The impact of risk-reducing hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on survival in patients with a history of breast cancer – a population-based data linkage study

Prophylactic surgery including hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is recommended in BRCA positive women, while in women from the general population, hysterectomy plus BSO may increase the risk of overall mortality. The effect of hysterectomy plus BSO on women previously diagnosed with breast cancer is unknown. We used data from a population-base data linkage study of all women diagnosed with primary breast cancer in Queensland, Australia between 1997 and 2008 (n=21,067). We fitted flexible parametric breast cancer specific and overall survival models with 95% confidence intervals (also known as Royston-Parmar models) to assess the impact of risk-reducing surgery (removal of uterus, one or both ovaries). We also stratified analyses by age 20-49 and 50-79 years, respectively. Overall, 1,426 women (7%) underwent risk-reducing surgery (13% of premenopausal women and 3% of postmenopausal women). No women who had risk-reducing surgery, compared to 171 who did not have risk-reducing surgery developed a gynaecological cancer. Overall, 3,165 (15%) women died, including 2,195 (10%) from breast cancer. Hysterectomy plus BSO was associated with significantly reduced risk of death overall (adjusted HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.89; P =0.005). Risk reduction was greater among premenopausal women, whose risk of death halved (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.79; P < 0.006). This was largely driven by reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.79; P < 0.006). This population-based study found that risk-reducing surgery halved the mortality risk for premenopausal breast cancer patients. Replication of our results in independent cohorts, and subsequently randomised trials are needed to confirm these findings.

The Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised: Translation and psychometric evaluation in Spanish-speaking breast cancer survivors

Background Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common and distressing symptom reported by breast cancer survivors. The primary aim of this study was to translate and evaluate psychometrically for the first time a Spanish version of the Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised (S-PFS-R). Methods One hundred and eleven women with stage I–IIIA breast cancer who had completed their primary cancer therapy in the previous 6 months with the exception of hormone therapy completed the S-PFS-R, the Profile of Mood States (POMS) Fatigue (POMS-F) and Vigor subscales (POMS-V), and bilateral force handgrip testing. Data analysis included test–retest reliability, construct validity, criterion-related validity, and exploratory factor analyses. Results Test–retest reliability was satisfactory (r > 0.86), and all subscales showed moderate to high construct validity estimates [corrected item-subscale correlations (Pearson r = ≥ 0.65)]. The exploratory factor analysis revealed four dimensions with 75.5 % of the common variance explained. The S-PFS-R total score positively correlated with the POMS-F subscale (r = 0.50–0.78) and negatively with the POMS-V subscale (r = −0.13 to −0.44) confirming criterion-related validity. Negative correlations among force handgrip testing, subscales, and total scores were weak (r = −0.26 to −0.29). Conclusions The Spanish version of PFS-R shows satisfactory psychometric properties in a sample of breast cancer survivors. This is the first study to translate the PFS-R into Spanish and further testing is warranted.

No evidence for association of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene T2119C and C3161G amino acid substitution variants with risk of breast cancer

Background There is evidence that certain mutations in the double-strand break repair pathway ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene act in a dominant-negative manner to increase the risk of breast cancer. There are also some reports to suggest that the amino acid substitution variants T2119C Ser707Pro and C3161G Pro1054Arg may be associated with breast cancer risk. We investigate the breast cancer risk associated with these two nonconservative amino acid substitution variants using a large Australian population-based case–control study. Methods The polymorphisms were genotyped in more than 1300 cases and 600 controls using 5' exonuclease assays. Case–control analyses and genotype distributions were compared by logistic regression. Results The 2119C variant was rare, occurring at frequencies of 1.4 and 1.3% in cases and controls, respectively (P = 0.8). There was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.8), and the TC genotype was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–1.97, P = 0.8). Similarly, the 3161G variant was no more common in cases than in controls (2.9% versus 2.2%, P = 0.2), there was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.1), and the CG genotype was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.85–1.98, P = 0.2). This lack of evidence for an association persisted within groups defined by the family history of breast cancer or by age. Conclusion The 2119C and 3161G amino acid substitution variants are not associated with moderate or high risks of breast cancer in Australian women.

Correspondence : lymphedema following breast cancer

Lymphedema—a chronic, disabling sequela of breast cancer treatment—is finally receiving the research attention it deserves. The work published by Norman et al1 in the January issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology supports the findings of this emerging literature, which demonstrates that lymphedema is common following breast cancer treatment, but that higher estimates are observed when self-report is used to assess lymphedema status compared with other measures such as circumferences, perometry, or bio-impedance spectroscopy. While Norman et al reported that the majority of cases occur within 2 years of diagnosis, work by us2 and others3 have demonstrated that the majority of cases (70% to 80%) occur within the first 12 months after diagnosis. Collectively, this work advocates for the measurement of lymphedema being included within routine presurgical and postsurgical care. However, until we know more about the effectiveness of lymphedema treatment, clinicians may remain skeptical about active screening for lymphedema.

Does lymphedema following breast cancer warrant clinical attention?

Secondary lymphedema (swelling) after breast cancer treatment usually develops on the hand, arm, shoulder, and/or breast on the treated side. It is commonly associated with the presence of other upper-body symptoms, such as pain and aching1; it impacts physical and psychosocial functioning and adversely influences quality of life.2 Moreover, it is considered incurable, progressive, and difficult to treat. Arguably, lymphedema is the most problematic and dreaded treatment-related complication of breast cancer.3