Every Story Matters

Since Angelina Jolie recently shared her personal experience with genetic testing and prophylactic surgery in the New York Times, public awareness of hereditary cancer is at an all-time high. The media surrounding Ms. Jolie’s revelations has also provided unparalleled opportunities for members of the HBOC community to share their personal accounts as well.

How did you learn about hereditary cancer? Was it a chance meeting with someone who was high risk? A brochure? A TV health show? For me, it was a magazine article I read back in 1997. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 33, my doctors recommended a single mastectomy on one side, but they never told me about genetic counseling or testing, despite my having several red flags for a hereditary syndrome: young onset breast cancer, Jewish background, and a paternal grandmother who died young of abdominal cancer. I certainly would have made different surgical choices if I had known I carried a mutation. The article motivated me to pursue genetic counseling and testing, and ultimately, I chose prophylactic surgery, which discovered early cancer in my healthy breast.

All of our stories are important. Each story we share and every article about HBOC raises awareness and provides an opportunity for someone to recognize himself or herself in the writing and to pursue genetic counseling, testing, and risk-management options.

In a brilliant example of how awareness can save lives, reporter Stacey Sager first shared her hereditary cancer story on WABC-TV in New York in October 2011. Stacey was on a campaign to raise awareness and save lives. A 13-year breast cancer survivor at the time, Stacey had undergone testing for BRCA and found that she carried a BRCA1 mutation. Testing and BSO saved her life. As Stacey bravely allowed cameras to document her BSO, early precancerous changes were found in her fallopian tubes. (Ovarian cancer is rarely found early, other than during prophylactic surgery.) When Stacey wrote a guest blog for Thoughts from FORCE, a reader responded with the following comment, “For years my doctors have been trying to get me to take the BRCA testing because of my family cancer history, but I simply was not ready. After watching your televised story I went to the doctor the next week for my BRCA test.”

Stacey’s story resonated with and motivated more than one person. Celebrity singer/songwriter Kara DioGuardi happened to catch Stacey’s story while in New York City while she was appearing in the Broadway production of Chicago. Kara, who was interviewed by People magazine, shared that a chance viewing of Stacey’s story changed her life. Kara knew about her family history of cancer, but she didn’t know about BRCA testing until that crystalizing moment. When she returned to L.A., she immediately sought care for genetic testing, and then underwent BSO. A dear friend who agreed to be a surrogate for Kara and her husband was implanted with Kara’s last remaining embryo from prior IVF and carried their baby to term; little Greyson is now 3 months old. Kara shares more of her story in a moving interview where she gets to meet Stacey in person and thanks her for publicly sharing her story and possibly saving her life.

Experts estimate that less than 10% of the almost 1 million people in the United States with a mutation are aware of their high-risk status. We know that risk assessment and intervention can improve survival for high-risk individuals. But people cannot take action if they are unaware of their risk. It is up to us to raise the profile of HBOC until every person has access to the tools, information, and health care experts to assess their risk, and every high-risk person has the education, support, and resources they need to make informed decisions about their risk.

In her Voices of FORCE account for our Joining FORCEs newsletter, member Lita Poehlman shared how a chance meeting with a FORCE member led her to genetic counseling and testing, and subsequent prophylactic surgery discovered precancerous changes. She credits that chance meeting with saving her life. These personal anecdotes remind us that every act of sharing is significant and every story matters!

Other publications share accounts from the HBOC community, including several  memoirs: Previvors, Pretty Is What Changes, What We Have, Apron Strings, Beyond the Pink Moon, and Pink Moon Lovelies. The documentary In the Family (which is available for free viewing online until May 26) follows the intimate story of filmmaker Joanna Rudnick and several families facing hereditary cancer. Our community blog page has links to the HBOC  blogosphere, and the Voices of FORCE section of the website is filled with your stories. You can add your story and voice to our pages. Writing and sharing your accounts raises awareness about the impact that hereditary cancer has on everyday people, inspires others to learn more, engenders compassion and understanding for our community, and saves lives.

Proposed Guidelines on BRCA Testing Leave Many Gaps

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a government-supported independent panel of experts that reviews and develops recommendations on select preventive health services. The panel assigns letter grades to preventive services based on their opinion of strength of the research evidence. The task force just released a draft of their guidelines on genetic counseling and testing for BRCA. Despite some strengths of the updated guidelines; important gaps remain that will directly affect patient access to genetic counseling, genetic testing, and preventive services.

Significance of These Guidelines
The USPSTF published guidelines are important to consumers for two main reasons:

1. Primary care clinicians and health systems follow these guidelines. The content of the guidelines can affect what information doctors convey to patients about disease risk, screening, and prevention.
2. The panel’s guidelines must be implemented based on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which states that health plans must provide benefits without imposing cost-sharing (i.e., without a deductible or co-pay) for services that have a rating from the task force of “A” or “B.” 

USPSTF Guidelines on BRCA Testing
In 2005, the USPSTF first issued guidelines for primary care providers on “Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility.” The task force assigned a grade “B” (recommended health care providers offer this to patients) to genetic counseling and testing for women with a family history suggestive of a possible BRCA mutation. It issued a grade “D” (recommended health care providers discourage patients from using these services) to genetic testing in women without a family history suggestive of a mutation. In 2005 this guidance was greatly needed, as many primary care providers were either unaware of BRCA testing or had received most of their information from Myriad Genetics, the laboratory that sells the test. At the time, the USPSTF did not request public or expert commentary on their guidelines.

In 2011, the USPSTF announced its plan to update these guidelines, and asked for public commentary. FORCE (and other health care experts) submitted written recommendations to the USPSTF on its plan to review the research on BRCA genetic counseling and testing and update the guidelines. Despite receiving extensive suggestions for strengthening and improving the guidelines, last month the USPSTF released new draft guidelines that essentially restate the 2005 guidelines and grades with few changes. In general, I agree with the letter grades that were assigned, but I’m disappointed that this opportunity for guideline revision was not used to address critical gaps. With the recent passage of the PPACA—which references USPSTF guidelines to determine insurance coverage of some preventive services—it is more important than ever that the USPSTF guidelines on genetic counseling and testing are practical, comprehensive and evidence-based. Gaps in the guidelines will now directly affect patient access to genetic counseling, testing, and preventive services as outlined by this new legislation.

An overview of our comments is available on our advocacy page, and our full written comments as submitted to the USPSTF can be viewed here.

FORCE Concerns with the Draft Guidelines

• The patient population covered by the guidelines is too narrow. Important groups are not specifically included in the USPSTF guideline “B” letter grade:
  • Women who have been diagnosed with cancer
  • Women with a known BRCA mutation in the family
  • Women with a family history of cancers other than breast or ovarian cancer that puts them at high risk for inherited cancer
  • Men

• No letter grade is assigned to any risk-management options.
  The task force mentions risk-management interventions but does not assign letter grades to specific prevention and screening options. With no letter grade assigned, these preventive services are not guaranteed coverage under the PPACA, nor will health plans be directed to provide the services without out-of-pocket costs to patients.

• The current guidelines take a single-syndrome approach to family history and genetics. The task force states: “…primary care providers should ask about specific types of cancer, which family members were affected, and the age and sex of affected family members…For women who have positive family histories of breast or ovarian cancer, primary care providers may use one of several brief familial risk stratification tools to determine the need for in-depth genetic counseling.”

Encouraging doctors to take a patient’s family history of breast and ovarian cancer is a positive step. However, the guidelines only provide instructions for referring women with a positive family history of these two cancers. Other cancers (such as pancreatic cancer) can be associated with a BRCA mutation in a family. Further, a family history of different cancers may indicate other hereditary syndromes associated with different mutations than BRCA. Lynch Syndrome, for example, is associated with a family history of ovarian, colon, and/or endometrial cancers and Cowden Syndrome is associated with breast, thyroid, and uterine cancers.

FORCE Recommendations to the USPSTF
FORCE’s submitted recommendations for addressing these gaps, focusing on issues that we felt had the most supportive research evidence:

• Extend the evaluation and letter grade to women with a known mutation in the family
• Extend the evaluation and letter grade to women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and who meet criteria based on personal and family history of cancer 
• Assign a letter grade to the following risk-management options
  • Breast MRI 
  • Risk-reducing  bilateral mastectomy
  • Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy
  • Oral contraceptives
• Review the evidence and develop one set of integrated practice guidelines for collecting family history and referral of appropriate individuals for genetic counseling, testing, and related preventive services. These guidelines should include Lynch Syndrome and other relevant hereditary cancer syndromes.

Guidelines Are Important, But A New Approach Is Needed
Focusing public health efforts on disease preventive is lifesaving. Applying risk assessment allows us to better tailor prevention and screening for those in the highest risk categories; this approach is both lifesaving and cost saving. Developing expert guidelines based on  the strength of research on preventive care is worthwhile. But we must do a better job in guiding primary care doctors specifically on topics of genetics, risk assessment, screening, and prevention of hereditary disease in order to save more lives.

The USPSTF consists primarily of public health experts rather than clinical experts in disease and genetics. This may not be the best approach for reviewing topics in the realm of personalized medicine and genetics. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Office of Public Health Genomics organizes a panel – the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group – which includes both public health experts and clinicians. EGAPP provides an example of a more inclusive panel for reviewing the application of genetics to public health.

The narrow approach of reviewing research for only one hereditary cancer syndrome and only specific portions of the community while ignoring other hereditary syndromes and populations at risk does not serve the public well. Using this approach, the USPSTF is missing the opportunity to help practitioners identify people at very high risk for many preventable diseases with a goal of saving lives. Health care professionals and the public would be better served by having a single set of evidence-based guidelines that address the collection and evaluation of personal and family medical history to identify people who would benefit from genetic counseling and testing for many hereditary diseases. These guidelines should include all hereditary disease syndromes and conditions that have associated genetics tests with clinical utility.

FORCE plans to work with policy-makers and other advocacy groups to outline and propose a new approach to systematic review of preventive services such as collection of family history, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and screening and prevention options. Our goal will be to address important issues including:

• Determining which experts should be included on preventive services task force panels
• Prioritizing the diseases and preventive services to be evaluated
• Integrating the guidelines for different diseases and services into a single set of easy-to-follow recommendations on risk-assessment, screening, and prevention
• Expanding coverage under the PPACA, Medicare, and Medicaid for preventive services for more diseases, populations, and medical interventions

The new USPSTF draft guidelines highlight gaps in education resources, research and access to care. There is a continued need for FORCE to take action and unite our community to advocate for more HBOC-specific research and more access to credible information, genetic counseling and testing, and risk-management options. At the same time, FORCE will be working with groups representing other hereditary diseases to address the global issue of how to better incorporate personalized medicine and genomics into public health. Stay tuned for updates.

Hopeful Progress in Ovarian Cancer Prevention Research

In 2008 FORCE conducted a survey to learn about research priorities for the HBOC community. We learned that women want better methods for ovarian cancer detection and prevention for ourselves, our children, and future generations. For this reason, we have worked closely with researchers exploring new options and we have carefully followed and shared with our community the progress in ovarian cancer detection and prevention.

Since BRCA testing became available, experts have recommended bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or BSO (removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes) for women with mutations between the ages of 35 – 40 or after childbearing is completed. Until large studies on women with mutations were completed, there was little data and only common sense to back up this recommendation. Later, research proved that for women with BRCA mutations removing the ovaries and tubes lowers the risk of developing and dying from breast cancer and ovarian cancer. I recall when the studies were published and the media was flooded with articles about how this “simple surgery” can lower risk. At the time, I was about 3 years out from my BSO at age 35 and dealing with significant surgical menopause side effects. I recall thinking, “Simple for whom?”

Don’t get me wrong; BSO is often an outpatient procedure with minimal surgical risk and scarring. The research on risk and survival is incredibly important and significant, and finally proved what experts long suspected. But the use of the term “simple” made it seem like these decisions were easy. On a personal and professional basis, and almost daily, I am reminded how difficult the decisions are. Many women recover quickly after surgery and their quality-of-life remains the same. But others suffer from side effects and long-term health and quality-of-life consequences from early menopause. The decision for surgery can be difficult and consequential for many women.

In the last few years, studies on high-risk women suggest that many ovarian cancers in BRCA gene mutation carriers may actually start in the fallopian tubes. In 2009 and 2010 at our annual conference experts presented the possibility that early detection or prevention focused around the fallopian tubes might allow women to temporarily delay BSO until closer to natural menopause. But medical experts need evidence that it is safe and effective before they can recommend salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tubes) as a risk-reducing option. This requires a research study comparing outcomes of women who have salpingectomy, women who have BSO, and those who choose surveillance. The design of such a study faces several challenges. A big concern has been whether or not high-risk women would be willing to participate in a prevention study examining fallopian tube removal followed by removal of the ovaries later.

To answer this question, in 2011 FORCE conducted a survey on attitudes of high-risk women towards participating in ovarian cancer risk-reduction research. Preliminary results were presented at our 2011 annual conference and shared on our blog. Almost one-third of the 333 respondents would consider participating in a prophylactic salpingectomy study. We shared this finding with the research community as evidence that a salpingectomy study would be feasible and that women would enroll in such a study.

At our 2012 conference, gynecologic oncology experts Dr. Illana Cass and Dr. Douglas Levine presented the pros and cons of further research on salpingectomy to lower the risk in high-risk women.  The presentation used a debate format and presented two sides of the salpingectomy issue:

Arguments against developing a salpingectomy study included:

• Although many cancers in high-risk women may start in the fallopian tube, we have no proof that all ovarian cancers begin in the tubes.
• The benefits of salpingectomy are unknown and likely less substantial than BSO.  The surgery is unlikely to impact breast cancer risk. Meanwhile, there are well-documented benefits of BSO for mutation carriers.
• Many experts are concerned that women who undergo surgery to remove only the fallopian tubes will not return for additional surgery to remove their ovaries after they undergo natural menopause.
• Designing such a study would require a large, costly, cooperative research effort that would take over a decade, thousands of high-risk women participating, and massive recruitment and follow-up effort.

Despite these valid concerns, there were strong arguments presented in favor of studying salpingectomy as a risk-reducing option for high-risk women, including:

• Salpingectomy might serve as an “interval surgery” to manage and lower risk in high-risk women who are not ready for BSO and would otherwise opt for surveillance only.
• Women who undergo salpingectomy can maintain their ovaries longer and avoid long-term medical consequences of surgical menopause.
• This type of large-scale research would provide valuable information about development, prevention, and treatment of ovarian cancer for women with BRCA mutations and those without.

Both presenters at our conference agreed on one important conclusion: the time is right for additional research on salpingectomy.

Fortunately, other medical experts agree. During the Gynecologic Oncology Group meeting this January, the Cancer Prevention and Control Committee approved further development of a concept to design a feasibility study of risk-reducing salpingectomy. Many proponents, including the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Prevention and FORCE enthusiastically endorsed designing such a study. It’s important to note that despite this progress, it still may be more than a year before a salpingectomy study would open at GOG sites around the country.

We know that these studies are needed and that many high-risk women would consider participating in them. As with the development of new PARP Inhibitor research studies (which I blogged about last week), I feel optimistic about salpingectomy studies moving forward and proud of FORCE’s hard work and contributions in promoting these studies. The voice of the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer community has been heard. Our community is highly motivated to participate in hereditary cancer research and once the study is developed and open, I feel confident that women will enroll. Please stay tuned for further updates. To read more about fallopian tube and salpingectomy research, read our Research Updates article and view our on-demand webinar on this topic.

Clinical Trials for Hereditary Cancer: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

This blog is a call to action! Please read on, and then post, blog, tweet, retweet, and share about this issue so that we can assure that hereditary cancer research continues!

The call for more research is a constant theme for all diseases including cancer, and sometimes it’s easy to get frustrated by the slow pace of progress. The multistep process from discovery to FDA approval is often long and doesn’t always end in success. But research is necessary to assure that new treatments work as well or better than current standard-of-care. For this to happen, studies must recruit enough people to prove that the agents work. This is particularly critical for research that focuses on a small specific population like people with a BRCA mutation.

PARP inhibitor research is a prime example. I first heard about PARP inhibitors at the 2005 ASCO annual meeting. In her plenary address on advances in hereditary cancer, Dr. Barbara Weber from the University of Pennsylvania mentioned targeted agents (PARP inhibitors) that were designed to exploit weaknesses of cancer cells in people with BRCA mutations. This was exciting news! I was hopeful that this could be the beginning of personalized therapy for people in our community. From that moment on, I vowed to do whatever it took to learn about, share with our community, and promote the studies to determine whether these drugs worked.

Early small clinical trials of PARP inhibitors were promising, but delays and road-blocks affected development of larger research studies. Some of the roadblocks had to do with study design; others involved dosing or side effects as researchers determined the most effective combinations of PARP inhibitors with other anticancer agents. Despite these issues, enthusiasm continues for the potential of these drugs in people with BRCA mutations. Yet, eight years later, there are still no FDA-approved PARP inhibitors and people are still dying of hereditary cancers!

FORCE has continued to advocate for further research on PARP inhibitors, petitioning scientists, the FDA, and pharmaceutical companies to address the road-blocks and challenges and to facilitate the research and find answers for hereditary cancer. After eight long years, our pleas and efforts have been rewarded. Several PARP inhibitor studies are now recruiting, including a large, Phase II study on PARP inhibitors for women with BRCA-associated advanced breast cancer. Our participation in this research is critical. Unless enough people participate, these studies will not continue. If enrollment falls short, the next time scientists have an idea for treating or preventing hereditary cancer, they may decide that the BRCA community is too difficult to research, and fewer studies will be designed for us. That would be tragic considering how many members of our community develop and succumb to cancer.

This is where the rubber meets the road!

We have worked long and tirelessly to advocate for this research. Now that we have it, we cannot afford to turn a deaf ear. At this moment, the fate of hereditary cancer treatment research rests with each of us. Although most of the current studies are open only to women with advanced cancer, even if that doesn’t describe you, perhaps you know someone who fits that description. If PARP inhibitors work for advanced hereditary cancer, the next step will be tests to see if they also work for earlier cancers.

Here is what you can do to help:

• Get involved. Consider enrolling in a study if you are eligible, and share information about PARP inhibitor research with everyone that you know. Post it prominently on your social media pages, share it with your online or in-person support group, discuss it with your local media, and write or blog about why hereditary cancer research is important. Please remember to share your efforts with us. Email us,  post on FB or the FORCE message boards about ways you have spread the word about this important research.
• Stay tuned to FORCE to learn of new available studies. We will be updating this page in the upcoming weeks with new featured studies so check back often.
• Support FORCE with a donation to help us continue our important work to advocate and recruit for research specific to hereditary cancer

We must participate in and promote hereditary cancer clinical trials and other studies if we and future generations are to realize more effective treatment and prevention for hereditary cancers.

13 Things About Breast Reconstruction

A guest blog by Kathy Steligo

Although many women choose to forego breast reconstruction, it is almost always an option after mastectomy. Research shows that reconstruction can improve psychological well-being and quality of life, and result in improved body image and self-esteem. Most women are not informed about breast reconstruction before their mastectomy, however, so it pays to do your homework to discover and understand the benefits and limitation of all your alternatives.

Breast reconstruction is a topic of interest to our community, because so many of us face mastectomy to either treat or prevent breast cancer. So we’re very happy to bring you this month’s blog. In keeping with our 2012 “13 Things” theme, we present 13 informational tidbits about reconstruction.

We also recommend two new publications to help with your decision-making process. Our new Show & Tell book includes photos and personal comments from FORCE members who have had reconstruction. And the long-awaited 3^rd edition of The Breast Reconstruction Guidebook hit the streets on November 8 (you can review the Table of Contents on the link above). The FORCE Post Mastectomy Photo Gallery is another resource for viewing post-mastectomy photos (and uploading your own photos to share with others).

1. New breasts can be reconstructed at any time following mastectomy, even years later, but there are definite cosmetic advantages to immediate reconstruction that is performed simultaneously with mastectomy. Immediate procedures allow for minimized mastectomy incisions that are made to facilitate reconstruction.
2. Reconstruction doesn’t restore sensation that is lost when tissue is removed during mastectomy. Most women have very little sensation in their reconstructed breasts. Much of the area remains permanently numb, although minimal feeling does return as some nerves regenerate. Generally, some feeling is recovered in the upper portion or outer perimeter of the breast in the areas that are farthest from the mastectomy incision. Nor do reconstructed nipples have sensation or response. Although they look quite real, they lack nerves that produce feeling in the skin. Women with tissue flaps often regain more feeling than women with implants, because the fine nerves in the flaps regrow once they are transferred to the chest.
3. Many women are candidates for nipple-sparing or areola-sparing mastectomies, which require a breast surgeon who is experienced with these procedures. (Cancer originating in the nipple is rare; most women’s nipples do not include the intraductal infrastructure that supports formation of breast cancer cells.) Healthy nipples on reconstructed breasts don’t always retain natural sensation, because much of the underlying nerve system is destroyed when breast tissue is removed. Areola-sparing mastectomies remove the nipple but preserve the pigmented skin surrounding it.
4. Independent review of hundreds of scientific papers has identified no proven link between implants and systemic disease or autoimmune disorders.
5. Physicians cannot predict which women will have problems with implants, but having radiation therapy compromises blood flow to the skin, which increases the likelihood of capsular contracture and other problematic issues.
6. Implants remain the same size over time, while breasts rebuilt with your own tissue change according to fluctuations in your weight.
7. Some surgeons use hybrid expander-implants that are gradually filled with saline. When the desired size is reached, the fill valve is sealed and the expander-implant is left in place. No exchange surgery is required.
8. Plastic surgeons who perform traditional expander-to-implant surgery and attached tissue flap procedures that use skin, fat, and muscle are more common (and easier to find) than surgeons who provide direct-to-implant and muscle-sparing flap procedures.
9. Although they are still in the minority, more surgeons are performing muscle-sparing breast reconstruction procedures.
10. Expander-to-implant reconstruction requires a shorter surgery than a tissue flap operation, but the overall timeline is longer.
11. Fat grafting—liposuctioning fat from the body and transferring it to the new breast—is often used to improve symmetry, contour and other cosmetic defects. The process isn’t always completely successful, however, and often 50% of more of the transplanted fat is resorbed by the body. New methods of fat grafting may offer intriguing possibilities, keeping a greater percentage of transferred fat in the breast, and even building new breasts without surgery, but much more study is needed.
12. You can “train” for surgery. Being in the best possible physical condition will help your body weather surgery and recovery. You don’t have to attain the level of a professional athlete, but anything you do to strengthen your cardiovascular system and body will help you get back to your normal routine. If you smoke, you must refrain from doing so for at least three weeks before and after your surgery (maybe it will be the impetus you need to quit for good!) Smoking restricts blood flow throughout the body and can potentially compromise any surgery. It is particularly troublesome with flap reconstruction, because a portion or all of the new breast can die without a robust blood supply.
13. The Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 requires group health plans that cover mastectomy to also pay for breast reconstruction, including procedures that are required to attain symmetry or to address complications. The law, however, does not stipulate specific surgeons, hospitals or procedures. That is left to the terms of the health insurance policy.

A Healing Light From Within

Below are excerpts from our Joining FORCEs conference welcome address and a keynote talk that I recently gave in Chicago.

Fifteen years ago, there was no FORCE. Back then, hereditary cancer was scarier and lonelier than it is today.

When I was first diagnosed with breast cancer at age 33, it was caught early. I was very lucky to have been diagnosed, since I had no family history of breast cancer, and breast cancer was not on my radar. I was very conscientious about my health, and I found a lump on my very first breast self-exam at age 29. The lump was benign, but it was the reason I was having mammograms by age 33, even though I was not considered to be at high risk. My son was almost two, and Dan and I were getting ready to get pregnant again. I went down the list of things you do before getting pregnant: take folic acid, see the dentist, get a mammogram. That mammogram found microcalcification, which led to a biopsy, and then another biopsy that showed very early breast cancer called “ductal carcinoma in situ” or DCIS.  I was fortunate, as I hadn’t needed any further treatment beyond a mastectomy (unilateral), which was recommended because the amount of precancer that was throughout my breast.

I remember attending a Komen Race for the Cure walk three weeks after my mastectomy and looking out into a sea of pink caps and bald heads, and thinking “that isn’t me, my cancer was caught early.” I isolated and insulated myself and kept those other women at arms length, unable and unwilling and too afraid to define myself as someone with cancer. It made me too vulnerable and I didn’t want to be vulnerable.

Nine months later at age 34, my cancer returned in my lymph nodes. I learned that my original health care team had let me down. What they thought was early-stage breast cancer was actually invasive breast cancer that had already spread to my lymph nodes by the time of my mastectomy. Then they let me down a second time by never mentioning hereditary cancer or genetic counseling and testing. Through a chance reading of a magazine article on Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome and BRCA mutations, I learned that I carried some of the indications for genetic counseling and BRCA testing. Back then, I didn’t know how to advocate for myself to receive the best care. That lack of knowledge could have cost me my life. When my cancer recurred I knew that I only had one more chance to get it right, and I sought out the best health care experts I could find.

Like the women I saw at that first walk, I lost my hair with chemotherapy.  Suddenly, I was very vulnerable and afraid as I found myself on the other side of the looking glass, the side I had tried to protect myself from through denial and (regretfully) indifference.  While in chemotherapy I traveled to Los Angeles and stayed with a family friend. She was from a generation that didn’t like to talk about cancer. While we were out for a walk, she ran into an acquaintance, who she introduced to me. Right in front of me, nodding at my bald head, she whispered to her friend, “it’s cancer” as if I couldn’t hear her, or as if not saying the words aloud would protect her from it.

It jolted me and hit me, how different I was from the healthy world. I was a young woman with cancer. I knew that there were others like me, but I had never met them. The whispered words made me recoil, I felt diminished, stigmatized, devalued. But I also rebelled against these feelings.

With my genetic testing, that stigma grew. I learned that I had a BRCA2 mutation. Even the word “mutation” seemed alien, invasive, intrusive. How could something so dangerous and damaging be an integral part of me, of my DNA? I had to find a way to redefine and reconcile those aspects of myself in order to move forward in my journey.

I started writing a poem that I dedicated to all the people who were facing that type of stigma. I entitled my poem “Beyond Survival” because for me, surviving wasn’t enough. The poem was about transcending adversity and stigma, and becoming whole. I won’t share the entire poem but here are a few lines:

Beyond Survival

Our hearts flutter but beat strong,

with the will within us to go on.

To not just survive, but to achieve,

to aspire to inspire; to soar, to believe

that we can make a difference.

Shout it emphatically, the sound

of our existence echoes and resounds

ascends and transcends the farthest bluff,

resonates in crevices where ignorance hides

and divides us.

Do not feel devalued, do not cower.

As long as we draw breath, we’re empowered.

Despite these brave words, after finishing treatment, I suffered from depression. I was afraid that my cancer would recur quickly as it had the first time. These were some of the darkest days of my life, even worse than when I was first diagnosed, and when I had my recurrence. My family suffered with me as I didn’t have the energy or engagement in life that my husband and young toddler deserved. I wanted to be well, but I didn’t know how to get there, so I withdrew. I could have easily stayed in that world of sadness and fear, but around that time I purchased my first computer. I reached out via the Internet to others in online cancer forums, and connected with people like myself who slowly drew me out of my sadness and hopelessness and gave me courage to continue on. They inspired me, but equally important, they needed me and leaned on me for inspiration and support. It was from these women that I learned how powerful, healing, and transformative receiving but also giving peer support could be. Although I had not yet started FORCE there was this kernel of thought that my emotional healing from cancer required reaching out to others and knitting a strong community of people who could unite in solidarity and oppose the forces that would diminish us. I wrote this poem for my online support heroes.

cancer, like a vacuum,

was sucking out my joy and hope

enfolding and enclosing me in an envelope

of despair and fear. 

In the distance I saw a steady glow,

heard a chorus growing closer

one light separating into many

descending on me,

a flock of angels

carrying torches, lighting the shadows,

voices singing, arms embracing, wings uplifting me.

I became one with this throng,

a thousand women strong.

In the distance a figure huddles

and shudders in a darkened corner,

we press onward swiftly towards her;

a thousand and one angels

comfort and support our newest member.

From that lonely kernel of thought grew the organization known as FORCE. Little did I know what FORCE would grow to become and mean in my life and the lives of so many. What I did know was that something needed to be done for me and for others to feel less alone! Whisperings in darkened corners are feared. Their shadows are made larger by the lack of light. But from the time of my recurrence on, when I threw off indifference and denial, I understood that if we could shine a spotlight bright on an issue we could remove some of the fear and ignorance, and that together we are so much stronger, braver, and resilient than we are alone. Fourteen years ago I founded FORCE on the principle that no one should face hereditary cancer alone! I was tenacious and passionate in my outreach and advocacy. I did everything I could to make sure that people received the information they needed to make informed medical decisions—information that I was denied when I started my breast cancer journey.

Part of the wonder of FORCE has been the steady growth of our community since then. No matter people’s situation, they are not alone! Our members draw the same strength that I have from belonging to the FORCE community. I believe that each of us carries some type of torch within us, a flame that sparks our passion and helps ignite the passion of others; a flame that we can use to guide other people who are facing darkness and despair. By joining together we have succeeded in illuminating hereditary cancer to create hope for a brighter future for ourselves and for our families.

The Cavalry Has Arrived!

When I founded FORCE in 1999 it was in the early days of BRCA discovery and testing. I had my own BRCA testing in 1998, over a year after my diagnosis with breast cancer, and only after learning about hereditary cancer by reading a magazine article about BRCA. I immediately understood the significance and power of identifying people with genetic predisposition to cancer, with the goal of preventing cancer or detecting it early. But the technology was met with suspicion and alarm by many individuals and groups, even in the face of emerging research that documented the value of identifying those with a BRCA mutation.

I spent a good portion of FORCE’s early years explaining why our community was important. Back then the hereditary cancer community was frequently dismissed or minimized, emphasizing the fact that we were a small subset of a larger whole. Granted, we don’t represent a majority of the cancer community, but we shoulder a disproportionate cancer burden. And because of our extraordinary high risk for cancer and the generational aspects of inherited cancers, HBOC individuals and families are an overburdened and under-resourced community. We require unique research and resources that provide information and evidence-based solutions for the extraordinary issues we face.

We worked hard in those formative years to raise awareness, unite our community, and assure that both survivors and previvors were acknowledged as cancer stakeholders who had a say and a place at the table. We fought for awareness, educated people on the differences between hereditary and sporadic cancer, advocated for better early detection and risk-reduction options, and helped people make informed decisions. Along the way, we were often asked to justify the prophylactic options for risk-management, and even the need for a hereditary cancer advocacy group like FORCE.

As awareness has grown, FORCE has grown, and so has our voice in the cancer community. And yet there are still many areas of unmet needs when it comes to hereditary cancer clinical care and research. Although improvements have been made, current options for prevention, detection, and treatment of hereditary cancer are still inadequate. Too many people are being diagnosed with and succumbing to hereditary cancers, and the path to drug development and FDA approval for example for PARP inhibitors has been glacially slow. After14 years of passionate advocacy and incremental and modest gains, it would be easy to be discouraged. But as many of you know if you read my blogs, I also like to focus on achievements and advancements, and there have been many.

Once in a while, I have had the privilege to witness a landmark event, a game-changer for our community. Last Monday night was such an event. I was honored to be among over 200 people who attended the opening of the new Basser Research Center for BRCA within the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Established through a transformative philanthropic gift from Mindy and Jon Gray, the center is dedicated to the memory of Mindy’s sister, Faith Basser, who succumbed to hereditary ovarian cancer. The center is devoted solely to research and provision of care relevant to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Not a dry eye could be seen as we watched a video that included Faith’s story and how she became the motivation for her family’s endowment. The video also included stories of members of our community, who shared the devastating toll of hereditary cancer on their families. That night, all of us who attended and watched the video, listened to the speakers, and met the Basser Research team understood the center’s clear, overarching message: HOPE. I was witnessing history being made and a new era for the HBOC community.

I was honored to be among over 200 people who attended the opening of the new Basser Research Center for BRCA

Certainly our community will continue to face challenges, hardship, disparity, and unmet needs. But we have champions and a path to a brighter and more optimistic future with the establishment of the first research center dedicated to the pursuit of better detection, prevention, treatment, survivorship, and supportive care for HBOC. As I told Jon and Mindy Gray when I thanked them for this amazing gift to our community, “the cavalry has arrived.”

HBOC Week 2012: A Call to Arms

As we begin HBOC Week and approach Previvor Day 2012, I am again reminded of how far we have come and how far we still have to go in the fight against hereditary cancer.  The growth of our organization, message boards, mailing lists, and Facebook and Twitter pages tells the story: more people than ever are aware of hereditary cancer risk and are turning to FORCE for information, support, and resources. This is all good news, but at a recent meeting at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Director of the Office of Public Health Genomics, Dr. Muin Khoury, emphasized that most people who are at inherited high risk for cancer are unaware of their status. Recognizing that identification of people with BRCA and Lynch Syndrome mutations and offering medical intervention on their behalf can save lives, the CDC is now working on an initiative to integrate genomic education and awareness into the states’ Departments of Health.

These programs are sorely needed. On a daily basis through our programs we hear from people who are unaware of their high cancer risk or their options to manage it. The tales we hear illustrate how much work is yet to be done. We hear of high-risk women who are denied breast cancer screening and told that they are too young to have mammograms or that they do not need MRIs, survivors who are not aware of their high risk for future cancers, and people who meet expert guidelines for genetics evaluation but are not referred for genetic counseling. Media reports on screening guidelines often omit the fact that recommendations for people of average risk are not adequate for those who fall in the high-risk range. Some vocal individuals and groups malign genetic evaluation and risk management as unimportant or overtreatment. And stories like the one recently published on BloombergBusinessweek.com show how patients pay the price when health care providers who lack training in genetics misinterpret test results.

But despite these setbacks we have had a lot of wins. Earlier this year a generous gift from Mindy and Jon Gray created the Basser Research Center for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at the University of Pennsylvania. It is the first comprehensive center dedicated solely to the pursuit of research and provision of care relevant to BRCA1 and BRCA2. The United States Preventive Services Task Force incorporated information about BRCA into their recommendations for ovarian and prostate cancer screening. The CDC’s Actions to Save Lives Now, a workshop on incorporating genomics into public health, focused on bringing the public lifesaving education and awareness, and that’s a great step forward. In a few weeks we will host our 7^th annual Joining FORCEs Against Hereditary Cancer Conference with record-breaking attendance and participation.

HBOC Week/Previvor Day logo

As today marks the start of the third National HBOC Awareness Week and next Wednesday is Previvor Day, our goal is to attract more attention than ever. Let’s focus on the positive, and use this opportunity to save lives through education. We know that risk assessment and intervention can improve survival for high-risk individuals. But people cannot take action if they are unaware of their risk. It is up to us to raise the profile of HBOC until every person has access to the tools, information, and health care experts to assess their risk, and every high-risk person has the eduation, support, and resources they need to make informed decisions about their risk.

Applying Personalized Medicine to Disease Screening and Prevention

Personalized medicine uses information about an individual’s genetic make-up to deliver the right screening, prevention, or treatment options at the right time to achieve the best medical outcome. Genetic counseling, risk assessment, and genetic testing to determine inherited predisposition for diseases are important and growing areas of personalized medicine that further this goal.

Critics have raised concerns that identifying and treating people who are at risk for disease necessarily leads to “over-medicalization” of health care and increases cost and the possibility of causing harm. Evaluating the risks and costs versus benefits of disease prevention and control, however, is complex and depends on the disease in question, available screening and risk-management options, individuals or populations who are most at risk, and their level of risk for the disease. Given our limited resources and focus on containing health care costs, we will move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to health only when we are willing to carefully consider each of these variables, rather than discounting all risk assessment, screening and prevention as over-treatment.

Not all risk is the same
Risk changes over the course of a lifetime, depending on genetics, lifestyle and other factors. Preventive care and screening recommendations for people of average risk are based on studies of thousands of people in the general population—sometimes they are not adequate for people who have a higher risk for a particular disease. Personalized medicine allows us to identify people with higher-than-average risk and provide interventions that can improve their health outcomes. For example, the American Cancer Society recommends annual mammograms beginning at age 40 for women with an average risk for breast cancer. But women with BRCA mutations, who face a higher lifetime risk for breast cancer at a younger age, and tumors that may develop faster and more aggressively, need more frequent and rigorous screening that begins at an earlier age and involves annual MRI surveillance.

Not all diseases are the same
Diseases develop and behave differently and have different impact, morbidity, and mortality, which must be considered when weighing the cost and risks compared to the value of screening and prevention. Impact of a disease includes the number of people affected and the consequences of diagnosis and treatment on survival and quality of life. Basal cell skin cancer and ovarian cancer illustrate these differences.

Roughly 2.8 million people in the United States are diagnosed with basal cell skin cancer yearly, compared to about 22,000 ovarian cancer diagnoses. Basal cell cancers can be detected through skin exams, and almost all cases are cured. With no reliable detection or screening, ovarian cancer is most often found late, when the five-year cure rate is less than 50%. Ovarian cancer patients require extensive surgery, chemotherapy, and sometimes radiation, often with profound negative effects on quality-of-life. Although more people are affected by basal cell cancer, more people die of ovarian cancer. Screening and prevention recommendations for a common, detectable, and treatable disease like basal cell cancer require different considerations than those for a less common cancer (like ovarian cancer) that cannot be detected early, carries a poor prognosis, and is accompanied by aggressive treatment. It makes sense to focus efforts and apply technology to identify those in the highest risk category for deadly diseases such as ovarian cancer and prevent them whenever possible.

Not all interventions have the same risks or benefits for everyone
We can predict risk for some diseases like Huntington’s, for which we have no effective or proven intervention. However, many diseases, such as breast cancer, have interventions that lower the risk for or improve the odds of detecting the disease at it’s earliest and most treatable stage. Each disease intervention option has unique risks, costs, and benefits that should be considered individually.

MRI is a sensitive tool that can detect breast cancers that are too small for a mammogram to find. But MRI screenings are expensive, and they often find suspicious but harmless breast changes, requiring a biopsy to assure that they are benign. For these reasons, experts don’t recommend screening breast MRI for women of average risk for breast cancer. Women at high risk have a greater likelihood of an abnormality being actual cancer, and that often tips the scales in favor of increased surveillance, even if that means a greater chance of needing a biopsy. Long-term research on high-risk women shows that MRI detects breast cancers at an earlier stage resulting in less extensive treatment.

Having a BRCA mutation raises the lifetime risk for ovarian cancer up to 50%, compared to 1.5% for women with average risk. Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries and tubes) is the most effective way to reduce ovarian cancer risk, but like all surgery, the procedure has its own potential for risk and harms: complications from anesthesia, infection, and early menopause, which can be associated with long-term health and quality-of-life consequences. Surgery is also costly. On the other hand, research has shown that BSO improves survival in high-risk women. Given the costs, risks, and benefits of prophylactic surgery versus the consequences of an ovarian cancer diagnosis, this intervention offers more value to women at very high risk and less value to average risk women.

Research shows that prostate cancer screening using PSA increases detection of this cancer but may not improve survival for many men. PSA screening has risks and limitations including: many of the cancers found are not symptomatic and will not affect life-span or quality-of-life; PSA tests can yield many false-positive results leading to unnecessary biopsies; treatment of prostate cancer can lead to side effects in many patients. Given this, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued guidelines that recommended against PSA screening for men of average risk. However, recent research suggests that men with BRCA 2 mutations face a higher lifetime risk for more aggressive, younger-onset, prostate cancer than men in the general population. Applying personalized medicine to their guidelines, the USPSTF qualified that “This recommendation…does not consider PSA-based testing in men with known BRCA gene mutations who may be at increased risk for prostate cancer.” 

Not all information is clinically useful
Before BRCA mutations were identified, individuals with a strong family history of cancer had no way to know whether they had inherited a very high risk for cancer. Basing their risk on family history alone, these women sometimes pursued prophylactic surgery, even though their lifetime risk was no higher than the average woman’s. The availability of BRCA testing improves decision-making for high-risk women, giving them the opportunity to learn more about their personal risk and make evidence-based health care decisions.

The same advances that make BRCA genetic testing possible have also led to the development of other tests that may not be as useful. Genetic testing allows researchers to understand how diseases develop and design better options for screening, prevention and treatment. But not all genetic tests should be offered to the general public for decision-making purposes; particularly those that do not provide “actionable” information that people can use to improve their health or quality of life.

Informed decision-making
Given credible information, people are capable of weighing the costs, harms, and benefits of different medical interventions. Genetics experts can help to guide people through the maze of factors described in this blog to make personal informed decisions about their care.

BRCA is just the tip-of-the-personalized medicine iceberg. Genetic tests have been developed that can look at tumor cells to determine the best treatment or predict the likelihood of people having side-effects from a particular therapy.  Granted, personalized medicine is not an exact science, and we are not yet able to apply it to all people and all diseases. But it makes sense to use evidence-based interventions to save and improve the quality of as many lives as we can. As a society, we need to continue to invest in the research, translation, and application of personalized medicine, risk assessment, and genetic testing to determine the best candidates for the best interventions at the best time.

13 Things That Jewish People Should Know About Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Before I was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 33, cancer was not on my radar. Despite the fact that my paternal grandmother had died young of so-called “abdominal cancer,” none of my health care providers indicated that I might be at high risk for cancer. My health care team treated my diagnosis of young-onset breast cancer like a lightning bolt out of the sky. It wasn’t until after my initial treatment (a unilateral mastectomy) that I read a magazine article and learned of several significant red flags for an inherited BRCA mutation. After reading the article I became concerned that my cancer might be hereditary. The article talked about the link between young-onset breast cancer (like mine!) and ovarian cancer (which my grandmother likely had) and BRCA mutations. It also mentioned the relevance of a family’s health history on the paternal side (in my case the only cancer in my family was on my father’s side). No doctor had ever expressed interest in the cancer on my father’s side of the family. Perhaps the detail that was most surprising to me was the high prevalence of BRCA mutations in people of Easter European Jewish descent. All of the factors mentioned in the article which raised the suspicion of a mutation applied to my situation. Had I known this information before my mastectomy, I would have pursued genetic counseling and testing and made different surgical decisions at the time of my diagnosis.

Even now, 16 years after my diagnosis, as I give presentations on hereditary cancer, I still frequently meet Jewish people who have no idea of the high prevalence of BRCA mutations in this community. Most Jewish people are aware of the dangers of Tay-Sachs disease, another genetic disorder which is also prevalent in Jewish populations. Yet there are still many people who are Jewish and have a family history of cancer who have never heard of BRCA mutations and are unaware of the availability of genetic counseling and testing. Learning about BRCA   almost a year after my initial diagnosis of breast cancer was eye-opening. I learned the importance of people doing their own researching and advocating when it comes to health care decisions.

In keeping with our “13 Things” theme during 2012, I present my list of what Jewish people should know about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, with the hope that this list will be spread far and wide beyond the FORCE community in order to save lives.

1. BRCA mutations have been found in people of every ethnicity. But people of Eastern European Jewish ancestry have the highest known incidence of BRCA mutations, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
2. About 1 in 40 people of Jewish decent have a BRCA mutation, about 10-fold higher than other populations.
3. Women with a BRCA mutation have up to an 85% lifetime risk for breast cancer and a 50% lifetime risk for ovarian cancer.
4. About 40% of Jewish women with ovarian/fallopian tube cancer and 20% who have premenopausal breast cancer have a BRCA mutation.
5. BRCA mutations are associated with increased risk for several types of cancer, including breast (both male and female), ovarian, fallopian tube, primary peritoneal, pancreatic, melanoma, and prostate .
6. Each child of an affected parent has a 50% chance of inheriting a BRCA mutation.
7. BRCA mutations can be passed down equally from fathers or mothers to sons or daughters.
8. Beginning at age 40, men with BRCA mutations should discuss with their doctor the benefits, limitations and risks of prostate screening. Preliminary research suggests that prostate cancer in men with a BRCA mutation may be more aggressive than prostate cancer in men who do not have a BRCA mutation. Men with BRCA mutations are at risk for melanoma, male breast and pancreatic cancer as well.
9. People who test positive for a BRCA mutation have options to lower their risk for cancer or detect it at an earlier, more treatable stage.
10. The majority of BRCA mutations in Jewish people occur in one of three genetic sites. Genetic testing usually begins with a Multisite 3 panel that looks for these common mutations and is less expensive than full BRCA testing.
11. In couples where both individuals have a BRCA2 mutation, it is possible for children to inherit a rare and deadly disease known as Fanconi Anemia, which is more common in people of Jewish descent. Couples concerned about this possibility should consult with a genetics expert.
12. Genetic testing for BRCA is performed from a blood sample or cheek swab.  The test itself is simple, but it is not always straightforward. Consulting with a genetic counselor is the best way to assure the correct test is ordered, results are properly interpreted and an appropriate course of action is discussed.
13. The majority of people who have a BRCA mutation or a family history of cancer are unaware of their increased risk for hereditary cancer.  Awareness is critical to saving lives.

Visit our website for more information about genetic counseling and testing. Visit our FORCE in the Jewish Community page to watch our video and learn about ways you can help raise awareness about BRCA in Jewish people.