Impact of population-based testing for pathogenic variants in breast cancer genes on screening recommendations in the WISDOM study.

Y Yiwey Shieh E Elad Ziv (Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.) L Lisa Madlensky (UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA) K Katherine Ross D Deborah Goodman (University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA) A Amie Blanco (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) A Allison Stover Fiscalini (University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) M Martin Eklund (Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden) O Olufunmilayo I. Olopade (Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago) K Kirkpatrick Beekman Fergus (Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) M Maren Theresa Scheuner (San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, CA) S Susie Brain (UCSF Breast Science Advocacy Core, Palo Alto, CA) D Diane Marie Heditsian (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) R Rachel Heise (Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY) J Jackelyn Moya (Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCSF, San Francisco, CA) L Leah P. Sabacan (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) J Jeffrey Tice (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) I Irene Acerbi (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) L Laura van't Veer (Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA) L Laura Esserman (Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA)

Abstract

10512 Background: The relative contributions of pathogenic variants (PV) in breast cancer (BC) genes, polygenic risk scores (PRS), and clinical risk factors to inform risk-stratified screening have not been well-studied on the population level. The WISDOM Study, a study of risk-based screening, used panel-based testing for PVs in 9 BC genes and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model modified by PRS (BCSC-PRS) to generate screening recommendations for > 30,000 participants undergoing risk-based screening. Women with PVs in high-penetrance genes were assigned q6 month screening (alternating MRI and mammogram). Those with PVs in moderate-penetrance genes were assigned q6 screening or yearly mammogram depending on family history. To determine the impact of PV detection on screening assignments, we examined the concordance between screening strategies informed by PV status vs. BCSC-PRS only. Methods: We analyzed participants with high-penetrance ( BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, PALB2, STK11, CDH1 ), moderate-penetrance ( CHEK2, ATM ), or CHEK2 low-penetrance (I157T, S428T) PVs. We performed cross-tabulations of hypothetical (based on BCSC-PRS only) vs. actual (which considers PV) screening recommendation. To generate hypothetical screening recommendations, we calculated individual BCSC-PRS 5-year risk and applied the trial’s risk-based screening algorithm as if there were no PV. We considered initial (Year 1) screening recommendations to reflect that PV testing occurred at time of enrollment. We stratified analyses by PV category and age. Results: Our analysis included 714 women with a PV, of which 32% were high-penetrance, 39% were moderate-penetrance, and 29% were CHEK2 low-penetrance. Median age was 53 (IQR 45-62) years and 86% self-reported as non-Hispanic White. We found little overlap between screening recommendations based on PV status vs. BCSC-PRS. In women with a high-penetrance PV, 1.3% (3/234) would have received a q6 screening recommendation based on BCSC-PRS. In women with a moderate-penetrance PV, 33% (92/278) were assigned to q6 screening, of whom 6.5% (6/92) would have received the same assignment under BCSC-PRS. Additionally, 65% (182/278) were assigned to yearly mammogram, of whom 2.2% (4/182) would have received the same assignment under BCSC-PRS. In women with PVs aged 40-49, 67% (187/280) would have been recommended no screening until age 50 based on BCSC-PRS. In women with PVs aged 50-74, 90% (390/432) would have been recommended biennial screening. Conclusions: Most women with PVs in BC genes would not have otherwise been recommended for enhanced screening based on clinical and PRS risk. Our results highlight the importance of testing for PVs as a cornerstone of risk-based screening on the population level. Future studies will examine opportunities for risk reduction as we integrate genetic and non-genetic risk factors. Clinical trial information: NCT02620852 .

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 10512-10512
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

Y

Yiwey Shieh

E

Elad Ziv

Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

L

Lisa Madlensky

UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA

K

Katherine Ross

D

Deborah Goodman

University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA

A

Amie Blanco

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

A

Allison Stover Fiscalini

University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

M

Martin Eklund

Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

O

Olufunmilayo I. Olopade

Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago

K

Kirkpatrick Beekman Fergus

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

M

Maren Theresa Scheuner

San Francisco VA Health Care System, San Francisco, CA

S

Susie Brain

UCSF Breast Science Advocacy Core, Palo Alto, CA

D

Diane Marie Heditsian

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

R

Rachel Heise

Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY

J

Jackelyn Moya

Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCSF, San Francisco, CA

L

Leah P. Sabacan

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

J

Jeffrey Tice

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

I

Irene Acerbi

University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

L

Laura van't Veer

Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA

L

Laura Esserman

Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA