Download PDF
Frauenheilkunde up2date 2013; 7(3): 179-190
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325042
Allgemeine Gynäkologie und gynäkologische Onkologie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Früherkennung versus Vorsorge bei Hochrisikopatientinnen für Brust- und Eierstockkrebs

G. Pfeiler
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 July 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category
Kernaussagen

Bei Verdacht auf genetisch bedingten Brust- bzw. Eierstockkrebs sollte eine genetische Beratung angeboten werden. Die Mutationsanalytik sollte nur bei Erfüllung der Kriterien auf Wunsch der Ratsuchenden durchgeführt werden, wobei der Ratsuchenden Strategien zur Bewältigung möglicher Befunde angeboten und erklärt werden sollen. Neben psychologischer Unterstützung sind das v. a. die Früherkennung und die Prophylaxe.

Den Ratsuchenden müssen explizit die Vor- und Nachteile der jeweiligen Strategie verdeutlicht werden. Erst durch ausreichende Information kann sich die Ratsuchende für ihren persönlichen Weg entscheiden (Informed Consent).

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science 2003; 302 (5645) 643-646
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1401-1408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1329-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1998; 62: 676-689
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group. Prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population-based series of breast cancer cases. Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 1301-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Satagopan JM, Boyd J, Kauff ND et al. Ovarian cancer risk in Ashkenazi Jewish carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Clin Cancer Res 2002; 8: 3776-3781
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C et al. Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet 2010; 42: 410-414
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Deutsche S3 Leitlinie, Interdisziplinäre S3 Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 3.0, 2012.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Singer CF, Tea MK, Pristauz G et al. Guideline for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in high risk patients, particularly in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2012; 124: 334-339
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Antoniou AC, Hardy R, Walker L et al. Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J Med Genet 2008; 45: 425-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 292: 1317-1325
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Passaperuma K, Warner E, Causer PA et al. Long-term results of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in women with BRCA mutations. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 24-30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 1905-1917
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee JM, McMahon PM, Kong CY et al. Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers. Radiology 2010; 254: 793-800
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295: 2374-2384
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Smith-Warner SA, Spiegelman D, Yaun SS et al. Alcohol and breast cancer in women: a pooled analysis of cohort studies. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 279: 535-540
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Friedenreich CM, Neilson HK, Lynch BM. State of the epidemiological evidence on physical activity and cancer prevention. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 2593-2604
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McTiernan A, Irwin M, Vongruenigen V. Weight, physical activity, diet, and prognosis in breast and gynecologic cancers. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4074-4080
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Iodice S, Barile M, Rotmensz N et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 2275-2284
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schmidt C. The breast cancer chemoprevention debate. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1646-1647
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P et al. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Lancet 2000; 356: 1876-1881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 80-87
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7491-7496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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: 1055-1062
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar