Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Predominant Role of Surgery in the Prevention and New Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations

  • Educational Review
  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Advances in understanding molecular and genetic mechanisms underlying cancer promise an “individualized” management of the disease. Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germ-line mutation are at very high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Because high-quality data are lacking from randomized trials, prevention strategies and treatment of patients with BRCA-associated breast cancer are complex.

Methods

The data for this review were obtained by searching PubMed and Medline for articles about optimizing prevention and treating women with familial susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.

Results

Prophylactic surgery is the rational approach for women who carry the BRCA mutation; chemoprevention and/or intensified surveillance represent alternative approaches. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is superior to bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. However, reaching a definitive clinical decision is complex, and several variables should be considered for an individualized approach. Accumulating data support the concept of more extensive surgery for newly diagnosed breast cancer in women with a BRCA mutation but new unbaised studies are needed for an evidence-based approach . Such patients treated with breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer are at higher risk of contralateral breast cancer than noncarriers. Primary bilateral mastectomy could also be considered and discussed with these patients. Breast tumors from BRCA1 mutation carriers are predominantly of basal subtype (i.e., triple negative), and BRCA2 mutation carriers are of luminal subtype (i.e., estrogen receptor positive). Decisions on adjuvant treatment are based on estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status.

Conclusions

The complex management of healthy women and breast cancer patients with familial susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer requires an individualized prevention or treatment strategy by an experienced team.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Trusheim MR, Berndt ER, Douglas FL. Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6:287–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science 1976;194(4260):23–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Roukos DH, Murray S, Briasoulis E. Molecular genetic tools shape a roadmap towards a more accurate prognostic prediction and personalized management of cancer. Cancer Biol Ther 2007;6:308–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nelson HD, Huffman LH, Fu R, Harris EL, US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:362–79

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Roukos DH, Fatouros M, Tsianos E, Kappas AM. Does a new model improve decisions about mismatch-repair genetic testing and Lynch syndrome identification? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006;3:656–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roukos DH, Briasoulis E. Individualized preventive and therapeutic management of hereditary breast ovarian cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4:578–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 2004;24:2137–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wooster R, Weber BL. Breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2339–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Agnantis NJ, Paraskevaidis E, Roukos D. Preventing breast, ovarian cancer in BRCA carriers: rational of prophylactic surgery and promises of surveillance. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:1030–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Venkitaraman AR. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cell 2002;108:171–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nathanson KL, Wooster R, Weber BL. Breast cancer genetics: what we know and what we need. Nat Med 2001;7:552–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pharoah PD, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BA. Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 2002;31:33–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith P, McGuffog L, Easton DF, et al. A genome wide linkage search for breast cancer susceptibility genes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2006;45:646–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 2002;31:55–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 2006;295:1379–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 2007;25:64–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, et al. Increased risk of breast cancer associated with CHEK2*1100delC. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:57–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brown ML, Riley GF, Schussler N, et al. Estimating health care costs related to cancer treatment from SEER-Medicare data. Med Care 2002;40:IV–17

    Google Scholar 

  20. Anderson K, Jacobson JS, Heitjan DF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of preventive strategies for women with a BRCA1 or a BRCA2 mutation. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:397–406

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005;434:917–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Nature 2005;434:913–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolfberg AJ. Genes on the Web—direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic testing. N Engl J Med 2006;355:543–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Roche PA, Annas GJ. DNA testing, banking, and genetic privacy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:545–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 2007;44:10–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 2003;72:1117–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. van Dijk S, Timmermans DR, Meijers-Heijboer H, Tibben A, van Asperen CJ, Otten W. Clinical characteristics affect the impact of an uninformative DNA test result: the course of worry and distress experienced by women who apply for genetic testing for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3672–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Barcenas CH, Hosain GM, Arun B, et al. Assessing BRCA carrier probabilities in extended families. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:354–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:355–61

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sauven P. Guidelines for the management of women at increased familial risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:653–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. New York Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 2003;302:643–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Levy-Lahad E, Plon SE. Cancer. A risky business—assessing breast cancer risk. Science 2003;302:574–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Roukos DH, Kappas AM, Tsianos E. Role of surgery in the prophylaxis of hereditary cancer syndromes. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:607–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Klaren HM, van’t Veer LJ, van Leeuwen FE, Rookus MA. Potential for bias in studies on efficacy of prophylactic surgery for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:941–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 2001;345:159–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 2004;22:1055–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 1999;340:77–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1633–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tercyak KP, Peshkin BN, Brogan BM, et al. Quality of life after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in newly diagnosed high-risk breast cancer patients who underwent BRCA1/2 gene testing. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:285–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Metcalfe KA, Semple JL, Narod SA. Time to reconsider subcutaneous mastectomy for breast-cancer prevention? Lancet Oncol 2005;6:431–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sacchini V, Pinotti JA, Barros AC, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk reduction: oncologic or technical problem? J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:704–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gerber B, Krause A, Reimer T, et al. Skin-sparing mastectomy with conservation of the nipple-areola complex and autologous reconstruction is an oncologically safe procedure. Ann Surg 2003;238:120–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW. Subcutaneous mastectomy with implant reconstruction: cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26:137–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wellisch DK, Schain WS, Noone RB, Little JW 3rd. The psychological contribution of nipple addition in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:699–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Cheung KL, Blamey RW, Robertson JF, et al. Subcutaneous mastectomy for primary breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Eur J Surg Oncol 1997;23:343–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Shestak KC, Gabriel A, Landecker A, et al. Assessment of longterm nipple projection: a comparison of three techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;110:780–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Narod SA, Foulkes WD. BRCA1 and BRCA2: 1994 and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:665–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Rubinstein WS. Surgical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: bitter choices slightly sweetened. J Clin Oncol 2006;23:7772–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rebbeck TR, Levin AM, Eisen A, et al. Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1475–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7491–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Struewing JP, Watson P, Easton DF, et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy in inherited breast/ovarian cancer families. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1995;33–5

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 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 2006;7:223–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C. Can bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy reduce cancer mortality in carriers of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation? Lancet Oncol 2006;7:191–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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 2006;296:185–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Roukos DH, Agnanti NJ, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Approaching the dilemma between prophylactic bilateral mastectomy or oophorectomy for breast and ovarian cancer prevention in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:941–3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kramer JL, Velazquez IA, Chen BE, Rosenberg PS, Struewing JP, Greene MH. Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer penetrance during prospective, long-term follow-up of BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8629–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Randall T, Rubin SC, Weber B. Hormone replacement therapy and life expectancy after prophylactic oophorectomy in women with BRCA1/2 mutations: a decision analysis. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1045–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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 2007;8:26–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Narod SA. Modifiers of risk of hereditary breast cancer. Oncogene 2006;25:5832–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Brose MS, Rebbeck TR, Calzone KA, Stopfer JE, Nathanson KL, Weber BL. Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1365–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Pichert G, Bolliger B, Buser K, Pagani O. Swiss Institute for Applied Cancer Research Network for Cancer Predisposition Testing and Counseling. Evidence-based management options for women at increased breast/ovarian cancer risk. Ann Oncol 2003;14:9–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:141–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Komenaka IK, Ditkoff BA, Joseph KA, et al. The development of interval breast malignancies in patients with BRCA mutations. Cancer 2004;100:2079–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 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 2004;351:427–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Madalinska JB, van Beurden M, Bleiker EM, et al. Predictors of prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy compared with gynecologic screening use in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:301–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bourne TH, Campbell S, Reynolds KM, et al. Screening for early familial ovarian cancer with transvaginal ultrasonography and colour blood flow imaging. BMJ 1993;306:1025–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Cannistra SA. Cancer of the ovary. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2519–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Hogg R, Friedlander M. Biology of epithelial ovarian cancer: implications for screening women at high genetic risk. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1315–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schiff R, Osborne CK. Endocrinology and hormone therapy in breast cancer: new insight into estrogen receptor–alpha function and its implication for endocrine therapy resistance in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:205–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 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 1998;90:1371–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1652–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Cuzick J, Powles T, Veronesi U, et al. Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet 2003;361:296–300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 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 2001;286:2251–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Kote-Jarai Z, Powles TJ, Mitchell G, et al. BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and analysis of cancer family history in participants of the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen chemoprevention trial. Cancer Lett 2007;247:259–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Bramley M, Clarke RB, Howell A, et al. Effects of oestrogens and anti-oestrogens on normal breast tissue from women bearing BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Br J Cancer 2006;94:1021–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Gogas H, Markopoulos C, Blamey R. Should women be advised to take prophylactic endocrine treatment outside of a clinical trial setting? Ann Oncol 2005;16:1861–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Dunn BK, Wickerham DL, Ford LG. Prevention of hormone-related cancers: breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:357–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Vogel VG. Recent results from clinical trials using SERMs to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006;1089:127–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. 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 2006;295:2727–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Jordan VC. SERMs: meeting the promise of multifunctional medicines. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:350–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Goss PE, Strasser-Weippl K. Prevention strategies with aromatase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:372S–379S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. O’Regan RM. Chemoprevention of breast cancer. Lancet 2006;367:1382–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Polyzos NP, Ioannidis JP. Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inactivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:1285–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Roukos DH, Fatouros M, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Is an aromatase inhibitor more effective than tamoxifen in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006;3:82–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Lonning PE. Bone safety of aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16(Suppl 2):518–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Chien AJ, Goss PE. Aromatase inhibitors and bone health in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5305–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Altundag K, Ibrahim NK. Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: an overview. Oncologist 2006;11:553–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. 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 2002;94:1773–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. 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 2004;91:1911–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. 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 2005;23:7804–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Beral V, Bull D, Reeves G, Million Women Study Collaborators. Endometrial cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 2005;365:1543–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 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 2005;23:6890–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Berman DB, Costalas J, Schultz DC, Grana G, Daly M, Godwin AK. A common mutation in BRCA2 that predisposes to a variety of cancers is found in both Jewish Ashkenazi and non-Jewish individuals. Cancer Res 1996;56:3409–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Panel members. Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1569–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1940–9. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3221

    Google Scholar 

  98. Roukos DH, Kappas AM, Agnantis NJ. Perspectives and risks of breast-conservation therapy for breast cancer (editorial). Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:718–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Benson JR, della Rovere GQ, Axilla Management Consensus Group. Management of the axilla in women with breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:331–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Fatouros M, Roukos DH, Arampatzis I, Sotiriadis A, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Factors increasing local recurrence in breast-conserving surgery. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005;5:737–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 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 2006;24:2437–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. de Bock GH, Tollenaar RA, Papelard H, Cornelisse CJ, Devilee P, van de Vijver MJ. Clinical and pathological features of BRCA1 associated carcinomas in a hospital-based sample of Dutch breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2001;85:1347–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 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 2002;20:2310–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Veronesi A, de Giacomi C, Magri MD, et al. Familial breast cancer: characteristics and outcome of BRCA 1–2 positive and negative cases. BMC Cancer 2005;5:70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Cass I, Baldwin RL, Varkey T, Moslehi R, Narod SA, Karlan BY. Improved survival in women with BRCA-associated ovarian carcinoma. Cancer 2003;97:2187–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Roukos DH. Effect of genetic cancer risk assessment on surgical decisions at breast cancer diagnosis—invited critique. Arch Surg 2003;138:1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Roukos DH. Prognosis of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1555–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365(9472):1687–717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Friedman A, Perrimon N. Genetic screening for signal transduction in the era of network biology. Cell 2007;128:225–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Hunter DJ, Kraft P. Drinking from the fire hose—statistical issues in genomewide association studies. N Engl J Med 2007;357:436–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Drazen JM, Phimister EG. Publishing genomewide association studies. N Engl J Med 2007;357:496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1999–2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:10393–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Roukos DH, Paraskevaidis E, Kappas AM. Surgery in the era of gene expression profiling-based prediction and individualized, neoadjuvant breast cancer therapy: the beginning of the end? Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:433–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene 2006;25:5846–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:235–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Bane AL, Beck JC, Bleiweiss I, et al. BRCA2 mutation-associated breast cancers exhibit a distinguishing phenotype based on morphology and molecular profiles from tissue microarrays. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:121–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2817–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Ioannina University School of Medicine, 45110, Ioannina, Greece

    Michael Fatouros MD, Georgios Baltoyiannis MD & Dimitrios H. Roukos MD

Authors
  1. Michael Fatouros MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georgios Baltoyiannis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimitrios H. Roukos MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios H. Roukos MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fatouros, M., Baltoyiannis, G. & Roukos, D.H. The Predominant Role of Surgery in the Prevention and New Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations. Ann Surg Oncol 15, 21–33 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9612-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9612-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation