Antonella Savarese

IMPORTANCE: Limited information about the relationship between specific mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) and cancer risk exists. OBJECTIVE: To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk. EXPOSURES: Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast and ovarian cancer risks. RESULTS: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

OBJECTIVES: : To prospectively compare clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a multicenter surveillance of high-risk women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: : We enrolled asymptomatic women aged ≥ 25: BRCA mutation carriers; first-degree relatives of BRCA mutation carriers, and women with strong family history of breast/ovarian cancer, including those with previous personal breast cancer. RESULTS: : A total of 18 centers enrolled 501 women and performed 1592 rounds (3.2 rounds/woman). Forty-nine screen-detected and 3 interval cancers were diagnosed: 44 invasive, 8 ductal carcinoma in situ; only 4 pT2 stage; 32 G3 grade. Of 39 patients explored for nodal status, 28 (72%) were negative. Incidence per year-woman resulted 3.3% overall, 2.1% <50, and 5.4% ≥ 50 years (P < 0.001), 4.3% in women with previous personal breast cancer and 2.5% in those without (P = 0.045). MRI was more sensitive (91%) than clinical breast examination (18%), mammography (50%), ultrasonography (52%), or mammography plus ultrasonography (63%) (P < 0.001). Specificity ranged 96% to 99%, positive predictive value 53% to 71%, positive likelihood ratio 24 to 52 (P not significant). MRI showed significantly better negative predictive value (99.6) and negative likelihood ratio (0.09) than those of the other modalities. At receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve of MRI (0.97) was significantly higher than that of mammography (0.83) or ultrasonography (0.82) and not significantly increased when MRI was combined with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Of 52 cancers, 16 (31%) were diagnosed only by MRI, 8 of 21 (38%) in women <50, and 8 of 31 (26%) in women ≥ 50 years of age. CONCLUSION: : MRI largely outperformed mammography, ultrasonography, and their combination for screening high-risk women below and over 50.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the neuroprotective effect of antioxidant supplementation with vitamin E in patients treated with cisplatin chemotherapy. METHODS: Between April 1999 and October 2000, forty-seven patients were randomly assigned to either group one, which received vitamin E supplementation during cisplatin chemotherapy, or to group two, which received cisplatin chemotherapy alone. Alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E; 300 mg/d) was administered orally before cisplatin chemotherapy and continued for 3 months after the suspension of treatment. For preclinical studies, nude mice carrying the human melanoma tumor were treated with cisplatin alone or in combination with vitamin E. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients completed six cycles of cisplatin chemotherapy: 13 patients in group one and 14 patients in group two. The incidence of neurotoxicity was significantly lower in group one (30.7%) than it was in group two (85.7%; P <.01). The severity of neurotoxicity, measured with a comprehensive neurotoxicity score based on clinical and neurophysiological parameters, was significantly lower in patients who were supplemented with vitamin E than in patients who were not supplemented with vitamin E (2 v 4.7, P <.01). The results of the preclinical studies showed that when cisplatin was combined with vitamin E, no differences were observed in tumor weight inhibition, tumor growth delay, or life span as compared with treatment with cisplatin alone. CONCLUSION: Supplementation of patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy with vitamin E decreases the incidence and severity of peripheral neurotoxicity.

PURPOSE: We aimed at investigating the efficacy, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL) of gemcitabine (GEM) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in the salvage treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase III randomized multicenter trial was planned to compare GEM (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) with PLD (40 mg/m(2) every 28 days) in ovarian cancer patients who experienced treatment failure with only one platinum/paclitaxel regimen and who experienced recurrence or progression within 12 months after completion of primary treatment. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three patients were randomly assigned to PLD (n = 76) or GEM (n = 77). Treatment arms were well balanced for clinicopathologic characteristics. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more frequent in GEM-treated patients versus PLD-treated patients (P = .007). Grade 3 or 4 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia was documented in a higher proportion of PLD patients (6%) versus GEM patients (0%; P = .061). The overall response rate was 16% in the PLD arm compared with 29% in the GEM arm (P = .056). No statistically significant difference in time to progression (TTP) curves according to treatment allocation was documented (P = .411). However, a trend for more favorable overall survival was documented in the PLD arm compared with the GEM arm, although the P value was of borderline statistical significance (P = .048). Statistically significantly higher global QOL scores were found in PLD-treated patients at the first and second postbaseline QOL assessments. CONCLUSION: GEM does not provide an advantage compared with PLD in terms of TTP in ovarian cancer patients who experience recurrence within 12 months after primary treatment but should be considered in the spectrum of drugs to be possibly used in the salvage setting.

PURPOSE: Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer-2 (MITO-2), an academic multicenter phase III trial, tested whether carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was more effective than standard chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IC to IV ovarian cancer (age ≤ 75 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2) were randomly assigned to carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus PLD 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks for six cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). With 632 events in 820 enrolled patients, the study would have 80% power to detect a 0.80 hazard ratio (HR) of PFS. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned. Disease stages III and IV were prevalent. Occurrence of PFS events substantially slowed before obtaining the planned number. Therefore, in concert with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, final analysis was performed with 556 events, after a median follow-up of 40 months. Median PFS times were 19.0 and 16.8 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = .58). Median overall survival times were 61.6 and 53.2 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .32). Carboplatin/PLD produced a similar response rate but different toxicity (less neurotoxicity and alopecia but more hematologic adverse effects). There was no relevant difference in global quality of life after three and six cycles. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin/PLD was not superior to carboplatin/paclitaxel, which remains the standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. However, given the observed CIs and the different toxicity, carboplatin/PLD could be considered an alternative to standard therapy.