-9, 2010.

Zhou GW, Hu J, Peng XD, et al.: RAD51 135G>C polymorphism and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125 (2): 529-35, 2011.

Yu KD, Yang C, Fan L, et al.: RAD51 135G>C does not modify breast cancer risk in non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: evidence from a meta-analysis of 12 studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126 (2): 365-71, 2011.

Solyom S, Aressy B, Pylkäs K, et al.: Breast cancer-associated Abraxas mutation disrupts nuclear localization and DNA damage response functions. Sci Transl Med 4 (122): 122ra23, 2012.

Cybulski C, Carrot-Zhang J, Kluźniak W, et al.: Germline RECQL mutations are associated with breast cancer susceptibility. Nat Genet 47 (6): 643-6, 2015.

Bogdanova N, Pfeifer K, Schürmann P, et al.: Analysis of a RECQL splicing mutation, c.1667_1667+3delAGTA, in breast cancer patients and controls from Central Europe. Fam Cancer 16 (2): 181-186, 2017.

Dickersin GR, Kline IW, Scully RE: Small cell carcinoma of the ovary with hypercalcemia: a report of eleven cases. Cancer 49 (1): 188-97, 1982.

Harrison ML, Hoskins P, du Bois A, et al.: Small cell of the ovary, hypercalcemic type -- analysis of combined experience and recommendation for management. A GCIG study. Gynecol Oncol 100 (2): 233-8, 2006.

Callegaro-Filho D, Gershenson DM, Nick AM, et al.: Small cell carcinoma of the ovary-hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT): A review of 47 cases. Gynecol Oncol 140 (1): 53-7, 2016.

Foulkes WD, Clarke BA, Hasselblatt M, et al.: No small surprise - small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcaemic type, is a malignant rhabdoid tumour. J Pathol 233 (3): 209-14, 2014.

Jelinic P, Mueller JJ, Olvera N, et al.: Recurrent SMARCA4 mutations in small cell carcinoma of the ovary. Nat Genet 46 (5): 424-6, 2014.

Ramos P, Karnezis AN, Craig DW, et al.: Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, displays frequent inactivating germline and somatic mutations in SMARCA4. Nat Genet 46 (5): 427-9, 2014.

Witkowski L, Carrot-Zhang J, Albrecht S, et al.: Germline and somatic SMARCA4 mutations characterize small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type. Nat Genet 46 (5): 438-43, 2014.

Berchuck A, Witkowski L, Hasselblatt M, et al.: Prophylactic oophorectomy for hereditary small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type. Gynecol Oncol Rep 12: 20-2, 2015.

Low-Penetrance Genes and Loci

Polymorphisms underlying polygenic susceptibility to breast and gynecologic cancers are considered low penetrance, a term often applied to sequence variants associated with a minimal to moderate risk. This is in contrast to high-penetrance variants or alleles that are typically associated with more severe phenotypes, for example BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants leading to an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern in a family, and moderate-penetrance variants such as BRIP1, CHEK2, and RAD51C. (Refer to the High-Penetrance Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes and the Moderate-Penetrance Genes Associated With Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer sections of this summary for more information.) Because these types of sequence variants (also called low-penetrance genes, alleles, variants, and polymorphisms) are relatively common in the general population, their overall contribution to cancer risk is estimated to be much greater than the attributable risk in the population from pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. For example, it is estimated by segregation analysis that half of all breast cancer occurs in 12% of the population that is deemed most susceptible.

There are no known low-penetrance variants in BRCA1/BRCA2. The N372H variation in BRCA2, initially thought to be a low-penetrance allele, was not verified in a large combined analysis.

Two strategies have attempted to identify low-penetrance polymorphisms leading to breast cancer susceptibility: candidate gene and genome-wide searches. Both involve the epidemiologic case-control study design. The candidate gene approach involves selecting genes based on their known or presumed biological function, relevance to carcinogenesis or organ physiology, and then searching for or testing known genetic variants for an association with cancer risk. This strategy relies on imperfect and incomplete biological knowledge, and, despite some confirmed associations (described below), has been relatively disappointing.

The candidate gene approach has largely been replaced by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in which a very large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (approximately 1 million to 5 million) are chosen within the genome and tested, mostly without regard to their possible biological function, but instead to more uniformly capture all genetic variation throughout the genome.

Genome-Wide Searches

In contrast to assessing candidate genes and/or alleles, GWAS involve comparing a very large set of genetic variants spread throughout the genome. The current paradigm uses sets of as many as 5 million SNPs that are chosen to capture a large portion of common variation within the genome based on the HapMap and the 1000 Genomes Project.

By comparing allele frequencies between a large number of cases and controls, typically 1,000 or more of each, and validating promising signals in replication sets of subjects, very robust statistical signals of association have been obtained.

The strong correlation between many SNPs that are physically close to each other on the chromosome (linkage disequilibrium) allows one to “scan” the genome for susceptibility alleles even if the biologically relevant variant is not within the tested set of SNPs. Although this between-SNP correlation allows one to interrogate the majority of the genome without having to assay every SNP, when a validated association is obtained, it is not usually obvious which of the many correlated variants is causal.

Genome-wide searches are showing great promise in identifying common, low-penetrance susceptibility alleles for many complex diseases, including breast cancer.

The first study involved an initial scan in familial breast cancer cases followed by replication in two large sample sets of sporadic breast cancer, the final being a collection of over 20,000 cases and 20,000 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

Five distinct genomic regions were identified that were within or near the FGFR2, TNRC9, MAP3K1, and LSP1 genes or at the chromosome 8q region. The 8q region and others may harbor multiple independent loci associated with risk. Subsequent genome-wide studies have replicated these loci and identified additional ones.

Numerous SNPs identified through large studies of sporadic breast cancer appear to be associated more strongly with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive disease;

however, some are associated primarily or exclusively with other subtypes, including triple-negative disease.

An online catalog is available of SNP-trait associations from published GWAS for use in investigating genomic characteristics of trait/disease-associated SNPs.

Although the statistical evidence for an association between genetic variation at these loci and breast and ovarian cancer risk is overwhelming, the biologically relevant variants and the mechanism by which they lead to increased risk are unknown and will require further genetic and functional characterization. Additionally, these loci are associated with very modest risk (typically, an odds ratio [OR] <1.5), with more risk variants likely to be identified. No interaction between the SNPs and epidemiologic risk factors for breast cancer have been identified.

Furthermore, theoretical models have suggested that common moderate-risk SNPs have limited potential to improve models for individualized risk assessment.

These models used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of discriminatory accuracy. A subsequent study used ROC curve analysis to examine the utility of SNPs in a clinical dataset of more than 5,500 breast cancer cases and nearly 6,000 controls, using a model with traditional risk factors compared with a model using both standard risk factors and ten previously identified SNPs. The addition of genetic information modestly changed the AUC from 58% to 61.8%, a result that was not felt to be clinically significant. Despite this, 32.5% of patients were in a higher quintile of breast cancer risk when genetic information was included, and 20.4% were in a lower quintile of risk. Whether such information has clinical utility is unclear.

More limited data are available regarding ovarian cancer risk. Three GWAS involving staged analysis of more than 10,000 cases and 13,000 controls have been carried out for ovarian cancer.

As in other GWAS, the ORs are modest, generally about 1.2 or weaker but implicate a number of genes with plausible biological ties to ovarian cancer, such as BABAM1, whose protein complexes with and may regulate BRCA1, and TIRAPR, which codes for a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, molecules that may be important in BRCA1/BRCA2-deficient cells.

Polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer

The collective influence of many genetic variants has more recently been evaluated using an aggregate score. In 2015, a polygenic risk score (PRS) comprising all of the known breast cancer risk genetic variants or SNPs was estimated in women of European ancestry using 41 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), including more than 33,000 breast cancer cases and 33,000 controls.

This early attempt at estimating a PRS for breast cancer included 77 SNPs, which collectively conferred lifetime risks of developing breast cancer by age 80 years of 3.5% and 29% for women in the lowest and highest 1% of the PRS, respectively.

Since then, PRSs incorporating additional genetic variants and examining other breast cancer–related outcomes including tumor and pathological characteristics, mode of detection, and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) have been estimated.

In 2019, the PRS with the highest discriminatory ability to date was developed and prospectively validated in the largest GWAS datasets available (79 studies in BCAC and more than 190,000 women in the U.K. Biobank), which incorporates information on 313 genetic variants and is optimized for ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer.

Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of PRS313 had 4.04-, 4.37-, and 2.78-fold risks of developing breast cancer overall, ER-positive disease, and ER-negative disease, respectively.

Lifetime absolute risk of breast cancer by age 80 years for women in the lowest and highest 1% of PRS313 ranged from 2% to 31% for ER-positive breast cancer, while for ER-negative disease, the absolute risks ranged from 0.55% to 4%.

Common genomic variants associated with the development of a first primary breast cancer are also associated with the development of CBC.

Women in the highest quartile of the PRS had a 1.6-fold increased risk of developing CBC compared with the lowest quartile.

Moreover, PRSs of breast and ovarian cancers have been assessed in women who are carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, and have been found to be predictive of cancer risk in these women, supporting the hypothesis of a shared polygenic component of cancer risk between the general population and variant carriers.

The PRS for ER-negative disease had the strongest association with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 variant carriers, while the strongest association in BRCA2 variant carriers was seen for the overall breast cancer PRS. BRCA1 variant carriers had cumulative lifetime risks of 56% and 75% of developing breast cancer at the 10th and 90th percentile of the PRS, respectively. The ovarian cancer PRS was strongly associated with risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers. For BRCA2 variant carriers, the ovarian cancer risk was 6% and 19% by age 80 years for those at the 10th and 90th percentile of PRS, respectively. The authors noted that the incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models may better inform decisions on cancer risk management for this population.

Several studies have examined the extent to which clinical breast cancer risk prediction models can be improved by including information on known susceptibility SNPs, and reporting improved discriminatory accuracy after inclusion of the PRS.

For example, in a study combining PRS77 with clinical models, the AUC for predicting breast cancer before age 50 years improved by more than 20%.

Clinical trials, including WISDOM and MyPeBs, are in progress to study the potential clinical utility of the PRS for making screening decisions and understanding outcomes.

Because PRSs have been largely developed and validated in populations of European ancestry, the utility and prediction accuracy of these PRSs in non-European populations is unknown.

A large study examined whether known reproductive and lifestyle risk factors interact with PRSs to increase breast cancer risk and did not find a multiplicative interaction with established risk factors.

Whole-Genome and Whole-Exome Sequencing

In addition to GWAS interrogating common genetic variants, sequencing-based studies involving whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing

are also identifying genes associated with breast cancer, such as XRCC2, a rare, moderate-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility gene.

(Refer to the Clinical Sequencing section in the PDQ summary on Cancer Genetics Overview for more information about whole-exome sequencing.)

ReferenceSection

Pharoah PD, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, et al.: Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 31 (1): 33-6, 2002.

Breast Cancer Association Consortium: Commonly studied single-nucleotide polymorphisms and breast cancer: results from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (19): 1382-96, 2006.

Dunning AM, Healey CS, Pharoah PD, et al.: A systematic review of genetic polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8 (10): 843-54, 1999.

Thorisson GA, Smith AV, Krishnan L, et al.: The International HapMap Project Web site. Genome Res 15 (11): 1592-3, 2005.

Clarke L, Zheng-Bradley X, Smith R, et al.: The 1000 Genomes Project: data management and community access. Nat Methods 9 (5): 459-62, 2012.

Evans DM, Cardon LR: Genome-wide association: a promising start to a long race. Trends Genet 22 (7): 350-4, 2006.

Cardon LR: Genetics. Delivering new disease genes. Science 314 (5804): 1403-5, 2006.

Chanock SJ, Manolio T, Boehnke M, et al.: Replicating genotype-phenotype associations. Nature 447 (7145): 655-60, 2007.

Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium: Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447 (7145): 661-78, 2007.

Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, et al.: Genome-wide association study identifies novel breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature 447 (7148): 1087-93, 2007.

Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P, et al.: Common variants on chromosomes 2q35 and 16q12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat Genet 39 (7): 865-9, 2007.

Hunter DJ, Kraft P, Jacobs KB, et al.: A genome-wide association study identifies alleles in FGFR2 associated with risk of sporadic postmenopausal breast cancer. Nat Genet 39 (7): 870-4, 2007.

Turnbull C, Ahmed S, Morrison J, et al.: Genome-wide association study identifies five new breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nat Genet 42 (6): 504-7, 2010.

Gold B, Kirchhoff T, Stefanov S, et al.: Genome-wide association study provides evidence for a breast cancer risk locus at 6q22.33. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 (11): 4340-5, 2008.

Zheng W, Long J, Gao YT, et al.: Genome-wide association study identifies a new breast cancer susceptibility locus at 6q25.1. Nat Genet 41 (3): 324-8, 2009.

Kibriya MG, Jasmine F, Argos M, et al.: A pilot genome-wide association study of early-onset breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114 (3): 463-77, 2009.

Murabito JM, Rosenberg CL, Finger D, et al.: A genome-wide association study of breast and prostate cancer in the NHLBI's Framingham Heart Study. BMC Med Genet 8 (Suppl 1): S6, 2007.

Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P, et al.: Common variants on chromosome 5p12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat Genet 40 (6): 703-6, 2008.

Ahmed S, Thomas G, Ghoussaini M, et al.: Newly discovered breast cancer susceptibility loci on 3p24 and 17q23.2. Nat Genet 41 (5): 585-90, 2009.

Reeves GK, Travis RC, Green J, et al.: Incidence of breast cancer and its subtypes in relation to individual and multiple low-penetrance genetic susceptibility loci. JAMA 304 (4): 426-34, 2010.

Haiman CA, Chen GK, Vachon CM, et al.: A common variant at the TERT-CLPTM1L locus is associated with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. Nat Genet 43 (12): 1210-4, 2011.

Stevens KN, Fredericksen Z, Vachon CM, et al.: 19p13.1 is a triple-negative-specific breast cancer susceptibility locus. Cancer Res 72 (7): 1795-803, 2012.

Campa D, Kaaks R, Le Marchand L, et al.: Interactions between genetic variants and breast cancer risk factors in the breast and prostate cancer cohort consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 103 (16): 1252-63, 2011.

Milne RL, Gaudet MM, Spurdle AB, et al.: Assessing interactions between the associations of common genetic susceptibility variants, reproductive history and body mass index with breast cancer risk in the breast cancer association consortium: a combined case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 12 (6): R110, 2010.

Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, Easton DF, et al.: Polygenes, risk prediction, and targeted prevention of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358 (26): 2796-803, 2008.

Gail MH: Discriminatory accuracy from single-nucleotide polymorphisms in models to predict breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 100 (14): 1037-41, 2008.

Gail MH: Value of adding single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes to a breast cancer risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (13): 959-63, 2009.

Wacholder S, Hartge P, Prentice R, et al.: Performance of common genetic variants in breast-cancer risk models. N Engl J Med 362 (11): 986-93, 2010.

Song H, Ramus SJ, Tyrer J, et al.: A genome-wide association study identifies a new ovarian cancer susceptibility locus on 9p22.2. Nat Genet 41 (9): 996-1000, 2009.

Goode EL, Chenevix-Trench G, Song H, et al.: A genome-wide association study identifies susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer at 2q31 and 8q24. Nat Genet 42 (10): 874-9, 2010.

Bolton KL, Tyrer J, Song H, et al.: Common variants at 19p13 are associated with susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 42 (10): 880-4, 2010.

Mavaddat N, Pharoah PD, Michailidou K, et al.: Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (5): , 2015.

Curtit E, Pivot X, Henriques J, et al.: Assessment of the prognostic role of a 94-single nucleotide polymorphisms risk score in early breast cancer in the SIGNAL/PHARE prospective cohort: no correlation with clinico-pathological characteristics and outcomes. Breast Cancer Res 19 (1): 98, 2017.

Cuzick J, Brentnall AR, Segal C, et al.: Impact of a Panel of 88 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms on the Risk of Breast Cancer in High-Risk Women: Results From Two Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trials. J Clin Oncol 35 (7): 743-750, 2017.

Khera AV, Chaffin M, Aragam KG, et al.: Genome-wide polygenic scores for common diseases identify individuals with risk equivalent to monogenic mutations. Nat Genet 50 (9): 1219-1224, 2018.

Kuchenbaecker KB, McGuffog L, Barrowdale D, et al.: Evaluation of Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 109 (7): , 2017.

Li H, Feng B, Miron A, et al.: Breast cancer risk prediction using a polygenic risk score in the familial setting: a prospective study from the Breast Cancer Family Registry and kConFab. Genet Med 19 (1): 30-35, 2017.

Li J, Ugalde-Morales E, Wen WX, et al.: Differential Burden of Rare and Common Variants on Tumor Characteristics, Survival, and Mode of Detection in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res 78 (21): 6329-6338, 2018.

Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J, et al.: Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am J Hum Genet 104 (1): 21-34, 2019.

Robson ME, Reiner AS, Brooks JD, et al.: Association of Common Genetic Variants With Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in the WECARE Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 109 (10): , 2017.

Allman R, Dite GS, Hopper JL, et al.: SNPs and breast cancer risk prediction for African American and Hispanic women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 154 (3): 583-9, 2015.

Dite GS, MacInnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, et al.: Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Using Clinical Models and 77 Independent Risk-Associated SNPs for Women Aged Under 50 Years: Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 25 (2): 359-65, 2016.

Shieh Y, Hu D, Ma L, et al.: Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score. Breast Cancer Res Treat 159 (3): 513-25, 2016.

Starlard-Davenport A, Allman R, Dite GS, et al.: Validation of a genetic risk score for Arkansas women of color. PLoS One 13 (10): e0204834, 2018.

van Veen EM, Brentnall AR, Byers H, et al.: Use of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Mammographic Density Plus Classic Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction. JAMA Oncol 4 (4): 476-482, 2018.

Zhang X, Rice M, Tworoger SS, et al.: Addition of a polygenic risk score, mammographic density, and endogenous hormones to existing breast cancer risk prediction models: A nested case-control study. PLoS Med 15 (9): e1002644, 2018.

Esserman LJ; WISDOM Study and Athena Investigators: The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. NPJ Breast Cancer 3: 34, 2017.

Rudolph A, Song M, Brook MN, et al.: Joint associations of a polygenic risk score and environmental risk factors for breast cancer in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Int J Epidemiol 47 (2): 526-536, 2018.

Shendure J: Next-generation human genetics. Genome Biol 12 (9): 408, 2011.

Park DJ, Lesueur F, Nguyen-Dumont T, et al.: Rare mutations in XRCC2 increase the risk of breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet 90 (4): 734-9, 2012.

Clinical Management of Carriers of BRCA Pathogenic Variants

Increasing data are available on the outcomes of interventions to reduce risk in people with a genetic susceptibility to breast cancer or ovarian cancer.

As outlined in other sections of this summary, uncertainty is often considerable regarding the level of cancer risk associated with a positive family history or genetic test. In this setting, personal preferences are likely to be an important factor in patients’ decisions about risk reduction strategies.

Screening and Prevention Strategies

Breast cancer

Screening/surveillance

Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Screening for information on screening in the general population, and to the PDQ summary Levels of Evidence for Cancer Genetics Studies for information on levels of evidence related to screening and prevention.

Breast self-examination

In the general population, evidence for the value of breast self-examination (BSE) is limited. Preliminary results have been reported from a randomized study of BSE being conducted in Shanghai, China.

At 5 years, no reduction in breast cancer mortality was seen in the BSE group compared with the control group of women, nor was a substantive stage shift seen in breast cancers that were diagnosed. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Screening for more information.)

Little direct prospective evidence exists regarding BSE in individuals with an increased risk of breast cancer. In the Canadian National Breast Screening Study, women with first-degree relatives (FDRs) with breast cancer had statistically significantly higher BSE competency scores than those without a family history. In a study of 251 high-risk women at a referral center, five breast cancers were detected by self-examination less than a year after a previous screen (as compared with one cancer detected by clinician exam and 11 cancers detected as a result of mammography). Women in the cohort were instructed in self-examination, but it is not stated whether the interval cancers were detected as a result of planned self-examination or incidental discovery of breast masses.

In another series of carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants, four of nine incident cancers were diagnosed as palpable masses after a reportedly normal mammogram, further suggesting the potential value of self-examination.

A task force convened by the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium has recommended “monthly self-examination beginning early in adult life (e.g., by age 18–21 y) to establish a regular habit and allow familiarity with the normal characteristics of breast tissue. Education and instruction in self-examination are recommended.”

Clinical breast examination

Few prospective data exist regarding clinical breast examination (CBE).

The Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium task force concluded, “As with self-examination, the contribution of clinical examination may be particularly important for women at inherited risk of early breast cancer.” They recommended that female carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 high-risk pathogenic variant undergo annual or semiannual clinical examinations beginning at age 25 to 35 years.

Mammography

In the general population, strong evidence suggests that regular mammography screening of women aged 50 to 59 years leads to a 25% to 30% reduction in breast cancer mortality. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Screening for more information.) For women who begin mammographic screening at age 40 to 49 years, a 17% reduction in breast cancer mortality is seen, which occurs 15 years after the start of screening.

Observational data from a cohort study of more than 28,000 women suggest that the sensitivity of mammography is lower for young women. In this study, the sensitivity was lowest for younger women (aged 30–49 y) who had an FDR with breast cancer. For these women, mammography detected 69% of breast cancers diagnosed within 13 months of the first screening mammography. By contrast, sensitivity for women younger than 50 years without a family history was 88% (P = .08). For women aged 50 years and older, sensitivity was 93% at 13 months and did not vary by family history.

Preliminary data suggest that mammography sensitivity is lower in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers.

Subsequent observational studies have found that the positive predictive value (PPV) of mammography increases with age and is highest among older women and among women with a family history of breast cancer.

Higher PPVs may be due to increased breast cancer incidence, higher sensitivity, and/or higher specificity.

One study found an association between the presence of pushing margins and false-negative mammograms in 28 women, 26 of whom had a BRCA1 pathogenic variant and two of whom had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant. Pushing margins, characteristic of medullary histology, are associated with an absence of fibrotic reaction.

In addition, rapid tumor doubling times may lead to tumors presenting shortly after an apparently normal study. In one study, mean tumor doubling time in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers was 45 days, compared with 84 days in noncarriers.

Another study that evaluated mammographic breast density in women with BRCA pathogenic variants found no association between pathogenic variant status and mammographic density; however, in both carriers and noncarriers, increased breast density was associated with increased breast cancer risk.

The randomized Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2 compared annual CBE plus mammography to CBE alone in women aged 50 to 59 years from the general population. Both groups were given instruction in BSE.

Although mammography detected smaller primary invasive tumors, more invasive cancers, and more ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) than CBE, the breast cancer mortality rates in the CBE-plus-mammography group and the CBE-alone group were nearly identical, and compared favorably with other breast cancer screening trials. After a mean follow-up of 13 years (range, 11.3–16.0 y), the cumulative breast cancer mortality ratio was 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78–1.33). One possible explanation of this finding was the careful training and supervision of the health professionals performing CBE.

Digital mammography refers to the use of a digital detector to find and record x-ray images. This technology improves contrast resolution

and has been proposed as a potential strategy for improving the sensitivity of mammography. A screening study comparing digital with routine mammography in 6,736 examinations of women aged 40 years and older found no difference in cancer detection rates;

however, digital mammography resulted in fewer recalls. In another study (ACRIN-6652) comparing digital mammography to plain-film mammography in 42,760 women, the overall diagnostic accuracy of the two techniques was similar.

When receiver operating characteristic curves were compared, digital mammography was more accurate in women younger than 50 years, in women with radiographically dense breasts, and in premenopausal or perimenopausal women.

In a prospective study of 251 individuals with BRCA pathogenic variants who received uniform recommendations regarding screening and risk-reducing surgery, annual mammography detected breast cancer in six women at a mean of 20.2 months after receipt of BRCA results.

The Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium task force has recommended for female carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 high-risk pathogenic variant, “annual mammography, beginning at age 25 to 35 years. Mammograms should be done at a consistent location when possible, with prior films available for comparison.”

Data from prospective studies on the relative benefits and risks of screening with an ionizing radiation tool versus CBE or other nonionizing radiation tools would be useful.

Certain observations have led to the concern that carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants may be more prone to radiation-induced breast cancer than women without pathogenic variants. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins are known to be important in cellular mechanisms of DNA damage repair, including those involved in repairing radiation-induced damage. Some studies have suggested intermediate radiation sensitivity in cells that are heterozygous for a BRCA variant, but this is not consistent and varies by experimental system and endpoint.

Three studies have failed to find convincing evidence of an association between ionizing radiation exposure and breast cancer risk in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

In contrast, two large international studies found evidence of an increased breast cancer risk due to chest x-rays or estimates of total exposure to diagnostic radiation.

A large, international, case-control study of 1,601 carriers of pathogenic variants described an increased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54) among women who were ever exposed to chest x-rays, with risk being highest in women aged 40 years and younger, born after 1949, and exposed to x-rays only before age 20 years.

Some of the subjects in this study were also included in a larger, more comprehensive analysis of carriers of pathogenic variants from three European centers.

In that study of 1,993 carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants from the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands, age-specific total diagnostic radiation exposure (e.g., chest x-rays, mammography, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography) estimates were derived from self-reported questionnaires. Women exposed before age 30 years had an increased risk (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.20–3.00), compared with those never exposed. This risk was primarily driven by nonmammographic radiation exposure in women younger than 20 years (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02–2.58). Subsequently, a prospective study of 1,844 BRCA1 carriers and 502 BRCA2 carriers without a breast cancer diagnosis at study entry, with an average follow-up time of 5.3 years, observed no significant association between prior mammography exposure and breast cancer risk.

Additional subgroup analyses in women younger than 30 years demonstrated no association with breast cancer risk.

With the routine use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, any potential benefit of mammographic screening must be carefully weighed against potential risks, particularly in young women.

One study has suggested that the most cost-effective screening strategy in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants may be annual MRI beginning at age 25 years, with alternating MRI and digital mammography (so that each test is done annually but screening occurs every 6 months) beginning at age 30 years.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) currently recommends annual breast MRI screening with contrast (or mammogram with consideration of tomosynthesis, only if MRI is unavailable) between ages 25 and 29 years and annual mammogram (with consideration of tomosynthesis and breast MRI screening with contrast) between ages 30 and 75 years.

Magnetic resonance imaging

Because of the relative insensitivity of mammography in women with an inherited risk of breast cancer, a number of screening modalities have been proposed and investigated in high-risk women, including carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. Many studies have described the experience with breast MRI screening in women at risk of breast cancer, including descriptions of relatively large multi-institutional trials.

Despite some limitations of these studies, they consistently demonstrate that breast MRI is more sensitive than either mammography or ultrasound for the detection of hereditary breast cancer. The results of six large studies are presented in Table 11, Summary of MRI Screening Studies in Women at Hereditary Risk of Breast Cancer.

Most cancers in these programs were screen detected, with only 6% of cancers presenting in the interval between screenings. The sensitivity of MRI (as defined by the study methodology) ranged from 71% to 100%. Of the combined studies, 77% of cancers were identified by MRI, and 42% were identified by mammography.

Concerns have been raised about the reduced specificity of MRI compared with other screening modalities. In one study, after the initial MRI screen, 16.5% of patients were recalled for further evaluation and an additional 7.6% of patients were recommended to undergo a short-interval follow-up examination at 6 months.

These rates declined significantly during later screening rounds, with fewer than 10% of the subjects recalled for more detailed MRI and fewer than 3% recommended to have short interval follow-up. In a second study, Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Screening (MARIBS), the recall rate for additional evaluation was 10.7% per year.

The benign biopsy rates in the first study were 11% at first round, 6.6% at second round, and 4.7% at third round.

In the MARIBS study, the aggregate surgical biopsy rate was 9 per 1,000 screening episodes, though this may underestimate the burden because follow-up ultrasounds, core-needle biopsies, and fine-needle aspirations have not been included in the numerator of the MARIBS calculation.

The PPV of MRI has been calculated differently in the various series and fluctuates somewhat, depending on whether all abnormal examinations or only the examinations that result in a biopsy are counted in the denominator. Generally, the PPV of a recommendation for tissue sampling (as opposed to further investigation) is in the range of 50% in most series.

These trials appear to establish that MRI is superior to mammography in the detection of hereditary breast cancer, and that women participating in these trials including annual MRI screening were less likely to have a cancer missed by screening.

However, mammography may identify some cancers, particularly DCIS, that are not identified by MRI.

Regarding downstaging, one screening study demonstrated that patients at risk of hereditary breast cancer were more likely to be diagnosed with small tumors and node-negative disease than were women in two nonrandomized control groups.

Despite the apparent sensitivity of MRI screening, some women in MRI-based programs will develop life-threatening breast cancer. In a prospective study of 51 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 41 carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants screened with yearly mammograms and MRIs (of whom 80 had risk-reducing oophorectomy), 11 breast cancers (9 invasive and 2 DCIS) were detected. Six cancers were first detected on MRI; three were first detected by mammogram; and two were interval cancers. All breast cancers occurred in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, suggesting a continued high risk of BRCA1-related breast cancer after oophorectomy in the short term. These results suggest that surveillance and prevention strategies may have differing outcomes in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

A publication combining results from three large studies (MARIBS, a Canadian study, and a Dutch MRI screening study) demonstrated that when MRI was added to mammography, 80% of cancers detected in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants were either DCIS or invasive cancers smaller than 1 cm. In carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, 49% of cancers were DCIS or small invasive cancers. In addition, the authors predicted mortality benefits with the addition of MRI for both carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. The model predicted breast cancer mortality reductions of 42% to 47% for mammography, 48% to 61% for MRI, and 50% to 62% for combined screening.

An additional study examining carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants undergoing MRI between 1997 and 2006 has demonstrated that 97% of incident cancers were stage 0 or stage I.

A 2015 Dutch case-control study further evaluated 2,308 high-risk patients, including 706 women with known BRCA pathogenic variants, who were screened with mammogram and compared them with those who had the addition of MRI.

Of the patients screened, 93 patients were detected to have 97 cancers, 33 patients had a BRCA1 pathogenic variant, and 18 patients had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant. With a median follow-up of 9 years, metastases-free survival was improved in the MRI-screened cohort (90% vs. 77%), but it did not reach statistical significance in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subset because of very small numbers. MRI-screened patients in the entire cohort were more likely to be node-negative and receive less chemotherapy. The American Cancer Society and NCCN have recommended the use of annual MRI screening for women at hereditary risk of breast cancer.

An additional question regarding the timing of mammography and MRI is whether they should be done simultaneously or in an alternating fashion (so that while each test is done annually, screening occurs every 6 months). One study has suggested that the most cost-effective screening strategy in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants may be annual MRI beginning at age 25 years, with alternating MRI and digital mammography beginning at age 30 years.

In summary, evidence strongly supports the integral role of breast MRI in breast cancer surveillance for carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Table 11. Summary of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Screening Studies in Women at Hereditary Risk of Breast Cancer

Series		Rijnsburger	Warner	MARIBS	Kuhl	Weinstein	Sardanelli	Totals
N Patients	Overall	2,157	236	649	687	609	501	4,839
	BRCA1/BRCA2 Carriers	594	236	120	65	44	330	1,389
N Screening Episodes		6,253	457	1,881	1,679		1,592	11,862
N Cancers	Baseline	22	13	20	10	0	0	65
	Subsequent	97	9	15	17	18	52	208
	Invasive	78	16	29	8	11	44	186
	In situ	19	9	6	9	7	8	58
Annual Incidence		10.4/1,000		19/1,000
Detected at Planned Screening		78	21	33	27	18	49	226 (83%)
N Detected by Each Modality	Mammography	31	8	14	9	7	25	94 (42%)
	MRI	51	17	27	25	12	42	174 (77%)
	Ultrasound		7		10	3	26	46 (41%)
Follow-up		Median of 4.9 y	Minimum of 1 y	2–7 y	Median of 29.09 mo	2 y	3 y
aBased on the first 1,909 women screened.
bIncludes patients with invasive cancer only and patients with both invasive and in situ cancers.
cIncludes only 75 cancers detected in women who underwent both mammographic and MRI screening.
dRestricted to studies in which ultrasound was performed.

In situ

Ultrasound

Several studies have reported instances of breast cancer detected by ultrasound that were missed by mammography, as discussed in one review.

In a pilot study of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in 149 women with moderately increased risk based on family history, one cancer was detected, based on ultrasound findings. Nine other biopsies of benign lesions were performed. One was based on abnormalities on both mammography and ultrasound, and the remaining eight were based on abnormalities on ultrasound alone.

A large study of 2,809 women with dense breast tissue (ACRIN-6666) demonstrated that ultrasound increased the detection rate due to breast cancer screening from 7.6 per 1,000 with mammography alone to 11.8 per 1,000 for combined mammography and ultrasound.

However, ultrasound screening increases false-positive rates and appears to have a limited benefit in combination with MRI. In a multicenter study of 171 women (92% of whom were carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants) undergoing simultaneous mammography, MRI, and ultrasound, no cancers were detected by ultrasound alone.

Uncertainties about ultrasound include the effect of screening on mortality, the rate and outcome of false-positive results, and access to experienced breast ultrasonographers.

Level of evidence: None assigned

Other screening modalities

A number of other techniques are under active investigation, including tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, thermography, and radionuclide scanning. Additional evidence is needed before these techniques can be incorporated into clinical practice.

Level of evidence: None assigned

Risk-reducing surgeries

Risk-reducing mastectomy

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is a management option for patients who are considered to be at high risk of developing breast cancer. The Society of Surgical Oncology has endorsed RRM as an option for women with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants or strong family histories of breast cancer.

Historically, a total or simple mastectomy has been performed, which includes removal of all of the breast tissue, including the nipple and areolar complex (NAC). If the patient is interested, reconstruction can be performed simultaneously with the ablative portion of the procedure. Options for reconstruction include tissue expander and implant-based reconstructions or autologous reconstructions, in which the patient’s own tissue is used to reconstruct the breast. A number of different tissues can be used to reconstruct the breast, including flaps based on the latissimus dorsi muscle, the transverse rectus abdominis muscle, or the gluteus muscle. Muscle-sparing techniques such as the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap can also be used, but require advanced microvascular techniques. In the interest of improved cosmetic outcomes, skin-sparing techniques have been utilized in which the entire breast is removed with the NAC, but the entire skin envelope of the breast is preserved. In a further refinement, nipple-sparing techniques have been developed in which all of the breast skin and the nipple are preserved while the underlying glandular tissue is removed.

Risk-reducing mastectomy in unaffected women

Because there are no randomized, prospective trials of RRM versus observation, data are limited to cohort and case-control studies. The available data demonstrate that RRM does decrease breast cancer incidence in high-risk patients,

but overall survival (OS) correlates more closely with the overall risk from the primary incidence of breast cancer. Several studies have analyzed the impact of RRM on breast cancer risk and mortality. In one retrospective cohort study of 214 women considered to be at hereditary risk by virtue of a family history suggesting an autosomal dominant predisposition, three women were diagnosed with breast cancer after bilateral RRM, with a median follow-up of 14 years.

Because 37.4 cancers were expected, the calculated risk reduction was 92.0% (95% CI, 76.6%–98.3%). In a follow-up subset analysis, 176 of the 214 high-risk women in this cohort study underwent genetic testing for pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Pathogenic variants were identified in 18 women, none of whom developed breast cancer after a median follow-up of 13.4 years.

Two of the three women diagnosed with breast cancer after RRM were tested, and neither carried a pathogenic variant. The calculated risk reduction among carriers of pathogenic variants was 89.5% to 100.0% (95% CI, 41.4%–100.0%), depending on the assumptions made about the expected numbers of cancers among carriers of pathogenic variants and the status of the untested woman who developed cancer despite mastectomy. The result of this retrospective cohort study has been supported by a prospective analysis of 76 carriers of pathogenic variants who underwent RRM and were monitored prospectively for a mean of 2.9 years. No breast cancers were observed in these women, whereas eight were identified in women who underwent regular surveillance (HR for breast cancer after RRM, 0.00 [95% CI, 0.00–0.36]).

The Prevention and Observation of Surgical Endpoints study group also estimated the degree of breast cancer risk reduction after RRM in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants. The rate of breast cancer in 105 carriers of pathogenic variants who underwent bilateral RRM was compared with that in 378 carriers who did not choose surgery. Bilateral mastectomy reduced the risk of breast cancer by approximately 90% after a mean follow-up of 6.4 years.

Theoretical models have also been utilized to assess the role of RRM in women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Assuming risk reduction in the range of 90%, one model suggests that for a group of women, aged 30 years, with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, RRM would result in an average increased life expectancy of 2.9 to 5.3 years.

A computer-simulated survival analysis using a Monte Carlo model included breast MRI, mammography, RRM, and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and examined the impact of each intervention separately on carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

The most effective strategy was found to be RRSO at age 40 years and RRM at age 25 years, with survival at age 70 years approaching that of the general population. However, delaying mastectomy until age 40 years, or substituting RRM with screening with breast MRI and mammography, had little impact on survival estimates. For example, replacing RRM with MRI-based screening in women with RRSO at age 40 years led to a 3% to 5% decrement in survival compared with RRM at age 25 years.

As with any models, numerous assumptions cause uncertainty; however, these studies provide additional information for women and their providers who are making these difficult decisions.

Another study of at-risk women showed a 70% time–trade-off value for RRM, indicating that participants were willing to sacrifice 30% of life expectancy to avoid RRM.

A cost-effectiveness analysis study of RRM has also been performed. The investigators concluded that, compared with surveillance, risk-reducing surgery (mastectomy and oophorectomy) is cost-effective with regard to years of life saved, but not for improved quality of life.

While these data are interesting and may be useful for public policy decisions, they cannot be individualized for clinical care because they include assumptions that cannot be fully tested.

Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in affected women

If RRM is effective in lowering breast cancer risk in unaffected women, what is its role for women with unilateral breast cancer? This question often arises in discussions about surgical options with women who have unilateral breast cancer and hereditary risks. This section addresses the role of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) in women being treated with mastectomy and will not discuss breast conservation therapy. Multiple studies have shown an increase in the rate of CRRM in women with unilateral breast cancer.

When the appropriateness of CRRM is being assessed for women with unilateral breast cancer, the first task is to determine the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC).

In the general population, current estimates of CBC risk after treatment for breast cancer are approximately 0.3% per year and are declining.

In carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants with a diagnosis of breast cancer, the risk of a second, unrelated breast cancer is related to age at initial diagnosis, biology, and systemic therapies used, but is clearly higher than that in the general population.

(Refer to the Contralateral breast cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants section in the High-Penetrance Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Susceptibility Genes section of this summary for more information about the risk of CBC in this population.) In carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants whose first cancer has an excellent prognosis, estimating the risk of a second, unrelated breast cancer event is important for informing their decision to undergo risk-reducing surgery and has been described in this setting to improve survival.

The timing of genetic testing and knowledge of BRCA pathogenic variant status may influence surgical decision making, may prevent subsequent surgeries, and may influence follow-up care. Therefore, for individuals at increased risk of carrying a BRCA pathogenic variant, it is important that genetic testing be considered in advance of surgery, when possible.

In a group of 148 carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with unilateral breast cancer, 79 of whom underwent CRRM, the risk of CBC was reduced by 91% and was independent of the effect of risk-reducing oophorectomy. Survival was better among women who underwent CRRM, but this result was likely associated with higher mortality caused by the index cancer or metachronous ovarian cancer in the group not undergoing surgery.

Data from ten European centers on 550 women (including 202 BRCA carriers) with 3,334 woman-years of follow-up indicated that RRM was highly effective. Bilateral RRMs were carried out on women with a lifetime risk of 25% to 80%, with an average expected incidence rate of 1% per year. No breast cancers occurred in this cohort over the follow-up period, though more than 34 breast cancers would have been expected.

A retrospective study of 593 carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants included 105 women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent CRRM and had a 10-year survival rate of 89%, compared with 71% in the group who did not undergo contralateral risk-reducing surgery (P < .001).

This study was limited by several factors, such as the lack of information regarding breast cancer screening, grade, and estrogen receptor status in a large portion of this sample.

A Dutch cohort of 583 patients identified between 1980 and 2011, who had both a BRCA pathogenic variant and a diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer, were evaluated for the effect of CRRM.

With a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 242 (42%) of the patients underwent RRM (193 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 49 carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants) at differing times after their diagnoses. Improved OS was observed in the RRM group compared with the surveillance group (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29–0.82), with improvements most pronounced in those diagnosed before age 40 years, with low tumor grade, and non–triple-negative subtype. In an attempt to control for the bias of time to surgery, the authors included a separate evaluation of women who were known to be disease free 2 years after the primary cancer diagnosis (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32–0.95). Additionally, the group who underwent RRM was more likely to undergo bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and systemic chemotherapy, which may influence the significance of these survival findings.

A retrospective study of 390 women with early-stage breast cancer who were from families with a known BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant found a significant improvement in survival for women who underwent bilateral mastectomy compared with those who chose unilateral mastectomy.

Patients were followed for a median of 14.3 years (range, 0.1–20.0 y). A multivariate analysis controlling for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, treatment, and other prognostic factors found that CRRM was associated with a 48% reduction in death from breast cancer. This was a relatively small study, and although the authors adjusted for multiple factors, residual confounding factors may have influenced the results.

All of these studies are limited by the biases introduced in relatively small, retrospective studies among very select populations. There is often limited data on potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and access to care. It has been suggested that women who elect to undergo RRM are healthier by virtue of being able to tolerate more extensive surgery. This theory is supported by one study that used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data to examine the association between CRRM and outcomes among women with unilateral breast cancer stages I through III. Results showed a reduction in all-cause mortality and breast cancer–specific mortality, and also in noncancer event mortality, a finding that would not be expected to be related to CRRM.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy

The option of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants undergoing risk-reducing procedures has been controversial because of concerns about increased breast tissue left behind at surgery to keep the NAC viable. The ability to leave behind minimal residual tissue, however, may be related to experience and technique. In a retrospective review of NSM performed in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants at two hospitals between 2007 and 2014, NSM was performed on 397 breasts in 201 carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants.

This study included both unaffected and affected women. Incidental cancers were found in 4 of 150 RRM patients (2.7%) and 2 of 51 cancer patients (3.9%). With a mean follow-up of 32.6 months (range, 1.0–76.0 months), there were four subsequent cancer events that included two patients with axillary recurrences, one with a local and distant recurrence 11 months after her original NSM, and one patient who developed a new cancer in the inferior portion of her breast, with no recurrences at the NAC. A study of 177 NSMs performed in 89 carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants between 2005 and 2013 reported similar, excellent local control rates. Sixty-three patients had risk-reducing NSM (median follow-up, 26 months; range, 11–42 months), and 26 patients had NSM and a diagnosis of breast cancer (median follow-up, 28 months; range, 15–43 months). Five patients required further nipple excision. There were no local recurrences or newly diagnosed breast cancers.

Histopathology of RRM specimens

Studies describing histopathologic findings in RRM specimens from women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants have been somewhat inconsistent. In two series, proliferative lesions associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (lobular carcinoma in situ, atypical lobular hyperplasia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, and DCIS) were noted in 37% to 46% of women with pathogenic variants who underwent either unilateral or bilateral RRM.

In these series, 13% to 15% of patients were found to have previously unsuspected DCIS in the prophylactically removed breast. Among 47 cases of risk-reducing bilateral or contralateral mastectomies performed in known carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants from Australia, three (6%) cancers were detected at surgery.

In general, histopathologic findings in RRM specimens do not impact management.

Utilization

Individual psychological factors play an important role in decision-making about RRM by unaffected women and CRRM in women with unilateral breast cancer. (Refer to the Psychosocial Aspects of Cancer Risk Management for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer section in the Psychosocial Issues in Inherited Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndromes section of this summary for information about uptake of RRM in BRCA carriers and the Psychosocial Outcome Studies section for information about psychosocial outcomes of RRM.)

Conclusion

In summary:

RRM in unaffected women with pathogenic BRCA variants decreases the incidence of breast cancer by approximately 90%, with a less clear impact on breast cancer mortality.

RRM in women with unilateral breast cancer (CRRM) has demonstrated decreased incidence of breast cancer and possible improved survival.

NSM is an option for RRM, although variation in surgical technique and expertise may leave behind some tissue in the NAC, which may impact the need for subsequent surgery and risk of subsequent cancer.

The predominant histopathologic findings at the time of RRM in unaffected women with pathogenic BRCA variants are proliferative lesions that do not require additional treatment.

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO)

In the general population, removal of both ovaries has been associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk of up to 75%, depending on parity, weight, and age at time of artificial menopause. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Prevention for more information.) A Mayo Clinic study of 680 women at various levels of familial risk found that in women younger than 60 years who had bilateral oophorectomy, the likelihood of breast cancers developing was reduced for all risk groups.

Ovarian ablation, however, is associated with important side effects such as hot flashes, impaired sleep habits, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and increased risk of osteoporosis and heart disease. A variety of strategies may be necessary to counteract the adverse effects of ovarian ablation.

The evidence for the effect of RRSO on breast cancer has evolved. Early small studies suggested a protective benefit. Initial retrospective studies supported breast cancer and ovarian cancer risk reduction after RRSO in BRCA pathogenic variant–positive women.

In support of early small studies,

a retrospective study of 551 women with disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants found a significant reduction in risk of breast cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29–0.77) and ovarian cancer (HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01–0.16) after RRSO.

A prospective, single-institution study of 170 women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants showed a similar trend. With RRSO, the HR was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.02–1.31) for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.08–1.2) for breast cancer; the HR for either cancer was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.08–0.74).

A prospective, multicenter study of 1,079 women followed up for a median of 30 to 35 months found that while RRSO was associated with reductions in breast cancer risk in both carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, the risk reduction was more pronounced in BRCA2 carriers (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08–0.92).

A meta-analysis of all reports of RRSO and breast and ovarian/fallopian tube cancer in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants confirmed that RRSO was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk (overall: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37–0.65; BRCA1: HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.35–0.64; BRCA2: HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.84).

However, a cohort study of 822 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants conducted in the Netherlands, where carrier screening is performed nationwide, did not observe a reduced risk of breast cancer after RRSO (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.67–1.77).

The authors argued that the previous findings were driven by methodological issues including cancer-induced testing bias and immortal person time, and empirically evaluated this by using their own cohort and applying the same assumptions about counting person time from previous studies.

In a response, investigators from the U.S. studies analyzed their data using the assumptions of the Dutch study but still observed an inverse association with RRSO and breast cancer risk.

In a retrospective cohort of 676 women, carriers having an RRSO at the time of breast cancer diagnosis had a reduced risk of breast cancer–specific mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19–0.77 for BRCA1 carriers and HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.23–1.43 for BRCA2 carriers).

A subsequent international, multi-institutional study of 3,722 BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers using a similar methodology showed that oophorectomy performed before age 50 years was beneficial for preventing breast cancer in BRCA2 carriers (HR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05–0.63; P = .007) but not in BRCA1 carriers.

Given these conflicting findings, an additional cohort of 17,917 women who participated in the Prospective Family Study Cohort was assessed with 1,046 women diagnosed with breast cancer and a median follow-up of 10.7 years; no association between RRSO and breast cancer was observed.

A prospective, multicenter, cohort study of 2,482 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants has reported an association of RRSO with a reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26–0.61), breast cancer–specific mortality (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26–0.76), and ovarian cancer–specific mortality (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06–0.80).

A subsequent meta-analysis confirmed the impact of RRSO on all-cause mortality (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.27–0.38) in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, including those with and without a personal history of breast cancer.

Despite discordant findings regarding RRSO and breast cancer risk in the existing literature, aggregate data suggest that there is a benefit, although the magnitude of this benefit may not be fully understood. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Refer to the RRSO section in the Ovarian cancer section of this summary for more information about the effect of RRSO on ovarian cancer risk in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants.

Chemoprevention

Tamoxifen

Tamoxifen (a synthetic antiestrogen) increases breast-cell growth inhibitory factors and concomitantly reduces breast-cell growth stimulatory factors. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (NSABP-P-1), a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, compared tamoxifen (20 mg/day) with placebo for 5 years in high-risk women (defined by a Gail model risk score >1.66, age >60 y, or lobular carcinoma in situ). Tamoxifen was shown to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer by 49%. The protective effect was largely confined to ER-positive breast cancer, which was reduced by 69%. The incidence of ER-negative cancer was not significantly reduced.

Similar reductions were noted in the risk of preinvasive breast cancer. Reductions in breast cancer risk were noted both among women with a family history of breast cancer and in those without a family history. An increased incidence of endometrial cancers and thrombotic events occurred among women older than 50 years. Interim data from two European tamoxifen prevention trials did not show a reduction in breast cancer risk with tamoxifen after a median follow-up of 48 months or 70 months,

respectively. In one trial, however, reduction in breast cancer risk was seen among a subgroup who also used hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

These trials varied considerably in study design and populations. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Prevention for more information.)

Subsequently, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study 1 (IBIS-1) breast cancer prevention trial randomly assigned 7,154 women between the ages of 35 and 70 years to receive tamoxifen or placebo for 5 years. Eligibility for the trial was based on family history or abnormal benign breast disease. At a median follow-up of 16 years, there was a 29% reduction in risk of breast cancer in the tamoxifen arm (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60–0.83). There was a 43% reduction in risk for invasive ER-positive breast cancer (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81) and a 35% reduction in risk for DCIS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI 0.43–1.00). There was no reduction in risk of invasive ER-negative breast cancer.

These findings confirm those of the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (P-1).

A substudy of the NSABP-P-1 trial evaluated the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants older than 35 years. BRCA2-positive women benefited from tamoxifen to the same extent as BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant–negative participants; however, tamoxifen use among healthy women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants did not appear to reduce breast cancer incidence. These data must be viewed with caution in view of the small number of carriers of pathogenic variants in the sample (8 BRCA1 carriers and 11 BRCA2 carriers).

In contrast to the very limited data on primary prevention in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with tamoxifen, several studies have found a protective effect of tamoxifen on the risk of contralateral breast cancer.

In one study involving approximately 600 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants, tamoxifen use was associated with a 51% reduction in contralateral breast cancer.

An update to this report examined 285 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants with bilateral breast cancer and 751 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants with unilateral breast cancer (40% of these patients were included in their initial study). Tamoxifen was associated with a 50% reduction in contralateral breast cancer risk in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and a 58% reduction in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Tamoxifen did not appear to confer benefit in women who had undergone an oophorectomy, although the numbers in this subgroup were quite small.

Another study that involved 160 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants demonstrated that tamoxifen use after the treatment of breast cancer with lumpectomy and radiation was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of contralateral breast cancer.

In another study, 2,464 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants with a personal history of breast cancer were identified from three family cohorts. Using both retrospective and prospective data, researchers found a significant decrease in the risk of contralateral breast cancer among women who received adjuvant tamoxifen therapy after their diagnosis. This association persisted after researchers adjusted for age at diagnosis and the ER status of the first cancer. A major limitation of this study is the lack of information on ER status of the first breast cancer in 56% of the women.

These studies are limited by their retrospective, case-control designs and the absence of information regarding ER status in the primary tumor.

The STAR trial (NSABP-P-2) included more than 19,000 women and compared 5 years of raloxifene versus tamoxifen in reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer.

There was no difference in incidence of invasive breast cancer at a mean follow-up of 3.9 years; however, there were fewer noninvasive cancers in the tamoxifen group. The incidence of thromboembolic events and hysterectomy was significantly lower in the raloxifene group. Detailed quality-of-life data demonstrate slight differences between the two arms.

Data regarding efficacy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants are not available. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Prevention for more information about the use of selective ER modulators and aromatase inhibitors in the general population, including postmenopausal women.)

Another case-control study of carriers of pathogenic variants and noncarriers identified through ascertainment of women with bilateral breast cancer found that systemic adjuvant chemotherapy reduced CBC risk among carriers of pathogenic variants (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.2–1.0). Tamoxifen was associated with a nonsignificant risk reduction (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3–1.8). Similar risk reduction was seen in noncarriers; however, given the higher absolute CBC risk in carriers, there is potentially a greater impact of adjuvant treatment in risk reduction.

The effect of tamoxifen on ovarian cancer risk was studied in 714 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants. All subjects had a prior history of breast cancer; use of tamoxifen was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent ovarian cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.46–1.33).

Reproductive factors

In the general population, breast cancer risk increases with early menarche and late menopause, and is reduced at early first full-term pregnancy. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Prevention for more information.) In the Nurses’ Health Study, these were risk factors among women who did not have a mother or sister with breast cancer.

Among women with a family history of breast cancer, pregnancy at any age appeared to be associated with an increase in risk of breast cancer, persisting to age 70 years.

One study evaluated risk modifiers among 333 female carriers of a BRCA1 high-risk pathogenic variant. In women with known pathogenic variants of the BRCA1 gene, early age at first live birth and parity of three or more have been associated with a lowered risk of breast cancer. A RR of 0.85 was estimated for each additional birth, up to five or more; however, increasing parity appeared to be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.

In a case-control study from New Zealand, investigators noted no difference in the impact of parity on the risk of breast cancer between women with a family history of breast cancer and those without a family history.

Studies of the effect of pregnancy on breast cancer risk have revealed complex results and the relationship with parity has been inconsistent and may vary between carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Parity has more consistently been associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants.

Of note, neither therapeutic nor spontaneous abortions appear to be associated with an increased breast cancer risk.

In the general population, breastfeeding has been associated with a slight reduction in breast cancer risk in a few studies, including a large collaborative reanalysis of multiple epidemiologic studies,

and at least one study suggests that it may be protective in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants. In a multicenter, case-control study of 685 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants with breast cancer and 280 carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants with breast cancer and 965 carriers without breast cancer drawn from multiple-case families, among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, breastfeeding for 1 year or more was associated with approximately a 45% reduced risk of breast cancer.

No such reduced risk was observed among carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants. A second study failed to confirm this association.

Oral contraceptives

There is no consistent evidence that the use of oral contraceptives (OCs) increases the risk of breast cancer in the general population.

(Refer to the PDQ summary on Breast Cancer Prevention for more information.)

Although several smaller studies have reported a slightly increased risk of breast cancer with OC use in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants,

a meta-analysis concluded that the associated risk is not significant with more recent OC formulations.

However, OCs formulated before 1975 were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

A large proportion of patients on whom this meta-analysis was based were drawn from three large studies summarized in Table 12.

Table 12. Oral Contraceptive (OC) Use and Breast Cancer Risk in Carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants

		Kotsopoulos et al. (2014)a	Brohet et al. (2007)b	Haile et al. (2006)a,c	Narod et al. (2002)a
Study population	BRCA1 carriers with breast cancer	N = 2,492	N = 597	N = 195; diagnosis < age 50 y	N = 981
	BRCA2 carriers with breast cancer	Not applicable	N = 249	N = 128; diagnosis < age 50 y	N = 330
Ever use OC	BRCA1	1.18 [CI 1.03–1.36] P = .02	1.47 [CI 1.13–1.91]	0.64 [CI 0.35–1.16]	1.38 [CI 1.11–1.72] P = .003
	BRCA2	Not applicable	1.49 [Cl 0.8–2.7]	1.29 [Cl 0.61–2.76]	0.94 [Cl 0.72–1.24]
Age use <20 y	BRCA1	1.45 [CI 1.20–1.75] P = .0001	1.41 [Cl 0.99–2.01]	0.84 [Cl 0.45–1.55]	1.36 [Cl 1.11–1.67] P = .003
	BRCA2	Not applicable	1.25 [Cl 0.57–2.74]	1.64 [Cl 0.77–3.46]	Not reported
Total duration	BRCA1	<5 y: 1.14 [CI 0.97–1.35]	<9 y: 1.51 [Cl 1.1–2.08]	<5 y: 0.61 [Cl 0.31–1.17]	<10 y: 1.36 [Cl 1.11–1.67] P = .003
		>5 y: 1.22 [CI 1.04–1.49] P = .02
	BRCA2	Not applicable	<9 y: 2.27 [Cl 1.1–4.65]	<5 y: 0.79 [Cl 0.26–2.37]	<10 y: 0.82 [Cl 0.56–1.91]
Use before full-term pregnancy	BRCA1	Not applicable	>4 y: 1.49 [Cl 1.05–2.11]	>4 y: 0.69 [Cl 0.41–1.16]	Not evaluated
	BRCA2	Not applicable	>4 y: 2.58 [Cl 1.21–5.49]	>4 y: 2.08 [Cl 1.02–4.25] trend per y: 1.11; P trend = .01
CI = confidence interval.
aReports risk estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs.
bReports risk estimates in the form of hazard ratios with 95% CIs.
cRisk estimates restricted to carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants younger than 40 years.

When patients are counseled about contraceptive options and preventive actions, the potential impact of OC use on the risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and other health-related effects of OCs need to be considered. A number of important issues remain unresolved, including the potential differences between carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, effect of age and duration of exposure, and effect of OCs on families with highly penetrant early-onset breast cancer.

(Refer to the Oral contraceptives section in the Chemoprevention section of this summary for a discussion of OC use and ovarian cancer in this population.)

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT)

Both observational and randomized clinical trial data suggest an increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT in the general population.

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) was a randomized controlled trial of approximately 160,000 postmenopausal women that investigated the risks and benefits of dietary interventions and hormone therapy to reduce the incidence of heart disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and fractures. The estrogen-plus-progestin arm of the study, in which more than 16,000 women were randomly assigned to receive combined hormone therapy or placebo, was halted early because health risks exceeded benefits.

One of the adverse outcomes prompting closure was a significant increase in both total (245 vs. 185 cases) and invasive (199 vs. 150) breast cancers (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.50; P < .001) in women randomly assigned to receive estrogen and progestin.

Results of a follow-up study suggest that the recent reduction in breast cancer incidence, especially among women aged 50 to 69 years, is predominantly related to decrease in use of combined estrogen plus progestin HRT.

HRT-related breast cancers had adverse prognostic characteristics (more advanced stages and larger tumors) compared with cancers occurring in the placebo group, and HRT was also associated with a substantial increase in abnormal mammograms.

Breast cancer risk associated with postmenopausal HRT has been variably reported to be increased or unaffected by a family history of breast cancer;

risk did not vary by family history in the meta-analysis.

The WHI study has not reported analyses stratified on breast cancer family history, and subjects have not been systematically tested for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Short-term use of hormones for treatment of menopausal symptoms appears to confer little or no breast cancer risk in the general population.

HRT in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants

The effect of HRT on breast cancer risk among carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant has been examined in two studies. In a prospective study of 462 carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, bilateral RRSO (n = 155) was significantly associated with breast cancer risk-reduction overall (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18–0.92). When carriers of pathogenic variants without bilateral RRSO or HRT were used as the comparison group, HRT use (n = 93) did not significantly alter the reduction in breast cancer risk associated with bilateral RRSO (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.14–0.96).

In a matched case-control study of 472 postmenopausal women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants, HRT use was associated with an overall reduction in breast cancer risk (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35–0.96; P = .03). A nonsignificant reduction in risk was observed both in women who had undergone bilateral oophorectomy and in those who had not. Women taking estrogen alone had an OR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27–0.98; P = .04), while the association with estrogen and progesterone was not statistically significant (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.34–1.27; P = .21).

A case-control study of 432 matched pairs of postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant who had a personal history of cancer were compared with unaffected BRCA1 carriers. The use of HRT was not associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer (OR, 0.80; P = .24).

Especially given the differences in estimated risk associated with HRT between observational studies and the WHI, these findings should be confirmed in randomized prospective studies,

but they suggest that HRT in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants neither increases breast cancer risk nor negates the protective effect of oophorectomy.

Ovarian cancer

Screening/surveillance

Refer to the PDQ summary on Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Screening for information on screening in the general population and to the PDQ summary Levels of Evidence for Cancer Genetics Studies for information about levels of evidence related to screening and prevention. The latter also outlines the five requirements that must be met before it is considered appropriate to screen for a particular medical condition as part of routine medical practice.

Clinical examination

In the general population, clinical examination of the ovaries has neither the specificity nor the sensitivity to reliably identify early ovarian cancer. No data exist regarding the benefit of clinical examination of the ovaries (bimanual pelvic examination) in women at inherited risk of ovarian cancer.

Level of evidence: None assigned

Transvaginal ultrasound

In the general population, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) appears to be superior to transabdominal ultrasound in the preoperative diagnosis of adnexal masses. Both techniques have lower specificity in premenopausal women than in postmenopausal women due to the cyclic menstrual changes in premenopausal ovaries (e.g., transient corpus luteum cysts) that can cause difficulty in interpretation. The randomized prospective Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO-1) found no reduction in mortality with the annual use of combined TVUS and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) in screening asymptomatic postmenopausal women at general-population risk of ovarian cancer.

Data are limited regarding the potential benefit of TVUS in screening women at inherited risk of ovarian cancer. A number of retrospective studies have reported experience with ovarian cancer screening in high-risk women using TVUS with or without CA-125.

However, there is little uniformity in the definition of high-risk criteria and compliance with screening, and in whether cancers detected were incident or prevalent. One of the largest reported studies included 888 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants who were screened annually with TVUS and CA-125. Ten women developed ovarian cancer; five of the ten developed interval cancers after normal screening results within 3 to 10 months before diagnosis. Five of the ten ovarian cancers were screen-detected incident cases, which had normal screening results within 6 to 14 months before diagnosis. Of these five cases, four were stage IIIB or IV.

A similar study reported the results of annual TVUS and CA-125 in a cohort of 312 high-risk women (152 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants).

Of the four cancers that were detected due to abnormal TVUS and CA-125, all four patients were symptomatic, and three had advanced-stage disease. Annual screening of carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants with pelvic ultrasound, TVUS, and CA-125 failed to detect early-stage ovarian cancer among 241 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants in a study from the Netherlands.

Three cancers were detected over the course of the study, all advanced stage IIIC disease.

Finally, a study of 1,100 moderate- and high-risk women who underwent annual TVUS and CA-125 reported that ten of 13 ovarian tumors were detected due to screening. Only five of ten were stage I or II.

There are limited data related to the efficacy of semiannual screening with TVUS and CA-125.

In the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study, 3,563 women with an estimated 10% or higher lifetime risk of ovarian cancer were screened with annual ultrasound and serum CA-125 measurements for a mean of 3.2 years. Four of 13 screen-detected cancers were stage I or II. Women screened within the previous year were less likely to have higher than stage IIIC disease; there was also a trend towards better rates of optimal cytoreduction and improved OS. Furthermore, most of the cancers occurred in women with known ovarian cancer susceptibility genes, identifying a cohort at highest cancer risk for consideration of screening.

Phase II of this study increased the frequency of screening to every 4 months; the impact of this is not yet available.

The first prospective study of TVUS and CA-125 with survival as the primary outcome was completed in 2009. Of the 3,532 high-risk women screened, 981 were carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants, 49 of whom developed ovarian cancer. The 5- and 10-year survival was 58.6% (95% CI, 50.9%–66.3%) and 36% (95% CI, 27–45), respectively, and there was no difference in survival between carriers and noncarriers. A major limitation of the study was the absence of a control group. Despite limitations, this study suggests that annual surveillance by TVUS and CA-125 level appear to be ineffective in detecting tumors at an early stage to substantially influence survival.

Serum CA-125

Serum CA-125 screening for ovarian cancer in high-risk women has been evaluated in combination with TVUS in a number of retrospective studies, as described in the previous section.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Statement on Ovarian Cancer recommended against routine screening of the general population for ovarian cancer with serum CA-125. (Refer to the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian [PLCO] Cancer Screening Trial: Single-threshold CA-125 levels and TVU section in the PDQ summary on Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Screening for more information.) The NIH Consensus Statement did, however, recommend that women at inherited risk of ovarian cancer undergo TVUS and serum CA-125 screening every 6 to 12 months, beginning at age 35 years.

The Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium task force has recommended that female carriers of a BRCA1 pathogenic variant undergo annual or semiannual screening using TVUS and serum CA-125 levels, beginning at age 25 to 35 years.

Both recommendations are based solely on expert opinion and best clinical judgment.

Other candidate ovarian cancer biomarkers

The need for effective ovarian cancer screening is particularly important for women carrying BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, and the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (e.g., MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2), disorders in which the risk of ovarian cancer is high. There is a special sense of urgency for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, in whom cumulative lifetime risks of ovarian cancer may exceed 40%.

Thus, it is expected that many new ovarian cancer biomarkers (either singly or in combination) will be proposed as ovarian cancer screening strategies during the next 5 to 10 years. While this is an active area of research with a number of promising new biomarkers in early development, at present, none of these biomarkers alone or in combination have been sufficiently well studied to justify their routine clinical use for screening purposes, either in the general population or in women at increased genetic risk.

Before information related to emerging ovarian cancer biomarkers is addressed, it is important to consider the several steps that are required to develop and, more importantly, validate a new biomarker. One useful framework is that published by the National Cancer Institute Early Detection Research Network investigators.

They indicated that the goal of a cancer-screening program is to detect tumors at an early stage so that treatment is likely to be successful. The gold standard by which such programs are judged is whether the death rate from the cancer for which screening is performed is reduced among those being screened. In addition, the screening test must be sufficiently noninvasive and inexpensive to allow widespread use in the population to be screened. Maintaining high test specificity (i.e., few false-positive results) is essential for a population screening test, because even a low false-positive rate results in many people having to undergo unnecessary and costly diagnostic procedures and psychological stress. It is likely that the use of several such cancer biomarkers in combination will be required for a screening test to be both sensitive and specific.

Furthermore, a clinically useful test must have a high PPV (a parameter derived from sensitivity, specificity, and disease prevalence in the screened population). Practically speaking, a biomarker with a PPV of 10% implies that ten surgical procedures would be required to identify one case of ovarian cancer; the remaining nine surgeries would represent false-positive test findings. In general, the ovarian cancer research community considers biomarkers with a PPV less than 10% to be clinically unacceptable, given the morbidity related to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that while novel biomarkers may be present in the sera of women with advanced ovarian cancer (who represent most cases analyzed in the early phases of biomarker development), they may or may not be detectable in women with early-stage disease, which is essential if the screening test is to be clinically useful.

It has been suggested that there are five general phases in biomarker development and validation are currently suggested:

Identify potentially discriminating biomarkers.

Usually done by comparing gene over- or underexpression in the tumor compared with normal tissue.

Because many exploratory analyses in large numbers of genes are performed at this stage, one or more may seem to have good discriminating ability between cancers and normal tissue by random chance alone.

Develop a clinical assay that can be obtained on noninvasively obtained samples (e.g., a blood specimen).

Often the test targets the protein product of one of the genes found to be of interest in phase 1.

The goal is to describe the performance characteristics of the assay for distinguishing between subjects with and without cancer. At this point, the assay should be in its final configuration and remain stable throughout the following phases.

IMPORTANT: Because the case subjects in a phase 2 study already have cancer, with assay results obtained at the time of disease diagnosis, one cannot determine whether disease can be detected early with a given biomarker.

Compare clinical specimens collected from cancer case subjects before their clinical diagnosis with specimens from subjects who have not developed cancer.

Evaluate, as a function of time before clinical diagnosis, the biomarker’s ability to detect preclinical disease.

Define the criteria for a positive screening test in preparation for phase 4.

Explore the influence of other patient characteristics (e.g., age, gender, smoking status, medication use) on the ability of the biomarker to discriminate between those with and without preclinical disease.

Determine the operating characteristics of the biomarker-based screening test in a population for which the test is intended.

Measure the detection rate (number of abnormal tests among all those with the disease) and the false-positive rate (the number of abnormal tests among all those who do not have the disease).

Evaluate whether the cancers detected by the test are being found at an early stage, a point at which treatment is more likely to be curative.

Assess whether the test is acceptable in a population of persons for whom it is intended. Will subjects comply with the test schedule and results?

Ideally, conduct randomized controlled clinical trials in clinically relevant populations, in which one arm is subjected to screening and appropriate intervention if screen-positive, while the other arm is not screened.

Determine whether the death rate of the cancer being screened for is reduced among those who use the screening test.

Obtain information about the costs of screening and treatment of screen-detected cancers.

Finally, for a validated biomarker test to be considered appropriate for use in a particular population, it must have been evaluated in that specific population without prior selection of known positives and negatives. In addition, the test must demonstrate clinical utility, that is, a positive net balance of benefits and risks associated with the application of the test. These may include improved health outcomes and net psychosocial and economic benefits.

Ovarian cancer poses a unique challenge relative to the potential impact of false-positive test results. There are no reliable noninvasive diagnostic tests for early-stage disease, and clinically significant early-stage cancer may not be grossly visible at the time of exploratory surgery.

Consequently, it is likely that some patients will be reassured that their abnormal test does not indicate the presence of cancer only by having their ovaries and fallopian tubes surgically removed and examined microscopically. High test specificity (i.e., a very low false-positive rate) is required to avoid unnecessary surgery and induction of premature menopause women with in false-positive results.

Variations on CA-125

CA-125 plus an ovarian cancer symptom index

An ovarian cancer symptom index for predicting the presence of cancer was evaluated in 75 cases and 254 high-risk controls (carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants or women with a strong family history of breast and ovarian cancer).

Women had a positive symptom index if they reported any of the predefined symptoms (bloating or increase in abdominal size, abdominal or pelvic pain, and difficulty eating or feeling full quickly) more than 12 times per month, occurring only within the prior 12 months. CA-125 values greater than 30 U/mL were considered abnormal. The symptom index independently predicted the presence of ovarian cancer, after controlling for CA-125 levels (P < .05). The combination of an elevated CA-125 and a positive-symptom index correctly identified 89.3% of the cases. The symptom index correlated with the presence of cancer in 50% of the affected women who did not have elevated CA-125 levels, but 11.8% of the high-risk controls without cancer also had a positive-symptom index. The authors suggested that a composite index that included both CA-125 and the symptom index had better performance characteristics than either test used alone, and that this strategy might be used as a first screen in a multistep screening program. Additional test performance validation and determination of clinical utility are required in unselected screening populations.

Risk of ovarian cancer algorithm

A novel modification of CA-125 screening is based on the hypothesis that rising CA-125 levels over time may provide better ovarian cancer screening performance characteristics than simply classifying CA-125 as normal or abnormal based on an arbitrary cut-off value. This has been implemented in the form of the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm (ROCA), an investigational statistical model that incorporates serial CA-125 test results and other covariates into a computation that produces an estimate of the likelihood that ovarian cancer is present in the screened subject. The first report of this strategy, based on reanalysis of 5,550 average-risk women from the Stockholm Ovarian Cancer screening trial, suggested that ovarian cancer cases and controls could be distinguished with 99.7% sensitivity, 83% specificity, and a PPV of 16%. That PPV represents an eightfold increase over the 2% PPV reported with a single measure of CA-125.

This report was followed by applying the ROCA to 33,621 serial CA-125 values obtained from the 9,233 average-risk postmenopausal women in a prospective British ovarian cancer screening trial.

The area under the receiver operator curve increased from 84% to 93% (P = .01) for ROCA compared with a fixed CA-125 cutoff. These observations represented the first evidence that preclinical detection of ovarian cancer might be improved using this screening strategy. A prospective study of 13,000 normal volunteers aged 50 years and older in England used serial CA-125 values and the ROCA to stratify participants into low, intermediate, and elevated risk subgroups.

Each had its own prescribed management strategy, including TVUS and repeat CA-125 either annually (low risk) or at 3 months (intermediate risk). Using this protocol, ROCA was found to have a specificity of 99.8% and a PPV of 19%.

Two prospective trials in England utilized the ROCA. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) randomly assigned normal-risk women to either (1) no screening, (2) annual ultrasound, or (3) multimodal screening (N = 202,638; accrual completed; follow-up ends in 2014), and the U.K. Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study (UKFOCSS) targeted high-risk women (accrual completed). There are also two high-risk cohorts using the ROCA under evaluation in the United States: the Cancer Genetics Network ROCA Study (N = 2,500; follow-up complete; analysis underway) and the Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol 199 (GOG-0199; enrollment complete; follow-up ended in 2011).

Thus, additional data regarding the utility of this currently investigational screening strategy will become available.

Miscellaneous new markers

A wide array of new candidate ovarian cancer biomarkers has been described during the past decade, e.g., HE4; mesothelin; kallikreins 6, 10, and 11; osteopontin; prostasin; M-CSF; OVX1; lysophosphatidic acid; vascular endothelial growth factor B7-H4; and interleukins 6 and 8.

These have been singly studied, in combination with CA-125, or in various other permutations. Most of the study populations are relatively small and comprise highly selected, known ovarian cancer cases and healthy controls of the type evaluated in early biomarker development phases 1 and 2. Results have not been consistently replicated in multiple studies; presently, none are considered ready for widespread clinical application.

Proteomics

Initially, mass spectroscopy of serum proteins was combined with complex analytic algorithms to identify protein patterns that might distinguish between ovarian cancer cases and controls.

This approach assumed that pattern recognition alone would be sufficient to permit such discrimination, and that identification of the specific proteins responsible for the patterns identified was not required. This strategy was modified, using similar laboratory tools, to identify finite numbers of specific known serum markers that may be used in place of, or in conjunction with, CA-125 measurements for the early detection of cancer.

These studies

have generally been small case-control studies that are limited by sample size and the number of early-stage cancer cases included. Further evaluation is needed to determine whether any additional markers identified in this fashion have clinical utility for the early detection of ovarian cancer in the unselected clinical population of interest.

Multiplex biomarker assays for ovarian cancer screening

Because individual biomarkers have not met the criteria for an effective screening test, it has been suggested that it may be necessary to combine multiple ovarian cancer biomarkers to obtain satisfactory screening test results. This strategy was employed to quantitatively analyze six serum biomarkers (leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, insulin-like growth factor II, macrophage inhibitory factor, and CA-125), using a multiplex, bead-based platform.

A similar assay was available commercially under the trade name OvaSure until its voluntary withdrawal from the market by the manufacturer.[Response to FDA Warning Letter]

The cases in this study were newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients who had blood collected just before surgery: 36 were stage I and II; 120 were stage III and IV. The controls were healthy age-matched individuals who had not developed ovarian cancer within 6 months of blood draw. Neither cases nor controls in this study were well characterized regarding their familial and/or genetic risk status, but they have been suggested to comprise a high-risk population. First, 181 controls and 113 ovarian cancer cases were tested to determine the initial panel of biomarkers that best discriminated between cases and controls (training set). The resulting panel was applied to an additional 181 controls and 43 ovarian cancer cases (test set). Pooling both early- and late-stage ovarian cancer across the combined training and test sets, performance characteristics were reported as a sensitivity of 95.3% and a specificity of 99.4%, with a PPV of 99.3% and a negative predictive value of 99.2%, using a formula that assumed an ovarian cancer prevalence of about 50%, as seen in the highly selected research population.

To avoid biases that may make test performance appear to be better than it really is, combining training populations and test populations in analyses of this sort is generally not recommended.

The most appropriate prevalence to use is the disease prevalence in the unselected population to be screened. The prevalence of ovarian cancer in the general population is 1 in 2,500. In a correction to their manuscript, the authors assumed that the prevalence of ovarian cancer in the screened population was 1 in 2,500 (0.04%) and recalculated the PPV to be only 6.5%. On that basis, the investigators have retracted their claim that this test is suitable for population screening. If this test were used in patients at increased risk of ovarian cancer, the actual prevalence in such a target population is likely to be higher than that observed in the general population, but well below the assumed 50% figure used in the published analysis. This revised PPV of 6.5% indicates that approximately 1 in 15 women with a positive test would in fact have ovarian cancer, and only a fraction of those with ovarian cancer would be stages I or II. The remaining 14 positive tests would represent false-positives, and these women would be at risk of exposure to needless anxiety and potentially morbid diagnostic procedures, including bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Viewed in the context of the criteria previously described,

this assay would be classified as phase 2 in its development. While this appears to be a promising avenue of ovarian cancer screening research, additional validation is required, particularly in an unselected population representative of the clinical screening population of interest. A position statement by the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists regarding this assay indicated “it is our opinion that additional research is needed to validate the test’s effectiveness before offering it to women outside of the context of a research study conducted with appropriate informed consent under the auspices of an institutional review board.”

Risk-reducing surgery

RRSO

Numerous studies have found that women with an inherited risk of breast and ovarian cancer have a decreased risk of ovarian cancer after RRSO. (Refer to the RRSO section in the Breast cancer section of this summary for more information.) A retrospective study of 551 women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants found a significant reduction in risk of breast cancer (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29–0.77) and ovarian cancer (HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01–0.16) after bilateral oophorectomy.

A prospective, single-institution study of 170 women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants showed a similar trend.

With oophorectomy, the HR was 0.15 (95% CI, 0.02–1.31) for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.08–1.2) for breast cancer; the HR for either cancer was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.08–0.74). A prospective multicenter study of 1,079 women who were followed up for a median of 30 to 35 months found that RRSO is highly effective in reducing ovarian cancer risk in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. This study also showed that RRSO was associated with reductions in breast cancer risk in both carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants; however, the breast cancer risk reduction was more pronounced in BRCA2 carriers (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08–0.92).

In a case-control study in Israel, bilateral oophorectomy was associated with reduced ovarian/peritoneal cancer risks (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.06–0.24).

A meta-analysis of all reports of RRSO and breast and ovarian/fallopian tube cancer in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants confirmed that RRSO was associated with a significant reduction in risk of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.12–0.39). The study also found a significant reduction in risk of breast cancer (overall: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37–0.65; BRCA1: HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.35–0.64; BRCA2: HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.84).

Subsequently, a matched case-control study of 2,854 pairs of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant with or without breast cancer showed a greater breast cancer risk reduction with surgical menopause (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40–0.66) than with natural menopause (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62–1.07). This study also reported a highly significant reduction in breast cancer risk among women who had an oophorectomy after natural menopause (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02–0.54; P = .006).

Another study of 5,783 women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants who were followed up for an average of 5.6 years reported that 68 of 186 women who developed either ovarian, fallopian, or peritoneal cancer had died. The HR for these cancers with bilateral oophorectomy was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.13–0.30; P = .001). In carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants without a history of cancer, the HR for all-cause mortality to age 70 years associated with oophorectomy was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13–0.39; P < .001).

Among studies with 50 or more subjects, prevalence ranged from 2.3% to 11%. Some of the variation in prevalence is likely due to differences in surgical technique, pathologic handling of the tissues, and age at RRSO. In the GOG 199 study of 966 high-risk women, the incidence of occult cancer was highest among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants (4.6%), followed by carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants (3.5%), versus only 0.5% of noncarriers. The odds of an occult pathologic finding was fourfold higher among postmenopausal women.

In addition to a reduction in risk of ovarian and breast cancer, RRSO may also significantly improve OS and breast and ovarian cancer–specific survival. A prospective cohort study of 666 women with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 found an HR for overall mortality of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.08–0.71) in women who had RRSO compared with women who did not.

This study provides the first evidence to suggest a survival advantage among women undergoing RRSO.

Studies on the degree of risk reduction afforded by RRSO have begun to clarify the spectrum of occult cancers discovered at the time of surgery. Primary fallopian tube cancers, primary peritoneal cancers, and occult ovarian cancers have all been reported. Several case series have reported a prevalence of malignant findings among carriers of pathogenic variants undergoing risk-reducing oophorectomy. Among studies with 50 or more subjects, prevalence ranged from 2.3% to 11%.

Some of the variation in prevalence probably results from differences in surgical technique, pathologic handling of the tissues, and age at RRSO. In the GOG 199 study of 966 high-risk women, the incidence of occult cancer was highest in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants (4.6%), followed by carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants (3.5%), versus only 0.5% of noncarriers. The odds of an occult pathologic finding was fourfold higher among postmenopausal women.

In addition to occult cancers, premalignant lesions have also been described in fallopian tube tissue removed for prophylaxis. In one series of 12 women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants undergoing risk-reducing surgery, 11 had hyperplastic or dysplastic lesions identified in the tubal epithelium. In several of the cases the lesions were multifocal.

These pathologic findings are consistent with the identification of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in women affected with both tubal and primary peritoneal cancers.

One study suggests a causal relationship between early tubal carcinoma, or tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, and subsequent invasive serous carcinoma of the fallopian tube, ovary, or peritoneum.

(Refer to the Pathology of ovarian cancer section of this summary for more information.)

These findings support the inclusion of fallopian tube cancers, which account for less than 1% of all gynecologic cancers in the general population, as a component of hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome and necessitate removal of the fallopian tubes at the time of risk-reducing surgery. There is clear evidence that RRSO must include routine collection of peritoneal washings and careful adherence to comprehensive pathologic evaluation of the entire adnexa with the use of serial sectioning.

The peritoneum, however, appears to remain at low risk for the development of a Müllerian-type adenocarcinoma, even after oophorectomy.

Of the 324 women from the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry who underwent risk-reducing oophorectomy, 6 (1.8%) subsequently developed primary peritoneal carcinoma. No period of follow-up was specified.

Among 238 individuals in the Creighton Registry with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants who underwent risk-reducing oophorectomy, 5 subsequently developed intra-abdominal carcinomatosis (2.1%). Of note, all five of these women had BRCA1 pathogenic variants.

A study of 1,828 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant found a 4.3% risk of primary peritoneal cancer at 20 years after RRSO.

Data are limited regarding outcomes of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants who are found to have occult lesions at the time of RRSO. In a multi-institution study of 32 women with either invasive carcinoma (n = 15) or serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (STIC) (n = 17), 47% of women with invasive cancer had a recurrence at a median time of 32.5 months, with an OS rate of 73%.

For women with intraepithelial lesions, one patient (approximately 6%) had a recurrence at 43 months, suggesting a different disease process between the two entities. Another study confirmed the malignant potential of STIC lesions. While 3 of 243 women (1.2%) with benign pathology at RRSO subsequently developed primary peritoneal carcinoma, 2 of 9 women (22%) with STIC developed high-grade pelvic serous carcinoma after a median follow-up time of 63 months.

Given the current limitations of screening for ovarian cancer and the high risk of the disease in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, NCCN Guidelines recommend RRSO between the ages of 35 and 40 years or upon completion of childbearing, as an effective risk-reduction option. Optimal timing of RRSO must be individualized, but evaluating a woman's risk of ovarian cancer based on pathogenic variant status can be helpful in the decision-making process. In a large study of U.S. BRCA1 and BRCA2 families, age-specific cumulative risk of ovarian cancer at age 40 years was 4.7% for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 1.9% for carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

In a combined analysis of 22 studies of carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, risk of ovarian cancer for carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants increased most sharply from age 40 years to age 50 years, while the risk for carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants was low before age 50 years but increased sharply from age 50 years to age 60 years.

In a population-based study of BRCA pathogenic variants in ovarian cancer patients, patients with BRCA2 variants had a significantly later age of onset than patients with BRCA1 variants (57.3 years [range, 40–72] vs. 52.6 years [range, 31–78]).

In summary, women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants may consider RRSO for ovarian cancer risk reduction at a somewhat earlier age than women with BRCA2 pathogenic variants; however, women with BRCA2 variants may still consider early RRSO for breast cancer risk reduction.

The role of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of RRSO in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants is controversial. There is concern that a small portion of the proximal fallopian tube remains when hysterectomy is not performed, thereby resulting in a residual increased risk of fallopian tube cancer. However, several studies that have examined fallopian tube cancers indicate that the vast majority of these cancers occur in the distal or midportion of the fallopian tube, suggesting that the occurrence of proximal fallopian tube cancer would be a very unlikely event. Some reports have suggested an increased incidence of uterine carcinoma in carriers of pathogenic variants,

whereas others have not confirmed an elevated risk of serous uterine cancer.

A prospective study of 857 women suggested that any increased incidence of uterine cancer appeared to be among carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants who used tamoxifen;

this was confirmed by the same group in a later study of 4,456 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

Even with tamoxifen use, the excess risk of endometrial cancer was small, with a 10-year cumulative risk of 2%.

In addition, the use of tamoxifen can now be minimized, given the options of raloxifene (which does not increase the risk of uterine cancer) and aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. Therefore, on the basis of the current understanding of the risk of uterine cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants, there is not a singularly compelling reason to consider hysterectomy at the time of RRSO to reduce the risk of uterine cancer. Concomitant hysterectomy does offer the advantage of simplifying the hormone replacement regimen for carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants who choose to take hormones. After hysterectomy, women can take estrogen alone (which does not increase the risk of breast cancer), without progestins, thereby eliminating the risk of postmenopausal bleeding.

Studies indicate that removal of the uterus is not necessary as a risk-reducing procedure. No increased BRCA pathogenic variant prevalence was seen among 200 Jewish women with endometrial carcinoma or 56 unselected women with uterine papillary serous carcinoma.

However, small studies have reported that uterine papillary serous carcinoma may be part of the BRCA-associated spectrum of disease.

The cumulative risk of endometrial cancer among carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants with ER-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen may be an additional factor to consider when counseling this population about risk-reducing hysterectomy.

Hysterectomy might also be considered in young, unaffected carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants who may want to use HRT but for whom hysterectomy would offer a simplified regimen of estrogen alone. In counseling a carrier of a BRCA pathogenic variant about optimal risk-reducing surgical options, aggregate data suggest that the risk from residual tubal tissue after RRSO is the least compelling reason to suggest hysterectomy. Therefore, in the absence of tamoxifen use or other underlying uterine or cervical problems, hysterectomy is not a routine component of RRSO for BRCA carriers.

For women who are premenopausal at the time of surgery, the symptoms of surgical menopause (e.g., hot flashes, mood swings, weight gain, and genitourinary complaints) can cause a significant impairment in their quality of life. To reduce the impact of these symptoms, providers have often prescribed a time-limited course of systemic HRT after surgery. (Refer to the Hormone replacement therapy in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information.)

Studies have examined the effect of RRSO on quality of life (QOL). One study examined 846 high-risk women of whom 44% underwent RRSO and 56% had periodic screening.

Of the 368 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants, 72% underwent RRSO. No significant differences were observed in QOL scores (as assessed by the Short Form-36) between those with RRSO or screening or compared with the general population; however, women with RRSO had fewer breast and ovarian cancer worries (P < .001) and more favorable cancer risk perception (P < .05) but more endocrine symptoms (P < .001) and worse sexual functioning (P < .05). Of note, 37% of women used HRT after RRSO, although 62% were either perimenopausal or postmenopausal.

Researchers then examined 450 premenopausal high-risk women who had chosen either RRSO (36%) or screening (64%). Of those in the RRSO group, 47% used HRT. HRT users (n = 77) had fewer vasomotor symptoms than did nonusers (n = 87; P < .05), but they had more vasomotor symptoms than did women in the screening group (n = 286). Likewise, women who underwent RRSO and used HRT had more sexual discomfort due to vaginal dryness and dyspareunia than did those in the screening group (P < .01). Therefore, while such symptoms are improved via HRT use, HRT is not completely effective, and additional research is warranted to address these important issues.

The long-term nononcologic effects of RRSO in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants are unknown. In the general population, RRSO has been associated with increased cardiovascular disease, dementia, death from lung cancer, and overall mortality.

When age at oophorectomy has been analyzed, the most detrimental effect has been seen in women who undergo RRSO before age 45 years and do not take estrogen replacement therapy.

Carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants undergoing RRSO may have an increased risk of metabolic syndrome.

RRSO has also been associated with an improvement in short-term mortality in this population.

The benefits related to cancer risk reduction after RRSO are clear, but further data on the long-term nononcologic risks and benefits are needed.

Bilateral salpingectomy

Bilateral salpingectomy has been suggested as an interim procedure to reduce risk in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants.

There are no data available on the efficacy of salpingectomy as a risk-reducing procedure. The procedure preserves ovarian function and spares the premenopausal patient the adverse effects of a premature menopause. The procedure can be performed using a minimally invasive approach, and a subsequent bilateral oophorectomy could be deferred until the patient approaches menopause. While the data make a compelling argument that some pelvic serous cancers in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants originate in the fallopian tube, some cancers clearly arise in the ovary. Furthermore, bilateral salpingectomy could give patients a false sense of security that they have eliminated their cancer risk as completely as if they had undergone a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A small study of 14 young carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants documented the procedure as feasible.

However, efficacy and impact on ovarian function was not assessed in this study. Future prospective trials are needed to establish the validity of the procedure as a risk-reducing intervention.

In a statistical Markov model using Monte Carlo simulation, risk-reducing salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy was a cost-effective strategy considering quality-adjusted life expectancy for women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/BRCA2.

Another study modeling ovarian cancer risk and effects of RRSO and salpingectomy found that the difference in estimated ovarian cancer risk is small when salpingectomy is performed on women of childbearing age and oophorectomy is performed 5 to 10 years later.

Prospective studies are under way evaluating the impact of bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy on patient satisfaction and the reduction in ovarian cancer.

Chemoprevention

Oral contraceptives

OCs have been shown to have a protective effect against ovarian cancer in the general population.

Several studies, including a large, multicenter, case-control study, showed a protective effect,

while one population-based study from Israel failed to demonstrate a protective effect.

There has been great interest in determining whether a similar benefit extends to women who are at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer. A multicenter study of 799 ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, and 2,424 control patients without ovarian cancer but with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, showed a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk with use of OCs (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45–0.71). Compared with never-use of OCs, duration up to 1 year was associated with an OR of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.50–0.89). The OR for each year of OC use was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.97), with a maximum observed protection at 3 years to 5 years of use.

This study included women from a prior study by the same authors and confirmed the results of that prior study.

A population-based case-control study of ovarian cancer did not find a protective benefit of OC use in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants (OR, 1.07 for ≥5 years of use), although they were protective, as expected, among noncarriers (OR, 0.53 for ≥5 years of use).

A small, population-based, case-control study of 36 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants, however, observed a similar protective effect in both carriers of pathogenic variants and noncarriers (OR, approximately 0.5).

A larger case-control study of women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 demonstrated maximum benefit after 5 years of OC use, while women with pathogenic variants in BRCA2 seemed to reach maximum benefit after 3 years of OC use.

A multicenter study of subjects drawn from numerous registries observed a protective effect of OCs among the 147 carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, with ovarian cancer compared with the 304 matched carriers of pathogenic variants without cancer (OR, 0.62 for ≥6 years of use).

Finally, a meta-analysis of 18 studies that included 13,627 carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants, 2,855 of whom had breast cancer and 1,503 of whom had ovarian cancer, reported a significantly reduced risk of ovarian cancer (summary RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33–0.75) associated with OC use. The authors also reported significantly higher risk reductions with longer duration of OC use (36% reduction in risk for each additional 10 years of OC use). There was no association with breast cancer risk and use of OC pills formulated after 1975.

(Refer to the Oral contraceptives section in the Reproductive factors section of this summary for a discussion of OC use and breast cancer in this population.)

Reproductive factors

It has been suggested that incessant ovulation, with repetitive trauma and repair to the ovarian epithelium, increases the risk of ovarian cancer. In epidemiologic studies in the general population, physiologic states that prevent ovulation have been associated with decreased risk of ovarian cancer. It has also been suggested that chronic overstimulation of the ovaries by luteinizing hormone plays a role in ovarian cancer pathogenesis.

Most of these data derive from studies in the general population, but some information suggests the same is true in women at high risk due to genetic predisposition.

Pregnancy

Among the general population, parity decreases the risk of ovarian cancer by 45% compared with nulliparity. Subsequent pregnancies appear to decrease ovarian cancer risk by 15%.

Earlier studies of women with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants showed that parity decreases the risk of ovarian cancer.

In a large case-control study, parity was associated with a significant reduction in ovarian cancer risk in women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants, OR 0.67 (CI, 0.46–0.96).

For each birth, carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants had an OR of 0.87 (CI, 0.79–0.95). In this same study, parity was associated with an increase in ovarian cancer risk in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants; however, there was no significant trend for each birth, OR 1.08 (CI, 0.90–1.29). Further studies are necessary to define the association of parity and risk of ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants, but for BRCA1 carriers, each live birth significantly decreases risk of ovarian cancer, as it does in sporadic ovarian cancer.

Lactation and tubal ligation

In the general population, breastfeeding is associated with a decrease in ovarian cancer risk.

In carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants, data are limited. One study found no protective effect with breastfeeding.

A case-control study among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants demonstrates a significant reduction in risk of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.39) for women who have had a tubal ligation. This protective effect was confined to those women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and persists after controlling for OC use, parity, history of breast cancer, and ethnicity.

A case-control study of ovarian cancer in Israel found a 40% to 50% reduced risk of ovarian cancer among women undergoing gynecologic surgeries (tubal ligation, hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy, ovarian cystectomy, excluding bilateral oophorectomy).

The mechanism of protection is uncertain. Proposed mechanisms of action include decreased blood flow to the ovary, resulting in interruption of ovulation and/or ovarian hormone production; occlusion of the fallopian tube, thus blocking a pathway for potential carcinogens; or a reduction in the concentration of uterine growth factors that reach the ovary.

(Refer to the PDQ summary on Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer Prevention for information relevant to the general population.)

Oral contraceptives

Refer to the Oral contraceptives section in the Chemoprevention section of this summary for more information.

Management of Male Carriers of BRCA Pathogenic Variants

There are data to suggest that men with BRCA pathogenic variants have an increased risk of various cancers including male breast cancer and prostate cancer (refer to Table 7).

However, clinical guidelines to manage male carriers with BRCA pathogenic variants are based on consensus statements and expert opinions because information is limited.

There have been suggestions that BRCA2-associated prostate cancers are associated with aggressive disease phenotype.

Specifically, two recent studies have reported the median survival of male BRCA2 carriers with prostate cancer in the range of 4 to 5 years.

Furthermore, mortality rate was reported as 60% at 5 years in one of these studies, compared with 2% to 8% reported in the recent European and North American

prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening trials after comparable follow-up. The data have been more limited in BRCA1-associated prostate cancers, however a number of recent studies have suggested an aggressive disease phenotype as well.

The benefits of PSA screening in BRCA carriers are unknown; however, there have been suggestions (based on very small studies) that PSA levels at prostate cancer diagnosis may be higher in carriers than noncarriers.

These findings suggest that PSA screening may be of potential utility in men with BRCA pathogenic variants, especially in view of the aggressive phenotype. Preliminary results of the IMPACT PSA screening study reported a PPV of 47.6% in 21 BRCA2 carriers undergoing biopsy on the basis of elevated PSA.

Because screening these men detected clinically significant prostate cancer, the authors suggest that these findings provide rationale for continued screening in such men; however, a survival benefit from such screening has not been shown. Ultimately, it is possible that information on BRCA pathogenic variant status in men may inform optimal screening and treatment strategies. Furthermore, recent data that the presence of a germline BRCA2 pathogenic variant is an independent prognostic factor for survival in prostate cancer led these authors to conclude that active surveillance may not be the optimal management strategy due to the aggressive disease phenotype.

Screening for male breast cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants as suggested by the NCCN clinical practice guidelines

includes breast self-exam training and education and clinical breast exam every 12 months starting at age 35 years. Furthermore, beginning at age 40 years, NCCN recommends prostate cancer screening for BRCA2 carriers and the consideration of prostate cancer screening for BRCA1 carriers.

Reproductive Considerations in Carriers of BRCA Pathogenic Variants

Refer to the Prenatal diagnosis and preimplantation genetic testing section in the Psychosocial Issues in Inherited Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndromes section of this summary for more information.

Treatment Strategies

Breast cancer

Prognosis of BRCA1- and BRCA2-related breast cancer

BRCA1-related breast cancer

The distinct features of BRCA1-associated breast tumors are important in prognosis. In addition, there appears to be accelerated growth in BRCA1-associated breast cancer, which is suggested by high-proliferation indices and absence of the expected correlation of tumor size with lymph node status.

These pathological features are associated with a worse prognosis in breast cancer, and early studies suggested that carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants with breast cancer may have a poorer prognosis compared with sporadic cases.

These studies particularly noted an increase in ipsilateral and contralateral second primary breast cancers in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

(Refer to the Contralateral breast cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information.) A retrospective cohort study of 496 Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) breast cancer patients from two centers compared the relative survival among 56 carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants followed up for a median of 116 months. BRCA1 pathogenic variants were independently associated with worse disease-specific survival. The poorer prognosis was not observed in women who received chemotherapy.

A large population-based study of incident cases of breast cancer among women in Israel failed to find a difference in OS for carriers of BRCA1 founder pathogenic variants (n = 76) compared with noncarriers (n = 1,189).

Similar findings were seen in a European cohort with no differences in disease-free survival in BRCA1-associated breast cancers.

A prospective cohort study of 3,220 women from North America and Australia with incident breast cancer (including 93 BRCA1 carriers and 71 BRCA2 carriers) who were followed up for a mean of 7.9 years reported similar outcomes among BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers and those with sporadic disease.

However, results were based on chemotherapy regimens used in the late 1990s and did not adjust for surgical approach (lumpectomy vs. mastectomy) and effect of oophorectomy. The Prospective Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) study recruited 2,733 women, 12% (n = 338) of whom had a BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant. Carriers showed no significant difference in outcome from noncarriers.

However, the cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (n = 558) had a better overall survival than noncarriers at 2 years (HR, 0.59; P = .47), but not a statistically significant difference at 5 and 10 years.

A group of researchers reported the results of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in 77 unselected patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Of these, 15 (19.5%) had either a germline BRCA1 (n = 11; 14%) or BRCA2 (n = 3; 4%) pathogenic variant or a somatic BRCA1 (n = 1) mutation. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 45 years in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants and 53 years in noncarriers (P = .005). Interestingly, this study also demonstrated a lower risk of relapse in those with triple-negative breast cancer associated with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant than in non-BRCA1-associated triple-negative breast cancer, although this study was limited by its size.

Another study examining clinical outcome in BRCA1-associated versus non–BRCA1-associated triple-negative breast cancer showed no difference, although there was a trend toward more brain metastases in those with BRCA1-associated breast cancer. In both of these studies, all but one carrier of a BRCA1 pathogenic variant received chemotherapy.

Subsequently, in a study of 89 BRCA1 carriers and 175 noncarriers with triple-negative breast cancer, BRCA1 pathogenic variant status was not an independent predictor of survival after adjusting for age, oophorectomy, and risk-reducing mastectomy.

However, carriers who underwent oophorectomy had a significantly lower rate of breast cancer–related death.

A Polish study of 3,345 patients younger than 50 years with stages I through III breast cancer studied the impact of a BRCA1 pathogenic variant on prognosis. In this cohort, 233 patients (7%) carried one of three Polish BRCA1 founder pathogenic variants (5382insC, C61G, or 4154delA). BRCA1 carriers were younger and more frequently ER-negative and HER2/neu-negative. Ten-year survival was similar (80.9% in BRCA1 carriers and 82.2% in noncarriers). Oophorectomy was associated with improved survival in BRCA1 carriers (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.12–0.75).

In summary, BRCA1-associated tumors appear to have a prognosis similar to sporadic tumors despite having clinical, histopathologic, and molecular features that indicate a more aggressive phenotype. Carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants who do not receive chemotherapy may have a worse prognosis. However, because most BRCA1-associated breast cancers are triple negative, they are usually treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Work is ongoing to determine whether BRCA1-associated breast cancers should receive different therapy than do sporadic tumors. (Refer to the Role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in response to systemic therapy section of this summary for more information.)

BRCA2-related breast cancer

Early studies of the prognosis of BRCA2-associated breast cancer have not shown substantial differences in comparison with sporadic breast cancer.

A small study reported statistically significant higher OS in carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants with metastatic breast cancer.

Systemic therapy in breast cancer treatment

Role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in response to systemic therapy

Chemotherapy alone and BRCA pathogenic variants

Retrospective and prospective studies have evaluated the response rate to chemotherapy in carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, especially when using cisplatin.

Retrospective reviews have been published detailing pathologic complete response (pCR) rates to standard chemotherapies. In patients treated with standard neoadjuvant anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens, pCR rates ranged from 40% to 60%.

Neoadjuvant platinum compounds showed impressive pCR rates in patients with BRCA pathogenic variants. A cohort of 107 Polish women with a BRCA1 pathogenic variant received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for four cycles; the overall pCR rate was 61%.

However, in the subset of individuals with known BRCA pathogenic variants in the GeparSixto trial of 50 patients, the pCR rate was 66.7%, but there was no benefit with the addition of a platinum drug to the neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen that included anthracycline and taxane.

The TNT trial compared docetaxel with carboplatin in 376 patients with metastatic, triple-negative breast cancer. Twenty-nine patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2. There was no difference in the objective response rate (ORR) in the entire cohort between the two arms; however, a difference was noted in the BRCA carriers. The ORR in pathogenic variant carriers who received docetaxel was 33%; the ORR of those patients who received carboplatin was 68% (P = .03).

Targeted therapies with or without chemotherapy

Multiple trials have evaluated the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with and without chemotherapy. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are active in the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks by homologous recombination; PARP is involved in the repair of single-stranded breaks by base excision repair, as well as by PARP trapping on the DNA strand.

In 2017, two phase III trials explored PARP inhibitors in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a BRCA pathogenic variant. In the OlympiAD trial, 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily or the physician’s choice of chemotherapy (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine). Progression-free survival (PFS) was improved from a median of 4.2 months to 7.0 months (HR, 0.58; P < .001) in patients treated with olaparib. OS was a secondary endpoint and no statistically significant difference was identified.

The EMBRACA trial randomly assigned 431 patients to talazoparib 1 mg orally daily versus the physician’s choice of capecitabine, eribulin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine.

Patients receiving talazoparib had improved PFS by a median of 8.6 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.54; P < .001). OS was an alpha-protected endpoint for EMBRACA and, at the time of first report, the data were immature with only 51% of events reported (HR, 0.76; P = .105). On the basis of these results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the use of both talazoparib and olaparib for the treatment of patients with inoperable or metastatic breast cancer and who have a germline BRCA pathogenic variant.

Ongoing research is evaluating multiple new strategies with PARP inhibitors to include targeting other germline pathogenic variants and somatic mutations. Trials, both in the early and metastatic settings, are evaluating single-agent PARP inhibitors and combining PARP inhibitors with other DNA damage repair agents, immunotherapies, and other targeted therapies to improve responses, as well as broaden the patient population who may benefit.

(Refer to the Systemic therapy in ovarian cancer treatment section in the Ovarian cancer section of this summary for more information about treatment strategies for BRCA-associated ovarian cancer.)

Local therapy

Breast conservation therapy for carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants

While lumpectomy plus radiation therapy has become standard local-regional therapy for women with early-stage breast cancer, its use in women with a hereditary predisposition for breast cancer who do not choose immediate bilateral mastectomy is more complicated. Initial concerns about the potential for therapeutic radiation to induce tumors or cause excess toxicity in carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants were unfounded.

Despite this, an increased rate of second primary breast cancer exists, which could impact treatment decisions.

Because of the established increased risk of second primary breast cancers, which may be up to 60% in younger women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants,

some carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants choose bilateral mastectomy at the time of their initial cancer diagnosis. (Refer to the Contralateral breast cancer in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants section of this summary for more information.) However, several studies support the use of breast conservation therapy as a reasonable option to treat the primary tumor.

The risk of ipsilateral recurrence at 10 years has been estimated to be between 10% to 15% and is similar to that seen in noncarriers.

Studies with longer periods of follow-up demonstrate risks of ipsilateral breast events at 15 years to be as high as 24%, largely resulting from ipsilateral second breast cancers (rather than relapse of the primary tumor).

Although not entirely consistent across studies, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, oophorectomy, and tamoxifen are associated with a decreased risk of ipsilateral events,

as is the case in sporadic breast cancer. The risk of contralateral breast cancer does not appear to differ in women undergoing breast conservation therapy versus unilateral mastectomy, suggesting no added risk of contralateral breast cancer from scattered radiation.

This finding is supported by a population-based case-control study of women diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 55 years.

All women were genotyped for BRCA1/BRCA2. Although there was a significant fourfold risk of contralateral breast cancer in carriers compared with noncarriers, carriers who were exposed to radiation therapy for the first primary were not at increased risk of contralateral breast cancer compared with carriers who were not exposed. (Refer to the Mammography section for more information about radiation and breast cancer risk.) Finally, no difference in OS at 15 years has been seen between carriers of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants choosing breast conservation therapy and carriers choosing mastectomy.

Ovarian cancer

Prognosis of BRCA1- and BRCA2-related ovarian cancer

Despite generally poor prognostic factors, several studies have found an improved survival among ovarian cancer patients with BRCA pathogenic variants.

A nationwide, population-based, case-control study in Israel found 3-year survival rates to be significantly better for ovarian cancer patients with BRCA founder pathogenic variants, compared with controls.

Five-year follow-up in the same cohort showed improved survival for carriers of both BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (54 months) versus noncarriers (38 months), which was most pronounced for women with stages III and IV ovarian cancer and for women with high-grade tumors.

In a U.S. study of AJ women with ovarian cancer, those with BRCA pathogenic variants had a longer median time to recurrence and an overall improved survival, compared with both AJ women with ovarian cancer who did not have a BRCA pathogenic variant and two large groups of advanced-stage ovarian cancer clinical trial patients.

In a retrospective U.S. hospital-based study, AJ carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants had a better response to platinum-based chemotherapy, as measured by response to primary therapy, disease-free survival, and OS, compared with sporadic cases.

Similarly, a significant survival advantage was seen in a case-control study among women with non-AJ BRCA pathogenic variants.

A study from the Netherlands also showed a better response to platinum-based primary chemotherapy in 112 BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers than in 220 sporadic ovarian cancer patients.

A U.S. population-based study showed improvement in OS in BRCA2, but not in BRCA1, carriers.

However, the study included only 12 carriers of BRCA2 pathogenic variants and 20 carriers of BRCA1 pathogenic variants. Significantly better OS and PFS were observed in 29 high-grade serous ovarian cancer cases with a known BRCA2 variant (20 germline, 9 somatic) from The Cancer Genome Atlas study compared with cases negative for a BRCA pathogenic variant. BRCA1 pathogenic variants were not significantly associated with prognosis.

Furthermore, a pooled analysis of 26 observational studies that included 1,213 carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants and 2,666 noncarriers with epithelial ovarian cancer showed more favorable survival in carriers of pathogenic variants (BRCA1: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64–0.84; P < .001; BRCA2: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39–0.61; P < .001).

Thus, 5-year survival in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with epithelial ovarian cancers was better than that observed in noncarriers, with BRCA2 carriers having the best prognosis. A study in Japanese patients found a survival advantage in stage III BRCA1-associated ovarian cancers treated with cisplatin regimens compared with nonhereditary cancers treated in a similar manner.

In contrast, several studies have not found improved OS among ovarian cancer patients with BRCA pathogenic variants.

The largest of these studies involved a large series of unselected Canadian and U.S. patients who were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. At 3 years, the presence of a pathogenic variant was associated with a better prognosis, but at 10 years, there was no longer a difference seen in prognosis.

Furthermore, one study suggested that there was worse survival in ovarian cancer patients with a family history.

Compelling data suggest a short-term survival advantage in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. However, long-term outcomes are yet to be established. Survival in AJ ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder pathogenic variants does seem to be improved;

however, further large studies in other populations with appropriate controls are needed to determine whether this survival advantage applies more broadly to all BRCA cancers.

Systemic therapy in ovarian cancer treatment

The molecular mechanisms that explain the improved prognosis in hereditary BRCA-associated ovarian cancer are unknown but may be related to the function of BRCA genes. BRCA genes play an important role in cell-cycle checkpoint activation and in the repair of damaged DNA via homologous recombination.

In addition to BRCA, other genes maintain homologous recombination, such as ATM, BARD1, PALB2, BRIP1, RAD51, BLM, CHEK2, and NBN. Comprehensive genetic testing of larger numbers of ovarian cancers has shown that approximately 50% of serous ovarian tumors may have somatic mutations or germline variants leading to a defective homologous recombination.

Deficiencies in homologous repair can impair the cells’ ability to repair DNA cross-links that result from certain chemotherapy agents, such as cisplatin. Preclinical data has demonstrated BRCA1 impacts chemosensitivity in breast cancer and ovarian cancer cell lines. Reduced BRCA1 protein expression has been shown to enhance cisplatin chemosensitivity.

Patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancer have shown improved responses to both first-line and subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy compared with patients with sporadic cancers, which may contribute to their better outcome.

Women with ovarian cancer whose tumors have homologous recombination repair gene deficiency (HRD), resulting from either germline variants or somatic mutations, have improved survival compared with women with an intact homologous recombination. The majority of homologous recombination repair gene variants consist of somatic mutations or germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, with one-third contributed by variants in other homologous repair genes.

PARP pathway inhibitors have been studied for the treatment of BRCA1- or BRCA2-deficient ovarian cancers. (Refer to the Role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in response to systemic therapy section in the Treatment Strategies section of this summary for more information about PARP inhibitors.) While PARP is involved in the repair of single-stranded breaks by base excision repair, BRCA1 and BRCA2 are active in the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks by homologous combination. Therefore, it was hypothesized that inhibiting base excision repair with PARP inhibition in BRCA1- or BRCA2-deficient tumors leads to enhanced cell death, as two separate repair mechanisms would be compromised—the concept of synthetic lethality. The same concept may apply to tumors with HRD, and consequently, PARP inhibitors may have expanded use in women whose tumors have any homologous recombination defects beyond pathogenic variants in BRCA genes. In clinical practice, there are different tumor assays available to determine HRD tumors, which vary by method and definition. More study of PARP inhibitors in HRD ovarian cancers is ongoing.

PARP inhibitors

Olaparib

Studies have used PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy. A phase I study of olaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor, demonstrated tolerability and activity in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with ovarian, breast, and prostate cancers.

A phase II trial of two different doses of olaparib demonstrated tolerability and efficacy in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants.

The overall response rate was 33% (11 of 33 patients) in the cohort receiving 400 mg twice daily and 13% (3 of 24 patients) in the cohort receiving 100 mg twice daily (i.e., 16 capsules daily). The most frequent side effects were mild nausea and fatigue.

In addition to ovarian cancer patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, PARP inhibitors also may be useful in ovarian cancer patients with somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or with epigenetic silencing of the genes.

Several phase II treatment studies have explored the efficacy of olaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, in both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant disease. Olaparib at 400 mg twice daily was used in a single-arm study to treat a spectrum of 298 BRCA-associated cancers, including breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian. Of the 193 women with ovarian cancer treated with olaparib, 31% had a response, and 40.4% had stable disease that persisted for at least 8 weeks.

Among the 154 women previously treated with at least three lines of chemotherapy, a similar overall response rate of 30% was seen, with comparable median durations of response of 8.2 months for platinum-sensitive disease and 8.0 months for platinum-resistant disease.

Another study of 173 patients with platinum-sensitive disease were treated with paclitaxel/carboplatin plus olaparib versus paclitaxel/carboplatin alone. The PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than the control group (12.2 vs. 9.6 months) (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34–0.77), especially in the subgroup of patients with BRCA pathogenic variants (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.08–0.55). There were no differences in OS between the olaparib and control groups.

In contrast, other studies found that BRCA status did not predict survival advantage in women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer treated with olaparib. A randomized open-label trial assigned 90 women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer to either olaparib or cediranib and olaparib. Median PFS was significantly longer with the combination (17.7 mo vs. 9 mo) (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23–0.76). Subset analysis showed that combination cediranib and olaparib resulted in significantly longer PFS in the 43 BRCA wild-type/unknown patients than did single agent olaparib (16.5 mo vs. 5.7 mo) (HR, 0.32; P = .008) and a smaller trend toward increased PFS in 47 women with BRCA pathogenic variants (19.4 mo vs. 16.5 mo) (HR, 0.55; P = .16).

In another study, women with BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants and recurrent ovarian cancer within 12 months of a prior platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned to receive liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) (n = 33) versus olaparib at 200 mg twice daily (n = 32) versus olaparib at 400 mg twice daily (n = 32). This study did not show a difference in PFS between the groups, which was the primary endpoint.

Of interest, the liposomal doxorubicin arm had a higher response rate than anticipated, consistent with other studies demonstrating that BRCA1/BRCA2-associated ovarian cancers may be more sensitive to liposomal doxorubicin than are sporadic ovarian cancers.

Another study demonstrated significant responses to olaparib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients, including patients with a BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant (objective response rate [ORR], 41%) and patients without a BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant (ORR, 24%).

This study emphasizes that certain sporadic ovarian cancers, particularly those of high-grade serous histology, may have properties similar to tumors related to a BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant.

As maintenance treatment, olaparib has shown significantly improved PFS in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. In a randomized controlled study of 265 patients (Study 19), those who received olaparib had a PFS of 8.4 months compared with 4.8 months in those who received the placebo (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25–0.49).

Within the cohort, the 136 patients with BRCA pathogenic variants demonstrated the most benefit with olaparib compared with placebo, with a PFS of 11.2 versus 4.3 months (HR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.1–0.31).

There was no OS difference observed in the entire cohort, or in the carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. A subsequent post hoc exploratory analysis excluded patients with BRCA pathogenic variants who received a PARP inhibitor at the time of progression to minimize the confounding influence on OS. In this group of 97 patients, an improved OS HR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.28–0.97) was associated with olaparib, compared with placebo.

The more mature Study 19 data, after more than five years of follow-up, showed a trend towards OS benefit but did not meet the a priori significance threshold of P < .0001 with olaparib compared with placebo in the entire cohort (29.8 mo vs. 27.8 mo; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55–0.96), or among BRCA pathogenic variant carriers treated with olaparib (24.5 mo vs. 26.6 mo; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41–0.94).

Olaparib tablets have been shown to be effective maintenance therapy, compared with placebo, in a similar population of women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer and BRCA pathogenic variants (SOLO2 trial). Olaparib resulted in a median PFS of 19.1 months versus 5.5 months for placebo (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22–0.41). Olaparib tablets offer the advantage of a reduced daily pill burden (two tablets twice daily) compared with 16 capsules daily.

Olaparib has demonstrated significant benefit as maintenance treatment in women with newly diagnosed advanced-stage, BRCA-associated ovarian cancer following response to primary treatment. The SOLO-1 trial randomly assigned 391 women with BRCA pathogenic variants to either olaparib 300 mg twice daily (n = 260) or placebo (n = 131) after primary surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 41 months, women receiving olaparib had a 70% lower risk of disease progression or death compared with women receiving placebo with an estimated improved PFS of approximately 3 years.

Within 3 years, disease progression or death occurred in 102 of 260 women (39%) in the olaparib group and 96 of 131 women (73%) in the placebo group. Side effects resulted in a dose reduction in 28% of patients and dose interruptions in more than half of patients. Fatigue and nausea were common side effects and reasons for dose reductions.

Rucaparib

Rucaparib is a small molecule inhibitor of PARP-1, -2, and -3 and was approved in the United States for the treatment of advanced germline BRCA1/BRCA2-associated ovarian cancer in December 2016. A phase II study found that continuous dosing provided better response rates than intermittent dosing in women with pathogenic BRCA-associated breast and ovarian cancer.

A subsequent phase I/II dose-finding study selected a dose of 600 mg twice daily on the basis of manageable toxicity and a response rate of 59.5% in 42 women with recurrent, germline BRCA-associated, high-grade serous cancer who had received between two and four prior treatment regimens. Common grade 3 toxicities included fatigue, nausea, and anemia.

The ARIEL-2 phase II study found that rucaparib was effective in the treatment of recurrent, high-grade, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in women with BRCA variants, but also in BRCA wild-type women with high genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH), which is a likely marker of HRD cancers. The study enrolled 206 women, of whom 40 had germline pathogenic variants or somatic mutations in BRCA. An additional 82 were BRCA wild-type, but had high LOH. Median PFS was significantly longer in the BRCA variant subgroup (12.8 mo) (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16–44), and the high LOH subgroup (5.8 mo) (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42–0.90), compared with the low LOH subgroup (5.2 mo). The authors concluded that both BRCA variant status and LOH score, as a surrogate for HRD, were molecular predictors of rucaparib sensitivity in women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian cancer.

A phase III trial assessed rucaparib versus placebo in 576 women with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian cancer after response to second line, or greater, platinum chemotherapy. The study found that 196 women had BRCA pathogenic variants: 130 germline variants and 56 somatic mutations. Median PFS of women in the rucaparib group was 10.8 versus 5.4 months (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30–0.45). Median PFS was the most prolonged in BRCA-associated ovarian cancer: 16.6 months in the rucaparib group versus 5.4 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16–0.34). In women with HRD cancers, the median PFS was 13.6 versus 5.4 months (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24–0.42). On the basis of these data, the authors concluded that platinum sensitivity alone was a sufficient marker to predict benefit from rucaparib in women with advanced high-grade ovarian cancer, without requiring additional HRD or BRCA testing.

Niraparib

Niraparib is a selective inhibitor of PARP-1 and -2. A phase I dose-finding study observed a response rate of 42% with 300 mg daily in women with recurrent, BRCA-associated solid tumors.

In a cohort of 500 patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, 234 received niraparib maintenance treatment and 116 received placebo (NOVA trial).

Niraparib maintenance resulted in improved PFS in BRCA pathogenic variant carriers (at 21 mo) and in wild-type patients with HRD positivity (at 12 mo) compared with wild-type patients without HRD tumor positivity (at 9 mo). Consistent with prior data, patients with germline BRCA pathogenic variants had the longest PFS of the three groups. Based upon the broad activity of niraparib maintenance in heavily pretreated women with ovarian cancer, regardless of platinum response or variant status, the QUADRA phase II trial studied the antitumor activity of niraparib in 463 women with recurrent, measurable ovarian cancer. Women had received a median of four prior lines of treatment. Twenty-eight percent of women had an overall response with a median duration of 9 months, which was improved in platinum sensitive, HRD-positive women.

More mature data are necessary to determine whether platinum sensitivity alone is a marker of response to PARP inhibitors in women with BRCA pathogenic variants, and the optimal timing of PARP inhibitors as treatment or as maintenance therapy. HRD status may also be used to predict response to PARP treatment on the basis of a better understanding of the multiple genes involved in homologous repair pathways.

Available Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Table 13 lists several organizations that have published recommendations for cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling, genetic testing, and/or management for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Table 13. Available Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC)

Organization	Referral Recommendations	Risk Assessment and Genetic Counseling Recommendations	Genetic Testing Recommendations	Management Recommendations
ACMG/NSGC (2015)	Addressed	Risk Assessment: Addressed	Not addressed	Not addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
ACOG (2017)	Addressed	Risk Assessment: Addressed	Addressed	Addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
ASCO (2015)	Not addressed	Risk Assessment: General recommendations; not specific to HBOC	General recommendations; not specific to HBOC	Not addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
ESMO (2016)	Refers to other published guidelines	Risk Assessment: Refers to other published guidelines	Refers to other published guidelines	Addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
NAPBC (2014)	Refers to other published guidelines	Risk Assessment: Refers to other published guidelines	Indications for testing not addressed; components of pretest and posttest counseling addressed	Not addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
NSGC (2013)	Addressed	Risk Assessment: Refers to other published guidelines and available models	Addressed	Refers to other published guidelines
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
NCCN (2020)	Addressed	Risk Assessment: Addressed	Addressed	Addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
SGO (2015, 2017)	Addressed	Risk Assessment: Addressed	Addressed	Addressed
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
USPSTFa (2019)	Addressed	Risk Assessment: Addressed	Addressed in general terms and other guidelines referenced	Addressed in general terms and other guidelines referenced
		Genetic Counseling: Addressed
ACMG/NSGC = American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/National Society of Genetic Counselors; ACOG = American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; ASCO = American Society of Clinical Oncology; ESMO = European Society for Medical Oncology; NAPBC = National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers; NCCN = National Comprehensive Cancer Network; NSGC = National Society of Genetic Counselors; SGO = Society of Gynecologic Oncology; USPSTF = U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
aThe USPSTF guidelines apply to individuals without a prior cancer diagnosis.

ReferenceSection

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 143 (5): 355-61, 2005.

Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al.: Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA 304 (9): 967-75, 2010.

Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, et al.: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 22 (6): 1055-62, 2004.

Evans DG, Ingham SL, Baildam A, et al.: Contralateral mastectomy improves survival in women with BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 140 (1): 135-42, 2013.

Kurian AW, Sigal BM, Plevritis SK: Survival analysis of cancer risk reduction strategies for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 28 (2): 222-31, 2010.

Kauff ND, Domchek SM, Friebel TM, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: a multicenter, prospective study. J Clin Oncol 26 (8): 1331-7, 2008.

Finch AP, Lubinski J, Møller P, et al.: Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Clin Oncol 32 (15): 1547-53, 2014.

Thomas DB, Gao DL, Self SG, et al.: Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: methodology and preliminary results. J Natl Cancer Inst 89 (5): 355-65, 1997.

Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M, et al.: Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 20 (5): 1260-8, 2002.

Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, Bartels CC, et al.: Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk. J Clin Oncol 19 (4): 924-30, 2001.

Burke W, Daly M, Garber J, et al.: Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. JAMA 277 (12): 997-1003, 1997.

Shapiro S: Periodic screening for breast cancer: the Health Insurance Plan project and its sequelae, 1963-1986. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.

Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al.: Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276 (1): 33-8, 1996.

Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al.: Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 133 (11): 855-63, 2000.

Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al.: Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 270 (20): 2444-50, 1993.

Tilanus-Linthorst M, Verhoog L, Obdeijn IM, et al.: A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer 102 (1): 91-5, 2002.

Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Kriege M, Boetes C, et al.: Hereditary breast cancer growth rates and its impact on screening policy. Eur J Cancer 41 (11): 1610-7, 2005.

Mitchell G, Antoniou AC, Warren R, et al.: Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Res 66 (3): 1866-72, 2006.

Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al.: Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (18): 1490-9, 2000.

Shtern F: Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 183 (3): 629-30, 1992.

Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al.: Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (3): 671-7, 2002.

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al.: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353 (17): 1773-83, 2005.

Sharan SK, Morimatsu M, Albrecht U, et al.: Embryonic lethality and radiation hypersensitivity mediated by Rad51 in mice lacking Brca2. Nature 386 (6627): 804-10, 1997.

Gowen LC, Avrutskaya AV, Latour AM, et al.: BRCA1 required for transcription-coupled repair of oxidative DNA damage. Science 281 (5379): 1009-12, 1998.

Abbott DW, Freeman ML, Holt JT: Double-strand break repair deficiency and radiation sensitivity in BRCA2 mutant cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (13): 978-85, 1998.

Narod SA, Lubinski J, Ghadirian P, et al.: Screening mammography and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol 7 (5): 402-6, 2006.

Goldfrank D, Chuai S, Bernstein JL, et al.: Effect of mammography on breast cancer risk in women with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (11): 2311-3, 2006.

Giannakeas V, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, et al.: Mammography screening and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147 (1): 113-8, 2014.

Andrieu N, Easton DF, Chang-Claude J, et al.: Effect of chest X-rays on the risk of breast cancer among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the international BRCA1/2 carrier cohort study: a report from the EMBRACE, GENEPSO, GEO-HEBON, and IBCCS Collaborators' Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (21): 3361-6, 2006.

Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF, et al.: Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). BMJ 345: e5660, 2012.

Berrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Visvanathan K, et al.: Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (3): 205-9, 2009.

Lowry KP, Lee JM, Kong CY, et al.: Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancer 118 (8): 2021-30, 2012.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic. Version 1.2020. Plymouth Meeting, Pa: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2019. Available online with free registration. Last accessed December 23, 2019.

Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al.: Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351 (5): 427-37, 2004.

Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al.: Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103 (9): 1898-905, 2005.

Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al.: Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365 (9473): 1769-78, 2005 May 21-27.

Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al.: Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292 (11): 1317-25, 2004.

Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al.: Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 244 (2): 381-8, 2007.

Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, et al.: Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 242 (3): 698-715, 2007.

Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al.: Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 28 (9): 1450-7, 2010.

Shah P, Rosen M, Stopfer J, et al.: Prospective study of breast MRI in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: effect of mutation status on cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118 (3): 539-46, 2009.

Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, et al.: BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 28 (36): 5265-73, 2010.

Weinstein SP, Localio AR, Conant EF, et al.: Multimodality screening of high-risk women: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol 27 (36): 6124-8, 2009.

Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al.: Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 46 (2): 94-105, 2011.

Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P, et al.: A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 43 (13): 1905-17, 2007.

Obdeijn IM, Loo CE, Rijnsburger AJ, et al.: Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119 (2): 399-407, 2010.

Heijnsdijk EA, Warner E, Gilbert FJ, et al.: Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21 (9): 1458-68, 2012.

Passaperuma K, Warner E, Causer PA, et al.: Long-term results of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in women with BRCA mutations. Br J Cancer 107 (1): 24-30, 2012.

Saadatmand S, Obdeijn IM, Rutgers EJ, et al.: Survival benefit in women with BRCA1 mutation or familial risk in the MRI screening study (MRISC). Int J Cancer 137 (7): 1729-38, 2015.

Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al.: American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57 (2): 75-89, 2007 Mar-Apr.

O'Driscoll D, Warren R, MacKay J, et al.: Screening with breast ultrasound in a population at moderate risk due to family history. J Med Screen 8 (2): 106-9, 2001.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al.: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299 (18): 2151-63, 2008.

Giuliano AE, Boolbol S, Degnim A, et al.: Society of Surgical Oncology: position statement on prophylactic mastectomy. Approved by the Society of Surgical Oncology Executive Council, March 2007. Ann Surg Oncol 14 (9): 2425-7, 2007.

Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, et al.: Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 93 (21): 1633-7, 2001.

Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL, et al.: Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 345 (3): 159-64, 2001.

Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al.: Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 340 (2): 77-84, 1999.

Schrag D, Kuntz KM, Garber JE, et al.: Decision analysis--effects of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy on life expectancy among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 336 (20): 1465-71, 1997.

Kurian AW, Munoz DF, Rust P, et al.: Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 30 (5): 497-506, 2012.

Unic I, Stalmeier PF, Verhoef LC, et al.: Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Med Decis Making 18 (3): 268-77, 1998 Jul-Sep.

Grann VR, Panageas KS, Whang W, et al.: Decision analysis of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA1-positive or BRCA2-positive patients. J Clin Oncol 16 (3): 979-85, 1998.

Tuttle TM, Habermann EB, Grund EH, et al.: Increasing use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer patients: a trend toward more aggressive surgical treatment. J Clin Oncol 25 (33): 5203-9, 2007.

Jones NB, Wilson J, Kotur L, et al.: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer: an increasing trend at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol 16 (10): 2691-6, 2009.

Nichols HB, Berrington de González A, Lacey JV, et al.: Declining incidence of contralateral breast cancer in the United States from 1975 to 2006. J Clin Oncol 29 (12): 1564-9, 2011.

Fayanju OM, Stoll CR, Fowler S, et al.: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 260 (6): 1000-10, 2014.

Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Ghadirian P, et al.: Contralateral mastectomy and survival after breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: retrospective analysis. BMJ 348: g226, 2014.

Chiba A, Hoskin TL, Hallberg EJ, et al.: Impact that Timing of Genetic Mutation Diagnosis has on Surgical Decision Making and Outcome for BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutation Carriers with Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23 (10): 3232-8, 2016.

van Sprundel TC, Schmidt MK, Rookus MA, et al.: Risk reduction of contralateral breast cancer and survival after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 93 (3): 287-92, 2005.

Evans DG, Baildam AD, Anderson E, et al.: Risk reducing mastectomy: outcomes in 10 European centres. J Med Genet 46 (4): 254-8, 2009.

Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM, et al.: Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer 136 (3): 668-77, 2015.

Jatoi I, Parsons HM: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and its association with reduced mortality: evidence for selection bias. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148 (2): 389-96, 2014.

Yao K, Liederbach E, Tang R, et al.: Nipple-sparing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an interim analysis and review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol 22 (2): 370-6, 2015.

Manning AT, Wood C, Eaton A, et al.: Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and variants of uncertain significance. Br J Surg 102 (11): 1354-9, 2015.

Kauff ND, Brogi E, Scheuer L, et al.: Epithelial lesions in prophylactic mastectomy specimens from women with BRCA mutations. Cancer 97 (7): 1601-8, 2003.

Hoogerbrugge N, Bult P, de Widt-Levert LM, et al.: High prevalence of premalignant lesions in prophylactically removed breasts from women at hereditary risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21 (1): 41-5, 2003.

Kroiss R, Winkler V, Kalteis K, et al.: Prevalence of pre-malignant and malignant lesions in prophylactic mastectomy specimens of BRCA1 mutation carriers: comparison with a control group. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134 (10): 1113-21, 2008.

Scott CI, Iorgulescu DG, Thorne HJ, et al.: Clinical, pathological and genetic features of women at high familial risk of breast cancer undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. Clin Genet 64 (2): 111-21, 2003.

Olson JE, Sellers TA, Iturria SJ, et al.: Bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk reduction among women with a family history. Cancer Detect Prev 28 (5): 357-60, 2004.

Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, et al.: Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346 (21): 1616-22, 2002.

Struewing JP, Watson P, Easton DF, et al.: Prophylactic oophorectomy in inherited breast/ovarian cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr (17): 33-5, 1995.

Rebbeck TR, Levin AM, Eisen A, et al.: Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (17): 1475-9, 1999.

Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 346 (21): 1609-15, 2002.

Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM: Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101 (2): 80-7, 2009.

Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Seynaeve C, van Asperen CJ, et al.: Breast cancer risk after salpingo-oophorectomy in healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: revisiting the evidence for risk reduction. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (5): , 2015.

Chai X, Domchek S, Kauff N, et al.: RE: Breast Cancer Risk After Salpingo-Oophorectomy in Healthy BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: Revisiting the Evidence for Risk Reduction. J Natl Cancer Inst 107 (9): , 2015.

Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Foulkes WD, et al.: Effect of Oophorectomy on Survival After Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA Oncol 1 (3): 306-13, 2015.

Kotsopoulos J, Huzarski T, Gronwald J, et al.: Bilateral Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 109 (1): , 2017.

Terry MB, Daly MB, Phillips KA, et al.: Risk-Reducing Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk Across the Spectrum of Familial Risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 111 (3): 331-334, 2019.

Marchetti C, De Felice F, Palaia I, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: a meta-analysis on impact on ovarian cancer risk and all cause mortality in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers. BMC Womens Health 14: 150, 2014.

Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al.: Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (18): 1371-88, 1998.

Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Costa A, et al.: Prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen: preliminary findings from the Italian randomised trial among hysterectomised women. Italian Tamoxifen Prevention Study. Lancet 352 (9122): 93-7, 1998.

Powles T, Eeles R, Ashley S, et al.: Interim analysis of the incidence of breast cancer in the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen randomised chemoprevention trial. Lancet 352 (9122): 98-101, 1998.

Cuzick J, Sestak I, Cawthorn S, et al.: Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: extended long-term follow-up of the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial. Lancet Oncol 16 (1): 67-75, 2015.

King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, et al.: Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. JAMA 286 (18): 2251-6, 2001.

Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, et al.: Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Lancet 356 (9245): 1876-81, 2000.

Pierce LJ, Levin AM, Rebbeck TR, et al.: Ten-year multi-institutional results of breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in BRCA1/2-associated stage I/II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24 (16): 2437-43, 2006.

Gronwald J, Tung N, Foulkes WD, et al.: Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: an update. Int J Cancer 118 (9): 2281-4, 2006.

Phillips KA, Milne RL, Rookus MA, et al.: Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 31 (25): 3091-9, 2013.

Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al.: Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA 295 (23): 2727-41, 2006.

Land SR, Wickerham DL, Costantino JP, et al.: Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life during treatment with tamoxifen or raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA 295 (23): 2742-51, 2006.

Reding KW, Bernstein JL, Langholz BM, et al.: Adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers in a population-based study of risk of contralateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 123 (2): 491-8, 2010.

Vicus D, Rosen B, Lubinski J, et al.: Tamoxifen and the risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Gynecol Oncol 115 (1): 135-7, 2009.

Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE: Risk factors for breast cancer according to family history of breast cancer. For the Nurses' Health Study Research Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (6): 365-71, 1996.

Narod S, Lynch H, Conway T, et al.: Increasing incidence of breast cancer in family with BRCA1 mutation. Lancet 341 (8852): 1101-2, 1993.

Narod SA, Goldgar D, Cannon-Albright L, et al.: Risk modifiers in carriers of BRCA1 mutations. Int J Cancer 64 (6): 394-8, 1995.

McCredie M, Paul C, Skegg DC, et al.: Family history and risk of breast cancer in New Zealand. Int J Cancer 73 (4): 503-7, 1997.

Jernström H, Lerman C, Ghadirian P, et al.: Pregnancy and risk of early breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Lancet 354 (9193): 1846-50, 1999.

Cullinane CA, Lubinski J, Neuhausen SL, et al.: Effect of pregnancy as a risk factor for breast cancer in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 117 (6): 988-91, 2005.

Friedman E, Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, et al.: Spontaneous and therapeutic abortions and the risk of breast cancer among BRCA mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 8 (2): R15, 2006.

Milne RL, Osorio A, Ramón y Cajal T, et al.: Parity and the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119 (1): 221-32, 2010.

Antoniou AC, Shenton A, Maher ER, et al.: Parity and breast cancer risk among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 8 (6): R72, 2006.

Andrieu N, Goldgar DE, Easton DF, et al.: Pregnancies, breast-feeding, and breast cancer risk in the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study (IBCCS). J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (8): 535-44, 2006.

Col: Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50302 women with breast cancer and 96973 women without the disease. Lancet 360 (9328): 187-95, 2002.

Jernström H, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, et al.: Breast-feeding and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 96 (14): 1094-8, 2004.

Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Lancet 347 (9017): 1713-27, 1996.

Ursin G, Henderson BE, Haile RW, et al.: Does oral contraceptive use increase the risk of breast cancer in women with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations more than in other women? Cancer Res 57 (17): 3678-81, 1997.

Jernström H, Loman N, Johannsson OT, et al.: Impact of teenage oral contraceptive use in a population-based series of early-onset breast cancer cases who have undergone BRCA mutation testing. Eur J Cancer 41 (15): 2312-20, 2005.

Iodice S, Barile M, Rotmensz N, et al.: Oral contraceptive use and breast or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 46 (12): 2275-84, 2010.

Brohet RM, Goldgar DE, Easton DF, et al.: Oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk in the international BRCA1/2 carrier cohort study: a report from EMBRACE, GENEPSO, GEO-HEBON, and the IBCCS Collaborating Group. J Clin Oncol 25 (25): 3831-6, 2007.

Haile RW, Thomas DC, McGuire V, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, oral contraceptive use, and breast cancer before age 50. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15 (10): 1863-70, 2006.

Narod SA, Dubé MP, Klijn J, et al.: Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (23): 1773-9, 2002.

Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, Moller P, et al.: Timing of oral contraceptive use and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 143 (3): 579-86, 2014.

Narod SA, Risch H, Moslehi R, et al.: Oral contraceptives and the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group. N Engl J Med 339 (7): 424-8, 1998.

Chen CL, Weiss NS, Newcomb P, et al.: Hormone replacement therapy in relation to breast cancer. JAMA 287 (6): 734-41, 2002.

Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators: Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288 (3): 321-33, 2002.

Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD, et al.: Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 289 (24): 3243-53, 2003.

Chlebowski RT, Kuller LH, Prentice RL, et al.: Breast cancer after use of estrogen plus progestin in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 360 (6): 573-87, 2009.

Schuurman AG, van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA: Exogenous hormone use and the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: results from The Netherlands Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control 6 (5): 416-24, 1995.

Steinberg KK, Thacker SB, Smith SJ, et al.: A meta-analysis of the effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer. JAMA 265 (15): 1985-90, 1991.

Colditz GA, Egan KM, Stampfer MJ: Hormone replacement therapy and risk of breast cancer: results from epidemiologic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 168 (5): 1473-80, 1993.

Sellers TA, Mink PJ, Cerhan JR, et al.: The role of hormone replacement therapy in the risk for breast cancer and total mortality in women with a family history of breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 127 (11): 973-80, 1997.

Stanford JL, Weiss NS, Voigt LF, et al.: Combined estrogen and progestin hormone replacement therapy in relation to risk of breast cancer in middle-aged women. JAMA 274 (2): 137-42, 1995.

Gorsky RD, Koplan JP, Peterson HB, et al.: Relative risks and benefits of long-term estrogen replacement therapy: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 83 (2): 161-6, 1994.

Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Wagner T, et al.: Effect of short-term hormone replacement therapy on breast cancer risk reduction after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 23 (31): 7804-10, 2005.

Eisen A, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, et al.: Hormone therapy and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 100 (19): 1361-7, 2008.

Kotsopoulos J, Huzarski T, Gronwald J, et al.: Hormone replacement therapy after menopause and risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 155 (2): 365-73, 2016.

Chlebowski RT, Prentice RL: Menopausal hormone therapy in BRCA1 mutation carriers: uncertainty and caution. J Natl Cancer Inst 100 (19): 1341-3, 2008.

Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al.: Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 305 (22): 2295-303, 2011.

Hermsen BB, Olivier RI, Verheijen RH, et al.: No efficacy of annual gynaecological screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers; an observational follow-up study. Br J Cancer 96 (9): 1335-42, 2007.

Stirling D, Evans DG, Pichert G, et al.: Screening for familial ovarian cancer: failure of current protocols to detect ovarian cancer at an early stage according to the international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics system. J Clin Oncol 23 (24): 5588-96, 2005.

Olivier RI, Lubsen-Brandsma MA, Verhoef S, et al.: CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound monitoring in high-risk women cannot prevent the diagnosis of advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 100 (1): 20-6, 2006.

Meeuwissen PA, Seynaeve C, Brekelmans CT, et al.: Outcome of surveillance and prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in asymptomatic women at high risk for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 97 (2): 476-82, 2005.

Dørum A, Kristensen GB, Abeler VM, et al.: Early detection of familial ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 32A (10): 1645-51, 1996.

Tailor A, Bourne TH, Campbell S, et al.: Results from an ultrasound-based familial ovarian cancer screening clinic: a 10-year observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21 (4): 378-85, 2003.

Karlan BY, Raffel LJ, Crvenkovic G, et al.: A multidisciplinary approach to the early detection of ovarian carcinoma: rationale, protocol design, and early results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169 (3): 494-501, 1993.

Muto MG, Cramer DW, Brown DL, et al.: Screening for ovarian cancer: the preliminary experience of a familial ovarian cancer center. Gynecol Oncol 51 (1): 12-20, 1993.

Liede A, Karlan BY, Baldwin RL, et al.: Cancer incidence in a population of Jewish women at risk of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 20 (6): 1570-7, 2002.

Laframboise S, Nedelcu R, Murphy J, et al.: Use of CA-125 and ultrasound in high-risk women. Int J Gynecol Cancer 12 (1): 86-91, 2002 Jan-Feb.

Woodward ER, Sleightholme HV, Considine AM, et al.: Annual surveillance by CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound for ovarian cancer in both high-risk and population risk women is ineffective. BJOG 114 (12): 1500-9, 2007.

van der Velde NM, Mourits MJ, Arts HJ, et al.: Time to stop ovarian cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers? Int J Cancer 124 (4): 919-23, 2009.

Rosenthal AN, Fraser L, Manchanda R, et al.: Results of annual screening in phase I of the United Kingdom familial ovarian cancer screening study highlight the need for strict adherence to screening schedule. J Clin Oncol 31 (1): 49-57, 2013.

Evans DG, Gaarenstroom KN, Stirling D, et al.: Screening for familial ovarian cancer: poor survival of BRCA1/2 related cancers. J Med Genet 46 (9): 593-7, 2009.

NIH consensus conference. Ovarian cancer. Screening, treatment, and follow-up. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Ovarian Cancer. JAMA 273 (6): 491-7, 1995.

Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, et al.: Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93 (14): 1054-61, 2001.

Grosse SD, Khoury MJ: What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med 8 (7): 448-50, 2006.

Finch A, Shaw P, Rosen B, et al.: Clinical and pathologic findings of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomies in 159 BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol 100 (1): 58-64, 2006.

Andersen MR, Goff BA, Lowe KA, et al.: Combining a symptoms index with CA 125 to improve detection of ovarian cancer. Cancer 113 (3): 484-9, 2008.

Skates SJ, Xu FJ, Yu YH, et al.: Toward an optimal algorithm for ovarian cancer screening with longitudinal tumor markers. Cancer 76 (10 Suppl): 2004-10, 1995.

Skates SJ, Menon U, MacDonald N, et al.: Calculation of the risk of ovarian cancer from serial CA-125 values for preclinical detection in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 21 (10 Suppl): 206s-210s, 2003.

Menon U, Skates SJ, Lewis S, et al.: Prospective study using the risk of ovarian cancer algorithm to screen for ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 23 (31): 7919-26, 2005.

Greene MH, Piedmonte M, Alberts D, et al.: A prospective study of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and longitudinal CA-125 screening among women at increased genetic risk of ovarian cancer: design and baseline characteristics: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 17 (3): 594-604, 2008.

Gagnon A, Ye B: Discovery and application of protein biomarkers for ovarian cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20 (1): 9-13, 2008.

Hennessy BT, Murph M, Nanjundan M, et al.: Ovarian cancer: linking genomics to new target discovery and molecular markers--the way ahead. Adv Exp Med Biol 617: 23-40, 2008.

Badgwell D, Bast RC: Early detection of ovarian cancer. Dis Markers 23 (5-6): 397-410, 2007.

Petricoin EF, Ardekani AM, Hitt BA, et al.: Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer. Lancet 359 (9306): 572-7, 2002.

Zhang Z, Bast RC, Yu Y, et al.: Three biomarkers identified from serum proteomic analysis for the detection of early stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 64 (16): 5882-90, 2004.

Koehn H, Oehler MK: Proteins' promise--progress and challenges in ovarian cancer proteomics. Menopause Int 13 (4): 148-53, 2007.

Visintin I, Feng Z, Longton G, et al.: Diagnostic markers for early detection of ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 14 (4): 1065-72, 2008.

Simon R: Roadmap for developing and validating therapeutically relevant genomic classifiers. J Clin Oncol 23 (29): 7332-41, 2005.

Rutter JL, Wacholder S, Chetrit A, et al.: Gynecologic surgeries and risk of ovarian cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Ashkenazi founder mutations: an Israeli population-based case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 95 (14): 1072-8, 2003.

Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, Lynch HT, et al.: Oophorectomy after menopause and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21 (7): 1089-96, 2012.

Sherman ME, Piedmonte M, Mai PL, et al.: Pathologic findings at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: primary results from Gynecologic Oncology Group Trial GOG-0199. J Clin Oncol 32 (29): 3275-83, 2014.

Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Neuhausen SL, et al.: Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 7 (3): 223-9, 2006.

Leeper K, Garcia R, Swisher E, et al.: Pathologic findings in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens in high-risk women. Gynecol Oncol 87 (1): 52-6, 2002.

Olivier RI, van Beurden M, Lubsen MA, et al.: Clinical outcome of prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers and events during follow-up. Br J Cancer 90 (8): 1492-7, 2004.

Colgan TJ, Murphy J, Cole DE, et al.: Occult carcinoma in prophylactic oophorectomy specimens: prevalence and association with BRCA germline mutation status. Am J Surg Pathol 25 (10): 1283-9, 2001.

Powell CB, Kenley E, Chen LM, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA mutation carriers: role of serial sectioning in the detection of occult malignancy. J Clin Oncol 23 (1): 127-32, 2005.

Callahan MJ, Crum CP, Medeiros F, et al.: Primary fallopian tube malignancies in BRCA-positive women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol 25 (25): 3985-90, 2007.

Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Garber JE, et al.: Occult ovarian cancers identified at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124 (1): 195-203, 2010.

Powell CB, Chen LM, McLennan J, et al.: Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in BRCA mutation carriers: experience with a consecutive series of 111 patients using a standardized surgical-pathological protocol. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21 (5): 846-51, 2011.

Piek JM, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP, et al.: Dysplastic changes in prophylactically removed Fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol 195 (4): 451-6, 2001.

Paley PJ, Swisher EM, Garcia RL, et al.: Occult cancer of the fallopian tube in BRCA-1 germline mutation carriers at prophylactic oophorectomy: a case for recommending hysterectomy at surgical prophylaxis. Gynecol Oncol 80 (2): 176-80, 2001.

Rose PG, Shrigley R, Wiesner GL: Germline BRCA2 mutation in a patient with fallopian tube carcinoma: a case report. Gynecol Oncol 77 (2): 319-20, 2000.

Zweemer RP, van Diest PJ, Verheijen RH, et al.: Molecular evidence linking primary cancer of the fallopian tube to BRCA1 germline mutations. Gynecol Oncol 76 (1): 45-50, 2000.

Piek JM, Torrenga B, Hermsen B, et al.: Histopathological characteristics of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated intraperitoneal cancer: a clinic-based study. Fam Cancer 2 (2): 73-8, 2003.

Levine DA, Argenta PA, Yee CJ, et al.: Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal carcinomas associated with BRCA mutations. J Clin Oncol 21 (22): 4222-7, 2003.

Aziz S, Kuperstein G, Rosen B, et al.: A genetic epidemiological study of carcinoma of the fallopian tube. Gynecol Oncol 80 (3): 341-5, 2001.

Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al.: Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: Evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol 31 (2): 161-9, 2007.

Rabban JT, Krasik E, Chen LM, et al.: Multistep level sections to detect occult fallopian tube carcinoma in risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies from women with BRCA mutations: implications for defining an optimal specimen dissection protocol. Am J Surg Pathol 33 (12): 1878-85, 2009.

Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Clinical Practice Committee Statement on Prophylactic Salpingo-oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 98 (2): 179-81, 2005.

Chen KT, Schooley JL, Flam MS: Peritoneal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy in familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 66 (3 Suppl): 93S-94S, 1985.

Lynch HT, Bewtra C, Lynch JF: Familial ovarian carcinoma. Clinical nuances. Am J Med 81 (6): 1073-6, 1986.

Lynch HT, Watson P, Bewtra C, et al.: Hereditary ovarian cancer. Heterogeneity in age at diagnosis. Cancer 67 (5): 1460-6, 1991.

Tobacman JK, Greene MH, Tucker MA, et al.: Intra-abdominal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy in ovarian-cancer-prone families. Lancet 2 (8302): 795-7, 1982.

Truong LD, Maccato ML, Awalt H, et al.: Serous surface carcinoma of the peritoneum: a clinicopathologic study of 22 cases. Hum Pathol 21 (1): 99-110, 1990.

Piver MS, Jishi MF, Tsukada Y, et al.: Primary peritoneal carcinoma after prophylactic oophorectomy in women with a family history of ovarian cancer. A report of the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry. Cancer 71 (9): 2751-5, 1993.

Casey MJ, Synder C, Bewtra C, et al.: Intra-abdominal carcinomatosis after prophylactic oophorectomy in women of hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome kindreds associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Gynecol Oncol 97 (2): 457-67, 2005.

Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al.: Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation. JAMA 296 (2): 185-92, 2006.

Powell CB, Swisher EM, Cass I, et al.: Long term follow up of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with unsuspected neoplasia identified at risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Gynecol Oncol 129 (2): 364-71, 2013.

Zakhour M, Danovitch Y, Lester J, et al.: Occult and subsequent cancer incidence following risk-reducing surgery in BRCA mutation carriers. Gynecol Oncol 143 (2): 231-235, 2016.

Chen S, Iversen ES, Friebel T, et al.: Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large United States sample. J Clin Oncol 24 (6): 863-71, 2006.

Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al.: Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 72 (5): 1117-30, 2003.

Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al.: Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: a kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 98 (23): 1694-706, 2006.

Lavie O, Hornreich G, Ben-Arie A, et al.: BRCA germline mutations in Jewish women with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 92 (2): 521-4, 2004.

Goshen R, Chu W, Elit L, et al.: Is uterine papillary serous adenocarcinoma a manifestation of the hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome? Gynecol Oncol 79 (3): 477-81, 2000.

Beiner ME, Finch A, Rosen B, et al.: The risk of endometrial cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. A prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 104 (1): 7-10, 2007.

Segev Y, Iqbal J, Lubinski J, et al.: The incidence of endometrial cancer in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: an international prospective cohort study. Gynecol Oncol 130 (1): 127-31, 2013.

Levine DA, Lin O, Barakat RR, et al.: Risk of endometrial carcinoma associated with BRCA mutation. Gynecol Oncol 80 (3): 395-8, 2001.

Karlan BY: Defining cancer risks for BRCA germline mutation carriers: implications for surgical prophylaxis. Gynecol Oncol 92 (2): 519-20, 2004.

Biron-Shental T, Drucker L, Altaras M, et al.: High incidence of BRCA1-2 germline mutations, previous breast cancer and familial cancer history in Jewish patients with uterine serous papillary carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 32 (10): 1097-100, 2006.

Lu KH, Kauff ND: Does a BRCA mutation plus tamoxifen equal hysterectomy? Gynecol Oncol 104 (1): 3-4, 2007.

Madalinska JB, Hollenstein J, Bleiker E, et al.: Quality-of-life effects of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy versus gynecologic screening among women at increased risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 23 (28): 6890-8, 2005.

Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M, et al.: Survival patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Oncol 7 (10): 821-8, 2006.

Rocca WA, Bower JH, Maraganore DM, et al.: Increased risk of parkinsonism in women who underwent oophorectomy before menopause. Neurology 70 (3): 200-9, 2008.

Shuster LT, Rhodes DJ, Gostout BS, et al.: Premature menopause or early menopause: long-term health consequences. Maturitas 65 (2): 161-6, 2010.

Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E, et al.: Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses' health study. Obstet Gynecol 113 (5): 1027-37, 2009.

Rivera CM, Grossardt BR, Rhodes DJ, et al.: Increased cardiovascular mortality after early bilateral oophorectomy. Menopause 16 (1): 15-23, 2009 Jan-Feb.

Michelsen TM, Pripp AH, Tonstad S, et al.: Metabolic syndrome after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women at high risk for hereditary breast ovarian cancer: a controlled observational study. Eur J Cancer 45 (1): 82-9, 2009.

Greene MH, Mai PL, Schwartz PE: Does bilateral salpingectomy with ovarian retention warrant consideration as a temporary bridge to risk-reducing bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204 (1): 19.e1-6, 2011.

Dietl J, Wischhusen J, Häusler SF: The post-reproductive Fallopian tube: better removed? Hum Reprod 26 (11): 2918-24, 2011.

Leblanc E, Narducci F, Farre I, et al.: Radical fimbriectomy: a reasonable temporary risk-reducing surgery for selected women with a germ line mutation of BRCA 1 or 2 genes? Rationale and preliminary development. Gynecol Oncol 121 (3): 472-6, 2011.

Kwon JS, Tinker A, Pansegrau G, et al.: Prophylactic salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy as an alternative for BRCA mutation carriers. Obstet Gynecol 121 (1): 14-24, 2013.

Harmsen MG, IntHout J, Arts-de Jong M, et al.: Salpingectomy With Delayed Oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: Estimating Ovarian Cancer Risk. Obstet Gynecol 127 (6): 1054-63, 2016.

Nebgen DR, Hurteau J, Holman LL, et al.: Bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction: A pilot study in women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Gynecol Oncol 150 (1): 79-84, 2018.

Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies of Ovarian Cancer, Beral V, Doll R, et al.: Ovarian cancer and oral contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of data from 45 epidemiological studies including 23,257 women with ovarian cancer and 87,303 controls. Lancet 371 (9609): 303-14, 2008.

Narod SA, Sun P, Ghadirian P, et al.: Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet 357 (9267): 1467-70, 2001.

Whittemore AS, Balise RR, Pharoah PD, et al.: Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk among carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Br J Cancer 91 (11): 1911-5, 2004.

McGuire V, Felberg A, Mills M, et al.: Relation of contraceptive and reproductive history to ovarian cancer risk in carriers and noncarriers of BRCA1 gene mutations. Am J Epidemiol 160 (7): 613-8, 2004.

McLaughlin JR, Risch HA, Lubinski J, et al.: Reproductive risk factors for ovarian cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol 8 (1): 26-34, 2007.

Modan B, Hartge P, Hirsh-Yechezkel G, et al.: Parity, oral contraceptives, and the risk of ovarian cancer among carriers and noncarriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 345 (4): 235-40, 2001.

Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, et al.: Factors influencing ovulation and the risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer 137 (5): 1136-46, 2015.

Risch HA: Hormonal etiology of epithelial ovarian cancer, with a hypothesis concerning the role of androgens and progesterone. J Natl Cancer Inst 90 (23): 1774-86, 1998.

Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, et al.: A prospective study of reproductive factors and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer 76 (2): 284-90, 1995.

Gronwald J, Byrski T, Huzarski T, et al.: Influence of selected lifestyle factors on breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers from Poland. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95 (2): 105-9, 2006.

Whittemore AS, Harris R, Itnyre J: Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. IV. The pathogenesis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group. Am J Epidemiol 136 (10): 1212-20, 1992.

Miracle-McMahill HL, Calle EE, Kosinski AS, et al.: Tubal ligation and fatal ovarian cancer in a large prospective cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 145 (4): 349-57, 1997.

Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (15): 1310-6, 1999.

van Asperen CJ, Brohet RM, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, et al.: Cancer risks in BRCA2 families: estimates for sites other than breast and ovary. J Med Genet 42 (9): 711-9, 2005.

Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al.: Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 68 (3): 700-10, 2001.

Liede A, Malik IA, Aziz Z, et al.: Contribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations to breast and ovarian cancer in Pakistan. Am J Hum Genet 71 (3): 595-606, 2002.

Moslehi R, Chu W, Karlan B, et al.: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis of 208 Ashkenazi Jewish women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 66 (4): 1259-72, 2000.

Mohamad HB, Apffelstaedt JP: Counseling for male BRCA mutation carriers: a review. Breast 17 (5): 441-50, 2008.

Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA: Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 22 (4): 735-42, 2004.

Mitra A, Fisher C, Foster CS, et al.: Prostate cancer in male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has a more aggressive phenotype. Br J Cancer 98 (2): 502-7, 2008.

Tryggvadóttir L, Vidarsdóttir L, Thorgeirsson T, et al.: Prostate cancer progression and survival in BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (12): 929-35, 2007.

Agalliu I, Gern R, Leanza S, et al.: Associations of high-grade prostate cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations. Clin Cancer Res 15 (3): 1112-20, 2009.

Narod SA, Neuhausen S, Vichodez G, et al.: Rapid progression of prostate cancer in men with a BRCA2 mutation. Br J Cancer 99 (2): 371-4, 2008.

Edwards SM, Evans DG, Hope Q, et al.: Prostate cancer in BRCA2 germline mutation carriers is associated with poorer prognosis. Br J Cancer 103 (6): 918-24, 2010.

Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, et al.: Germline BRCA mutations denote a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16 (7): 2115-21, 2010.

Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al.: Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360 (13): 1320-8, 2009.

Andriole GL, Grubb RL, Buys SS, et al.: Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360 (13): 1310-9, 2009.

Fiorentino M, Judson G, Penney K, et al.: Immunohistochemical expression of BRCA1 and lethal prostate cancer. Cancer Res 70 (8): 3136-9, 2010.

Horsburgh S, Matthew A, Bristow R, et al.: Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a pilot study investigating medical characteristics of patients participating in a prostate cancer prevention clinic. Prostate 65 (2): 124-9, 2005.

Hubert A, Peretz T, Manor O, et al.: The Jewish Ashkenazi founder mutations in the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes are not found at an increased frequency in Ashkenazi patients with prostate cancer. Am J Hum Genet 65 (3): 921-4, 1999.

Mitra AV, Bancroft EK, Barbachano Y, et al.: Targeted prostate cancer screening in men with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 detects aggressive prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of the results of the IMPACT study. BJU Int 107 (1): 28-39, 2011.

Foulkes WD, Metcalfe K, Hanna W, et al.: Disruption of the expected positive correlation between breast tumor size and lymph node status in BRCA1-related breast carcinoma. Cancer 98 (8): 1569-77, 2003.

Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, et al.: Survival and tumour characteristics of breast-cancer patients with germline mutations of BRCA1. Lancet 351 (9099): 316-21, 1998.

Jóhannsson OT, Ranstam J, Borg A, et al.: Survival of BRCA1 breast and ovarian cancer patients: a population-based study from southern Sweden. J Clin Oncol 16 (2): 397-404, 1998.

Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Ansquer Y, Dreyfus H, et al.: Familial invasive breast cancers: worse outcome related to BRCA1 mutations. J Clin Oncol 18 (24): 4053-9, 2000.

Haffty BG, Harrold E, Khan AJ, et al.: Outcome of conservatively managed early-onset breast cancer by BRCA1/2 status. Lancet 359 (9316): 1471-7, 2002.

Robson M, Levin D, Federici M, et al.: Breast conservation therapy for invasive breast cancer in Ashkenazi women with BRCA gene founder mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 91 (24): 2112-7, 1999.

Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K, et al.: Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 27 (35): 5887-92, 2009.

van den Broek AJ, van 't Veer LJ, Hooning MJ, et al.: Impact of Age at Primary Breast Cancer on Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol 34 (5): 409-18, 2016.

Menes TS, Terry MB, Goldgar D, et al.: Second primary breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: 10-year cumulative incidence in the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151 (3): 653-60, 2015.

Robson ME, Chappuis PO, Satagopan J, et al.: A combined analysis of outcome following breast cancer: differences in survival based on BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and administration of adjuvant treatment. Breast Cancer Res 6 (1): R8-R17, 2004.

Rennert G, Bisland-Naggan S, Barnett-Griness O, et al.: Clinical outcomes of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 357 (2): 115-23, 2007.

Kriege M, Seynaeve C, Meijers-Heijboer H, et al.: Sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 27 (23): 3764-71, 2009.

Goodwin PJ, Phillips KA, West DW, et al.: Breast cancer prognosis in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an International Prospective Breast Cancer Family Registry population-based cohort study. J Clin Oncol 30 (1): 19-26, 2012.

Copson ER, Maishman TC, Tapper WJ, et al.: Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 19 (2): 169-180, 2018.

Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Timms KM, Liu S, et al.: Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 17 (5): 1082-9, 2011.

Lee LJ, Alexander B, Schnitt SJ, et al.: Clinical outcome of triple negative breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers and noncarriers. Cancer 117 (14): 3093-100, 2011.

Tung N, Gaughan E, Hacker MR, et al.: Outcome of triple negative breast cancer: comparison of sporadic and BRCA1-associated cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 146 (1): 175-82, 2014.

Huzarski T, Byrski T, Gronwald J, et al.: Ten-year survival in patients with BRCA1-negative and BRCA1-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31 (26): 3191-6, 2013.

Verhoog LC, Berns EM, Brekelmans CT, et al.: Prognostic significance of germline BRCA2 mutations in hereditary breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 18 (21 Suppl): 119S-24S, 2000.

Brekelmans CT, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Seynaeve C, et al.: Tumour characteristics, survival and prognostic factors of hereditary breast cancer from BRCA2-, BRCA1- and non-BRCA1/2 families as compared to sporadic breast cancer cases. Eur J Cancer 43 (5): 867-76, 2007.

Budroni M, Cesaraccio R, Coviello V, et al.: Role of BRCA2 mutation status on overall survival among breast cancer patients from Sardinia. BMC Cancer 9: 62, 2009.

Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, et al.: Response to neoadjuvant therapy with cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 115 (2): 359-63, 2009.

Chappuis PO, Goffin J, Wong N, et al.: A significant response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1/2 related breast cancer. J Med Genet 39 (8): 608-10, 2002.

Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, et al.: Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 28 (3): 375-9, 2010.

Fourquet A, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Kirova YM, et al.: Familial breast cancer: clinical response to induction chemotherapy or radiotherapy related to BRCA1/2 mutations status. Am J Clin Oncol 32 (2): 127-31, 2009.

Arun B, Bayraktar S, Liu DD, et al.: Response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers: a single-institution experience. J Clin Oncol 29 (28): 3739-46, 2011.

Wunderle M, Gass P, Häberle L, et al.: BRCA mutations and their influence on pathological complete response and prognosis in a clinical cohort of neoadjuvantly treated breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171 (1): 85-94, 2018.

Silver DP, Richardson AL, Eklund AC, et al.: Efficacy of neoadjuvant Cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28 (7): 1145-53, 2010.

Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, et al.: Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147 (2): 401-5, 2014.

Hahnen E, Lederer B, Hauke J, et al.: Germline Mutation Status, Pathological Complete Response, and Disease-Free Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the GeparSixto Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 3 (10): 1378-1385, 2017.

Tutt A, Tovey H, Cheang MCU, et al.: Carboplatin in BRCA1/2-mutated and triple-negative breast cancer BRCAness subgroups: the TNT Trial. Nat Med 24 (5): 628-637, 2018.

Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, et al.: Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med 377 (6): 523-533, 2017.

Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, et al.: Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation. N Engl J Med 379 (8): 753-763, 2018.

Leong T, Whitty J, Keilar M, et al.: Mutation analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 cancer predisposition genes in radiation hypersensitive cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48 (4): 959-65, 2000.

Pierce LJ, Strawderman M, Narod SA, et al.: Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving treatment in women with breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutations. J Clin Oncol 18 (19): 3360-9, 2000.

Shanley S, McReynolds K, Ardern-Jones A, et al.: Late toxicity is not increased in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers undergoing breast radiotherapy in the United Kingdom. Clin Cancer Res 12 (23): 7025-32, 2006.

Pierce LJ, Phillips KA, Griffith KA, et al.: Local therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with operable breast cancer: comparison of breast conservation and mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121 (2): 389-98, 2010.

Kirova YM, Savignoni A, Sigal-Zafrani B, et al.: Is the breast-conserving treatment with radiotherapy appropriate in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers? Long-term results and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120 (1): 119-26, 2010.

Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, et al.: Risk of ipsilateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127 (1): 287-96, 2011.

Bernstein JL, Thomas DC, Shore RE, et al.: Contralateral breast cancer after radiotherapy among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a WECARE study report. Eur J Cancer 49 (14): 2979-85, 2013.

Rubin SC, Benjamin I, Behbakht K, et al.: Clinical and pathological features of ovarian cancer in women with germ-line mutations of BRCA1. N Engl J Med 335 (19): 1413-6, 1996.

Ben David Y, Chetrit A, Hirsh-Yechezkel G, et al.: Effect of BRCA mutations on the length of survival in epithelial ovarian tumors. J Clin Oncol 20 (2): 463-6, 2002.

Jazaeri AA, Yee CJ, Sotiriou C, et al.: Gene expression profiles of BRCA1-linked, BRCA2-linked, and sporadic ovarian cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (13): 990-1000, 2002.

Cass I, Baldwin RL, Varkey T, et al.: Improved survival in women with BRCA-associated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 97 (9): 2187-95, 2003.

Aida H, Takakuwa K, Nagata H, et al.: Clinical features of ovarian cancer in Japanese women with germ-line mutations of BRCA1. Clin Cancer Res 4 (1): 235-40, 1998.

Boyd J, Sonoda Y, Federici MG, et al.: Clinicopathologic features of BRCA-linked and sporadic ovarian cancer. JAMA 283 (17): 2260-5, 2000.

Tan DS, Rothermundt C, Thomas K, et al.: "BRCAness" syndrome in ovarian cancer: a case-control study describing the clinical features and outcome of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Clin Oncol 26 (34): 5530-6, 2008.

Hyman DM, Zhou Q, Iasonos A, et al.: Improved survival for BRCA2-associated serous ovarian cancer compared with both BRCA-negative and BRCA1-associated serous ovarian cancer. Cancer 118 (15): 3703-9, 2012.

Liu J, Cristea MC, Frankel P, et al.: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of BRCA-associated ovarian cancer: genotype and survival. Cancer Genet 205 (1-2): 34-41, 2012 Jan-Feb.

Chetrit A, Hirsh-Yechezkel G, Ben-David Y, et al.: Effect of BRCA1/2 mutations on long-term survival of patients with invasive ovarian cancer: the national Israeli study of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 26 (1): 20-5, 2008.

Lacour RA, Westin SN, Meyer LA, et al.: Improved survival in non-Ashkenazi Jewish ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations. Gynecol Oncol 121 (2): 358-63, 2011.

Vencken PM, Kriege M, Hoogwerf D, et al.: Chemosensitivity and outcome of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated ovarian cancer patients after first-line chemotherapy compared with sporadic ovarian cancer patients. Ann Oncol 22 (6): 1346-52, 2011.

Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Kapoor R, et al.: Improved survival in BRCA2 carriers with ovarian cancer. Fam Cancer 6 (1): 113-9, 2007.

Yang D, Khan S, Sun Y, et al.: Association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations with survival, chemotherapy sensitivity, and gene mutator phenotype in patients with ovarian cancer. JAMA 306 (14): 1557-65, 2011.

Bolton KL, Chenevix-Trench G, Goh C, et al.: Association between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and survival in women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. JAMA 307 (4): 382-90, 2012.

Zweemer RP, Verheijen RH, Coebergh JW, et al.: Survival analysis in familial ovarian cancer, a case control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 98 (2): 219-23, 2001.

Pharoah PD, Easton DF, Stockton DL, et al.: Survival in familial, BRCA1-associated, and BRCA2-associated epithelial ovarian cancer. United Kingdom Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research (UKCCCR) Familial Ovarian Cancer Study Group. Cancer Res 59 (4): 868-71, 1999.

Buller RE, Shahin MS, Geisler JP, et al.: Failure of BRCA1 dysfunction to alter ovarian cancer survival. Clin Cancer Res 8 (5): 1196-202, 2002.

McLaughlin JR, Rosen B, Moody J, et al.: Long-term ovarian cancer survival associated with mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J Natl Cancer Inst 105 (2): 141-8, 2013.

Yang H, Jeffrey PD, Miller J, et al.: BRCA2 function in DNA binding and recombination from a BRCA2-DSS1-ssDNA structure. Science 297 (5588): 1837-48, 2002.

Xu X, Weaver Z, Linke SP, et al.: Centrosome amplification and a defective G2-M cell cycle checkpoint induce genetic instability in BRCA1 exon 11 isoform-deficient cells. Mol Cell 3 (3): 389-95, 1999.

Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474 (7353): 609-15, 2011.

Husain A, He G, Venkatraman ES, et al.: BRCA1 up-regulation is associated with repair-mediated resistance to cis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II). Cancer Res 58 (6): 1120-3, 1998.

Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI, et al.: Germline and somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 20 (3): 764-75, 2014.

Norquist BM, Brady MF, Harrell MI, et al.: Mutations in Homologous Recombination Genes and Outcomes in Ovarian Carcinoma Patients in GOG 218: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res 24 (4): 777-783, 2018.

Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, et al.: Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med 361 (2): 123-34, 2009.

Audeh MW, Carmichael J, Penson RT, et al.: Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet 376 (9737): 245-51, 2010.

Fong PC, Yap TA, Boss DS, et al.: Poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase inhibition: frequent durable responses in BRCA carrier ovarian cancer correlating with platinum-free interval. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2512-9, 2010.

Hennessy BT, Timms KM, Carey MS, et al.: Somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could expand the number of patients that benefit from poly (ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitors in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 28 (22): 3570-6, 2010.

Kaufman B, Shapira-Frommer R, Schmutzler RK, et al.: Olaparib monotherapy in patients with advanced cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. J Clin Oncol 33 (3): 244-50, 2015.

Domchek SM, Aghajanian C, Shapira-Frommer R, et al.: Efficacy and safety of olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with advanced ovarian cancer and three or more lines of prior therapy. Gynecol Oncol 140 (2): 199-203, 2016.

Oza AM, Cibula D, Benzaquen AO, et al.: Olaparib combined with chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 16 (1): 87-97, 2015.

Liu JF, Barry WT, Birrer M, et al.: Combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib alone for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 15 (11): 1207-14, 2014.

Kaye SB, Lubinski J, Matulonis U, et al.: Phase II, open-label, randomized, multicenter study comparing the efficacy and safety of olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and recurrent ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 30 (4): 372-9, 2012.

Adams SF, Marsh EB, Elmasri W, et al.: A high response rate to liposomal doxorubicin is seen among women with BRCA mutations treated for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 123 (3): 486-91, 2011.

Safra T, Borgato L, Nicoletto MO, et al.: BRCA mutation status and determinant of outcome in women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Mol Cancer Ther 10 (10): 2000-7, 2011.

Gelmon KA, Tischkowitz M, Mackay H, et al.: Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study. Lancet Oncol 12 (9): 852-61, 2011.

Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C, et al.: Olaparib maintenance therapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 366 (15): 1382-92, 2012.

Ledermann J, Harter P, Gourley C, et al.: Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: a preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15 (8): 852-61, 2014.

Matulonis UA, Harter P, Gourley C, et al.: Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed serous ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation: Overall survival adjusted for postprogression poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy. Cancer 122 (12): 1844-52, 2016.

Ledermann JA, Harter P, Gourley C, et al.: Overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy: an updated analysis from a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 17 (11): 1579-1589, 2016.

Pujade-Lauraine E, Ledermann JA, Selle F, et al.: Olaparib tablets as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18 (9): 1274-1284, 2017.

Moore K, Colombo N, Scambia G, et al.: Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med 379 (26): 2495-2505, 2018.

Drew Y, Ledermann J, Hall G, et al.: Phase 2 multicentre trial investigating intermittent and continuous dosing schedules of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in germline BRCA mutation carriers with advanced ovarian and breast cancer. Br J Cancer 114 (7): 723-30, 2016.

Kristeleit R, Shapiro GI, Burris HA, et al.: A Phase I-II Study of the Oral PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib in Patients with Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated Ovarian Carcinoma or Other Solid Tumors. Clin Cancer Res 23 (15): 4095-4106, 2017.

Swisher EM, Lin KK, Oza AM, et al.: Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 18 (1): 75-87, 2017.

Coleman RL, Oza AM, Lorusso D, et al.: Rucaparib maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian carcinoma after response to platinum therapy (ARIEL3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 390 (10106): 1949-1961, 2017.

Sandhu SK, Schelman WR, Wilding G, et al.: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor niraparib (MK4827) in BRCA mutation carriers and patients with sporadic cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol 14 (9): 882-92, 2013.

Mirza MR, Monk BJ, Herrstedt J, et al.: Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer. N Engl J Med 375 (22): 2154-2164, 2016.

Moore KN, Secord AA, Geller MA, et al.: Niraparib monotherapy for late-line treatment of ovarian cancer (QUADRA): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 20 (5): 636-648, 2019.

Hampel H, Bennett RL, Buchanan A, et al.: A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med 17 (1): 70-87, 2015.

Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology, Committee on Genetics, Society of Gynecologic Oncology: Practice Bulletin No 182: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 130 (3): e110-e126, 2017.

Robson ME, Bradbury AR, Arun B, et al.: American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: Genetic and Genomic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 33 (31): 3660-7, 2015.

Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Sessa C, et al.: Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol 27 (suppl 5): v103-v110, 2016.

American College of Surgeons: National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers Standards Manual 2014 Edition. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons, 2014. Available online. Last accessed January 22, 2020.

Berliner JL, Fay AM, Cummings SA, et al.: NSGC practice guideline: risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns 22 (2): 155-63, 2013.

Lancaster JM, Powell CB, Chen LM, et al.: Society of Gynecologic Oncology statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 136 (1): 3-7, 2015.

Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al.: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 322 (7): 652-665, 2019.

Clinical Management of Other Hereditary Breast and/or Gynecologic Cancer Syndromes

Lynch Syndrome

As mismatch repair genes were identified as the genetic basis of Lynch syndrome, microsatellite instability was identified as a common molecular marker of mismatch repair deficiency. Approximately 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers show microsatellite instability, while up to 28% of sporadic endometrial cancers have this molecular change.

Most frequently, sporadic tumors with microsatellite instability have hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter. In Lynch syndrome–related tumors showing microsatellite instability, there is typically loss of one or more of the proteins associated with the mismatch repair genes.

Certain histopathologic features are also strongly suggestive of a microsatellite instability phenotype, including the presence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, peritumoral lymphocytes, undifferentiated carcinomas, and lower uterine segment tumors. Use of clinical criteria is one strategy of selection criteria for tumor testing. Computer models have also been used to predict the probability of a mismatch repair genetic variant and can be used in the absence of microsatellite instability or immunohistochemistry information.

Overall, however, there is a move towards universal testing of colorectal and endometrial tumors when tumor tissue is available. (Refer to the Universal tumor testing to screen for Lynch syndrome section in the PDQ summary on Genetics of Colorectal Cancer for more information.)

ReferenceSection

Vilar E, Gruber SB: Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer-the stable evidence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7 (3): 153-62, 2010.

Nakamura A, Osonoi T, Terauchi Y: Relationship between urinary sodium excretion and pioglitazone-induced edema. J Diabetes Investig 1 (5): 208-11, 2010.

Balmaña J, Stockwell DH, Steyerberg EW, et al.: Prediction of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 296 (12): 1469-78, 2006.

Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM, et al.: Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med 354 (26): 2751-63, 2006.

Kastrinos F, Allen JI, Stockwell DH, et al.: Development and validation of a colon cancer risk assessment tool for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 104 (6): 1508-18, 2009.

Khan O, Blanco A, Conrad P, et al.: Performance of Lynch syndrome predictive models in a multi-center US referral population. Am J Gastroenterol 106 (10): 1822-7; quiz 1828, 2011.