1 / 40

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clinic Leuven

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clinic Leuven. K. Leunen GNC UZ Leuven-Belgium. 1994 -1995 Miki & Wooster Encoding for large proteins Expression in ≠ tissues Mostly during G1 en S fase Enrolled DNA DS repair Regulation transcription Cell cycle controle  « Care takers ».

darryl
Télécharger la présentation

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clinic Leuven

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clinic Leuven K. Leunen GNC UZ Leuven-Belgium

  2. 1994 -1995 Miki & Wooster Encoding for large proteins Expression in ≠ tissues Mostly during G1 en S fase Enrolled DNA DS repair Regulation transcription Cell cycle controle  « Care takers » BRCA genes

  3. « Genetic » cancer ≠ !! • Sporadic • Genetic • Familial 15% of the breast cancer cases have a family history but only 1-2 % can be attributed to BRCA mutations OvC: 10%

  4. Who will we refer for genetic testing ? Who’s at risk to be a carrier ?

  5. Hallmarks of hereditary Ca • Can present at (very) young age • Multiple primary tumors in the same or joint organs (bilaterality) • Tumors in different organs (frequently combinations of tumors) • Positive familial history (« it’s in the family »)

  6. Evaluation of risk : • Empiric risk-models (prevalence tables): • Myriad tables • Gail model • Couch model • Genetische modellen • Claus tables: single gene tabel • IBIS: Fam history and other risk factors • BRCAPRO: effect of BRCA 1-2, FH (-) • BOADICEA: polygenic Fam. History

  7. Table van Claus

  8. IBIS risk model

  9. Evaluation of the risk and chance to find a BRCA mutation… Evans et al. J Med Genet 2004; 41:474-480.

  10. Os T et al. Patient care 2002, 29:13-20

  11. Multidisciplinary team • Genetici • Psychologist, lab-workers • Clinici: MD, surgeons, gynaecologists, plastic surgeons • Nurses and social workers All needed for good counseling and an optimal follow-up of patients at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer

  12. Probability of being a BRCA mutation carrier Screeningof a family membre with cancer • Family tree • Personal history • Evaluating the risk of being a carrier • When this risk is > 10% (ASCO guidelines 2003)  performing the test When a mutation is found  then possibility to perform predictive test for patients without any cancer.

  13. BRCA 1 BrC65-80% early onset contralateral BrC 40% binnen de 10j OvC28-44% (1.8%) Onset: young First 2/3 :OvC > BrC BRCA 2 BrC 45% Male BrC OvC10-20% Onset: Later , >50j ( BRCA1) OCCR : OvC > BrC Risk Mostly: BrC preceeds Ovc; rarely contrary

  14. BrC risk – BRCA1 BrC risk – BRCA2 57%  49% OvC risk – BRCA1 OvC risk – BRCA2 18% 40%  Sining Chen et al. JCO 2007;24:863-871

  15. Figuur uit Thompson en Easton: The genetic epidemiology of Breast cancer genes Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasm 2004; 9(3):221

  16. Other organs • Colorectale tumors (BRCA 1, not confirmed) studies : Am J Hum Genet 1995;56:265 Lancet 1994; 342:692-695 NEJM 1997; 336: 1401-1408 • Endometrial Ca: serous (BRCA 1) • Prostate Ca (BRCA 2) • Pancreas, galbladder, stomach en malign melanoma (BRCA 2)

  17. Clinical options for mutation carriers Primary cancer prevention • Chemoprevention • Profylactic surgery (pME-pBSO)  PREVENT ! Secundary cancer prevention • Close and frequent follow-up  EARLY DIAGNOSIS !

  18. A. Secundary Prevention A. BREAST Close follow-up : SPECIALISED CENTRE ! • Clinic • Self examination • Clin Exam by doctor • Radiologic • Rx mammo/echo • MRI breasts • Gynecologic ultrasound • Biochemistry

  19. Secundary Prevention Close follow-up : SPECIALISED CENTRE ! • Clinic • Self examination • Clin Exam by doctor • Radiologic • Rx mammo/echo • MRI breasts • Gynecologic ultrasound • Biochemistry

  20. Overall sensitivity of diagnostic Rx : 93% Mammografy: 33% Ultrasound : 40% Mammo+US : 49% MRI : 91% In de high risk group*: 25% 100% Sentivity radiology Kuhl et al. J Clin Oncol(2005)23:8469-8476

  21. High risk group (with or without mutation) • Rx mammo / US  enough • MRI : has to be integral part of screening in the high risk group • Higher sensitivity • Earlier detection of IS or invasive tumors MRI  ? Better survival ? Frequent Rx exposition  ? Risk  BrC ? Kuhl et al. J Clin Oncol(2005)23:8469-8476

  22. A. Secundary Prevention B. OVARY • Exact sensitivity of follow-up is difficult to assess:  big differences in definitions & study design • 49-100% [ Bell et al. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105:1136-47] In most cases: detection at early stage (which is the purpose of surveillance) is not reached !  positive effect of surveillance is not proven, and this because of factors

  23. SO: • Surveillance = restricted value • Low sensitivity • High number of fals positives • Can lead to unnecessary surgery unclear of this FU can  mortality and/or morbidity of OvC. • Pat has to know this ! Counseling ! • Untill now: pBSO = most optimal risk-reducing strategy in hihg risk population (+ BrC risk !) Fields MM, Cevlen E. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2006 Feb;10(1):77-81

  24. B. Primary prevention • Preventive surgery • pME • pBSO • Chemo-prevention and others + less fear lower cancer risk perception - Endocrine changings Sexual symptoms Psychologicalproblems

  25. 1.Profylactic surgery A. MASTECTOMY • « all » breast tissue has to be removed • Total mastectomy • With removal of nipple (Skin-sparing) with reconstruction • No ALND (MRM) • Sensibility of the breast • +/- immediate reconstruction • Prothesis • Autologuous tissue

  26. Reconstruction • Immediately or later ? • Type ? • Prosthesis/tissue expander • Autologuous material • (LDF) • (TRAM) • DIEP • S-GAP • SIEA

  27. ‘Skin-sparing’ mastectomy

  28. SGAP

  29. Even after skin sparing ME, there is still minimal quantity of breast tissue reduction of risk  0 !!! • still 2-3% risk of BrC • Persistent clinical FU is necessary • No standard US/mammo/MRI

  30. B. PROFYLACTIC BSO (pBSO) • Laparoscopic versus -tomy • Adnexae + tubae • Tubal carcinomata in BRCA carriers (Aziz 2001, Leeper 2002, Lu 2000) • « ovarian Ca » • +/- hysterectomy (LAVH) • Prevent reintervention for benign lesions Villella et al Gyn Oncol, 2006 • Intramural part of tuba ( vooral terminaal deel tubae / ampulla en isthmus) Podratz 1986, Paley 2001, Colgan 2001 • Serous endometriumCa ? • Simplifying hormonale substitution • Risk reduction BrC (50%) • Importance of histologic examination of specimens

  31. 2. Chemo prevention • Oral contraception : controverse • Standard population: Risk OvC :  • In high risk group: (HBOC, BRCA) :  ? • Narod 1998: OR = 0.5 (any use) risk  with use >6j: 60% reduction • Modan 2001: OAc  risk reduction in non carriers  no risk reduction in carriergroep  However : Parity protects in both groups (12%/birth) •  risk BrC in BRCA 1 groep(>5j, in jonge populatie groep)  OAc als standardchemoprevention O V A R I U M

  32. Ligation of the tubes • different studies: risk reduction :  > 1/3 Daly et al, Semin Oncol 1993; Hankinson et al, JAMA 1993 • BRCA 1 carriers :  60% reductie (OR = 0.37) Narod, Lancet 2001 OAc + Tubaligatuur : OR = 0.28 • Parity • Seems protective in both groups, carriers and non carriers • Progestagenen, Cox-2 inhibitors, vit D, retinoiden, … Modugno et al. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:15-31 O V A R I U M

  33. Oophorectomy: • Rebbeck (EJC, 2002): HR : 0.53 (BRCA1) • Eisen (JCO 2005 ): risk reduction of 56% (OR=0.44) in BRCA1 & 46% in BRCA2 pat, with most important reduction <40y • Kramer (JCO, 2005) • Effect van BSO is groter naarmate leeftijd afneemt (<40j  75% risico reductie) • Tamoxifen(Nolvadex) • NSABP trial (King 2001, JAMA): only clear risk reduction (62%) in BRCA 2, not in BRCA1, but small groups (n=19) • Narod et al: RR = 0.38 for BRCA 1 > RR = 0.63 for BRCA2, (bigger study here) • Tam + BSO (OR = 0.36) vs Tam - BSO (OR= 0.48) • Gronwald(Int J Cancer, 2006) • OR = 0.5 for BRCA1 • = 0.42 for BRCA2 • = 0.83 for pBSO pat • E-depletion at young age ? Combination with HST • Short duration • Geen Progestageen • Combination Anti-E + HST not well investigated B R E A S T

  34. BRCA 1 BRCA 2 Average penetrance estimates BrC BrC OvC OvC Antoniou, 2003

  35. Guidelines University Hospitals Leuven Mutation carriers Clin Exam : 1x /6m + US /6m Rx mammo/US + MRI: 1x/j Inconclusives(strong fam history but no BRCA mutation retained): • Clin Exam : 1x/6m • RX mammo/US: 1x/j • MRI breasts alternating

  36. UZ Leuven: prophylactic surgery pBSO

  37. Thanks …

  38. Leuven: untill 2007 > 1550 patients tested  1063 families 90 BRCA 1  126 pat 78 BRCA 2  142 pat

More Related