Investigator

Roger L. Milne

Professor (Honorary) · The University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health

RLMRoger L. Milne
Papers(7)
Hormonal Contraceptio…Oral Contraceptive Us…Motivators of Inappro…Ovarian Cancer Risk F…The Risk of Ovarian C…Reproductive and Horm…Bilateral Salpingo-oo…
Collaborators(10)
Kelly-Anne PhillipsShelley S. TworogerPiet A. van den BrandtN. Charlotte Onland-M…Leo J SchoutenGraham G. GilesDale P SandlerAlicja WolkBritton TrabertMarina Kvaskoff
Institutions(10)
The University Of Mel…Peter MacCallum Cance…Moffitt Cancer CenterMaastricht UniversityUtrecht UniversityCancer Council Victor…National Institute of…Karolinska InstitutetUniversity of UtahINSERM U1018

Papers

Hormonal Contraception and Breast Cancer Risk for Carriers of Germline Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2

PURPOSE It is uncertain whether, and to what extent, hormonal contraceptives increase breast cancer (BC) risk for germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. METHODS Using pooled observational data from four prospective cohort studies, associations between hormonal contraceptive use and BC risk for unaffected female BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers were assessed using Cox regression. RESULTS Of 3,882 BRCA1 and 1,509 BRCA2 mutation carriers, 53% and 71%, respectively, had ever used hormonal contraceptives for at least 1 year (median cumulative duration of use, 4.8 and 5.7 years, respectively). Overall, 488 BRCA1 and 191 BRCA2 mutation carriers developed BC during median follow-up of 5.9 and 5.6 years, respectively. Although for BRCA1 mutation carriers, neither current nor past use of hormonal contraceptives for at least 1 year was statistically significantly associated with BC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.94 to 2.08], P = .10 for current use; 1.16 [0.80 to 1.69], P = .4, 1.40 [0.99 to 1.97], P = .05, and 1.27 [0.98 to 1.63], P = .07 for past use 1-5, 6-10, and >10 years before, respectively), ever use was associated with increased risk (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.60], P = .02). Furthermore, BC risk increased with longer cumulative duration of use, with an estimated proportional increase in risk of 3% (1%-5%, P = .002) for each additional year of use. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, there was no evidence that current or ever use was associated with increased BC risk (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.47], P = .3 and 1.07 [0.73 to 1.57], P = .7, respectively). CONCLUSION Hormonal contraceptives were associated with increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers, especially if used for longer durations. Decisions about their use in women with BRCA1 mutations should carefully weigh the risks and benefits for each individual.

Oral Contraceptive Use in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Absolute Cancer Risks and Benefits

Abstract Background To help BRCA1 and 2 mutation carriers make informed decisions regarding use of combined-type oral contraceptive preparation (COCP), absolute risk-benefit estimates are needed for COCP-associated cancer. Methods For a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women, we calculated the increased or decreased cumulative incidence of COCP-associated (breast, ovarian, endometrial) cancer, examining 18 scenarios with differences in duration and timing of COCP use, uptake of prophylactic surgeries, and menopausal hormone therapy. Results COCP use initially increased breast cancer risk and decreased ovarian and endometrial cancer risk long term. For 10 000 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 10 years of COCP use from age 20 to 30 years resulted in 66 additional COCP-associated cancer cases by the age of 35 years, in addition to 625 cases expected for never users. By the age of 70 years such COCP use resulted in 907 fewer cancer cases than the expected 9093 cases in never users. Triple-negative breast cancer estimates resulted in 196 additional COCP-associated cases by age 40 years, in addition to the 1454 expected. For 10 000 BRCA2 mutation carriers using COCP from age 20 to 30 years, 80 excess cancer cases were estimated by age 40 years in addition to 651 expected cases; by the age of 70 years, we calculated 382 fewer cases compared with the 6156 cases expected. The long-term benefit of COCP use diminished after risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy followed by menopausal hormone therapy use. Conclusion Although COCP use in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers initially increases breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, it strongly decreases lifetime cancer risk. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and menopausal hormone therapy use appear to counteract the long-term COCP-benefit.

Motivators of Inappropriate Ovarian Cancer Screening: A Survey of Women and Their Clinicians

Abstract Background This study examined why women and doctors screen for ovarian cancer (OC) contrary to guidelines. Methods Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were sent to women in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer and family physicians and gynecologists who organized their screening. Results Of 1264 Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer women, 832 (65.8%) responded. In the past 2 years, 126 (15.1%) had screened. Most of these (n = 101, 80.2%) would continue even if their doctor told them it is ineffective. For women, key OC screening motivators operated in the domains of social role and goals (staying healthy for family, 93.9%), emotion and reinforcement (peace of mind, 93.1%), and beliefs about capabilities (tests are easy to have, 91.9%). Of 531 clinicians 252 (47.5%) responded; a minority (family physicians 45.8%, gynecologists 16.7%) thought OC screening was useful. For gynecologists, the main motivators of OC screening operated in the domains of environmental context (lack of other screening options, 27.6%), and emotion (patient peace of mind, 17.2%; difficulty discontinuing screening, 13.8%). For family physicians,, the strongest motivators were in the domains of social influence (women ask for these tests, 20.7%), goals (a chance these tests will detect cancer early, 16.4%), emotion (patient peace of mind, 13.8%), and environmental context (no other OC screening options, 11.2%). Conclusion Reasons for OC screening are mostly patient driven. Clinician knowledge and practice are discordant. Motivators of OC screening encompass several domains, which could be targeted in interventions to reduce inappropriate OC screening.

Ovarian Cancer Risk Factor Associations by Primary Anatomic Site: The Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium

Abstract Background: Epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers have shared developmental pathways. Few studies have prospectively examined heterogeneity in risk factor associations across these three anatomic sites. Methods: We identified 3,738 ovarian, 337 peritoneal, and 176 fallopian tube incident cancer cases in 891,731 women from 15 prospective cohorts in the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium. Associations between 18 putative risk factors and risk of ovarian, peritoneal, and fallopian tube cancer, overall and for serous and high-grade serous tumors, were evaluated using competing risks Cox proportional hazards regression. Heterogeneity was assessed by likelihood ratio tests. Results: Most associations did not vary by tumor site (Phet ≥ 0.05). Associations between first pregnancy (Phet = 0.04), tubal ligation (Phet = 0.01), and early-adult (age 18–21 years) body mass index (BMI; Phet = 0.02) and risk differed between ovarian and peritoneal cancers. The association between early-adult BMI and risk further differed between peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer (Phet = 0.03). First pregnancy and tubal ligation were inversely associated with ovarian, but not peritoneal, cancer. Higher early-adult BMI was associated with higher risk of peritoneal, but not ovarian or fallopian tube, cancer. Patterns were generally similar when restricted to serous and high-grade serous cases. Conclusions: Ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers appear to have both shared and distinct etiologic pathways, although most risk factors appear to have similar associations by anatomic site. Impact: Further studies on the mechanisms underlying the differences in risk profiles may provide insights regarding the developmental origins of tumors arising in the peritoneal cavity and inform prevention efforts.

The Risk of Ovarian Cancer Increases with an Increase in the Lifetime Number of Ovulatory Cycles: An Analysis from the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium (OC3)

Abstract Repeated exposure to the acute proinflammatory environment that follows ovulation at the ovarian surface and distal fallopian tube over a woman's reproductive years may increase ovarian cancer risk. To address this, analyses included individual-level data from 558,709 naturally menopausal women across 20 prospective cohorts, among whom 3,246 developed invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (2,045 serous, 319 endometrioid, 184 mucinous, 121 clear cell, 577 other/unknown). Cox models were used to estimate multivariable-adjusted HRs between lifetime ovulatory cycles (LOC) and its components and ovarian cancer risk overall and by histotype. Women in the 90th percentile of LOC (>514 cycles) were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer than women in the 10th percentile (<294) [HR (95% confidence interval): 1.92 (1.60–2.30)]. Risk increased 14% per 5-year increase in LOC (60 cycles) [(1.10–1.17)]; this association remained after adjustment for LOC components: number of pregnancies and oral contraceptive use [1.08 (1.04–1.12)]. The association varied by histotype, with increased risk of serous [1.13 (1.09–1.17)], endometrioid [1.20 (1.10–1.32)], and clear cell [1.37 (1.18–1.58)], but not mucinous [0.99 (0.88–1.10), P-heterogeneity = 0.01] tumors. Heterogeneity across histotypes was reduced [P-heterogeneity = 0.15] with adjustment for LOC components [1.08 serous, 1.11 endometrioid, 1.26 clear cell, 0.94 mucinous]. Although the 10-year absolute risk of ovarian cancer is small, it roughly doubles as the number of LOC rises from approximately 300 to 500. The consistency and linearity of effects strongly support the hypothesis that each ovulation leads to small increases in the risk of most ovarian cancers, a risk that cumulates through life, suggesting this as an important area for identifying intervention strategies. Significance: Although ovarian cancer is rare, risk of most ovarian cancers doubles as the number of lifetime ovulatory cycles increases from approximately 300 to 500. Thus, identifying an important area for cancer prevention research.

Reproductive and Hormonal Factors and Risk of Ovarian Cancer by Tumor Dominance: Results from the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium (OC3)

Abstract Background: Laterality of epithelial ovarian tumors may reflect the underlying carcinogenic pathways and origins of tumor cells. Methods: We pooled data from 9 prospective studies participating in the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium. Information on measures of tumor size or tumor dominance was extracted from surgical pathology reports or obtained through cancer registries. We defined dominant tumors as those restricted to one ovary or where the dimension of one ovary was at least twice as large as the other, and nondominant tumors as those with similar dimensions across the two ovaries or peritoneal tumors. Competing risks Cox models were used to examine whether associations with reproductive and hormonal risk factors differed by ovarian tumor dominance. Results: Of 1,058 ovarian cancer cases with tumor dominance information, 401 were left-dominant, 363 were right-dominant, and 294 were nondominant. Parity was more strongly inversely associated with risk of dominant than nondominant ovarian cancer (Pheterogeneity = 0.004). Ever use of oral contraceptives (OC) was associated with lower risk of dominant tumors, but was not associated with nondominant tumors (Pheterogeneity = 0.01). Higher body mass index was associated with higher risk of left-dominant tumors, but not significantly associated with risk of right-dominant or nondominant tumors (Pheterogeneity = 0.08). Conclusions: These data suggest that reproductive and hormonal risk factors appear to have a stronger impact on dominant tumors, which may have an ovarian or endometriosis origin. Impact: Examining the associations of ovarian cancer risk factors by tumor dominance may help elucidate the mechanisms through which these factors influence ovarian cancer risk.

Bilateral Salpingo-oophorectomy and Breast Cancer Risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Assessing the Evidence

Abstract Without preventive interventions, women with germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have high lifetime risks for breast cancer and tubo-ovarian cancer. The increased risk for breast cancer starts at a considerably younger age than that for tubo-ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (rrBSO) is effective in reducing tubo-ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, but whether it reduces breast cancer risk is less clear. All studies of rrBSO and breast cancer risk are observational in nature and subject to various forms of bias and confounding, thus limiting conclusions that can be drawn about causation. Early studies supported a statistically significant protective association for rrBSO on breast cancer risk, which is reflected by several international guidelines that recommend consideration of premenopausal rrBSO for breast cancer risk reduction. However, these historical studies were hampered by the presence of several important biases, including immortal person-time bias, confounding by indication, informative censoring, and confounding by other risk factors, which may have led to overestimation of any protective benefit. Contemporary studies, specifically designed to reduce some of these biases, have yielded contradictory results. Taken together, there is no clear and consistent evidence for a role of premenopausal rrBSO in reducing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

436Works
7Papers
65Collaborators
Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsNeoplasmsPancreatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorProstatic Neoplasms

Positions

2019–

Professor (Honorary)

The University of Melbourne · Melbourne School of Population and Global Health

2017–

Head of Division

Cancer Council Victoria · Cancer Epidemiology Division

2014–

Associate Professor (Honorary)

University of Melbourne · Melbourne School of Population and Global Health

2013–

Deputy Director

Cancer Council Victoria · Cancer Epidemiology Centre

2004–

Research Fellow (Honorary)

University of Melbourne · School of Population and Global Health

2004–

Staff Scientist

Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas · Human Cancer Genetics Programme

2001–

Research Fellow

University of Melbourne · School of Population and Global Health