This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Formative Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions (2410) Breast Cancer (206) Clinical Cancer Research (83) Clinical Information and Decision Making (1407) Innovations in Cancer Diagnostic and Decision Support (58)

Published on in Vol 6, No 12 (2022): December

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/37144, first published .
Effectiveness of Secondary Risk–Reducing Strategies in Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer With Pathogenic Variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Subjected to Breast-Conserving Surgery: Evidence-Based Simulation Study

Effectiveness of Secondary Risk–Reducing Strategies in Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer With Pathogenic Variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Subjected to Breast-Conserving Surgery: Evidence-Based Simulation Study

Effectiveness of Secondary Risk–Reducing Strategies in Patients With Unilateral Breast Cancer With Pathogenic Variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Subjected to Breast-Conserving Surgery: Evidence-Based Simulation Study

Authors of this article:

Jelena Maksimenko1 Author Orcid Image ;   Pedro Pereira Rodrigues2 Author Orcid Image ;   Miki Nakazawa-Miklaševiča3 Author Orcid Image ;   David Pinto4 Author Orcid Image ;   Edvins Miklaševičs3 Author Orcid Image ;   Genadijs Trofimovičs5 Author Orcid Image ;   Jānis Gardovskis6 Author Orcid Image ;   Fatima Cardoso4 Author Orcid Image ;   Maria João Cardoso4 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (1) Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Institute of Oncology, Department of Surgery, Breast Unit, Pauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia

    2Information and Health Decision Sciences of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    3Institute of Oncology, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia

    4Breast Cancer Unit, Champalimaud Cancer Center, Lisbon, Portugal

    5Faculty of Medicine, Rīga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia

    6Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Rīga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia

    Corresponding Author:

    Jelena Maksimenko, MD, PhD

    Institute of Oncology, Department of Surgery, Breast Unit

    Pauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital

    Riga Stradiņš University

    Dzirciema 16

    Riga

    Latvia

    Phone: 371 27038577

    Email: jelena.maksimenko@rsu.lv


    Related ArticleThis is a corrected version. See correction statement in: https://formative.jmir.org/2023/1/e45810

    Background: Approximately 62% of patients with breast cancer with a pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2) undergo primary breast-conserving therapy.

    Objective: The study aims to develop a personalized risk management decision support tool for carriers of a pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2) who underwent breast-conserving therapy for unilateral early-stage breast cancer.

    Methods: We developed a Bayesian network model of a hypothetical cohort of carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 diagnosed with stage I/II unilateral breast cancer and treated with breast-conserving treatment who underwent subsequent second primary cancer risk–reducing strategies. Using event dependencies structured according to expert knowledge and conditional probabilities obtained from published evidence, we predicted the 40-year overall survival rate of different risk-reducing strategies for 144 cohorts of women defined by the type of pathogenic variants (BRCA1 or BRCA2), age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype, stage of primary breast cancer, and presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy.

    Results: Absence of adjuvant chemotherapy was the most powerful factor that was linked to a dramatic decline in survival. There was a negligible decline in the mortality in patients with triple-negative breast cancer, who received no chemotherapy and underwent any secondary risk–reducing strategy, compared with surveillance. The potential survival benefit from any risk-reducing strategy was more modest in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who received chemotherapy compared with patients with luminal breast cancer. However, most patients with triple-negative breast cancer in stage I benefited from bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or just risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Most patients with luminal stage I/II unilateral breast cancer benefited from bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. The impact of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with luminal breast cancer in stage I/II increased with age. Most older patients with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in exons 12-24/25 with luminal breast cancer may gain a similar survival benefit from other risk-reducing strategies or surveillance.

    Conclusions: Our study showed that it is mandatory to consider the complex interplay between the types of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype and stage, and received systemic treatment. As no prospective study results are available at the moment, our simulation model, which will integrate a decision support system in the near future, could facilitate the conversation between the health care provider and patient and help to weigh all the options for risk-reducing strategies leading to a more balanced decision.

    JMIR Form Res 2022;6(12):e37144

    doi:10.2196/37144

    Keywords

    BRCA1 and BRCA2; secondary prophylactic strategies; breast-conserving therapy; breast cancer 


    Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer mortality among women in economically developed and developing countries [1]. In unselected patients with breast cancer aged 35-64 years, pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 were detected in 2.4% and 2.3%, respectively [2]. In approximately 63% of patients with breast cancer related to the pathogenic variant BRCA1 or BRCA2, genetic testing was performed after surgery of the primary cancer, with 62% of these patients also undergoing a primary breast-conserving treatment (BCT) [3].

    Patients with breast cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 who underwent BCT have a significantly higher risk of a second primary ipsilateral breast event that is almost exclusively a new primary breast cancer rather than a true recurrence [4-6]. In addition, 27% of carriers of the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 19% of carriers of the BRCA2 pathogenic variant will develop a second primary contralateral breast cancer within 10 years after the first primary breast cancer diagnosis [7].

    Current guidelines describe different cancer risk management strategies: enhanced breast cancer screening, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRBM), risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), and chemoprevention [8]. Annual breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging allows one to detect breast cancer at an early stage [9], although it cannot be prevented. In carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, prophylactic mastectomy reduces the risk of subsequent breast cancer by approximately 90% [10]. However, the prophylactic mastectomy procedure could also have a potentially damaging effect on the patient’s body image and sexual well-being [11-14]. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) can be offered to carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants who are more than 35 years old or who have completed childbearing [8]. RRBSO reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by approximately 80%. However, the impact of RRBSO on second primary breast cancer risk remains uncertain and research findings are inconsistent [15-19]. RRBSO may also increase patients’ risk of osteopenia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and may negatively impact cognitive function and quality of life [20]. Therefore, only 70% of carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants elect for RRBSO [21].

    Previous studies have revealed that different factors, such as the patient’s age at first breast cancer diagnosis, the type of pathogenic variant (ie, BRCA1 or BRCA2), first breast cancer subtype, adjuvant systemic treatment received, presence or absence of ovarian cancer, may influence the degree to which a particular patient will benefit from various prophylactic strategies [15,16,22-33]. Ultimately, the patient and her health care team, who have already faced the first breast cancer treatment, are confronted with complex decisions regarding the optimal prophylactic strategy for subsequent cancer risk management. In addition, there are no prospective trials comparing different cancer risk–reducing strategies in patients with breast cancer that tested positive for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants who were treated with BCT at the first event.

    The aim of this study is to develop a personalized risk management guideline for carriers of the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 who underwent BCT for unilateral early-stage breast cancer taking into account the patient characteristics and tumor prognostic parameters as well as systemic treatment received.


    Study Design: Network Model and Strategies

    We have developed a temporal Bayesian network model to estimate the expected overall survival of a hypothetical cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers diagnosed with stage I-II unilateral breast cancer and treated with BCT who underwent subsequent second primary cancer prevention strategies. A Bayesian network is a directed acyclic graph that represents the joint distribution of a single set of variables. Each variable is represented by a node in the graph and is dependent on the set of variables represented by its ascendant nodes. This dependence is represented by a conditional probability table that describes the probability distribution of each variable given its ascendant variables. Temporal Bayesian networks are a special type of model where each (temporal) variable is expressed in multiple linked nodes to represent events in different moments in time; for example, a 2-year model for the event “ovarian cancer” (OC) could be defined with 2 linked nodes: “OC-y1” and “OC-y2,” where OC-y2 is certain if OC-y1 is true, and P(OC-y2) is given by the yearly risk of OC if OC-y1 is false, adjusted for all their ascendant nodes.

    All risk estimates were converted into yearly estimates by conditional probabilities, depending on the original metric published in the literature with needed conversions (eg, risk for years between 5 and 10 used 10-year estimates converted to actual follow-up) [34,35]. If incidence estimates were given for a certain follow-up time (eg, lifetime ovarian cancer risk), the probability for each year “i” is computed as 1 – exp(–rate[p,o] × c), where “p” is the original risk for occurrence within “o” years, and rate(p,o) = –ln(1 – p)/o.

    If hazard ratios were given, survival for each group was computed as ref ^ hr, where “ref” is the expected survival for the reference group.

    The simulation was run for a yearly follow-up of 40 years after diagnosis, yielding a temporal Bayesian network with 40 nodes per temporal variable (eg, ipsilateral recurrence). We predicted the overall survival following different prevention strategies for 144 cohorts (Multimedia Appendix 1) of women defined by the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants (BRCA1: exons 1-10, exon 11, and exons 12-24; BRCA2: exons 1-10; exon 11; exons 12-25), age at primary breast cancer diagnosis (<40 years old, 40-50 years old, and >50 years old), breast cancer subtype (luminal-like and triple negative [TN]), stage of primary breast cancer (stage I and II), and presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy.

    Data on 1 million simulations were generated. Each subgroup combination had around 6900 patients simulated across the 9 different intervention policies: (1) surveillance; (2) contralateral risk–reducing mastectomy; (3) RRBM; (4) contralateral risk–reducing mastectomy and RRBSO; (5) RRBM-RRBSO; (6) 5-year tamoxifen therapy; (7) contralateral risk–reducing mastectomy and 5-year tamoxifen therapy; (8) RRBSO; and (9) RRBM and 5 years’ tamoxifen therapy. As a result, around 770 patients were distributed to each subgroup × policy combination. All these intervention policies were considered with or without adjuvant chemotherapy, totaling 18 different policies.

    For each patient, the first temporal node to be activated was identified, and survival computed for each patient. The overall survival of patients assigned for each subgroup × policy combination was plotted as Kaplan-Meier curves for 40-year follow-up and compared by the log-rank test. Hazard ratios for each subgroup were computed according to the proportional hazard Cox regression. However, given the simulation nature of the data, it was not possible to analyze any P value or CI estimates.

    A temporal Bayesian network model was constructed using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) statistical software packages ‘bnlearn’ [36] and ‘gRain’ [37], assigning the overall survival associated for each strategy.

    Key decision variables used in baseline and sensitivity analyses were obtained from peer-reviewed English language literature published in PubMed and from publicly available databases (Multimedia Appendix 2; also see [5,19,22,23,30,31,34,38-45]). We obtained the age-specific risk of death from other causes from Colzani et al [46]. TN breast cancer was defined as estrogen receptor (ER) <10%, progesterone receptor (PR) <10%, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2–) 0 or 1+. Luminal phenotype breast cancer was defined as ER+, PR+, and HER2– 0 or 1+.

    First Primary Breast Cancer

    Both BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant–related tumors rarely showed evidence of HER2 amplification or expression [47-54].

    Therefore, we did not include carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with HER2-positive breast cancer subtypes in our hypothetical cohort. We derived that the cumulative incidence of first primary TN breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers is 69% and 15%, respectively [55], and that other breast cancers are of luminal phenotype by immunohistochemistry. According to a recently published meta-analysis of 66 studies, there is no clear evidence supporting the different prognosis for patients with breast cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants compared with sporadic cases [48,50].

    Therefore, we used stage-specific and breast cancer subtype–specific mortality rates adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status reported in the population-based study by Parise and Caqqiano [38], where 143,333 female primary first invasive breast cancer cases were included. We assumed that 52.3% of breast cancer cases were diagnosed in stage I, 43.1% in stage II, and 4% in stage III [5].

    BRCA1/BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Genotype-Phenotype Correlation and Ovarian Cancer

    In the study published by Bayraktar et al [22], patients with exon 20 BRCA1 pathogenic variant and patients with exons 12-25 BRCA2 pathogenic variant had a higher risk of developing both breast and ovarian cancer compared with patients with other exon mutations. We assumed ovarian cancer lifetime incidence in patients with unilateral primary breast cancer as breast and ovarian cancer prevalence by the pathogenic variant of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 combined exon group [22,56]. The risk of ovarian cancer was modeled assuming an expected lifetime of 80 years. For each age stratum, we computed the initial risk of ovarian cancer for patients aged 35, 45, and 65 years, respectively.

    In patients with BRCA1- and BRCA2-related breast cancer, adjuvant tamoxifen and chemotherapy showed no impact on the risk reduction of subsequent ovarian cancer [28]. Therefore, we did not evaluate the impact of systemic treatment on ovarian cancer rates in our simulation model.

    We used the distribution of stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer and 10-year survival rates for ovarian cancer reported by Benedet et al [39].

    A recently published study [28] showed no long-term survival benefit in patients with BRCA1- and BRCA2-related ovarian cancer compared with patients with sporadic ovarian cancer.

    Second Primary Contralateral Breast Cancer

    For contralateral breast cancer we assumed the same breast cancer distribution as for the first primary breast cancer [38]. We summarized the stage-specific and breast cancer subtype–specific mortality rate of the first primary breast cancer with the stage-specific and breast cancer subtype–specific mortality rate of the second primary contralateral breast cancer.

    Multiple studies showed that a younger age at the onset of first breast cancer is associated with a higher contralateral breast cancer risk [23-26]. We assumed the age at the onset of first breast cancer based on the cumulative, contralateral breast cancer risk estimates proposed by Graeser et al [24]. We used the lifetime breast cancer–specific mortality for ductal carcinoma in situ of 3.3% reported by Narod et al [40]. We assumed the breast cancer–specific mortality of 100% for patients with metastatic invasive contralateral breast cancer [41]. We assumed that RRBSO does not reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer in carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants [57].

    Ipsilateral Breast Cancer

    According to the previously published studies, carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants who underwent BCT for the first primary breast cancer have an increased risk of ipsilateral breast events compared with carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants who underwent a mastectomy [4-6]. We assumed the local failure cumulative incidence reported by Pierce et al [6]. Previous studies demonstrated that RRBSO and adjuvant chemotherapy decrease the risk of an ipsilateral breast event. We used hazard ratios published by Valachis et al [31]. In this meta-analysis, RRBSO decreased the risk of an ipsilateral breast event by 58% and adjuvant chemotherapy decreased the risk of an ipsilateral breast event by 49%. There was no evidence to support the protective effect of tamoxifen against ipsilateral breast cancer [31]. Despite the high rate of ipsilateral events in carriers of the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 who underwent BCT, there was no statistically significant impact on distant recurrence and disease-specific survival [5]. These findings could be explained by the limited sample size in the study’s cohorts and detection of ipsilateral events in the early stage due to the close surveillance of carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants [5]. The mean time to ipsilateral events was approximately 7 years. This fact conveys the impression that most of these events were new primary breast cancers [4-6]. Therefore, for patients who developed ipsilateral breast cancer we assumed the same stage-specific and breast cancer subtype–specific mortality rates as for the first primary breast cancer [38]. We summarized the stage-specific and breast cancer subtype–specific mortality rate of the first primary breast cancer with the stage-specific and breast cancer subtype–specific mortality rate of an ipsilateral breast event. We assumed that the stage distribution and breast cancer mortality in patients with a new second primary breast cancer are the same as those for the contralateral breast cancer [38,40-42].

    Prevention Strategies

    Prophylactic Oophorectomy

    We considered an 80% risk reduction of ovarian cancer in carriers of the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 79% risk reduction in carriers of the BRCA2 pathogenic variant [15].

    In our hypothetical cohort, patients underwent an RRBSO within 5 years after the first primary breast cancer diagnosis. At the moment, there is no clear evidence suggesting that hormone replacement therapy does not offset the second primary breast cancer risk induced by RRBSO in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers [18,58-60]. Therefore, we assumed that none of the patients in our cohort received hormone replacement therapy. RRBSO is associated with a higher risk of noncancer-related death. Thus, in the simulation, we applied increased noncancer mortality for patients who underwent RRBSO before the age of 45 and had an onset of first primary breast cancer before the age of 40 [43]. The mortality risk following RRBSO was assumed to be the same as that following a mastectomy.

    Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

    We assumed contralateral risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy–adjusted risk reduction of primary mastectomy [44]. Patients who underwent contralateral mastectomy have a statistically significantly better survival rate compared with patients who underwent surveillance [42]. The survival benefit was even more pronounced in patients with primary breast cancer onset under 40 years of age, with no TN breast subtype, and not treated with chemotherapy [42].

    Ipsilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

    We assumed the local failure cumulative incidence in patients who underwent a mastectomy, as reported by Pierce et al [5]. According to Pierce et al [5], or carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2, who underwent mastectomy and received chemotherapy and RRBSO, the status of the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 had no impact on local failure rate [5]. We assumed that an isolated locoregional recurrence after mastectomy has no impact on the survival of patients with breast cancer [61].

    Tamoxifen

    We used data from the combined International Retrospective-Prospective Carriers of the Pathogenic Variants of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort study, in which 1583 carriers of the pathogenic variant of BRCA1 and 881 carriers of the pathogenic variant of BRCA2 with unilateral breast cancer were included [30]. We assumed that 5-year tamoxifen administration reduces 15-year mortality by 30% in patients with luminal-like primary breast cancer [62].

    We assumed that tamoxifen reduces the age-specific ER status–adjusted risk of second primary contralateral breast cancer by 56% in carriers of the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and by 67% in carriers of the BRCA2 pathogenic variant [30]. We assumed that chemotherapy has no additional protective effect on the contralateral breast cancer development in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 who received tamoxifen [30]. We assumed that the use of tamoxifen for 5 years has no impact on mortality due to cardiovascular or thromboembolic disease [63].

    Ethical Considerations

    Our simulation model of a hypothetical cohort was based on previously published data, and therefore did not require a submission to a research ethics committee.


    Effectiveness of Secondary Prevention Strategies

    The predicted 40-year overall survival rate for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants after unilateral BCT who received secondary cancer prevention strategies or surveillance is presented in Multimedia Appendix 3.

    The impact of secondary prevention strategies on the survival of carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with luminal breast cancer who received no adjuvant chemotherapy is presented in Figure 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. The most effective secondary prophylactic strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who received no adjuvant chemotherapy. BCT: breast-conserving treatment; RRBM: risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; RRBSO: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; TN: triple negative.

    Absence of adjuvant chemotherapy was the most powerful factor that was linked to a dramatic decline in survival for patients with breast cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. There was a negligible increase in survival for carriers of the pathogenic variants BRCA1 and BRCA2 with TN breast cancer and who received any secondary prevention strategy compared with surveillance.

    Most carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with luminal breast cancer in stage I benefited from RRBM-RRBSO. However, patients with breast cancer aged less than 40 years with the BRCA1 pathogenic variant in exons 1-10 in stage I who underwent RRBM + RRBSO had an almost similar impact on survival compared with those who underwent RRBM alone. By contrast, patients with breast cancer aged over 49 years with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant in exons 12-25 in stage I who underwent RRBM + RRBSO had an almost similar impact on survival compared with those who underwent RRBSO alone.

    In patients with breast cancer with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with luminal breast cancer in stage II, RRBM + RRBSO had a very modest impact on survival compared with surveillance. Interestingly, RRBM-RRBSO or only RRBSO was the most effective prevention strategy in patients with luminal breast cancer aged over 35 years with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant in exons 12-25 in stage II and in patients aged over 49 years with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant in exons 1-10 in stage II. By contrast, there was a negligible increase in survival among carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 aged over 35 years with luminal breast cancer in exon 11 who underwent any secondary prevention strategy compared with surveillance.

    Interestingly, we noted that the impact of RRBSO in patients with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with luminal breast cancer in stage I/II increased with the age.

    The impact on the survival of secondary risk–reducing strategies among carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants with luminal breast cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy is presented in Figures 2 and 3.

    RRBM-RRBSO was the most effective risk-reducing strategy in patients with luminal breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy. The protective role of RRBSO in patients with luminal breast cancer increased with their age at diagnosis, stage of the disease, and was impacted by the type of pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2).

    The impact on survival of secondary risk–reducing strategies in carriers of the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with TN breast cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy is shown in Figures 4 and 5.

    ‎
    Figure 2. The most effective secondary prophylactic strategies in BRCA1 carriers with luminal breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy. BCT: breast-conserving treatment; RRBM: risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; RRBSO: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
    ‎
    Figure 3. The most effective secondary prophylactic strategies in BRCA2 carriers with luminal breast cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy. BCT: breast-conserving treatment; RRBM: risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; RRBSO: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
    ‎
    Figure 4. The most effective secondary prophylactic strategies in BRCA1 carriers with TN breast cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy. BCT: breast-conserving treatment; RRBM: risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; RRBSO: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; TN: triple negative.
    ‎
    Figure 5. The most effective secondary prophylactic strategies in BRCA2 carriers with TN breast cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy. BCT: breast-conserving treatment; RRBM: risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; RRBSO: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; TN: triple negative.

    The potential survival benefit from any risk-reducing strategy was modest in patients with TN breast cancer when compared with patients with luminal breast cancer. However, most carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with TN breast cancer in stage I benefited from RRBM-RRBSO or just RRBSO.

    RRBM-RRBSO was only the most effective risk-reducing strategy in patients with TN breast cancer under 40 years in stage I with the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and in patients aged 40-49 years with the BRCA1 pathogenic variant in exons 1-10. Further, patients with TN breast cancer aged 35-49 years in stage I with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant in exon 11 had a very modest benefit from RRBM-RRBSO.

    There was a negligible increase in survival in almost all carriers of the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with TN breast cancer in stage II who underwent any secondary risk–reducing strategy compared with surveillance.

    However, RRBM-RRBSO or just RRBSO was the most effective risk-reducing strategy in patients with TN breast cancer aged over 40 years with the BRCA1 pathogenic variant in exons 12-24 in stage II and in patients aged over 35 years with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant in exons 12-24 in stage II. The impact of RRBSO in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation with TN breast cancer in stage I/II increased with age.

    Sensitivity Analysis

    There were difficulties in validating our results because of the lack of previously published studies with similar subgroups of patients that match all the detailed clinical and treatment variables.

    Validation of our method was performed using TN subgroup cohort definitions from the largest published prospective study (POSH) [64].Settings of the simulation were as follows: (1) from the 1 million patients in our simulation, we only considered those who were younger than 40 years at TN breast cancer diagnosis; (2) the distribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with TN breast cancer was performed according to Copson et al [64] (BRCA1: 123/136, BRCA2: 13/136); (3) the distribution of adjuvant chemotherapy in the TN BRCA-positive group was performed according to the study by Copson et al [64] (probability = 117/136); (4) the distribution of exon was uniform; (5) primary breast cancer stage distribution was used from the literature, considering the fact that all the patients were either in stage I or II (about 61.2% in stage I and nearly 38.8% in stage II). The simulation was run for 15 years after diagnosis with network steps of 2.5 years across the 9 different intervention policies. The overall survival of patients was plotted as a Kaplan-Meier curve (Figure 6) and compared with CIs from Copson et al [64] for TN BRCA1- and BRCA2-positive cases.

    ‎
    Figure 6. Kaplan-Meier survival plots for simulation for 15 years, performed using TN subgroup cohort definitions from the largest published prospective POSH study.

    In our simulation, the overall survival was similar to the results in the POSH study. Similarly, in our simulation model patients with TN breast cancer aged under 40 years with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in stage I/II who received adjuvant chemotherapy had no survival benefit from RRBM. RRBM-RRBSO was the most effective risk-reducing strategy in these patients.


    Principal Findings

    To our knowledge, this is the first study to simulate the expected overall survival and determine the most effective personalized management strategies for carriers BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants who underwent BCT for unilateral early-stage breast cancer taking into account the type of the pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2), age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype, stage, and received systemic treatment. Absence of adjuvant chemotherapy was the most powerful factor that was linked to a dramatic decline in survival for patients with breast cancer with the pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2. There was a negligible decline in mortality among carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with TN breast cancer who received no chemotherapy and underwent any secondary risk–reducing strategy compared with surveillance. The potential survival benefit from any risk-reducing strategy was more modest in patients with TN breast cancer who received chemotherapy compared with patients with luminal breast cancer. However, most carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with TN breast cancer in stage I benefited from RRBM-RRBSO or just RRBSO. Most carriers of the pathogenic variant of BRCA1 or BRCA2 with luminal breast cancer in stage I-II (unilateral breast cancer) benefited from RRBM-RRBSO. The impact of RRBSO in patients with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with luminal breast cancer in stage I/II increased with age. Most older patients with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in exons 12-24/25 with luminal breast cancer may gain a similar survival benefit from other risk-reducing strategies or surveillance.

    Comparison With Prior Work

    To date, only Schrag et al [65] have addressed secondary cancer risk–reducing strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who underwent BCT for unilateral breast cancer, using decision-analytic models. They calculated life-expectancy gains for different age groups; lymph node positive or negative status; and low, moderate, or high penetrance of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants using a Markov model that incorporated 8 prevention strategies [65]. By contrast, we developed a temporal Bayesian network model with a total of 1 million simulated patients across 9 different intervention policies. Our study is an advancement over previous ones due to the incorporation of variables from up-to-date peer-reviewed studies considering the type of pathogenic variant (BRCA1 or BRCA2), age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype and stage, status of systemic treatment received.

    Our study showed that most BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers benefited from RRBM + RRBSO. However, in patients with TN breast cancer who received no adjuvant chemotherapy, the impact of secondary risk–reducing strategies on overall mortality was reduced as a result of the higher risk of dying from primary breast cancer rather than from subsequent primary secondary cancer. Nevertheless, younger patients with limited disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy gained more benefit from aggressive surgical management (RRBM + RRBSO). By contrast, in older patients with more advanced disease the protective role of bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was comparable to RRBM + RRBSO and was more pronounced in exons 12-24 of the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and in exons 12-25 of the BRCA2 pathogenic variant. In our study, we assumed that RRBSO does not reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer in carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Recent studies showed no impact of RRBSO on primary and second primary breast cancer risk reduction [19,66]. As the risk of contralateral and ipsilateral breast cancer decreases with age [5,24] and the risk of ovarian cancer increases with age [67], patients with a higher probability of ovarian cancer gain a stronger protective effect from RRBSO and a low additional protective effect from RRBM.

    In our model, we assumed breast cancer subtype–specific, population-based mortality and the general breast cancer population–based impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on outcomes. According to the prospective study by Clifton et al [68], for patients with TN breast cancer with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants in stage I/II, there was no difference in overall survival for those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with those who received adjuvant chemotherapy [68].

    However, a growing body of evidence indicates that BRCA1 and BRCA2 TN as well as luminal cancers are more chemosensitive and achieve higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates compared with breast cancer without the BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant [69,70]. Paradoxically, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer tumors it seems that pCR does not serve as a surrogate marker of better clinical outcome and a higher pCR does not translate into improved disease-free and overall survival [71,72]. Therefore, we did not include a neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment strategy in our model.

    In the systematic review published by Davey et al [73], there was no difference in 15-year mortality between BCT and mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with breast cancer. Most patients in both BCT and mastectomy groups had T1/2 tumors; approximately 60% of patients had ER–, N+ disease, or underwent adjuvant chemotherapy; and approximately 50% of patients underwent RRBSO [73]. In our study, for most patients with TN breast cancer in stage II who received chemotherapy, and all patients with TN breast cancer in stage I/II who did not receive chemotherapy, there was no difference in survival between any secondary prevention strategy and surveillance.

    In a study published by Wan et al [74], where 8396 consecutive patients with breast cancer after surgery were included, no survival benefit was shown in carriers with BRCA1 and BRCA2 who underwent BCT compared with those who underwent mastectomy with or without radiotherapy. However, only 73 carriers with the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 106 with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant who underwent BCT, and 104 carriers with the BRCA1 pathogenic variant and 198 with the BRCA2 pathogenic variant who underwent mastectomy were included in the study, with a relatively short follow-up period of 7.5 years. As the study is retrospective with a relatively small patient number in the subgroups, caution should be exercised while estimating the study’s results and thus, further prospective research with a larger study population is needed.

    Limitations

    The main limitation of our study is that it is a computer simulation and it can misrepresent reality. Nevertheless, our model could prove to be a valuable decision support tool and we plan to validate our model on the target patient population. Risk modifiers assume adjusted risk estimates, and therefore they are additive, and some evidence is thin and dated in some of the included estimates. We assumed independence of risk factors where it was not possible to model any interaction, and this is a limitation. Nonetheless, the final validation shows concurrent results, supporting our model.

    Conclusions

    At present, no personalized guidelines are available for the prophylactic management of second primary breast cancer in patients with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants with unilateral breast cancer who underwent BCT as a primary procedure. Our study showed that it is mandatory to consider the complex interplay between the type of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer subtype and stage, and systemic treatment received. As no prospective study results are available, our simulation model could facilitate the conversation between the health care provider and patient and help to weigh all the options for risk-reducing strategies, thus leading to a more balanced decision. However, we plan to expand and update our model by including more variables from new evidence-based research and develop a computer-based clinical decision tool.

    Availability of Data and Materials

    The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its Multimedia Appendices.

    Authors' Contributions

    JM, DP, and MJC conceptualized this study. JM curated the data. PRP performed formal analysis of the study data. JG and FC were responsible for funding acquisition and project administration. JM and PRP proposed the study methodology and wrote the manuscript. MJC, EM, and GT were responsible for acquisition of resources and study supervision. PRP performed software/statistical analysis. JM, PRP, MN-M, MJC, and FC validated the study. JM, MN-M, MJC, EM, and GT performed data visualization. JM, MN-M, MJC, EM, and FC reviewed and edited the manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    FC has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iqvia, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, and Touchime.

    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Overall survival following different prevention strategies for 144 cohorts.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 4911 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Key decision variables used in baseline and sensitivity analyses.

    DOCX File , 37 KB
    ‎
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Secondary cancer prevention strategies in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 44 KB
    1. Torre L, Bray F, Siegel R, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Malone KE, Daling JR, Doody DR, Hsu L, Bernstein L, Coates RJ, 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 2006 Aug 15;66(16):8297-8308 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Gradishar WJ, Schink JC. Timing of genetic testing relative to breast cancer surgery. JCO 2010 May 20;28(15_suppl):666-666 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    4. Metcalfe K, Lynch H, Ghadirian P, Tung N, Kim-Sing C, Olopade O, et al. Risk of ipsilateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011 May;127(1):287-296 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Pierce L, Phillips K, Griffith K, Buys S, Gaffney D, Moran M, et al. Local therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with operable breast cancer: comparison of breast conservation and mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010 Jun;121(2):389-398 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Pierce L, Levin A, Rebbeck T, Ben-David M, Friedman E, Solin L, et al. Ten-Year Multi-Institutional Results of Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiotherapy in -Associated Stage I/II Breast Cancer. JCO 2006 Jun 01;24(16):2437-2443 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    7. Molina-Montes E, Pérez-Nevot B, Pollán M, Sánchez-Cantalejo E, Espín J, Sánchez MJ. 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 2014 Dec;23(6):721-742 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Balmaña J, Diez O, Rubio I, Castiglione M, ESMO Guidelines Working Group. BRCA in breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v20-v22 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Evans D, Gareth ED, Kesavan N, Nisha K, Lim Y, Yit L, MARIBS Group, et al. MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014 Jun 9;145(3):663-672 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Rebbeck T, Friebel T, Lynch H, Neuhausen S, van 't Veer L, Garber J, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004 Mar 15;22(6):1055-1062 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Frost MH, Hoskin TL, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Johnson JL, Boughey JC. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: long-term consistency of satisfaction and adverse effects and the significance of informed decision-making, quality of life, and personality traits. Ann Surg Oncol 2011 Oct;18(11):3110-3116 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Altschuler A, Nekhlyudov L, Rolnick S, Greene S, Elmore J, West C, et al. Positive, negative, and disparate--women's differing long-term psychosocial experiences of bilateral or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Breast J 2008;14(1):25-32 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Frost M, Slezak J, Tran N, Williams C, Johnson J, Woods J, et al. Satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: the significance of mastectomy type, reconstructive complications, and body appearance. J Clin Oncol 2005 Nov 01;23(31):7849-7856 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Isern A, Tengrup I, Loman N, Olsson H, Ringberg A. Aesthetic outcome, patient satisfaction, and health-related quality of life in women at high risk undergoing prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008 Oct;61(10):1177-1187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Marchetti C, De Felice F, Palaia I, Perniola G, Musella A, Musio D, 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 2014 Dec 12;14(1):150 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Metcalfe K, Lynch H, Foulkes W, Tung N, Kim-Sing C, Olopade O, et al. Effect of Oophorectomy on Survival After Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA Oncol 2015 Jun;1(3):306-313 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, Ellis S, Platte R, Fineberg E, EMBRACE. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013 Jun 05;105(11):812-822 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Rebbeck T, Kauff N, Domchek S. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009 Jan 21;101(2):80-87 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Heemskerk-Gerritsen B, Seynaeve C, van Asperen CJ, Ausems M, Collée JM, van Doorn HC, Hereditary BreastOvarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands. Breast cancer risk after salpingo-oophorectomy in healthy BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: revisiting the evidence for risk reduction. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015 May;107(5):djv033. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Finch A, Evans G, Narod S. BRCA carriers, prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy and menopause: clinical management considerations and recommendations. Womens Health (Lond) 2012 Sep;8(5):543-555 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Bradbury A, Ibe C, Dignam JJ, Cummings S, Verp M, White M, et al. Uptake and timing of bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Genet Med 2008 Mar;10(3):161-166 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Bayraktar S, Jackson M, Gutierrez-Barrera AM, Liu D, Meric-Bernstam F, Brandt A, et al. Genotype-Phenotype Correlations by Ethnicity and Mutation Location in BRCA Mutation Carriers. Breast J 2015;21(3):260-267 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Rhiem K, Engel C, Graeser M, Zachariae S, Kast K, Kiechle M, et al. The risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1/2 negative high risk families as compared to patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 2012 Dec 07;14(6):R156 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K, Gadzicki D, Bick U, Kast K, et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2009 Dec 10;27(35):5887-5892 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, Klijn JG. Contralateral breast cancer risk is influenced by the age at onset in BRCA1-associated breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2000 Aug;83(3):384-386 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Lynch H, Ghadirian P, Tung N, Kim-Sing C, et al. Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 2011 Apr 26;104(9):1384-1392 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Malone K, Begg C, Haile R, Borg A, Concannon P, Tellhed L, 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 2010 May 10;28(14):2404-2410 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. McLaughlin J, Rosen B, Moody J, Pal T, Fan I, Shaw P, et al. Long-term ovarian cancer survival associated with mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013 Jan 16;105(2):141-148 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Metcalfe KA, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, Tung N, Olivotto IA, Foulkes WD, et al. The risk of ovarian cancer after breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol 2005 Jan;96(1):222-226. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Phillips KA, Milne RL, Rookus MA, Daly MB, Antoniou AC, Peock S, et al. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2013 Sep 01;31(25):3091-3099 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Valachis A, Nearchou A, Lind P. Surgical management of breast cancer in BRCA-mutation carriers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014 Apr;144(3):443-455 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Goodwin P, Phillips K, West D, Ennis M, Hopper J, John E, 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 2012 Jan 01;30(1):19-26 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Robson ME, Chappuis PO, Satagopan J, Wong N, Boyd J, Goffin JR, 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 2004 Oct 24;6(1):R8-R17 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Miller D, Homan S. Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making 1994;14(1):52-58 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Naglie G, Krahn M, Naimark D, Redelmeier D, Detsky A. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3--Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997;17(2):136-141 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Scutari M. Learning Bayesian Networks with the Package. J. Stat. Soft 2010;35(3):22 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    37. Højsgaard S. Graphical Independence Networks with the Package for R. J. Stat. Soft 2012;46(10):1-26 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    38. Parise CA, Caggiano V. Breast Cancer Survival Defined by the ER/PR/HER2 Subtypes and a Surrogate Classification according to Tumor Grade and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers. J Cancer Epidemiol 2014;2014:469251-469298 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Benedet J, Bender H, Jones H, Ngan H, Pecorelli S. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000 Aug;70(2):209-262. [Medline]
    40. Narod S, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, Sopik V, Sun P. Breast Cancer Mortality After a Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. JAMA Oncol 2015 Oct;1(7):888-896 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Bayraktar S, Gutierrez-Barrera AM, Lin H, Elsayegh N, Tasbas T, Litton JK, et al. Outcome of metastatic breast cancer in selected women with or without deleterious BRCA mutations. Clin Exp Metastasis 2013 Jun;30(5):631-642 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Heemskerk-Gerritsen B, Rookus M, Aalfs C, Ausems M, Collée JM, Jansen L, HEBON, 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 2015 Feb 01;136(3):668-677 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Rocca W, Grossardt B, de Andrade M, Malkasian G, Melton L. Survival patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women: a population-based cohort study. The Lancet Oncology 2006 Oct;7(10):821-828 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    44. van Sprundel TC, Schmidt M, Rookus M, Brohet R, van Asperen CJ, Rutgers EJT, et al. Risk reduction of contralateral breast cancer and survival after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 2005 Aug 08;93(3):287-292 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. El-Tamer MB, Ward BM, Schifftner T, Neumayer L, Khuri S, Henderson W. Morbidity and mortality following breast cancer surgery in women: national benchmarks for standards of care. Ann Surg 2007 May;245(5):665-671. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Colzani E, Liljegren A, Johansson AL, Adolfsson J, Hellborg H, Hall PF, et al. Prognosis of Patients With Breast Cancer: Causes of Death and Effects of Time Since Diagnosis, Age, and Tumor Characteristics. JCO 2011 Oct 20;29(30):4014-4021 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    47. Lakhani S, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, Anderson TJ, Osin P, McGuffog L, 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 2002 May 01;20(9):2310-2318 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Rennert G, Bisland-Naggan S, Barnett-Griness O, Bar-Joseph N, Zhang S, Rennert H, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Breast Cancer in Carriers of and Mutations. N Engl J Med 2007 Jul 12;357(2):115-123 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    49. Hedenfalk I, Duggan D, Chen Y, Radmacher M, Bittner M, Simon R, et al. Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2001 Feb 22;344(8):539-548 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. van den Broek AJ, Schmidt MK, van 't Veer LJ, Tollenaar RAEM, van Leeuwen FE. Worse breast cancer prognosis of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: what's the evidence? A systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(3):e0120189 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Foulkes W. Germline BRCA1 Mutations and a Basal Epithelial Phenotype in Breast Cancer. CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 2003 Oct 01;95(19):1482-1485 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Garber JE. BRCA1/2-associated and sporadic breast cancers: fellow travelers or not? Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2009 Feb;2(2):100-103 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Timms KM, Abkevich V, Hughes E, Neff C, Reid J, Morris B, et al. Association of BRCA1/2 defects with genomic scores predictive of DNA damage repair deficiency among breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res 2014 Dec 05;16(6):475 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Bayraktar S, Amendola L, Gutierrez-Barrera AM, Hashmi SS, Amos C, Gambello M, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of breast cancer in BRCA-carriers and non-carriers in women 35 years of age or less. Breast 2014 Dec;23(6):770-774 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Kuchenbaecker KB, Neuhausen SL, Robson M, Barrowdale D, McGuffog L, Mulligan AM, Breast Cancer Family Registry, EMBRACE Study, GEMO Study Collaborators, HEBON, KConFab Investigators, CIMBA. Associations of common breast cancer susceptibility alleles with risk of breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 2014 Dec 31;16(6):3416-3487 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Thompson D, Easton D, Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Cancer Incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 Sep 18;94(18):1358-1365 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Kotsopoulos J, Lubinski J, Lynch H, Tung N, Armel S, Senter L, Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Oophorectomy and risk of contralateral breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019 Jun;175(2):443-449 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Wagner T, Lynch HT, Garber JE, Daly MB, PROSE Study Group. 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 2005 Nov 01;23(31):7804-7810 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Marchetti C, Iadarola R, Palaia I, di DV, Perniola G, Muzii L. Hormone therapy in oophorectomized BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Menopause 2014;21(7):763-768 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    60. Figueiredo JC, Haile RW, Bernstein L, Malone KE, Largent J, Langholz B, et al. Oral contraceptives and postmenopausal hormones and risk of contralateral breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and noncarriers: the WECARE Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010 Feb 14;120(1):175-183 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Willner J, Kiricuta I, Kölbl O. Locoregional recurrence of breast cancer following mastectomy: Always a fatal event? Results of univariate and multivariate analysis. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 1997 Mar;37(4):853-863 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    62. Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. The Lancet 2011 Aug;378(9793):771-784 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    63. Iqbal J, Ginsburg OM, Wijeratne TD, Howell A, Evans G, Sestak I, et al. Endometrial cancer and venous thromboembolism in women under age 50 who take tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2012 Jun;38(4):318-328 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Copson E, Maishman T, Tapper W, Cutress R, Greville-Heygate S, Altman D, et al. Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Oncology 2018 Feb;19(2):169-180 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    65. Schrag D, Kuntz K, Garber J, Weeks JC. Life expectancy gains from cancer prevention strategies for women with breast cancer and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. JAMA 2000 Feb 02;283(5):617-624 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Kotsopoulos J, Huzarski T, Gronwald J, Singer C, Moller P, Lynch H, Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Bilateral Oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017 Jan;109(1):djw177 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, BRCA1BRCA2 Cohort Consortium, et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2402-2416 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Clifton K, Gutierrez-Barrera A, Ma J, Bassett JR, Litton J, Kuerer H, et al. Adjuvant versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer patients with BRCA mutations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018 Jul;170(1):101-109 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Halpern N, Sonnenblick A, Uziely B, Divinsky L, Goldberg Y, Hamburger T, et al. Oncotype Dx recurrence score among BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers with hormone receptors positive breast cancer. Int J Cancer 2017 May 01;140(9):2145-2149 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Nicolas E, Bertucci F, Sabatier R, Gonçalves A. Targeting Deficiency in Breast Cancer: What are the Clinical Evidences and the Next Perspectives? Cancers (Basel) 2018 Dec 11;10(12):506 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Paluch-Shimon S, Friedman E, Berger R, Papa M, Dadiani M, Friedman N, et al. Neo-adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers and non-carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016 May;157(1):157-165 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Fasching P, Loibl S, Hu C, Hart S, Shimelis H, Moore R, et al. BRCA1/2 Mutations and Bevacizumab in the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer: Response and Prognosis Results in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer From the GeparQuinto Study. J Clin Oncol 2018 Aug 01;36(22):2281-2287 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Davey M, Davey C, Ryan E, Lowery A, Kerin M. Combined breast conservation therapy versus mastectomy for BRCA mutation carriers - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2021 Apr;56:26-34 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Wan Q, Su L, Ouyang T, Li J, Wang T, Fan Z, et al. Comparison of Survival After Breast-Conserving Therapy vs Mastectomy Among Patients With or Without the BRCA1/2 Variant in a Large Series of Unselected Chinese Patients With Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2021 Apr 01;4(4):e216259 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    BCT: breast-conserving treatment
    ER: estrogen receptor
    FIGO: International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
    HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
    pCR: pathologic complete response
    PR: progesterone receptor
    RRBM: risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy
    RRBSO: risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
    TN: triple negative

    Edited by A Mavragani; submitted 18.02.22; peer-reviewed by ER Khalilian, I M, J Zhu; comments to author 07.09.22; revised version received 30.10.22; accepted 01.11.22; published 29.12.22

    Copyright

    ©Jelena Maksimenko, Pedro Pereira Rodrigues, Miki Nakazawa-Miklaševiča, David Pinto, Edvins Miklaševičs, Genadijs Trofimovičs, Jānis Gardovskis, Fatima Cardoso, Maria João Cardoso. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 29.12.2022.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.