Impact of Population-Based Pathogenic Variant Testing on Risk-Based Breast Screening Recommendations

Importance: Risk-based breast cancer screening has emerged as a viable alternative to annual mammography. To guide implementation, knowledge is needed on the contribution of testing for pathogenic variants (PVs) beyond clinical risk factors and common genetic variants for population-based risk stratification. Objective: To evaluate how many PV carriers in a risk-based breast cancer screening trial would have been recommended for high-risk screening based on clinical risk or clinical plus polygenic risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used retrospective data from the WISDOM Study, a national clinical trial of risk-based vs annual breast cancer screening, to compare screening assignments informed by PV status vs those based on a clinical risk model alone or a clinical risk model combined with a polygenic risk score. WISDOM participants aged 40 to 74 years who tested positive for a PV as part of risk-based screening were included. Data were collected from September 2016 to February 2023, with follow-up to September 2025. Data were analyzed from January to May 2026. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance between actual (considering participants' PV status) and hypothetical screening assignments based on a clinical (Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium) risk model or a clinical model plus polygenic risk score. Results: Of 712 included women with a PV, the median (IQR) age was 53 (46-62) years. A total of 232 PVs (33%) were high penetrance, 278 (39%) were moderate penetrance, and 202 (28%) were CHEK2 low penetrance. There was little overlap between actual screening assignments based on PV status and hypothetical assignments based on a clinical model plus polygenic risk score. Among high-penetrance PV carriers (a group recommended high-risk screening with magnetic resonance imaging alternating with mammography every 6 months), 2 of 232 (0.9%) would have received the same screening assignment based on clinical plus polygenic risk. Overall, 178 of 279 PV carriers aged 40 to 49 years (63.8%) would have otherwise been recommended to defer screening until age 50 years based on clinical plus polygenic risk, whereas 385 of 433 carriers aged 50 to 74 years (88.9%) would have been recommended biennial mammography. Results were similar when comparing assignments based on a clinical model alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, most participants with PVs in breast cancer genes would not have been recommended for high-risk screening based on their clinical or clinical plus polygenic risk. PV testing therefore may identify different subsets of high-risk women than clinical risk factors and polygenic risk scores. These findings highlight the importance of population-based PV testing in risk-based screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620852.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JAMA Oncology
Published
2026-05-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.2091
Primary Topic
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of Population-Based Pathogenic Variant Testing on Risk-Based Breast Screening Recommendations

Maydha Dhanuka, Leah Sabacan, Katherine Abihider, Steffanie Goodman et al.
JAMA Oncology
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
article

Impact of Population-Based Pathogenic Variant Testing on Risk-Based Breast Screening Recommendations

Maydha Dhanuka, Leah Sabacan, Katherine Abihider, Steffanie Goodman, Jeffrey A. Tice, Robert A. Hiatt, Paige Warner, Elene Tsopurashvili, Kimberly Forbes, Farnaz Hasteh, Galen Joseph, Rashna Soonavala, Sarah Theiner, Patrick Shibley, Jackelyn Moya, Mandy Che, Dan Dumitru, Patricia Choy, Barry Tong, Hillary Hsu, Rachel S. Heise, Holly Keane, Stephanie Flores, Elad Ziv, Chomba Muwele, Tomiyuri Lewis, Halle Thannickal, Jeffrey B. Matthews, Sarah Rosenberg-Wohl, Irene A. Soto, Kelly Blum, Kimberly Badal, Lisa Madlensky, Setareh Sarrafan, Sheri Hartman, Scott Huntsman, Julissa Cabrera, Barbara A. Parker, Steele Fors, Melanie Fiorella, Roxanna Firouzian, Emily Smith, OI Olopade, Laura van 't Veer, Susie Brain, John Einck, Jennifer Atamer, Taylor Glatt, Natalie S. Kim, Katherine Leggat-Barr, Alondra Torres, L Esserman, Rita Freimanis, M Eklund, Heather Greenwood, Athena Breast Health Network and WISDOM Study Investigators and Advocate Partners, Diane Marie Heditsian, Deborah Goodman, Katherine Ross, Amie Blanco, Michael Hogarth, Suzanne E. Eder, Jenny Ling, Mi-Ok Kim, Maren T. Scheuner, Alexandra Solomon Perry, Christina Yau, Marcelo Palmieri, Celia P. Kaplan, Barbara Koenig, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Sara Nelson, Pamela Williams, Advika Verma, Tracy Layton, Kaylena Principe, Sara Fainstein, Sarah Blair, Kirkpatrick B. Fergus, Sarah Knopf, Dylan Dumitru, Shreya Kapoor, Jennifer James, Nandini Seth, Daisy Montoya, Michael Resendez, Yisell Morera, Donglei Huo, Madeline Matthys, Jenny Domnich, Ava Housseini, Yiwey Shieh, Yunibia Lopez, Yash Huilgol, Tianyi Wang, Allison S. Fiscalini, Kenneth Wimmer, Kelly Adduci, Mary Deveraux, Diana K. DeRosa
article en

Abstract

Importance: Risk-based breast cancer screening has emerged as a viable alternative to annual mammography. To guide implementation, knowledge is needed on the contribution of testing for pathogenic variants (PVs) beyond clinical risk factors and common genetic variants for population-based risk stratification. Objective: To evaluate how many PV carriers in a risk-based breast cancer screening trial would have been recommended for high-risk screening based on clinical risk or clinical plus polygenic risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used retrospective data from the WISDOM Study, a national clinical trial of risk-based vs annual breast cancer screening, to compare screening assignments informed by PV status vs those based on a clinical risk model alone or a clinical risk model combined with a polygenic risk score. WISDOM participants aged 40 to 74 years who tested positive for a PV as part of risk-based screening were included. Data were collected from September 2016 to February 2023, with follow-up to September 2025. Data were analyzed from January to May 2026. Main Outcomes and Measures: Concordance between actual (considering participants' PV status) and hypothetical screening assignments based on a clinical (Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium) risk model or a clinical model plus polygenic risk score. Results: Of 712 included women with a PV, the median (IQR) age was 53 (46-62) years. A total of 232 PVs (33%) were high penetrance, 278 (39%) were moderate penetrance, and 202 (28%) were CHEK2 low penetrance. There was little overlap between actual screening assignments based on PV status and hypothetical assignments based on a clinical model plus polygenic risk score. Among high-penetrance PV carriers (a group recommended high-risk screening with magnetic resonance imaging alternating with mammography every 6 months), 2 of 232 (0.9%) would have received the same screening assignment based on clinical plus polygenic risk. Overall, 178 of 279 PV carriers aged 40 to 49 years (63.8%) would have otherwise been recommended to defer screening until age 50 years based on clinical plus polygenic risk, whereas 385 of 433 carriers aged 50 to 74 years (88.9%) would have been recommended biennial mammography. Results were similar when comparing assignments based on a clinical model alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, most participants with PVs in breast cancer genes would not have been recommended for high-risk screening based on their clinical or clinical plus polygenic risk. PV testing therefore may identify different subsets of high-risk women than clinical risk factors and polygenic risk scores. These findings highlight the importance of population-based PV testing in risk-based screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620852.

JAMA Oncology
University of California, San Francisco (US), University of California, Irvine (US), Cornell University (US), Karolinska Institutet (SE), University of California San Diego (US), University of Chicago (US), Wisdom Health (United States) (US), Breast Center (CH), San Francisco VA Health Care System (US), Cancer Genetics (United States) (US), Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
BRCA gene mutations in cancer
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.