Context Mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy are widely used by carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations to reduce their risks of breast and ovarian cancer.
Objective To estimate risk and mortality reduction stratified by mutation and prior cancer status.
Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective, multicenter cohort study of 2482 women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations ascertained between 1974 and 2008. The study was conducted at 22 clinical and research genetics centers in Europe and North America to assess the relationship of risk-reducing mastectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy with cancer outcomes. The women were followed up until the end of 2009.
Main Outcomes Measures Breast and ovarian cancer risk, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality.
Results No breast cancers were diagnosed in the 247 women with risk-reducing mastectomy compared with 98 women of 1372 diagnosed with breast cancer who did not have risk-reducing mastectomy. Compared with women who did not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, women who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy had a lower risk of ovarian cancer, including those with prior breast cancer (6% vs 1%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.59) and those without prior breast cancer (6% vs 2%; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.12-0.69]), and a lower risk of first diagnosis of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers (20% vs 14%; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.41-0.96]) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (23% vs 7%; HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16-0.82]). Compared with women who did not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, undergoing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with lower all-cause mortality (10% vs 3%; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.26-0.61]), breast cancer–specific mortality (6% vs 2%; HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.76]), and ovarian cancer–specific mortality (3% vs 0.4%; HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.80]).
Conclusions Among a cohort of women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, the use of risk-reducing mastectomy was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a lower risk of ovarian cancer, first diagnosis of breast cancer, all-cause mortality, breast cancer–specific mortality, and ovarian cancer–specific mortality.
Women who have in herited mutations inthe BRCA1 or BRCA2(BRCA1/2) genes have substantially elevated risks of breast cancer and ovarian cancer, with a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 56% to 84%.1-3 The estimated ovarian cancer risks range from 36% to 63% for BRCA1 mutation carriers and 10% to 27% for BRCA2 mutation carriers.3-6 Women who are mutation carriers have cancer risk–management options that include risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, risk-reducing mastectomy, annual cancer screening, and chemoprevention. Due to the lack of effective screening for ovarian cancer, salpingo-oophorectomy is strongly recommended once childbearing is complete.
Salpingo-oophorectomy has been demonstrated to decrease the risk of both breast cancer and ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.7-16 However, estimates for risk and mortality reduction for women with and without a history of breast cancer may differ and be of clinical relevance. Likewise, data are emerging that suggest BRCA1 mutation carriers may experience differential benefits from interventions such as salpingo-oophorectomy compared with BRCA2 mutation carriers.15,17 Herein, we examine a large cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers followed up prospectively and report cancer risk–reduction estimates following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and risk-reducing mastectomy in a number of scenarios incorporating mutation type (BRCA1 vs BRCA2), and cancer history (prior history of breast cancer vs none).
Women with inherited, disease-associated BRCA1/2 mutations were identified from 22 centers in the Prevention and Observation of Surgical Endpoints (PROSE) consortium. Participants were ascertained between 1974 and 2008. The PROSE protocol was previously described.12 All participants underwent an informed consent process for participation in research. This protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each institution. Study participants were enrolled as a cohort with time of follow-up starting from patient ascertainment into the research program. Genetic testing was performed per institutional guidelines and all patients received posttest counseling to review medical management options. Women who declined risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or mastectomy were offered increased surveillance at all centers according to established guidelines. At US sites, this consisted of annual mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for those with breast tissue, and transvaginal ultrasound every 6 to 12 months and CA 125 blood testing for those with ovaries in place. In the United Kingdom, women were offered annual mammography and magnetic resonance imaging until age 50 years. Ovarian cancer screening consisted of transvaginal ultrasonography and CA 125 blood testing every 4 months.
Patients were eligible for the study if they had no prior ovarian cancer diagnosis and no salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of ascertainment and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. Patients were excluded if they received a cancer diagnosis within the first 6 months of follow-up (to avoid including cancers that would have been minimally influenced by risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or mastectomy). Participants were followed up until the end of 2009. The median follow-up was 3.65 years (range, 0.52-27.4 years) among those who underwent surgery and 4.29 years (range, 0.5-27.9 years) in women who did not undergo surgery.
There were 4255 known BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the PROSE study that were considered for inclusion. Twelve women were excluded because they had both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, 525 because they underwent salpingo-oophorectomy before the ascertainment date, 363 because they were diagnosed with ovarian cancer before the ascertainment date, 738 because they had been followed up for less than 6 months, and 135 because they had incident cases of cancer. Participants who had undergone risk-reducing mastectomy prior to ascertainment were excluded from all breast cancer incidence analyses. Breast cancer included invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ.
Women who had not undergone risk-reducing mastectomy were followed up prospectively from the age at ascertainment. Women who had undergone risk-reducing mastectomy after ascertainment were followed up from the age at the time of their risk-reducing mastectomy. The primary outcome was breast cancer. If no breast cancer occurred, women were censored at the age of ovarian cancer diagnosis, death, or last contact.
Women who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy after ascertainment were followed up from the age at the time of their salpingo-oophorectomy. Women who had not undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy were followed up prospectively from the age at ascertainment. The outcomes of interest were ovarian cancer diagnosis, breast cancer diagnosis, second diagnosis of primary breast cancer, and mortality.
For ovarian cancer end points, women were followed up until ovarian cancer diagnosis, censoring at death, or last contact. Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with an occult ovarian cancer during risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. When missing data were encountered, the individual was dropped from the analysis that involved the missing data point, but the individual was included in other analyses in which complete data were available; in fact, because many of the data items were required for enrollment, missing data was only applicable to ovarian cancer end points. For breast cancer end points, women were excluded if they underwent risk-reducing mastectomy prior to ascertainment. Women who had risk-reducing mastectomy after ascertainment but before risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy were considered unexposed and were censored at the time of risk-reducing mastectomy. Women were followed up until breast cancer diagnosis or were censored at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis, risk-reducing mastectomy, death, or last contact. For analysis of second diagnosis of primary breast cancer, the aforementioned censoring criteria were applied, and women also were censored at the time of a contralateral mastectomy. A second diagnosis of breast cancer was defined as any contralateral breast cancer or an ipsilateral breast cancer diagnosed more than 5 years after the first.
For the mortality analysis, the inclusion and follow-up methods were similar to the salpingo-oophorectomy analyses described above. However, women were censored at last contact, with the primary outcome being death.
The effects of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and risk-reducing mastectomy on cancer incidence and mortality were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. A robust variance-covariance estimation method was used to correct for nonindependence of observations among participants from the same family or within centers.18 Adjustment for year of birth was undertaken in all analyses using Cox regression. Oral contraceptive use was adjusted for when ovarian cancer and ovarian cancer mortality were the outcomes. Adjustment for center of ascertainment was undertaken by stratifying analyses by center to avoid imposing linear constraints in the model. Surgical participants were followed up from the age of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or mastectomy. Nonsurgical participants were followed up from the age of ascertainment. All analyses were undertaken using Stata version 9 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas). All statistical tests were based on 2-sided hypotheses and inferences of statistical significance were made at the level of P equal to .05.
Risk-reducing mastectomy was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. No breast cancer events were seen in women who underwent risk-reducing mastectomy during 3 years of prospective follow-up. In contrast, 7% of women without risk-reducing mastectomy over a similar follow-up period were diagnosed with breast cancer (Table 1).
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a decreased risk of ovarian cancer. Among those with no prior breast cancer, the risk reduction estimate expressed as a hazard ratio (HR) in all BRCA1 mutation carriers was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-0.82; Table 2). No ovarian cancer events were seen in BRCA2 mutation carriers without prior breast cancer who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy during the 6 years of prospective follow-up. In contrast, 3% of women without salpingo-oophorectomy over a similar follow-up period were diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Among women with a prior diagnosis of breast cancer, the risk reduction in BRCA1 mutation carriers was a HR of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.04-0.63). No cases of ovarian cancer were diagnosed in BRCA2 mutation carriers after salpingo-oophorectomy.
Salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer in both BRCA1 mutation carriers (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.96) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82) without prior diagnosis of breast cancer (Table 3). There was evidence for an age effect with a reduction in breast cancer risk among BRCA1 mutation carriers without prior diagnosis of breast cancer who had their salpingo-oophorectomy before the age of 50 years (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.82), but no suggestion of breast cancer risk reduction in women who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy after the age of 50 years (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.26-7.05). The test for interaction yielded an HR of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41- 0.95; P = .03). In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with a prior diagnosis of breast cancer, there was no evidence for reduction in risk of a second diagnosis of primary breast cancer.
Salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality in those with no prior breast cancer (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.95) and those with prior breast cancer (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.17-0.52]; Table 4). When analyzed by mutation status, salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a significantly lower all-cause mortality in BRCA1 mutation carriers overall (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.62). With fewer participants and fewer events, all-cause mortality in BRCA2 mutation carriers was not statistically significant (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22-1.23).
Salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a lower breast cancer−specific mortality (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.76]; Table 5) and ovarian cancer−specific mortality (HR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.80]; Table 6). In BRCA1 mutation carriers, salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with improved breast cancer–specific mortality (HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.20-0.72]; Table 5) and ovarian cancer–specific mortality (HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.06-0.83]; Table 6). There were neither ovarian cancer deaths following salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA2 mutation carriers, nor were there any breast cancer deaths in BRCA2 mutation carriers who underwent salpingo-oophorectomy prior to cancer diagnosis. In an exploratory analysis, overall survival was associated with salpingo-oophorectomy in those younger than 50 years (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67) and in those aged 50 years or older (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.94) (Table 4); however, a test of interaction was not significant, which suggests no difference in overall mortality benefit between these 2 groups. There have been 8 deaths after salpingo-oophorectomy in those without cancer prior to salpingo-oophorectomy: 2 of the deaths were from breast cancer and 3 deaths were primary peritoneal cancer (1 due to leukemia, 1 due to stomach cancer, and 1 death that was not related to cancer; eTable 1 and eTable 2). Although 151 women without prior cancer also underwent mastectomy (34%), neither of the 2 who died from breast cancer had undergone risk-reducing mastectomy. In those patients with breast cancer prior to salpingo-oophorectomy, 23 died (including 19 deaths due to breast cancer and 1 due to ovarian cancer).
The clinical management of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers is complex and is best informed by accurate knowledge of the outcomes of interventions. Most prior studies that have investigated the effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or mastectomy on breast cancer risk did not examine effects either by mutation status7,9,12 or by prior cancer diagnosis.14,19 There may be little added benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy on breast cancer risk if women have chemotherapy-induced menopause, or if they are already receiving hormonal therapy. We hypothesize that both of these factors are important in determining precise estimates of risk reduction. Our results confirm that risk-reducing mastectomy is associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk. In addition, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is associated with a significant decrease in ovarian cancer risk in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and in those with and without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer. There is a significant reduction in breast cancer risk following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers without prior cancer diagnosis. Overall mortality was improved in women undergoing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. In women who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, 1.1% were subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 11.4% were subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer, and 3.1% subsequently died of any cause. In women who did not undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, 5.8% were subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer, 19.2% with breast cancer, and 9.8% subsequently died from any cause.
Risk-reducing mastectomy is a highly effective strategy for breast cancer risk reduction.20,21 In our prospective analysis, no breast cancer cases were observed after risk-reducing mastectomy. The observation of no prospectively identified breast cancer cases may be due to biases in prior retrospective studies or improved surgical techniques in recent prospective analyses.
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is highly effective in reducing ovarian and fallopian tube cancers in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and in those with and without prior breast cancer. Precise estimates of risk reduction following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy are needed to balance the increasingly recognized health risks caused by premature menopause.22-26 We observed no primary peritoneal cancers following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA2 mutation carriers, although such cancers have been reported.10 In BRCA1 mutation carriers, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer in those without prior breast cancer and an 85% reduction in those with prior breast cancer. It is unknown whether these numbers are truly different, reflect censoring from death due to breast cancer, or are a protective effect following breast cancer treatment.
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of breast cancer in those without prior breast cancer with both BRCA1 (37% reduction) and BRCA2 mutations (64% reduction). In mutation carriers with prior breast cancer, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy had no effect on risk of second diagnosis of primary breast cancer. In women with sporadic breast cancer, the benefit of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy when added to standard adjuvant treatment is uncertain and is the subject of multiple ongoing clinical trials. Chemotherapy often leads to cessation of menses, so any effect of ovarian ablation from risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may be achieved in some women by chemotherapy. In premenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive tumors, hormone therapy in addition to chemotherapy significantly improves disease-free survival.27,28 Our data are in contrast to prior reports demonstrating benefit of oophorectomy in preventing contralateral breast cancer.29,30 Differences in adjuvant therapy use could explain these discrepancies; however, a limitation of our study is the absence of detailed treatment information. It is important to note that ovarian cancer risk is independent of menopause; menopause either naturally occurring or chemotherapy-induced is not known to decrease the risk of ovarian cancer. Regardless of the effect of oophorectomy on second diagnosis of breast cancer, oophorectomy is essential to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, which can be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in women with early-stage breast cancer.29
Our data suggest that risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy may be associated with a lower breast cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers than in BRCA1 mutation carriers (64% vs 37%, respectively). Kauff et al15 observed a statistically significant breast cancer risk reduction following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA2 but not BRCA1 mutation carriers. The potentially larger risk reduction associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA2 compared with BRCA1 mutation carriers is of interest given the high proportion of ER-positive breast tumors in BRCA2 mutation carriers compared with BRCA1 mutation carriers.31 Additional research is required to address this issue.
We are still unable to provide definitive data with respect to the timing of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy on the efficacy of breast cancer risk reduction because the numbers in each subgroup remain small with a limited number of events. Eisen et al14 reported that the breast cancer risk reduction with salpingo-oophorectomy was greater in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent surgery before the age of 50 years than in women who underwent surgery after the age of 50 years. The results of the present analyses are consistent with this finding for unaffected women who undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy before age 50 years.
The importance of understanding the optimal age to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is underscored by several reports32 in the general population that suggest that oophorectomy in women younger than age 45 years is associated with increased mortality, particularly if hormone therapy is not used.26 Although these data are not directly applicable to women with BRCA1/2 mutations who have markedly increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer and therefore a different risk and benefit profile, issues of timing and the safety of hormone therapy are important. The Women's Health Initiative in postmenopausal women did not demonstrate a cardiovascular benefit overall from hormone therapy,33 but younger women going through natural menopause may derive such benefit.33,34 It is possible that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers undergoing abrupt surgical menopause to reduce ovarian cancer risk and receive hormone therapy may derive health benefits. Two prior studies have examined hormone therapy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Rebbeck et al35 examined 462 patients and reported no increased breast cancer risk with hormone therapy use after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Eisen et al14 examined hormone therapy in women who had undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and observed no increased risk associated with hormone therapy use. Further work is needed regarding this important issue.
We observed an association of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with a significant reduction in all-cause, breast cancer–specific, and ovarian cancer–specific mortality. We previously reported that risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with a 90% reduction in breast cancer–specific mortality, a 95% reduction in ovarian cancer–specific mortality, and a 76% reduction in overall mortality.12 Our present estimates are consistent with those reports. The apparent lesser effect on mortality in BRCA2 vs BRCA1 mutation carriers may be due to the lower risk of ovarian cancer in BRCA2 mutation carriers as well as the more aggressive biological features of BRCA1 -associated breast cancer; however, more data are needed to adequately address this important question.
There are a number of limitations to this study. We designed our study to maximize follow-up time and statistical power; however, this choice could have compromised our results in a number of ways. Our study design was powered to detect effects of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and mastectomy stratified on BRCA1/2 as well as the other groups defined in the tables. The observation of statistically significant P values in many strata provides evidence that we had sufficient power for our preplanned hypotheses. A few strata-specific analyses did not achieve statistical significance, suggesting that we did not have sufficient power to detect some smaller than anticipated effects. Therefore, analyses in some substrata may require additional study after accrual of much larger sample sizes.
Ideally, the evaluation of risk-reducing surgery on cancer risk and mortality reduction would involve a randomized controlled trial design. However, it is accepted in the field that a randomized approach would neither be acceptable nor ethical. As a result, this field of research is limited to undertaking observational studies that have methodological limitations. An observational design requires that statistical methods be used to correct for factors that may influence relative risk estimates. We have attempted to correct for a number of limitations of the observational study design by using the recommended analysis approaches of Klaren et al36 and Hartmann et al.37 However, additional analytical corrections could be considered in future analyses, including the effect of competing risks, or the consideration of the time-dependency aspect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing mastectomy and other covariates. As a result of these limitations, our results cannot be assumed to be causal in nature.
Although all women who chose to forgo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy were counseled to undergo intensive screening, we do not have detailed information on compliance of these recommendations at all centers. However, there are no data that ovarian cancer screening is effective in reducing the risk of developing ovarian cancer, or in reducing the risk of death from ovarian cancer.38 Therefore, we feel that it is unlikely that compliance would significantly alter our results related to the ovarian cancer end points of incidence and mortality. Intensive breast cancer surveillance does not reduce the risk of developing breast cancer, but aims to improve early detection. Due to our lack of detailed information on breast magnetic resonance imaging compliance, we cannot conclude that risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy improved breast cancer–specific mortality compared with optimal screening; however, we found an association between women who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and women who have better outcomes in terms of breast cancer risk, ovarian cancer risk, and ovarian cancer–specific survival, none of which would be anticipated to be affected by compliance to intensive breast cancer screening. We also found an association between women who underwent risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and breast cancer–specific and overall survival compared with women who have chosen to forgo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
Corresponding Author: Timothy R. Rebbeck, PhD, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 217 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (rebbeck@mail.med.upenn.edu).
Author Contributions: Dr Rebbeck had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Domchek, Friebel, Evans, Eeles, Pichert, Rubinstein, Rebbeck.
Acquisition of data: Domchek, Friebel, Singer, Evans, Lynch, Isaacs, Garber, Neuhausen, Matloff, Eeles, Pichert, Van t’veer, Tung, Weitzel, Couch, Rubinstein, Ganz, Daly, Olopade, Tomlinson, Schildkraut, Blum, Rebbeck.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Domchek, Friebel, Singer, Eeles, Pichert, Tung, Weitzel, Rubinstein, Blum, Rebbeck.
Drafting of the manuscript: Domchek, Friebel, Evans, Lynch, Pichert, Rebbeck.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Domchek, Friebel, Singer, Evans, Isaacs, Garber, Neuhausen, Matloff, Eeles, Pichert, Van t’veer, Tung, Weitzel, Couch, Rubinstein, Ganz, Daly, Olopade, Tomlinson, Schildkraut, Blum, Rebbeck.
Statistical analysis: Friebel, Pichert, Rubinstein, Rebbeck.
Obtained funding: Singer, Lynch, Isaacs, Neuhausen, Pichert, Olopade, Rebbeck.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Domchek, Friebel, Singer, Evans, Neuhausen, Matloff, Eeles, Pichert, Van t’veer, Tung, Weitzel, Couch, Ganz, Daly, Tomlinson, Schildkraut, Blum, Rebbeck.
Study supervision: Domchek, Lynch, Eeles, Pichert, Weitzel, Rebbeck.
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants R01-CA83855 and R01-CA102776 from the Public Health Service (awarded to Dr Rebbeck); funding from the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center (awarded to Dr Rebbeck); grant HHSN21620074400C from the Cancer Genetics Network (awarded to Drs Domchek and Isaacs); funding from the Marjorie Cohen Research Fund (awarded to Dr Domchek); SPORE grant BC P50 CA-089393 from the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (awarded to Dr Garber); grants DAMD-17-96-I-6088 (awarded to Andrew K. Godwin), DAMD-17-94-J-4340 and DAMD-17-97-I-7112 (awarded to Dr Lynch), and DAMD-17-03-1-0619 (awarded to Dr Domchek) from the US Department of Defense; grant P30-CA51008-15 (awarded to Georgetown University); funding from the Utah Cancer registry (which was funded by Public Health Service grant NO1-CN-6700) and the Utah State Department of Health; Nebraska State Cancer and Smoking-Related Diseases Research Program grants LB595 (awarded to Dr Lynch) and P30-CA-16042 (awarded to Dr Ganz); Cancer Research UK grant C5047/A7357 (awarded to Dr Eeles); and National Cancer Institute grant P30 CA51008-12 (awarded to Dr Isaacs). Dr Olopade receives funding as the Doris Duke Distinguished Clinical Scientist. Dr Eeles received funding from the National Institute for Health Research (awarded to the Biomedical Research Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust).
Role of the Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
The PROSE Consortium includes the following individuals and centers. The number of participants who were included in the present study appears in the parentheses. Christian Singer, University of Vienna, Austria (n = 283); Nadine Tung, Beth Israel, Boston, Massachusetts (n = 119); Joanne L. Blum, Becky Althaus, Gabrielle Ethington, and Estelle Brothers, Baylor-Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center (n = 13); Jeffrey Weitzel, City of Hope, Duarte, California (n = 98); Carrie Snyder, Henry T. Lynch, and Patrice Watson, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska (n = 348); Katherine Corso, Kathryn Stoeckert, and Judy E. Garber, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts (n = 311); Joellen Schildkraut, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (n = 19); Wendy S. Rubinstein, Christina Selkirk, and Scott M. Weissman, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois (n = 88); Mary B. Daly, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (n = 71); Gabriella Pichert, Caroline Langman, and Leena da Silva, Guy's Hospital and St Thomas Foundation Trust, London, England (n = 123); Camille Jasper and Claudine Isaacs, Georgetown University, Washington, DC (n = 315); Patricia A. Ganz and Joyce L. Seldon, University of California, Los Angeles (n = 79); Fergus Couch, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota (n = 96); Marc van Beurden and Laura Van t’veer, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (n = 121); Rosalind Eeles, Elizabeth Bancroft, Elizabeth Page, Lucia D’Mello, Susan Shanley, Audrey Ardern-Jones, Elena Castro, Anita Mitra, Kelly Kohut, and Jennifer Wiggins (Carrier Clinic Collaborators), Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, England (n = 111); Gareth Evans and Andrew Shenton, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, England (n = 301); Gail Tomlinson, University of Texas-Southwestern, Dallas (n = 38); Shelly Cummings and Olufunmilayo Olopade, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (n = 53); Susan Domchek, Tara M. Friebel, Timothy Rebbeck, Jill Stopfer, Jacquelyn Powers, and Katherine Nathanson, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (n = 296); Susan Neuhausen and Linda Steele, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and University of California, Irvine (n = 230); Steven A. Narod, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (n = 54); and Ellen T. Matloff and Karina L. Brierly, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (n = 127).
Disclaimer: Dr Olopade, a member of JAMA ’s Journal Oversight Committee, did not have any input in the decision to accept the manuscript for publication.
Additional Contributions: This article is dedicated to the late Andrew Shenton, who contributed significantly to this research.
1.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(5645):643-64614576434
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 2.Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S,
et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews.
N Engl J Med. 1997;336(20):1401-14089145676
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4.Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M,
et al; The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families.
Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62(3):676-6899497246
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 5.Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. Prevalence and penetrance of
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases.
Br J Cancer. 2000;83(10):1301-130811044354
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 6.Satagopan JM, Boyd J, Kauff ND,
et al. Ovarian cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutations.
Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(12):3776-378112473589
PubMedGoogle Scholar 7.Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL,
et al; Prevention and Observation of Surgical End Points Study Group. Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of
BRCA1 or
BRCA2 mutations.
N Engl J Med. 2002;346(21):1616-162212023993
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 8.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(17):1475-147910469748
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 9.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(21):1609-161512023992
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 10.Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J,
et al; Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group. Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a
BRCA1 or
BRCA2 mutation.
JAMA. 2006;296(2):185-19216835424
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 11.Kramer JL, Velazquez IA, Chen BE,
et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy reduces breast cancer penetrance during prospective, long-term follow-up of
BRCA1 mutation carriers.
J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8629-863516314625
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 12.Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Neuhausen SL,
et al. Mortality after bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers.
Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):223-22916510331
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 13.Chang-Claude J, Andrieu N, Rookus M,
et al. Age at menarche and menopause and breast cancer risk in the International
BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16(4):740-74617416765
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 14.Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J,
et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers.
J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7491-749616234515
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 15.Kauff ND, Domchek SM, Friebel TM,
et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of
BRCA1 - and
BRCA2 -associated breast and gynecologic cancer.
J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1331-133718268356
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 16.Rutter JL, Wacholder S, Chetrit A,
et al. Gynecologic surgeries and risk of ovarian cancer in women with
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 Ashkenazi founder mutations.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(14):1072-107812865453
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 17.Shah P, Rosen M, Stopfer J,
et al. Prospective study of breast MRI in
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118(3):539-54619609668
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 18.Lin DYWL. Robust inferences for the Cox proportional hazards model.
J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84:1074-1078
Google ScholarCrossref 19.Kauff ND, Barakat RR. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in patients with germline mutations in
BRCA1 or
BRCA2.
J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(20):2921-292717617523
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 20.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(3):159-16411463009
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 21.Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT,
et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers.
J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1055-106214981104
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 22.Parker WH, Jacoby V, Shoupe D, Rocca W. Effect of bilateral oophorectomy on women's long-term health.
Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2009;5(5):565-57619702455
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 24.Rocca WA, Bower JH, Maraganore DM,
et al. Increased risk of cognitive impairment or dementia in women who underwent oophorectomy before menopause.
Neurology. 2007;69(11):1074-108317761551
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 25.Rocca WA, Bower JH, Maraganore DM,
et al. Increased risk of parkinsonism in women who underwent oophorectomy before menopause.
Neurology. 2008;70(3):200-20917761549
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 26.Parker WH, Broder MS, Chang E,
et al. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the Nurses' Health Study.
Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1027-103719384117
PubMedGoogle Scholar 27.Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J,
et al. Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.
Lancet. 2004;364(9437):858-86815351193
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 28.Davidson NE, O’Neill AM, Vukov AM,
et al. Chemoendocrine therapy for premenopausal women with axillary lymph node-positive, steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(25):5973-598216087950
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 29.Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P,
et al. Contralateral breast cancer in
BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers.
J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(12):2328-233515197194
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 30.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(16):2437-244316636335
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 31.Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J,
et al. The pathology of familial breast cancer.
J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(9):2310-231811981002
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 32.Rocca WA, Grossardt BR, de Andrade M,
et al. Survival patterns after oophorectomy in premenopausal women.
Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(10):821-82817012044
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 33.Rossouw JE, Prentice RL, Manson JE,
et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease by age and years since menopause.
JAMA. 2007;297(13):1465-147717405972
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 34.Manson JE, Allison MA, Rossouw JE,
et al. Estrogen therapy and coronary-artery calcification.
N Engl J Med. 2007;356(25):2591-260217582069
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 35.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.
J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(31):7804-781016219936
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 36.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(13):941-94712837830
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref