METHODS: Data were collected on 271 BRCA1 and 301 BRCA2 families from Malaysia and Singapore, ascertained through population/hospital-based case-series (88%) and genetic clinics (12%). Age-specific cancer risks were estimated using a modified segregation analysis method, adjusted for ascertainment.
FINDINGS: BC and OC relative risks (RRs) varied across age groups for both BRCA1 and BRCA2. The age-specific RR estimates were similar across ethnicities and country of residence. For BRCA1 carriers of Malay, Indian and Chinese ancestry born between 1950 and 1959 in Malaysia, the cumulative risk (95% CI) of BC by age 80 was 40% (36%-44%), 49% (44%-53%) and 55% (51%-60%), respectively. The corresponding estimates for BRCA2 were 29% (26-32%), 36% (33%-40%) and 42% (38%-45%). The corresponding cumulative BC risks for Singapore residents from the same birth cohort, where the underlying population cancer incidences are higher compared to Malaysia, were higher, varying by ancestry group between 57 and 61% for BRCA1, and between 43 and 47% for BRCA2 carriers. The cumulative risk of OC by age 80 was 31% (27-36%) for BRCA1 and 12% (10%-15%) for BRCA2 carriers in Malaysia born between 1950 and 1959; and 42% (34-50%) for BRCA1 and 20% (14-27%) for BRCA2 carriers of the same birth cohort in Singapore. There was evidence of increased BC and OC risks for women from >1960 birth cohorts (p-value = 3.6 × 10-5 for BRCA1 and 0.018 for BRCA2).
INTERPRETATION: The absolute age-specific cancer risks of Asian carriers vary depending on the underlying population-specific cancer incidences, and hence should be customised to allow for more accurate cancer risk management.
FUNDING: Wellcome Trust [grant no: v203477/Z/16/Z]; CRUK (PPRPGM-Nov20∖100002).
METHODS: This retrospective and multinational cohort study included all adult transferred injury patients from Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan between 2016 and 2018. The outcome of interest was a death in the emergency department (ED) after the patients' ED visit. Using these results, we developed the interpretable field triage score with the Korea registry using an interpretable machine learning framework and validated the score externally. The performance of each country's score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Furthermore, a website for real-world application was developed using R Shiny.
FINDINGS: The study population included 26,294, 9404, 673 and 826 transferred injury patients between 2016 and 2018 from Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan, respectively. The corresponding rates of a death in the ED were 0.30%, 0.60%, 4.0%, and 4.6% respectively. Age and vital sign were found to be the significant variables for predicting mortality. External validation showed the accuracy of the model with an AUROC of 0.756-0.850.
INTERPRETATION: The Grade for Interpretable Field Triage (GIFT) score is an interpretable and practical tool to predict mortality in field triage for trauma.
FUNDING: This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (Grant Number: HI19C1328).
METHODS: In this study, we built a new model (Asian Risk Calculator) for estimating the likelihood of carrying a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, using germline BRCA genetic testing results in a cross-sectional population-based study of 8,162 Asian patients with breast cancer. We compared the model performance to existing mutation prediction models. The models were evaluated for discrimination and calibration.
RESULTS: Asian Risk Calculator included age of diagnosis, ethnicity, bilateral breast cancer, tumor biomarkers, and family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer as predictors. The inclusion of tumor grade improved significantly the model performance. The full model was calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow P value = .614) and discriminated well between BRCA and non-BRCA pathogenic variant carriers (area under receiver operating curve, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84). Addition of grade to the existing clinical genetic testing criteria targeting patients with breast cancer age younger than 45 years reduced the proportion of patients referred for genetic counseling and testing from 37% to 33% (P value = .003), thereby improving the overall efficacy.
CONCLUSION: Population-specific customization of mutation prediction models and clinical genetic testing criteria improved the accuracy of BRCA mutation prediction in Asian patients.
METHODS: The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer.
RESULTS: Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms.
CONCLUSION: The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.
METHODS: In-depth interviews with 28 Malaysian BRCA mutation carriers with a history of breast cancer were conducted in addition to observing their RRSO decision-making consultations in the clinic.
RESULTS: The decision-making considerations among the carriers were centered around the overarching theme of "Negotiating cancer risk and womanhood priorities," with the following themes: (1) risk perception, (2) self-preservation, (3) motherhood obligation, and (4) the preciousness of marriage. Cognitive knowledge of BRCA risk was often conceptualized based on personal and family history of cancer, personal beliefs, and faith. Many women reported fears that RRSO would affect them physically and emotionally, worrying about the post-surgical impact on their motherhood responsibilities. Nevertheless, some reported feeling obliged to choose RRSO for the sake of their children. For some, their husband's support and approval were critical, with emotional well-being and sexuality reportedly perceived as important to sustaining married life. Despite reporting hesitancy toward RRSO, women's decisions about choosing this option evolved as their priorities changed at different stages of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing during clinic encounters with Malaysian women that RRSO decision-making involves negotiating the likelihood of developing cancer with the societal priorities of being a woman, mother, and wife may serve to support their decision-making.
METHODS: We used a panel of 34 putative susceptibility genes to perform sequencing on samples from 60,466 women with breast cancer and 53,461 controls. In separate analyses for protein-truncating variants and rare missense variants in these genes, we estimated odds ratios for breast cancer overall and tumor subtypes. We evaluated missense-variant associations according to domain and classification of pathogenicity.
RESULTS: Protein-truncating variants in 5 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.0001. Protein-truncating variants in 4 other genes (BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.05 and a Bayesian false-discovery probability of less than 0.05. For protein-truncating variants in 19 of the remaining 25 genes, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio for breast cancer overall was less than 2.0. For protein-truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2, odds ratios were higher for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease than for ER-negative disease; for protein-truncating variants in BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D, odds ratios were higher for ER-negative disease than for ER-positive disease. Rare missense variants (in aggregate) in ATM, CHEK2, and TP53 were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall with a P value of less than 0.001. For BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53, missense variants (in aggregate) that would be classified as pathogenic according to standard criteria were associated with a risk of breast cancer overall, with the risk being similar to that of protein-truncating variants.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study define the genes that are most clinically useful for inclusion on panels for the prediction of breast cancer risk, as well as provide estimates of the risks associated with protein-truncating variants, to guide genetic counseling. (Funded by European Union Horizon 2020 programs and others.).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview.
RESULTS: Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P
METHODS: We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes.
RESULTS: We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10-76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10-3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10-3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10-2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age (P for trend = 2.0 × 10-3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies (P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer.
CONCLUSION: These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.
METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued through BRCA mutation testing or routine clinical surveillance (RCS) for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 40 years. In the model, patients would decide whether to accept testing and to undertake risk-reducing mastectomy, oophorectomy, tamoxifen, combinations or neither. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the health system perspective. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: In the base case, testing generated 11.2 QALYs over the lifetime and cost US$4815 per patient whereas RCS generated 11.1 QALYs and cost US$4574 per patient. The ICER of US$2725/QALY was below the cost-effective thresholds. The ICER was sensitive to the discounting of cost, cost of BRCA mutation testing and utility of being risk-free, but the ICERs remained below the thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of US$9500/QALY, 99.9% of simulations favoured BRCA mutation testing over RCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering BRCA mutation testing to early-stage breast cancer patients identified using a locally-validated risk-assessment tool may be cost effective compared to RCS in Malaysia.
METHODS: Germ line DNA from a hospital-based study of 2575 unselected patients with breast cancer and 2809 healthy controls were subjected to amplicon-based targeted sequencing of exonic and proximal splice site junction regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 using the Fluidigm Access Array system, with sequencing conducted on a Illumina HiSeq2500 platform. Variant calling was performed with GATK UnifiedGenotyper and were validated by Sanger sequencing.
RESULTS: Fifty-five (2.1%) BRCA1 and 66 (2.6%) BRCA2 deleterious mutations were identified among patients with breast cancer and five (0.18%) BRCA1 and six (0.21%) BRCA2 mutations among controls. One thousand one hundred and eighty-six (46%) patients and 97 (80%) carriers fulfilled the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing.
CONCLUSION: Five per cent of unselected Asian patients with breast cancer carry deleterious variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. While current referral guidelines identified the majority of carriers, one in two patients would be referred for genetic services. Given that such services are largely unavailable in majority of low-resource settings in Asia, our study highlights the need for more efficient guidelines to identify at-risk individuals in Asia.
METHODS: An unmatched hospital based case-control study was conducted from October 2002 to December 2016 in Selangor, Malaysia. A total of 3,683 cases and 3,980 controls were included in this study. Unconditional logistic regressions, adjusted for potential confounding factors, were conducted. The breast cancer risk factors were compared across four birth cohorts by ethnicity.
RESULTS: Ever breastfed, longer breastfeeding duration, a higher soymilk and soy product intake, and a higher level of physical activity were associated with lower risk of breast cancer. Chinese had the lowest breastfeeding rate, shortest breastfeeding duration, lowest parity and highest age of first full term pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that breastfeeding, soy intake and physical activity are modifiable risk factors for breast cancer. With the increasing incidence of breast cancer there is an urgent need to educate the women about lifestyle intervention they can take to reduce their breast cancer risk.