Published genetic risk scores for breast cancer (BC) so far have been based on a relatively small number of markers and are not necessarily using the full potential of large-scale Genome-Wide Association Studies. This study aimed to identify an efficient polygenic predictor for BC based on best available evidence and to assess its potential for personalized risk prediction and screening strategies. Four different genetic risk scores (two already published and two newly developed) and their combinations (metaGRS) were compared in the subsets of two population-based biobank cohorts: the UK Biobank (UKBB, 3157 BC cases, 43,827 controls) and Estonian Biobank (EstBB, 317 prevalent and 308 incident BC cases in 32,557 women). In addition, correlations between different genetic risk scores and their associations with BC risk factors were studied in both cohorts. The metaGRS that combines two genetic risk scores (metaGRS2 - based on 75 and 898 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, respectively) had the strongest association with prevalent BC status in both cohorts. One standard deviation difference in the metaGRS2 corresponded to an Odds Ratio = 1.6 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.66, p = 9.7*10− 135) in the UK Biobank and accounting for family history marginally attenuated the effect (Odds Ratio = 1.58, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.64, p = 7.8*10− 129). In the EstBB cohort, the hazard ratio of incident BC for the women in the top 5% of the metaGRS2 compared to women in the lowest 50% was 4.2 (95% CI 2.8 to 6.2, p = 8.1*10− 13). The different GRSs were only moderately correlated with each other and were associated with different known predictors of BC. The classification of genetic risk for the same individual varied considerably depending on the chosen GRS. We have shown that metaGRS2, that combined on the effects of more than 900 SNPs, provided best predictive ability for breast cancer in two different population-based cohorts. The strength of the effect of metaGRS2 indicates that the GRS could potentially be used to develop more efficient strategies for breast cancer screening for genotyped women.

Survival from breast cancer remains lower in Estonia than in most other European countries. More advanced stage and larger tumors that have impact on survival may be a result of delay in seeking help for breast cancer symptoms. The aim of this study was to identify determinants of delayed presentation among breast cancer patients in Estonia.

In Estonia, women have much longer life expectancy than men. The aim of this study was to examine sex differences in cancer survival in Estonia and to explore the role of age at diagnosis, stage at diagnosis and tumour subsite. Using data from the population-based Estonian Cancer Registry, we examined the relative survival of adult patients diagnosed with nine common cancers in Estonia in 1995–2006 and followed up through 2011. Excess hazard ratios (EHR) of death associated with female gender adjusted for age, stage at diagnosis and tumour subsite were estimated. A total of 20 828 male and 13 166 female cases were analysed. The main data quality indicators were similar between men and women. Women had more cases with unknown extent of disease at diagnosis. Overall, the age-adjusted 5-year relative survival ratio was higher among women than men for all studied sites, but the difference was significant for cancers of mouth and pharynx (22% units), lung (5% units), skin melanoma (17% units) and kidney (8% units). The increase in survival over time was larger for women than men for cancers of mouth and pharynx, colon, rectum, kidney and skin melanoma. In multivariate analysis, women had a significantly lower EHR of death within five years after diagnosis for five of the nine cancers studied (cancers of mouth and pharynx, stomach, lung, skin melanoma and kidney). Adjustment for stage and subsite explained some, but not all of the women’s advantage. We found a significant female survival advantage in Estonia for cancers of mouth and pharynx, stomach, lung, kidney and skin melanoma. The differences in favour of women tended to increase over time as from the 1990s to the 2000s, survival improved more among women than among men. A large part of the women’s advantage is likely attributable to biological factors, but other factors, such as co-morbidities, treatment compliance or health behaviour, are also probable contributors to gender survival disparities in Estonia and merit further investigation. Our findings have implications for public health, early detection and cancer care in Estonia.

Ovarian insufficiency is a major concern for long-term cancer survivors. Although semen freezing is well established to preserve male fertility, the possibilities to secure post-cancer female fertility are mostly limited to oocyte or embryo freezing. These methods require time-consuming ovarian stimulation with or without in vitro fertilization (IVF) that evidently delays cancer therapy. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and subsequent thawed tissue autotransplantation are considered the most promising alternative strategy for restoring the fertility of oncology patients, which has not yet received the full clinical acceptance. Therefore, all successful cases are needed to prove its reliability and safety. Here we report a single case in Estonia, where a 28-year-old woman with malignant breast neoplasm had ovarian cortex cryopreserved before commencing gonadotoxic chemo- and radiotherapy. Two years after cancer therapy, the patient underwent heterotopic ovarian tissue transplantation into the lateral pelvic wall. The folliculogenesis was stimulated in the transplanted tissue by exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone and oocytes were collected under ultrasound guidance for IVF and embryo transfer. The healthy boy was born after full-term gestation in 2014, first in Eastern Europe. Despite many countries have reported the first implementation of the ovarian tissue freezing and transplantation protocols, the data is still limited on the effectiveness of heterotopic ovarian transplant techniques. Thus, all case reports of heterotopic ovarian tissue transplantation and long-term follow-ups to describe the children’s health are valuable source of clinical experience.

The aim of this study was to identify BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the Estonian population. We analyzed genetic data and questionnaire from 64 early-onset (< 45 y) breast cancer patients, 47 familial cases (patients with breast or ovarian cancer and a case of these cancers in the family), and 33 predictive cases (patients without breast or ovarian cancer, with a family history of such diseases) from Estonia for mutations in the BRCA1 gene. A sub-set of familial cases and predictive cases were also analyzed for mutations in the BRCA2 gene.

Background/Objectives: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been extensively studied and are increasingly applied in healthcare. One of the most studied and developed areas is predictive medicine for breast cancer, but there is no wider consensus on the indications for the clinical use of PRSs for breast cancer. This current guidance endeavours to articulate the scientific evidence underpinning the clinical utility of PRSs in stratifying breast cancer risk, with a particular emphasis on clinical application. Methods: This guidance has been prepared by a group of experts who have been active in breast cancer PRS research and development, combining a review of the evidence base with expert opinion for indications for clinical use. Results: Based on data from various studies and existing breast cancer prevention and screening services, the indications for clinical use of breast cancer PRSs can be divided into the following scenarios: (1) Management of cancer-free women with a family history of cancer; (2) individual personalised breast cancer prevention and screening in healthcare services; and (3) breast cancer screening programs for more personalised screening. Conclusions: The integration of PRSs into clinical practice enables healthcare providers to deliver more accurate risk assessments, personalised prevention strategies, and optimised screening programmes, thereby improving patient outcomes and enhancing the effectiveness of breast cancer care. PRS testing represents a novel component in clinical breast cancer risk assessment, supporting a personalised, risk-based approach to breast cancer prevention and screening.