Background: About 10,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and about 2000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year in Romania. There is an insufficient number of genetic studies in the Romanian population to identify patients at high risk of inherited breast and ovarian cancer. Methods: We evaluated 250 women of Romanian ethnicity with BC and 240 women of Romanian ethnicity with ovarian cancer for the presence of damaging germline mutations in breast cancer genes 1 and 2 (BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively) using Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. Results: Of the 250 breast cancer patients, 47 carried a disease-predisposing BRCA mutation (30 patients (63.83%) with a BRCA1 mutation and 17 patients (36.17%) with a BRCA2 mutation). Of the 240 ovarian cancer patients, 60 carried a BRCA mutation (43 patients (72%) with a BRCA1 mutation and 17 patients (28%) with a BRCA2 mutation). In the BRCA1 gene, we identified 18 variants (4 in both patient groups (ovarian and breast cancer patients), 1 mutation variant in the BC patient group, and 13 mutation variants in the ovarian cancer patient group). In the BRCA2 gene, we identified 17 variants (1 variant in both ovarian and breast cancer patients, 6 distinct variants in BC patients, and 10 distinct variants in ovarian cancer patients). The prevailing mutation variants identified were c.3607C>T (BRCA1) (18 cases) followed by c.5266dupC (BRCA1) (17 cases) and c.9371A>T (BRCA2) (12 cases). The most prevalent mutation, BRCA1 c.3607C>T, which is less common in the Romanian population, was mainly associated with triple-negative BC and ovarian serous adenocarcinoma. Conclusion: The results of our analysis may help to establish specific variants of BRCA mutations in the Romanian population and identify individuals at high risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome by genetic testing.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is one of the leading societies of oncology professionals in the world. Approximately 30% of the 13 000 ESMO members are below the age of 40 and thus meet the society's definition of young oncologists (YOs). ESMO has identified the training and development of YOs as a priority and has therefore established a comprehensive career development programme. This includes a leadership development programme to help identify and develop the future leaders in oncology. Well-trained and highly motivated future generations of multidisciplinary oncologists are essential to ensure the optimal evolution of the field of oncology with the ultimate goal of providing the best possible care to patients with cancer. ESMO's career development portfolio is managed and continuously optimised by several dedicated committees composed of ESMO officers and is directly supervised by the ESMO Executive Board and the ESMO President. It offers unique resources for YOs at all stages of training and includes a broad variety of fellowship opportunities, educational courses, scientific meetings, publications and resources. In this article, we provide an overview of the activities and career development opportunities provided by ESMO to the next generation of oncologists.

PURPOSE Fertility and pregnancy-related issues are highly relevant for young (≤ 40 years) patients with breast cancer. Limited evidence exists on knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) regarding these issues. METHODS A 19-item questionnaire adapted from an international survey exploring issues about fertility preservation and pregnancy after breast cancer was sent by e-mail between November 2019 and January 2020 to physicians from LMICs involved in breast cancer care. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS A total of 288 physicians from Asia, Africa, America, and Europe completed the survey. Median age was 38 years. Responders were mainly medical oncologists (44.4%) working in an academic setting (46.9%). Among responders, 40.2% and 53.8% reported having never consulted the available international guidelines on fertility preservation and pregnancy after breast cancer, respectively. 25.0%, 19.1%, and 24.3% of responders answered to be not at all knowledgeable about embryo, oocyte, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation, respectively; 29.2%, 23.6%, and 31.3% declared that embryo, oocyte, and ovarian tissue cryopreservation were not available in their countries, respectively. 57.6% of responders disagreed or were neutral on the statement that controlled ovarian stimulation can be considered safe in patients with breast cancer. 49.7% and 58.6% of responders agreed or were neutral on the statement that pregnancy in breast cancer survivors may increase the risk of recurrence overall or only in those with hormone receptor–positive disease, respectively. CONCLUSION This survey showed suboptimal knowledge, practice, and attitudes of physicians from LMICs on fertility preservation and pregnancy after treatment completion in young women with breast cancer. Increasing awareness and education on these aspects are needed to improve adherence to available guidelines and to promote patients' oncofertility counseling.