Cancer Res Treat.  2019 Jan;51(1):280-288. 10.4143/crt.2018.079.

Different Patterns of Risk Reducing Decisions in Affected or Unaffected BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers

Affiliations
  • 1Center for Breast Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. eslee@ncc.re.kr
  • 2Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. ksy@ncc.re.kr
  • 3Center for Uterine Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
  • 4Cancer Healthcare Research Branch, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
  • 5Common Cancer Branch, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
  • 6Biometrics Research Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Management, Research Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
  • 7Department of Laboratory Medicine & Genetic Counselling Clinics, Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to investigate decision patterns to reduce the risks of BRCArelated breast and gynecologic cancers in carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. We found a change in risk-reducing (RR) management patterns after December 2012, when the National Health Insurance System (NHIS) of Korea began to pay for BRCA testing and riskreducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) in pathogenic-variant carriers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study group consisted of 992 patients, including 705 with breast cancer (BC), 23 with ovarian cancer (OC), 10 with both, and 254 relatives of high-risk patients who underwent BRCA testing at the National Cancer Center of Korea from January 2008 to December 2016.We analyzed patterns of and factors in RR management.
RESULTS
Of the 992 patients, 220 (22.2%) were carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. About 92.3% (203/220) had a family history of BC and/or OC,which significantly differed between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers (p < 0.001). All 41 male carriers chose surveillance. Of the 179 female carriers, 59 of the 83 carriers (71.1%) with BC and the 39 of 79 unaffected carriers (49.4%) underwent RR management. None of the carriers affected with OC underwent RR management. Of the management types, RRSO had the highest rate (42.5%) of patient choice. The rate of RR surgery was significantly higher after 2013 than before 2013 (46.3% [74/160] vs. 31.6% [6/19], p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
RRSO was the preferred management for carriers of BRCA pathogenic variants. The most important factors in treatment choice were NHIS reimbursement and/or the severity of illness.

Keyword

BRCA1; BRCA2; Familial breast cancer; Ovarian neoplasms; Prophylactic surgical procedure

MeSH Terms

Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Female
Humans
Korea
Male
National Health Programs
Ovarian Neoplasms
Prophylactic Surgical Procedures

Figure

  • Fig. 1. Flow diagram of study subjects. Genetic testing included direct sequencing and multiple ligation-dependent probe amplification analysis. A total of 220 carriers of pathogenic variants, including 125 with BRCA1 gene variants and 95 with BRCA2 gene variants, were identified.

  • Fig. 2. Types of risk-reducing management applied to female BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers over time. (A) Types of risk-reducing management chosen by affected female BRCA1/2 pathogenic-variant carriers with breast cancer and by unaffected carriers. (B) Numbers of women who underwent risk-reducing surgery before and after 2013, the year National Health Insurance System began reimbursing for BRCA testing and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in pathogenic-variant carriers. RRSO, riskreducing salpingo-oophorectomy; RRM, risk-reducing mastectomy.


Cited by  1 articles

Disparities between Uptake of Germline BRCA1/2 Gene Tests and Implementation of Post-test Management Strategies in Epithelial Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer Patients
Young Min Hur, Jaehee Mun, Mi-Kyung Kim, Maria Lee, Yun Hwan Kim, Seung-Cheol Kim
J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(38):e241.    doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e241.


Reference

References

1. Claus EB, Schildkraut JM, Thompson WD, Risch NJ. The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1996; 77:2318–24.
Article
2. Easton DF. How many more breast cancer predisposition genes are there? Breast Cancer Res. 1999; 1:14–7.
Article
3. Beattie MS, Crawford B, Lin F, Vittinghoff E, Ziegler J. Uptake, time course, and predictors of risk-reducing surgeries in BRCA carriers. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2009; 13:51–6.
4. Campeau PM, Foulkes WD, Tischkowitz MD. Hereditary breast cancer: new genetic developments, new therapeutic avenues. Hum Genet. 2008; 124:31–42.
Article
5. Pal T, Permuth-Wey J, Betts JA, Krischer JP, Fiorica J, Arango H, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for a large proportion of ovarian carcinoma cases. Cancer. 2005; 104:2807–16.
6. Friedenson B. BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathways and the risk of cancers other than breast or ovarian. MedGenMed. 2005; 7:60.
7. Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL, Henzen-Logmans SC, Seynaeve C, Menke-Pluymers MB, et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345:159–64.
8. 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. 2011; 204:19.
9. Morris JL, Gordon OK. Positive results: making the best decisions when you're at high risk for breast or ovarian cancer. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books;2010.
10. Daly MB, Pilarski R, Axilbund JE, Berry M, Buys SS, Crawford B, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14:153–62.
Article
11. Schwartz MD, Isaacs C, Graves KD, Poggi E, Peshkin BN, Gell C, et al. Long-term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance. Cancer. 2012; 118:510–7.
12. Kim SI, Lim MC, Lee DO, Kong SY, Seo SS, Kang S, et al. Uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among female BRCA mutation carriers: experience at the National Cancer Center of Korea. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016; 142:333–40.
13. Fu R, Harris EL, Helfand M, Nelson HD. Estimating risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: a meta-analytic approach. Stat Med. 2007; 26:1775–87.
14. Garcia C, Wendt J, Lyon L, Jones J, Littell RD, Armstrong MA, et al. Risk management options elected by women after testing positive for a BRCA mutation. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 132:428–33.
15. Choi MC, Lim MC, Lee M, Kim MK, Suh DH, Song YJ, et al. Practice patterns of hereditary ovarian cancer management in Korea. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017; 27:895–9.
Article
16. Lim MC, Moon EK, Shin A, Jung KW, Won YJ, Seo SS, et al. Incidence of cervical, endometrial, and ovarian cancer in Korea, 1999-2010. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 24:298–302.
Article
17. Watson M, Foster C, Eeles R, Eccles D, Ashley S, Davidson R, et al. Psychosocial impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort. Br J Cancer. 2004; 91:1787–94.
18. Del Corral GA, Wes AM, Fischer JP, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Outcomes and cost analysis in high-risk patients undergoing simultaneous free flap breast reconstruction and gynecologic procedures. Ann Plast Surg. 2015; 75:534–8.
Article
19. Hagen AI, Maehle L, Veda N, Vetti HH, Stormorken A, Ludvigsen T, et al. Risk reducing mastectomy, breast reconstruction and patient satisfaction in Norwegian BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Breast. 2014; 23:38–43.
20. Hooker GW, King L, Vanhusen L, Graves K, Peshkin BN, Isaacs C, et al. Long-term satisfaction and quality of life following risk reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2014; 12:9.
Article
21. Gamble C, Havrilesky LJ, Myers ER, Chino JP, Hollenbeck S, Plichta JK, et al. Cost effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy versus surveillance in BRCA mutation carriers with a history of ovarian cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24:3116–23.
22. Evans DG, Barwell J, Eccles DM, Collins A, Izatt L, Jacobs C, et al. The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Res. 2014; 16:442.
Article
23. Freedman R, Mountain H, Karina D, Schofield L. A retrospective exploration of the impact of the 'Angelina Jolie Effect' on the single state-wide familial cancer program in Perth, Western Australia. J Genet Couns. 2017; 26:52–62.
Article
24. Evans DG, Wisely J, Clancy T, Lalloo F, Wilson M, Johnson R, et al. Longer term effects of the Angelina Jolie effect: increased risk-reducing mastectomy rates in BRCA carriers and other high-risk women. Breast Cancer Res. 2015; 17:143.
Article
25. Lim MC, Kim TJ, Kang S, Bae DS, Park SY, Seo SS. Embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (E-NOTES) for adnexal tumors. Surg Endosc. 2009; 23:2445–9.
Article
26. Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingooophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101:80–7.
27. Bando H. Issues of concern in risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing of younger breast cancer patients in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2014; 21:656–63.
Article
28. Eitan R, Michaelson-Cohen R, Levavi H, Beller U. The counseling and management of young healthy BRCA mutation carriers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009; 19:1156–9.
29. Kauff ND, Scheuer L, Robson ME, Glogowski E, Kelly B, Barakat R, et al. Insurance reimbursement for risk-reducing mastectomy and oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Genet Med. 2001; 3:422–5.
30. Guillem JG, Wood WC, Moley JF, Berchuck A, Karlan BY, Mutch DG, et al. ASCO/SSO review of current role of riskreducing surgery in common hereditary cancer syndromes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13:1296–321.
Article
Full Text Links
  • CRT
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr