Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer Risk: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses From a BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carrier Cohort Study.

Background For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the association between oral contraceptive preparation (OCP) use and breast cancer (BC) risk is still unclear.Methods Breast camcer risk associations were estimated from OCP data on 6030 BRCA1 and 3809 BRCA2 mutation carriers using age-dependent Cox regression, stratified by study and birth cohort. Prospective, left-truncated retrospective and full-cohort retrospective analyses were performed.Results For BRCA1 mutation carriers, OCP use was not associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.56), but in the left-truncated and full-cohort retrospective analyses, risks were increased by 26% (95% CI = 6% to 51%) and 39% (95% CI = 23% to 58%), respectively. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, OCP use was associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.97), but retrospective analyses were inconsistent (left-truncated: HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.33; full cohort: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.81). There was evidence of increasing risk with duration of use, especially before the first full-term pregnancy (BRCA1: both retrospective analyses, P P = .001, respectively; BRCA2: full retrospective analysis, P = .002).Conclusions Prospective analyses did not show that past use of OCP is associated with an increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers in young middle-aged women (40-50 years). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, a causal association is also not likely at those ages. Findings between retrospective and prospective analyses were inconsistent and could be due to survival bias or a true association for younger women who were underrepresented in the prospective cohort. Given the uncertain safety of long-term OCP use for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, indications other than contraception should be avoided and nonhormonal contraceptive methods should be discussed

Endometrium is not the primary site of origin of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers

<p>Serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma has been proposed to be a potential precursor lesion of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma. If true, an increased incidence of uterine papillary serous carcinomas would be expected in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, who are at high-risk of developing pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma. This study explored particularly the occurrence of uterine papillary serous carcinoma, as well as other endometrial cancers, following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation attending a tertiary multidisciplinary clinic. A consecutive series of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who had undergone risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy without hysterectomy at the University Medical Center Groningen from January 1996 until March 2012 were followed prospectively. They were crossed with the histopathology list of endometrial cancer diagnoses reported by the Dutch nationwide pathology database PALGA. To assess the risk of endometrial cancer, a standardized incidence ratio was calculated comparing the observed with the expected number of endometrial cancer cases. Overall, 201 BRCA1 and 144 BRCA2 mutation carriers at a median age of 50 years (range, 32-78) were analyzed. After a median follow-up period of 6 years, after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, two cases of endometrial cancer were diagnosed, whereas the expected number was 0.94 cases (standardized incidence ratio 2.13; 95% confidence interval 0.24-7.69; P-0.27). Both endometrial cancer cases were of the endometrioid histological subtype. We showed that the incidence of endometrial cancer following risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, especially uterine papillary serous carcinoma, in women at high-risk of developing pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma is not increased. On the basis of our data, the hypothesis of serous endometrial intraepithelial carcinoma being an important precursor lesion of pelvic high-grade serous carcinoma seems unlikely. There is no need to add a prophylactic hysterectomy to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Modern Pathology (2013) 26, 572-578; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2012.169; published online 19 October 2012</p>

Glucocorticoid administration for Graves' hyperthyroidism treated by radioiodine. A questionnaire survey among members of the European Thyroid Association.

Background: Glucocorticoid prophylaxis is required in some instances after radioiodine (RAI) treatment for Graves' hyperthyroidism to prevent progression of Graves' orbitopathy (GO). However, no randomized clinical trial has been performed to ascertain the optimum glucocorticoid therapy. Aim and methods: Aim of this study was to perform a questionnaire-based survey of glucocorticoid prophylaxis among European thyroidologist members of the European Thyroid Association. Results: Eighty-two responses from 25 European Countries were received. Two respondents did not prescribe steroids in any clinical scenario, while 8 gave the drug to all patients receiving RAI therapy. The majority of respondents only gave glucocorticoids to patients showing some degree of ocular involvement or if risk factors for the progression of GO after RAI were present (e.g., cigarette smoking); 24% of responses indicated that clinicians would not give glucocorticoids if patients were thought to have no GO or inactive GO. Ninety-one percent of clinicians used prednisone (53%) or prednisolone (38%). The mean starting dose [given for 16 days (range 2-60 days)] was 37.6 mg prednisone or prednisone-equivalent (range 15-80 mg). Overall, the results of this survey showed a wide diversity in the regimens used, in terms of timing of initiation of treatment, duration of treatment, cumulative doses of administered glucocorticoids and monitoring of side-effects of glucocorticoid treatment. Conclusions: The results of this study underscore the need for randomized clinical trials to ascertain the optimum regimen of prophylactic glucocorticoid therapy. (J. Endocrinol. Invest. 33: 409-413, 2010) (C)2010, Editrice Kurti