The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co‐segregation, family cancer history profile, co‐occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case‐control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1,395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; and 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared with information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known nonpathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene‐specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification.
Purpose: This study seeks to evaluate MR imaging morphological factors and other covariates that influence the presence of residual glandular tissue after risk-reducing mastectomy in patients with a familial predisposition. Methods: We analyzed women of a high-risk collective with pathogenic mutation (BRCA1 (n = 49), BRCA2 (n = 24), or further mutation (n = 9)). A total of 117 breasts were analyzed, 63 left and 54 right, from a cohort of 81 patients, who were on average 40 years old. The mean follow-up was 63 months (range 12–180 months, SD = 39.67). Retrospective analysis of MR imaging data from 2006–2022 of patients of a high-risk collective (all carriers of a pathogenic mutation) with contralateral (RRCM) or bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (RRBM) was performed. In the image data the remaining skin flap thickness by distance measurements at eight equally distributed, clockwise points and the retromamillary area, as well as by volumetry of each breast, was elected. Residual glandular tissue was also volumetrized. In addition, patient-related covariates were recorded and their influence on postoperative residual glandular tissue and skin flap thickness was analyzed by uni- and multivariate regressions. Results: A significant association with postoperative residual glandular tissue was shown in multivariate analysis for the independent variables breast density, skin flap mean, and surgical method (all p-values < 0.01). A negatively significant association could be seen for the variables preoperative breast volume (p-values < 0.01) and surgeon experience (most p-values < 0.05–<0.1). Conclusion: Postoperative residual glandular tissue is an important tool for quantifying the risk of developing breast cancer after risk-reducing mastectomy. Different effects on residual glandular tissue were shown for the independent variables breast density, skin flap, surgical method, preoperative breast volume, and surgeon experience, so these should be considered in future surgical procedures preoperatively as well as postoperatively. Breast MRI has proven to be a suitable method to analyze the skin flap as well as the RGT.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.