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 pursued prophylactic mastectomy when her test was positive. Kara also 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.

Gene Discovery, Patents, and the Community

Recently a dear friend sent me a link to an article in the February 1996 issue of Nature Medicine. The article by journalist Adam Marcus covered a media event and panel of women’s rights advocates expressing concern about Myriad’s impending patenting of the BRCA1 gene. Panelists declared unregulated genetic testing to be the coming century’s foremost threat to individual liberty. Incredibly, 17 years after the publication of Adam Marcus’ article, the debate is still ongoing—the issue of gene patenting and the consequences of lacking regulation regarding gene patents are still present and as relevant as they were then.

Admittedly, I missed this article the first time around. In 1996, I was more likely to be reading the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association than a human medical journal. With a toddler, a budding veterinary career, and no significant family history of breast cancer, my focus was not on hereditary cancer. In fact, genetic testing and gene patents were furthest from my mind. But my diagnosis with breast cancer eight months later and subsequent revelation that I have a BRCA2 mutation changed that.

When I was first tested for a BRCA mutation in 1998, I was fortunate; my testing costs were covered by my health insurance. I was very grateful to have access to the test; my gratitude extended to the laboratory that made the test available to me. Although I was initially tested without genetic counseling, I went to MD Anderson Cancer Center for a second opinion and eventually found my way to a genetics expert and had access to up-to-date and credible information from experts. It wasn’t until I became immersed in my work with FORCE that I became aware of deeper issues that were the consequence of Myriad holding patents on the BRCA genes.

In 2009, Joanna Rudnick released her documentary In the Family, which shined a spotlight on Myriad’s gene patents and some of these consequences. The documentary included an eye-opening interview with Dr. Mark Skolnick, founder of Myriad Genetics. Joanna questions how a gene—a product of nature—can be patented, saying “It’s like patenting your thumb.” Skolnick compares Myriad’s patents on the BRCA genes to patents for ipods, telephones, and computers, and cavalierly asserts “there’s no controversial patent. It’s all very easy to understand if you take the time.”

In the film, Joanna brilliantly follows the Myriad interview with an interview of Dr. Mary-Claire King, who was credited with identifying the location of the BRCA gene when she was a researcher at University of California at Berkeley. Dr. King has dedicated herself to the research that proved the existence of hereditary breast cancer gene mutations. Her research laid groundwork that sent many laboratories racing to be the first to isolate and clone the gene for genetic testing.

In Rudnick’s film, Dr. Skolnick says, “I think the single greatest inventive thing I did was to create Myriad. We did it to win the race…and we won.” Asked point-blank why the cost of the test is increasing, Dr. Skolnick replies, “that’s a good question, and I think there’s a point at which we have to start looking at decreasing the cost of the test.” Yet, four years after the documentary was released, the cost of testing has gone up—BRCA testing is more expensive, even though the technology for sequencing DNA has become less expensive.

The gist of Dr. King’s interview starkly contrasts with Dr. Skolnick’s statements. Dr. King speaks about genes for which she holds patents, saying, “The critical thing about the patents we hold is that none of them are exclusively licensed. So they are completely open for anyone to use for research purposes and any company that wishes to license them can license them for a trivial amount of money.” King mentions that her last royalty check amounted to $2.73. In contrast, the February 6 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune reports Myriad’s earnings: ”Myriad projects full-year 2013 revenue will fall between $575 million and $585 million. That would be a 16 percent to 18 percent increase over fiscal 2012.” The contrast is apparent and appalling.

Over the years, FORCE has appealed to government agencies and spoken to the health care community and the public regarding Myriad’s exclusive patent, and explained how the corporation’s marketing strategies and policies have increased the burden on the hereditary cancer community that we serve. In 2008 and again in 2009 we testified to the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics Health and Society, expressing our concerns with direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests, and specifically Myriad’s marketing practices, which we feel encourages BRCA testing without first receiving genetic counseling from qualified experts trained in cancer genetics. In our opinion, their aggressive marketing strategies have been harmful to members of our community.

In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Myriad’s patents on the BRCA genes. On April 15, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on gene patenting. This hearing will represent the culmination of four years of the legal tug-of-war between Myriad Genetics and the plaintiffs, which included the ACLU and a long list of individual, advocacy, and health care professional groups. FORCE agrees with the ACLU that exclusive gene patents negatively affect access to care and research and we have filed an Amicus (Friend of the Court) brief on behalf of plaintiffs. You can read our testimony to the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the topic of how exclusive gene patenting impacts research and access to care. The Supreme Court oral arguments will be open to public participation.

For those who wish to learn more about Dr. King’s work, Decoding Annie Parker is a new  movie that follows the parallel lives of Dr. King and Annie Parker, a Canadian woman whose family was impacted by hereditary cancer. Based on a true story, the film raises the profile of Dr. King’s contribution to the discovery of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and the BRCA1 gene mutation. It is sure to resonate with many in our community. FORCE is a proud charity partner of the movie, which stars Helen Hunt as Dr. King. A special screening will be held April 2 in New York City. FORCE will hold  screenings of the film in other cities. Stay tuned for updates.

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.”

Previvor Day: A Solemn Celebration

In searching for inspiration for this blog, I went back to the FORCE message boards to remember when and how the previvor movement began.  When I started FORCE, long before the organization and programs grew to the national influence that we are today, we were merely a message board, a way for people in similar situations to connect virtually. The Internet was new to me then, and the ability to reach out to virtual strangers remotely and receive comfort and guidance seemed novel and amazing. When I couldn’t find the support I needed in my immediate vicinity, I could reach out over the miles, type an SOS, and get instant wisdom, advice, and compassion. I could then draw from that support when and where I needed it (and back then I needed it a lot). Over the years many of these “strangers” have been my lifeline and many have become my dear friends. Fourteen years of survivorship later, I still periodically turn to my cyberfamily, but like many who have been part of our community for over a decade, time can sometimes softened the sharp edges of fear, loss, and grief that surrounded my diagnosis, recurrence, genetic testing, and surgeries and my accompanying need for support.

It has been a while since I revisited the archives of our website. With over 300,000 posts in our current database and over 300,000 archived posts, our message boards are the single largest repository of the hereditary cancer experience. These postings are a wealth of wisdom, support, kindness, grief, and gratitude. After 14 years of advocacy, it’s easy to focus on the challenges, the frustrations, and the problems we have yet to solve. So revisiting the past is healthy, and provides me with an opportunity to remember old friends and reflect on my growth and the growth of the organization.   Occasionally I will encounter a post that stops me in my tracks and reminds me of the sacred and transcendent segments of my own hereditary cancer journey and that of our members.

The last Wednesday in September has been designated as Previvor Day, and this year it happens to fall on Yom Kippur. The convergence of the two led me to two message board posts from over a decade ago that currently reside in our Pearls of Wisdom forum, where older timeless posts live so that others can revisit them when needed.

The first pearl addresses Previvor Day. In the “I need a label” thread, our dear “Jordan,” who was a regular on our message boards back then, articulated what many in our community were feeling—that although they did not have cancer, they had experienced decisions, losses, and procedures that separated them from average-risk women, but they did not have a cancer diagnosis. Jordan posted:

“Ok, I have to admit. I need a label. Do we have one? You know, those that have the gene but have not had cancer. The ones going through all this research and deciding on proph surgeries, or not. We need more of a voice and a label, a name. I’ve never been one hung up on labels before but a lot has changed for me since this process begun. I feel if we had a label we could begin to have more of a voice. What are your thoughts? FORCE? Breast Cancer __________ (fill in the blank).” 

Jordan, and the group of high-risk women who shared her concerns, recognized that they were cancer stakeholders who shouldered a heavy burden: ongoing doctor appointments; frequent biopsies and screenings; fear; loss of relatives to cancer, and sometimes loss of breasts, ovaries, and fertility; and changes in body image, all due to the risk of cancer. Jordan also felt that uniting the segment of the community that didn’t have cancer could promote more awareness, prevention, and surveillance research, and begin to fill their huge unmet need for support and resources.

A sometimes serious and sometimes silly discussion of how to address this gap, both online and off, followed. The medical community at the time used the term “unaffected carrier” for someone who carries a mutation but isn’t affected by cancer. But in addition to sounding dismissive, that label didn’t include members of our community who were very high risk by virtue of a strong family history of cancer without a mutation, LCIS, or high exposure to radiation. Yet these people were living with the same concerns, fears, decisions, and need for support as others in our community. Eventually “previvor” (for “survivor of a predisposition to cancer”) was chosen as our label of choice, because we all felt that those living with high risk are survivors in their own right. Not everyone embraced the term initially (and many still don’t), but for that moment, previvor resonated with many and filled a need that would allow our community to unite and advocate on issues surrounding cancer risk, detection, and prevention. These issues were separate from resources and research focused on treatment but equally important.

“AmiH,” a member of FORCE’s board of directors and our volunteer webmaster, observed “that the word ‘survivor’ comes from the Latin root meaning ‘to live’.” That connection also resonated with many previvors who felt that the knowledge of their risk and the management options available to them increased their chance to live longer, healthier lives. Not everyone wants or likes a label, and we totally understand that. Some particularly dislike “previvor,” and we get that too. But being able to identify and validate an important group of high-risk stakeholders has led to a revolution resulting in much more awareness, resources, research, and support today than we ever had in the past.

The second pearl comes from a thread started by ‘SusanZ’ [Ziva] shortly after Jordan’s. “My guardian angel, a Yom Kippur lament” is one of the most heartwrenching articulations of previvorship. It captures the devastation and impact of HBOC on entire families. I hope you will read the entire thread, but here are some of the most poignant excerpts:

“Tonight is Yom Kippur. It is certainly a day to reflect on one’s own life. In the past, I have done that in a synagogue. This year I am doing that by my sister’s hospital bedside watching her die from breast cancer. I wanted desperately to ask her to be my guardian angel from heaven…I didn’t have the courage to ask this of her yet…the reality is that in her death she remains true to how she lived, she has continued to be my guardian angel by getting genetic testing. I have found out I am BRCA positive in time to protect myself. In her death she has saved my life, and the lives of many family members.”

 In a later post, Ziva writes,

“Tomorrow afternoon I have an appointment with my second PS [plastic surgeon]… and if there is no significant change in my sister’s status, I plan to walk across the hospital to his office and make that appointment. As Linda leaves this world I am going to fight to stay.”

“I am overwhelmed by your responses…Yesterday I did what I said I would. I kissed her good-bye…and marched across the hospital in defiance of this disease and met my 2nd PS [plastic surgeon].”

 and then this last heart-breaking post,

“My sister, Linda, died this evening at 6:30 as the Sukkot holiday rolled in. I closed my eyes and again asked my sister to forgive all my insults and past hurts that occur between people who love intensely, and be my guardian angel. Your support on this website has been so important to me. You are the ones who can really understand.”

Ziva and her family have remained involved with FORCE as passionate volunteers over the ensuing years, providing guidance, outreach, and support to others. Last night, 12 years after her initial post, Ziva revisited her thread and added these thought-provoking words:

“Well, it is 12 years now since I lost Linda, and all the above is still relevant and true for me. An update: I now have a beautiful and delightful 20-month old granddaughter named Maya Linda! I think she has my sister Linda’s smile and sometimes I feel Linda (and my mother) watching over us with love and grace. Maya Linda brings me the kind of joy I found so difficult to feel since my sister’s death. This is such a blessing. 

I believe there is something quite spiritual in sharing one’s stories with others who listen with respect and compassion and then listening to others willing to share their stories. In this way we can feel connected, significant, and develop courage. Thank you FORCE family for listening and sharing. Our connection gives me hope and courage.”

Ziva, thank you on behalf of all of us. As always your words have captured the essence of our community and of FORCE. This uniting of the community impacted by HBOC—those with cancer and those without—was the goal almost 14 years ago when I founded FORCE: to connect us through our shared experiences, and despite our differences to bring each of us courage, support, and hope for today and future generations.

Happy Previvor Day.

Be empowered and be well.

Sue

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.

A Public Response to Dr. Ivan Oransky

To put this post in context, I was forwarded the link to this webcast from the recent TedMed Conference. I suggest watching this presentation by Dr. Ivan Oransky prior to reading the following blog.

Dear Dr. Oransky,

I recently watched your TedMed presentation and I share your concerns about medical overtreatment of certain conditions and the importance of weighing risk and harm when considering medical interventions. I agree with your point that not all medical tests and interventions have clinical value. I also agree that all stakeholders should share the responsibility for appropriately applying medical technology based on evidence and outcomes. However, I disagree with some of your statements, and I feel compelled to correct what I believe is a misunderstanding on your part about the term “previvor,” and the intent of the advocacy group FORCE in coining and using the term.

In my opinion, your assertion that advocacy groups use “previvor” to make more people feel they are at risk and raise more funds is incorrect. I founded FORCE in 1999, not to make money, but to ensure that people have access to credible information about hereditary cancer, that hereditary cancer research continues to provide better options, and that no one must face it alone. FORCE does not inflate people’s risk. We refer people to genetics experts based on professional consensus guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Further, previvor is a term developed for a group of people who carry a mutation that confers a high cancer risk in their lifetime. FORCE is a national non-profit organization with a mission to serve individuals and families with a BRCA gene mutation or hereditary cancer. We coined the term to refer to individuals who are genetically predisposed to cancer but have not been diagnosed. The term was a response to a plea by one of our members who lost her mother to cancer at a young age. Learning that she had inherited a BRCA1 mutation and potentially faced the same fate, she sacrificed her own breasts, ovaries, and fertility to reduce her very high risk. Yet she felt dismissed and marginalized by people who did not understand her situation.  She articulated what many in our community felt: they needed and wanted a way to collectively organize, support each other, and advocate for resources to address their unmet needs.

My own breast cancer was diagnosed at age 33 and recurred the year following my initial treatment. I endured chemotherapy, radiation, and an increased likelihood of an early death from cancer. My son was only two years old at the time. I was forced to take a leave of absence from my work during treatment and went into medical debt to pay hospital and treatment costs. Had I known of my inherited predisposition at the time I would have taken steps to avoid cancer or detect it earlier. My experience is just one illustration of the financial, emotional, and physical costs of not knowing about a genetic predisposition to disease. These burdens impact entire families and can affect long-term quality of life. Many women pay with their lives.

Too many hereditary cancer families have watched their loved ones battle and too often lose their lives to the disease. They want to know what they can do to avoid the same fate for themselves and their own children. They face lifetime risks for cancer as high as 90%. Their risk-management options—preemptive surgery, risk-reducing medications, and heightened surveillance—are not without side effects or other risks. complex information about risk and risk-management and using it to make informed decisions. Although risk-management options are not ideal, most genetics professionals concur that hereditary cancer risk assessment and associated interventions have clinical utility. Research from peer-reviewed journals demonstrates that risk-management options can lower cancer-associated and overall mortality in the highest-risk cohort.

As an organization whose mission includes education, FORCE understands the challenges of presenting complex information in a balanced, understandable, compelling, and humane fashion. We take this responsibility seriously and we frequently consult with our expert advisory board for guidance. It is my opinion that your representation of previvors and our advocacy for the community was neither balanced nor accurate. Your baseball analogy illustrated your point about overtreatment of pre-conditions, but you neglected to mention inherited cancer risk, the situation for which the term was established. You cited “pre-acne” as an example of the absurdity of treating a precondition, even though the consequences of a diagnosis of acne and a diagnosis of cancer are not remotely the same. Women with BRCA mutations have elevated lifetime risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer that is many times higher than the general population. They are more likely to develop aggressive cancers and at a younger age when they are less likely to be screened. Thousands of women die from these cancers annually. Given these facts, the example of pre-acne is not a realistic comparison to inherited cancer risk and in my opinion insults a group of people with a very serious set of medical concerns.

Members of our community have an inherited mutation that leads to changes on a cellular level, which put them at very high risk for disease. Although our genetic differences may not be obvious on the surface they cause challenges that separate us from other people who do not possess these mutations. Ignorance and ridicule directed at people with medical challenges of any type are inappropriate.

I hope that you will provide a clarification of your statements about the meaning of the word previvor to include the fact that it was coined to describe and empower a specific group of people at very high risk for a deadly disease like cancer. Further, I encourage you to use your role as an experienced medical journalist and professor to delve more deeply into the difficult issues of people with BRCA mutations. In doing so you have the potential to make a positive impact on a lot of people.

I am not a baseball player, Mr. Oransky, but I do play tennis. In tennis when you do not swing at the ball, you lose the point. People with a BRCA or other inherited cancer-predisposing mutation face extraordinary risk for a disease that is too often fatal. Many of us have lost so much to cancer. Not swinging at a disease that has a high likelihood of coming our way is not a wise option.

13 Facts that Men with Hereditary Cancer Risk Should Know

As we approach Father’s Day we would like to call attention to an often forgotten group: men who have a BRCA mutation or a family history of hereditary cancer. Although men don’t get ovarian cancer and their risk for breast cancer is very low, we are learning more and more about how hereditary cancer risk affects them.

FORCE responded to the United States Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) preliminary guidelines that recommended against prostate cancer screening for all men. Based on emerging research, we encouraged the panel to revise the text to state that the guidelines did not apply to men with BRCA mutations. The USPSTF incorporated our suggestion into its final guidelines. Accomplishments like these remind us how important FORCE’s advocacy work is. Men with BRCA mutations are important cancer stakeholders. Our goal is to assure that they have a voice advocating for their concerns when government cancer policies are developed.

In keeping with our 13 Things theme and in honor of high-risk men, here are 13 facts men need to know about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

1. Men with BRCA mutations have increased risk for breast and prostate cancer, and like women with mutations, their risk for pancreatic cancer and melanoma is also elevated. Men with BRCA2 mutations have greater risk than men with BRCA1 mutations.
2. Although men with BRCA mutations have a greater cancer risk than men in the general population, their risk for cancer is lower than most women with a mutation.
3. Because preliminary research suggests that hereditary prostate cancer tends to be a more aggressive form of the disease, the USPSTF advises that screening guidelines developed for men in the general population should not be applied to men with mutations.
4. BRCA mutations have been found in people of every ethnicity, but not with the same frequency. About 1 in every 300 to 500 people carry a BRCA mutation. About 1 in 40 people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent have a mutation.
5. Breast screening recommendations for men with a mutation include regular breast self exams and twice yearly clinical exams by a medical professional beginning at age 35. A baseline mammogram is recommended at age 40 and annual mammograms thereafter are advised, depending on the baseline results.
6. Men with mutations or hereditary cancer in the family should discuss with their doctor the benefits, limitations, and risks of prostate screening using PSA and digital-rectal exam beginning at age 40.
7. The international IMPACT study is looking at the benefit of PSA screening in men with and without BRCA mutations. Full results from this research will be available in 2020.
8. BRCA mutations can be passed down equally from either parent to sons or daughters.
9. When both parents have a BRCA2 mutation, their children may inherit a rare and deadly disease known as Fanconi Anemia. This is more common in people of Jewish descent. Couples concerned about this possibility should consult with a genetics expert.
10. Couples who are concerned about passing a mutation to their children may want to speak with a fertility expert about in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis that screens embryos for BRCA mutations.
11. Early research on PARP inhibitors for treatment of prostate cancer has been promising. Currently, some open PARP inhibitor studies are enrolling men with advanced prostate cancer.
12. Coverage for BRCA testing in men can vary depending on their insurance plan. A genetic counselor can help men determine if their insurance will cover testing.
13. Men who are concerned that the cancer in their family may be hereditary should consult with a genetics expert before pursuing genetic testing. FORCE can provide information on locating genetics specialists. Genetics consultations are typically covered by insurance.

If you are a man with a BRCA mutation or hereditary cancer in your family, please complete our survey for high-risk men, read about our advocacy efforts on behalf of the men in our community, visit our expert-reviewed information section for men, and join our mailing list to stay updated on new information, research, and programs specific to men with BRCA mutations. Please consider participating in this telephone focus group research study for high risk men.

FORCE helped unite and organize the female hereditary cancer previvor and survivor populations to advocate for more resources; we need to do the same for the men in our community. If you have high-risk men in your life, please let them know about these resources. Please help us raise awareness, spread the word, and save lives by sharing this blog, and printing and sharing our “13 Things Men Need to Know” flier.

13 Reasons to Attend the Joining FORCEs Against Hereditary Cancer Conference

Registration is now open for our 7^th annual Joining FORCEs Against Hereditary Cancer conference. The excitement is building as planning progresses for this amazing and unique event. As Course Director, I think the conference is incredible; as a participant, this is the conference that I personally enjoy the most and gain the most from attending. In keeping with our “13 Things” theme for 2012, below are 13 good reasons why you should not miss this year’s event.

 1.  We have something for everyone. Clear explanations about the science of hereditary cancer make research and medical options understandable and accessible to everyone. From explanations about basic science, statistics, and cancer to presentations on new research discoveries, the conference offers a range of information that is relevant to people with and without advanced science training.

2.  The largest annual gathering by and for the hereditary cancer community. Be a part of this landmark event.

3.  Our conference is organized to help you find the information you need the most. Conference content is aligned into tracks with sessions that are focused on all aspects of hereditary cancer.  You will find informative and inspiring sessions whether you are a survivor or previvor, you are newly diagnosed or years out from treatment or preventive surgeries. Detailed and specific information will address:

• newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer survivors
• long-term cancer survivors
• people still in treatment for cancer
• people who just learned they carry a mutation
• previvors
• spouses, partners, and caregivers
• people considering whether or not to have genetic testing
• men with mutations
• patient advocates
• genetic counselors
• people interested in surveillance for breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer
• women who are considering prophylactic mastectomy (with or without reconstruction)
• women who are considering prophylactic oophorectomy
• women who have had prophylactic surgery
• women who have undergone early menopause

4.  Medical and psychosocial resources and support. The information you gain will support decision-making and provide information about your legal rights that will help you navigate the medical and insurance systems.

5.  We bring researchers to you. You will have an opportunity to hear the latest research findings regarding detection, prevention and treatment, presented first-hand by the researchers themselves.

6.  Unprecedented networking opportunities. The conference offers plenty of time and opportunity to network with others based on your personal circumstances and geographic location.

7.  Benefit from the experience of others. Meet, chat, and bond with hundreds of others who share your concerns. Hear the poignant personal stories of people just like you who have faced hereditary cancer. Talk face-to-face with your virtual friends who have supported you on Facebook or the FORCE message boards. Our after-hours events are social gatherings that provide opportunities to share in relaxed and intimate settings.

8.  Information and support to help you make decisions about surgery and reconstruction. If you are considering your surgical options, talk to plastic surgeons and women with every type of reconstruction (and no reconstruction). Attend our “Show and Tell” session.

9.  Support for communicating genetic information to family members. Learn how to discuss sensitive issues with relatives, spouses, and adult and minor children.

10.  Enroll in research. On-site enrollment for studies that will offer better answers for the future allows participants to help make a difference.

11.  Meet one-on-one with the world’s hereditary cancer experts. Where else would you have an opportunity to ask personal questions about hereditary cancer, risk, treatment, surgery, and menopause of world experts?

12.  Bond with family members. Sharing the conference with family members is a unique bonding experience that will help them better understand the issues that you face, their own risk for cancer, and management options.

13.  Enjoy the venue experience. Centrally located in Orlando, our conference hotel offers many indoor and outdoor activities and sports – including lighted tennis courts and three full Jack Nicklaus golf courses – with proximity to all the major theme parks. The conference offers great food, relaxation, opportunities to decompress, express yourself, and play.

Visit our conference website to watch our conference video, download and print our brochure, view our agenda and speaker list, or read our Frequently Asked Questions for more information.