BackgroundMen with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations.ObjectiveTo report the first year's screening results for all men at enrolment in the study.Design, setting and participantsWe recruited men aged 40–69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrolment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.Results and limitationsWe recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%—double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.ConclusionsThe IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.Patient summaryIn this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.

BackgroundMutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations.ObjectiveTo report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.Design, setting, and participantsMen aged 40–69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.Results and limitationsA total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p =  0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p =  0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p =  0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).ConclusionsAfter 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.Patient summaryWe demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.

Genetic testing for common risk variants in women undergoing assessment for familial breast cancer may identify a distinct group of high-risk women in whom the role of risk-reducing interventions should be explored.

This study prospectively evaluated the utilization of cancer risk management strategies in a multi-institutional cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers using a self-report questionnaire. Of 142 unaffected female mutation carriers, 70 (49%) had elected to receive their mutation result. Of those who knew their mutation result, 11% underwent bilateral mastectomy (BM), 29% had bilateral oophorectomy (BO), 78% performed regular breast self-examination (BSE), and 80%, 89%, 67%, and 0% had at least annual clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, transvaginal ultrasound (TVU), and CA125, respectively. A further 20%, 7%, 0%, 21%, and 75%, respectively, reported never having had these tests. For women who elected not to receive their mutation result, 0% underwent BM, 6% underwent BO, and 77%, 42%, 56%, 7%, and 0% had regular BSE, CBE, mammography, TVU, and CA125, respectively. Only one woman used chemoprevention outside a clinical trial. Uptake of prophylactic surgery and screening was associated with knowing one's mutation status (for all behaviors except BSE), age (for BO and CBE) and residence (for mammography). In this cohort, the minority of mutation carriers utilized risk-reducing surgery or chemoprevention and a substantial minority were not undergoing regular cancer-screening tests.

This study applied the self-regulation model to examine cognitive and emotional predictors of screening in unaffected women with a strong family history of breast cancer. 748 unaffected female members of an Australian registry of multiple-case breast cancer families formed the sample. Participants completed a baseline psychosocial questionnaire and a screening questionnaire 3 years later. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to determine predictors of under- and over-screening according to national guidelines. At follow-up 16% of women under-screened and 10% over-screened with mammography; 55% under-screened with clinical breast examination (CBE); and 9% over-screened with breast self-examination (BSE). Of the women found screening according to guidelines for mammography 72% reported ever having received specific recommendations for mammography screening from a health professional. Compared to appropriate screeners, under-screeners on mammography were less likely to have received a screening recommendation (as were under-screeners on CBE), were younger and reported lower perceived breast cancer risk, but were at higher relative risk (RR) of breast cancer and were more likely to report elevated depression. Over-screeners on mammography were more likely to be younger and have a lower RR of breast cancer. Over-screeners on BSE reported elevated cancer-specific anxiety, were less likely to be university educated and more likely to have received a recommendation for BSE. Under- and over-screening is common in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. Evaluation of interventions targeting perceived risk of breast cancer, anxiety and depression are needed to ensure women obtain accurate advice from relevant specialists and enact screening recommendations.