TY - JOUR
T1 - Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants
T2 - A Comparative Modeling Analysis
AU - Lowry, Kathryn P.
AU - Geuzinge, H. Amarens
AU - Stout, Natasha K.
AU - Alagoz, Oguzhan
AU - Hampton, John
AU - Kerlikowske, Karla
AU - De Koning, Harry J.
AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.
AU - Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T.
AU - Schechter, Clyde
AU - Sprague, Brian L.
AU - Tosteson, Anna N.A.
AU - Trentham-Dietz, Amy
AU - Weaver, Donald
AU - Yaffe, Martin J.
AU - Yeh, Jennifer M.
AU - Couch, Fergus J.
AU - Hu, Chunling
AU - Kraft, Peter
AU - Polley, Eric C.
AU - Mandelblatt, Jeanne S.
AU - Kurian, Allison W.
AU - Robson, Mark E.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: This research was funded
Funding Information:
by the NIH/NCI (grants U01CA199218 and U01CA253911 to Drs Lowry, Stout, Alagoz, de Koning, van Ravesteyn, Schechter, Trentham-Dietz, and Mandelblatt) and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (grant 17-137 to Dr Robson). This research was also supported in part by the NIH/NCI (grant R35CA197289 to Dr Mandelblatt, and grant P30 CA014520 to Dr Trentham-Dietz), the American Cancer Society (grant RSG-16-018-01–CPHPS to Dr Yeh), and NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CQA0008748 to Dr Robson. The CARRIERS Consortium study was supported in part by NIH grants R35CA253187, R01CA192393, R01CA225662; an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (grant P01CA116201), and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. See the eAppendix in Supplement 1 for complete funding information for the CARRIERS Consortium study. Data collection for model inputs from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) was supported by the NIH/NCI (grants P01 CA154292, U54 CA163303, and R01 HS018366-01A1) and PCORI (grant PCS-1504-30370).
Funding Information:
reported receiving grants from Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) during the conduct of the study and grants from GE Healthcare outside the submitted work. Dr Stout reported receiving grants from the NIH/ NCI and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Alagoz reported receiving grants from the NIH/NCI during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Biovector Inc and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. Mr Hampton reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Kerlikowske reported serving as a nonpaid consultant for GRAIL for the STRIVE study. Drs de Koning, Miglioretti, van Ravesteyn, Trentham-Dietz, Weaver, and Yeh reported receiving grants from the NIH/NCI during the conduct of the study. Dr Schechter reported receiving grants from the NIH/NCI during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. Dr Sprague reported receiving grants from the NIH/NCI and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) during the conduct of the study. Dr Tosteson reported receiving grants from the NIH/NCI and PCORI during the conduct of the study. Dr Couch reported receiving personal fees from Qiagen during the conduct of the study and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Ambry Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr Kraft reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Kurian reported receiving grants from Myriad Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr Robson reported receiving grants from Breast Cancer Research Foundation during the conduct of the study, having a clinical trial agreement with AstraZeneca and Merck, and receiving clinical trial support and editorial services from Pfizer outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding Information:
Additional support for the contributing studies was provided by NIH awards U01CA164974, R01CA098663, R01CA100598, R01CA185623, P01CA151135, R01 CA097396, P30CA16056, U01CA164973, U01CA164920, R01CA204819, K24CA194251 and K24CA194251-04S1, UL1TR002373, P30CA014520, U01CA82004, U01CA199277, P30CA033572, P30CA023100, UM1CA164917, R01CA077398, R01CA047147, R01CA067264, UM1CA186107, P01CA87969, R01CA49449, U01CA176726, R01CA58860, U01 CA58860, K07CA92044 and R01 CA67262; NHLBI contracts (HHSN268201600018C, HHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, and HHSN268201600004C); NIEHS intramural awards (Z01-ES044005, Z01-ES049033 and Z01-ES102245); American Cancer Society; Susan G Komen for the Cure (JRP, SMD), Breast Cancer Research Foundation (FJC, CBA, JNW, SMD, KLN), Karin Grunebaum Cancer Research Foundation (JRP), the University of Wisconsin-Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education (ESB), California Breast Cancer Act of 1993, the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500), California Department of Public Health, and the Lon V Smith Foundation [LVS39420]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Importance: Screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women. Objective: To estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32247 cases and 32544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985. Interventions: Screening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges. Results: The mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit..
AB - Importance: Screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are recommended for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. However, there are few data to guide screening regimens for these women. Objective: To estimate the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening strategies using mammography and MRI at various start ages for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative modeling analysis used 2 established breast cancer microsimulation models from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to evaluate different screening strategies. Age-specific breast cancer risks were estimated using aggregated data from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium for 32247 cases and 32544 controls in 12 population-based studies. Data on screening performance for mammography and MRI were estimated from published literature. The models simulated US women with ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2 pathogenic variants born in 1985. Interventions: Screening strategies with combinations of annual mammography alone and with MRI starting at age 25, 30, 35, or 40 years until age 74 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime breast cancer mortality reduction, life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted, total screening examinations, false-positive screenings, and benign biopsies per 1000 women screened. Results are reported as model mean values and ranges. Results: The mean model-estimated lifetime breast cancer risk was 20.9% (18.1%-23.7%) for women with ATM pathogenic variants, 27.6% (23.4%-31.7%) for women with CHEK2 pathogenic variants, and 39.5% (35.6%-43.3%) for women with PALB2 pathogenic variants. Across pathogenic variants, annual mammography alone from 40 to 74 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 36.4% (34.6%-38.2%) to 38.5% (37.8%-39.2%) compared with no screening. Screening with annual MRI starting at 35 years followed by annual mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 54.4% (54.2%-54.7%) to 57.6% (57.2%-58.0%), with 4661 (4635-4688) to 5001 (4979-5023) false-positive screenings and 1280 (1272-1287) to 1368 (1362-1374) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Annual MRI starting at 30 years followed by mammography and MRI at 40 years was estimated to reduce mortality by 55.4% (55.3%-55.4%) to 59.5% (58.5%-60.4%), with 5075 (5057-5093) to 5415 (5393-5437) false-positive screenings and 1439 (1429-1449) to 1528 (1517-1538) benign biopsies per 1000 women. When starting MRI at 30 years, initiating annual mammography starting at 30 vs 40 years did not meaningfully reduce mean mortality rates (0.1% [0.1%-0.2%] to 0.3% [0.2%-0.3%]) but was estimated to add 649 (602-695) to 650 (603-696) false-positive screenings and 58 (41-76) to 59 (41-76) benign biopsies per 1000 women. Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that annual MRI screening starting at 30 to 35 years followed by annual MRI and mammography at 40 years may reduce breast cancer mortality by more than 50% for women with ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 pathogenic variants. In the setting of MRI screening, mammography prior to 40 years may offer little additional benefit..
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125502197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85125502197&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6204
DO - 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6204
M3 - Article
C2 - 35175286
AN - SCOPUS:85125502197
SN - 2374-2437
VL - 8
SP - 587
EP - 596
JO - JAMA oncology
JF - JAMA oncology
IS - 4
ER -