Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women With ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants

Author(s): Kathryn P. Lowry, MD¹; H. Amarens Geuzinge, MSc²; Natasha K. Stout, PhD³; et alOguzhan Alagoz, PhD⁴; John Hampton, MS5; Karla Kerlikowske, MD^6,7; Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD²; Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD⁸; Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, PhD²; Clyde Schechter, MD⁹; Brian L. Sprague, PhD^10,11; Anna N. A. Tosteson, PhD¹²; Amy Trentham-Dietz, PhD⁵; Donald Weaver, MD¹³; Martin J. Yaffe, PhD^14,15; Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD¹⁶; Fergus J. Couch, PhD¹⁷; Chunling Hu, MD, PhD¹⁷; Peter Kraft, PhD¹⁸; Eric C. Polley, PhD¹⁹; Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, MPH²⁰; Allison W. Kurian, MD, MSc^21,22; Mark E. Robson, MD²³; for the Breast Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET), in collaboration with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium

Source: JAMA Oncol. Published online February 17, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6204

Dr. Lucio Gordan's Thoughts

Interesting paper which gives support to early and aggressive screening of non-BRCA mutations. Helpful data to assist with patient education and obtain approval of preventive screening, though modeling analysis is the main strength of the article.

A Comparative Modeling Analysis

ABSTRACT

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 32 247 cases and 32 544 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.

Author Affiliations

¹Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle ²Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands ³Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, Massachusetts ⁴Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison ⁵Carbone Cancer Center, Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison ⁶Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco ⁷Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco ⁸Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis ⁹Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York ¹⁰Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington ¹¹Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington ¹²The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire ¹³Department of Pathology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington ¹⁴Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ¹⁵Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ¹⁶Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts ¹⁷Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York ¹⁸Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts ¹⁹Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota ²⁰Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC ²¹Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California ²²Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California ²³Department of Breast Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

HER2CLIMB-05: A Phase III Study of Tucatinib Versus Placebo in Combination With Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab as First-Line Maintenance Therapy for HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

Progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically significantly improved with addition of tucatinib versus placebo 24.9 v 16.3 months regardless of the presence/absence of BM or hormone receptor status.

Role of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, dose density, and treatment schedule in biologically high-risk HR+/HER2- breast cancer: A pooled analysis of the WSG ADAPT-HR+/HER2- and PlanB trials.

1467 pts with RS > 25 and 551 with clinically (neoadjuvant cohort in ADAPT-HR+/HER2-) or pathologically N2, (longer) docetaxel-based CTx showed better distant, invasive disease-free survival in N2-3 pts patients with RS ≤25, OS was also shown in pts with RS>25 anthracycline regimens did not show a significant survival difference in high-risk HR+/HER2 whether used in neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. So may be no anthracycline for HR+ve pts who are high risk disease.

The Pathologic Response Evaluation and Detection in Circulating Tumor-DNA Study: Ultrasensitive Circulating Tumor-DNA Assessment of Breast Cancer Minimal Residual Disease

Primary objective not met, ctDNA clearance post- neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) cannot reliably predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and shouldn't be used to defer surgery. But the prognostic data are striking: post-NAT ctDNA positivity independently predicted recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (HR 8.9), and the postsurgical landmark analysis is essentially binary, 100% of ctDNA-positive patients recurred while 94% of ctDNA-negative patients were disease-free at 5 years (HR 128). Not practice-changing yet pending prospective utility trials, but this strongly validates ultrasensitive ctDNA as a prognostic tool and a smart enrollment biomarker for future escalation/de-escalation trials.

VIKTORIA-1 Trial of Gedatolisib Plus Fulvestrant With or Without Palbociclib in Hormone Receptor–Positive/HER2−/PIK3CA Wild-Type Advanced Breast Cancer

Gedatolisib potently targets all four class I PI3K isoforms and mTORC1 and mTORC2 to comprehensively block the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. PFS was 9.3 m in the gedatolisib-triplet group vs 2.0 m in the fulvestrant group (hazard ratio) HR 0.24, and 7.4 m in the gedatolisib-doublet group HR 0.33 v fulvestrant.

Trastuzumab Deruxtecan plus Pertuzumab for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

This is impressive. However, there is no reported placebo trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, so this is not truly a “no chemotherapy” regimen. It is important to remember that deruxtecan is itself a chemotherapy agent. So, this is really comparing deruxtecan vs taxol or more accurately, a comparison of chemotherapy delivery systems.