scholarly journals No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers from BRCA1/2 mutation–positive families

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 352 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Guedaoura ◽  
S. Pelletier ◽  
W.D. Foulkes ◽  
P. Hamet ◽  
J. Simard ◽  
...  

Background In families with a proven BRCA1/2 mutation, women not carrying the familial mutation should follow the cancer screening recommendations applying to women in the general population. In the present study, we evaluated the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarriers from families with a proven BRCA mutation, and we assessed the role of family history in their screening practices.Methods Self-report data were provided retrospectively by 220 unaffected female noncarriers for periods of up to 10 years (mean: 4.3 years) since disclosure of their BRCA1/2 genetic test result. A ratio for the annual frequency of breast and ovarian cancer screening exams (mammography, breast ultrasonography, breast magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal or pelvic ultrasound, cancer antigen 125 testing) was calculated as number of screening exams divided by the number of years in the individual observation period.Results The annual average for mammography exams was 0.15, 0.4, 0.56, and 0.71 in women 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and 60–69 years of age respectively. The uptake of other breast and ovarian cancer screening exams was very low. Mammography and breast ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging were generally more frequent among participants with at least 1 first-degree relative affected by breast cancer.Conclusions In most noncarriers, screening practices are consistent with the guidelines concerning women in the general population. When noncarriers adopt screening behaviours that are different from those that would be expected for average-risk women, those behaviours are influenced by their familial cancer history.Impact Decision tools might help female noncarriers to be involved in their follow-up in accordance with their genetic status and their family history, while taking into account the benefits and disadvantages of cancer screening.

Author(s):  
Jérôme Mathis ◽  
Mohammed Amine Jellouli ◽  
Laura Sabiani ◽  
Joy Fest ◽  
Guillaume Blache ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundOvarian carcinoma is a poor prognosis cancer mainly due to its late diagnosis. Its incidence is relatively low but mortality is high. The symptomatology is only slightly specific, which complicates diagnostic management. It would therefore be interesting to be able to establish a diagnosis as early as possible in order to improve the prognosis of patients suffering from ovarian cancer.Materials and methodsCurrently, the combination of an ultrasound examination with a cancer antigen (CA)-125 assay is the most effective diagnostic technique, but not already admitted as a screening method. Therefore, we realized an exhaustive analysis of the most important studies in the last 15 years, in order to find new approaches in ovarian cancer screening.ResultsThe age for initiating screening and its frequency are issues that are not fully resolved. The false positives and morbidity that result from screening are currently notable limitations.ConclusionsThe latest data do not support effective screening in the general population.


2016 ◽  
Vol 196 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Nam ◽  
Christopher J.D. Wallis ◽  
Jessica Stojcic-Bendavid ◽  
Laurent Milot ◽  
Christopher Sherman ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 627-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvie Pelletier ◽  
Nora Wong ◽  
Zaki El Haffaf ◽  
William D. Foulkes ◽  
Jocelyne Chiquette ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 1335-1341
Author(s):  
Margaret Ragland ◽  
Katrina F. Trivers ◽  
C. Holly A. Andrilla ◽  
Barbara Matthews ◽  
Jacqueline Miller ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Megumi Takaoka ◽  
Shozo Ohsumi ◽  
Yuichiro Miyoshi ◽  
Mina Takahashi ◽  
Seiki Takashima ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is a susceptibility syndrome for cancers, such as breast and ovarian cancer, and BRCA1/2 are its causative genes. Annual breast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aged over 25 years as a secondary prevention of breast cancer. However, breast MRI surveillance is rarely performed in Japan, and only four cases of breast cancer diagnosis triggered by MRI surveillance have been reported. Case presentation At our hospital, MRI triggered the diagnosis of breast cancer in four cancer-free BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. In one of our four cases, although MRI showed only a 3-mm focus, we could diagnose breast cancer by shortening the surveillance interval considering the patient’s high-risk for developing breast cancer. Conclusions Image-guided biopsy, including MRI-guided biopsy, depending on the size of the lesion, and shorter surveillance intervals are useful when there are potentially malignant findings on breast MRI surveillance for cancer-free patients with HBOC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document