A Clinical Decision Support Tool to Predict Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk for Women with Primary Breast Cancer

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published Jul 25, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i7.6814

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Submit your own article

Register as an author to reserve your spot in the next issue of the Medical Research Archives.

Author Registration

Join the Society

The European Society of Medicine is more than a professional association. We are a community. Our members work in countries across the globe, yet are united by a common goal: to promote health and health equity, around the world.

Join Europe’s leading medical society and discover the many advantages of membership, including free article publication.

Membership

Main Article Content

Danielle Braun
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA;  Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Theodore Huang
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA;  Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA;  Department of Biostatistics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Boston, MA
Jill Stopfer
Division of Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
Judy Garber
 Division of Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Anna Weiss
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA; Breast Oncology Program, Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, MA; Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY

Abstract

Background/Objectives. The performance of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy significantly reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer but has also been linked to higher rates of unplanned future operations and psychological stress. The risks of undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after diagnosis of unilateral primary breast cancer should be weighed against the benefit of risk reduction, which varies widely based on the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in high and moderate penetrance genes. In the absence of these mutations, contralateral breast cancer risk varies based on characteristics such as family history, primary tumor characteristics, precursor lesions and other risk factors. Physicians and patients can benefit from risk prediction tools that provide patients personalized risk estimates. Our goal was to develop such a decision support tool to help facilitate informed discussions with breast cancer patients and their clinicians, to make optimal surgical decisions regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.


Methods. For carriers of BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, TP53 data was abstracted from published studies to estimate conditional age-specific contralateral breast cancer risk, which was then used to estimate future risk. For non-carriers, a previously developed and validated contralateral breast cancer risk model was adapted.


Results. We developed an easy-to-use web application that can estimate lifetime and age-conditional risks for both carriers of relatively common breast cancer-related high and moderate penetrance genes as well as for non-carriers.


Conclusions. Our developed tool immediately provides individualized contralateral breast cancer risk estimates and could be extremely helpful during surgical discussions, especially regarding whether or not to perform contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The tool will be evaluated in a forthcoming randomized controlled trial.

Keywords: Contralateral Breast Cancer, Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy, Genetic Counseling, Risk Prediction, Clinical Decision Support Tool

Article Details

How to Cite
BRAUN, Danielle et al. A Clinical Decision Support Tool to Predict Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk for Women with Primary Breast Cancer. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 7, july 2025. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6814>. Date accessed: 05 dec. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i7.6814.
ABNT APA BibTeX CBE EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows) MLA ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows) RefWorks Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only) Turabian
Issue
Vol 13 No 7 (2025): Vol.13, Issue 7, July 2025
Section
Research Articles

The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.

 

References

1. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1055-1062. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.04.188
2. Li X, You R, Wang X, et al. Effectiveness of Prophylactic Surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3971-3981. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1465
3. Blondeaux E, Sonnenblick A, Agostinetto E, et al. Association between risk-reducing surgeries and survival in young BRCA carriers with breast cancer: an international cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2025;26(6):759-770. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00152-4
4. Kurian AW, Lichtensztajn DY, Keegan TH, Nelson DO, Clarke CA, Gomez SL. Use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy compared with other surgical treatments for breast cancer in California, 1998-2011. JAMA. 2014;312(9):902-914. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.10707
5. Zion SM, Slezak JM, Sellers TA, et al. Reoperations after prophylactic mastectomy with or without implant reconstruction. Cancer. 2003;98(10):2152-2160. doi:10.1002/cncr.11757
6. Frost MH, Slezak JM, Tran NV, et al. Satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: the significance of mastectomy type, reconstructive complications, and body appearance. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(31):7849-7856. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.09.233.
7. King TA, Sakr R, Patil S, et al. Clinical management factors contribute to the decision for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2158-2164. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.29.4041
8. Wong SM, Freedman RA, Sagara Y, Aydogan F, Barry WT, Golshan M. Growing Use of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Despite no Improvement in Long-term Survival for Invasive Breast Cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):581-589. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001698
9. Abbott A, Rueth N, Pappas-Varco S, Kuntz K, Kerr E, Tuttle T. Perceptions of contralateral breast cancer: an overestimation of risk. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3129-3136. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1914-x.
10. Alexander NE, Ross J, Sumner W, Nease RF Jr, Littenberg B. The effect of an educational intervention on the perceived risk of breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11(2):92-97. doi:10.1007/BF02599584.
11. Yadav S, Boddicker NJ, Na J, et al. Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk Among Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(9):1703-1713. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01239
12. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of Breast, Ovarian, and Contralateral Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402-2416. doi:10.1001/ jama.2017.7112.
13. Braun D, Yang J, Griffin M, Parmigiani G, Hughes KS. A Clinical Decision Support Tool to Predict Cancer Risk for Commonly Tested Cancer-Related Germline Mutations. J Genet Couns. 2018;27(5):1187-1199. doi:10.1007/s10897-018-0238-4.
14. Giardiello D, Steyerberg EW, Hauptmann M, et al. Prediction and clinical utility of a contralateral breast cancer risk model. Breast Cancer Res. 2019;21(1):144. Published 2019 Dec 17. doi:10.1186/s13058-019-1221-1.
15. Giardiello D, Hooning MJ, Hauptmann M, et al. PredictCBC-2.0: a contralateral breast cancer risk prediction model developed and validated in ~ 200,000 patients [published correction appears in Breast Cancer Res. 2022 Nov 22;24(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s13058-022-01579-z.]. Breast Cancer Res. 2022;24(1):69. Published 2022 Oct 21. doi:10.1186/s13058-022-01567-3.
16. Sun J, Chu F, Pan J, et al. BRCA-CRisk: A Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for BRCA Carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(5):991-999. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.00833.
17. Chowdhury M, Euhus D, Onega T, Biswas S, Choudhary PK. A model for individualized risk prediction of contralateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(1):153-160. doi:10.1007/s10549-016-4039-x.
18. Chowdhury M, Euhus D, Arun B, Umbricht C, Biswas S, Choudhary P. Validation of a personalized risk prediction model for contralateral breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(2):415-423. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4763-5.
19. Kriege M, Hollestelle A, Jager A, et al. Survival and contralateral breast cancer in CHEK2 1100delC breast cancer patients: impact of adjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(5):1004-1013. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.306.
20. Guo Y, Wan Q, Ouyang T, et al. Risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and contralateral breast cancer in patients with and without TP53 variant in a large series of breast cancer patients. Breast. 2022;65:55-60. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2022.07.002.
21. Ramsay, J. fda: Functional Data Analysis, 2024. R package version 6.1.8.
22. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6): 569-575. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.90.
23. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28(2):210-216. doi:10.1037/a0014474.
24. Xu S, Murtagh S, Han Y, Wan F, Toriola AT. Breast Cancer Incidence Among US Women Aged 20 to 49 Years by Race, Stage, and Hormone Receptor Status. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1):e2353331. Published 2024 Jan 2. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.53331.
25. Donaldson J, Swadi S, Frampton C, Brett C. Acute and persistent post-operative pain following mastectomy: a descriptive study in a tertiary hospital cohort. N Z Med J. 2024;137(1601):36-47. Published 2024 Aug 23. doi:10.26635/ 6965.6524.
26. Tesch ME, Partridge AH. Treatment of Breast Cancer in Young Adults. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022;42:1-12. doi:10.1200/EDBK_360970
27. Lee G, Liang JW, Zhang Q, et al. Multi-syndrome, multi-gene risk modeling for individuals with a family history of cancer with the novel R package PanelPRO. Elife. 2021;10:e68699. Published 2021 Aug 18. doi:10.7554/eLife.68699.
28. Couch FJ, Shimelis H, Hu C, et al. Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):1190-1196. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0424.
29. Easton DF, Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, et al. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2243-2257. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1501341