BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance

Germline pathogenic variants of 11 breast cancer genes in 7,051 Japanese patients and 11,241 controls

Pathogenic variants in highly penetrant genes are useful for the diagnosis, therapy, and surveillance for hereditary breast cancer. Large-scale studies are needed to inform future testing and variant classification processes in Japanese. We performed a case-control association study for variants in coding regions of 11 hereditary breast cancer genes in 7051 unselected breast cancer patients and 11,241 female controls of Japanese ancestry. Here, we identify 244 germline pathogenic variants. Pathogenic variants are found in 5.7% of patients, ranging from 15% in women diagnosed <40 years to 3.2% in patients ≥80 years, with BRCA1/2, explaining two-thirds of pathogenic variants identified at all ages. BRCA1/2, PALB2, and TP53 are significant causative genes. Patients with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 or PTEN have significantly younger age at diagnosis. In conclusion, BRCA1/2, PALB2, and TP53 are the major hereditary breast cancer genes, irrespective of age at diagnosis, in Japanese women.

Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing

IMPORTANCE

Variant reclassification is an important component of hereditary cancer genetic testing; however, there are few published data quantifying the prevalence of reclassification.

OBJECTIVE

Retrospective cohort study of individuals who had genetic testing from 2006 through 2016 at a single commercial laboratory.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort of individuals who had genetic testing between 2006 and 2016 at a single commercial laboratory was assessed. Variants were classified as benign, likely benign, variant of uncertain significance, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients from the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center.

EXPOSURES

Hereditary cancer genetic testing.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Frequency of and time to amended reports; frequency and types of variant reclassification.

RESULTS

From 2006 through 2018, 1.45 million individuals (median [interquartile range] age at testing, 49 years [40.69-58.31 years], 95.6% women) had genetic testing, and 56.6% (n = 821 724) had a personal history of cancer. A total of 1.67 million initial tests were reported and 59 955 amended reports were issued due to variant reclassification. Overall, 6.4% (2868 of 44 777) of unique variants were reclassified. Reclassification to a different clinical category was rare among unique variants initially classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic (0.7%, 61 of 9112) or benign or likely benign (0.2%, 15 of 8995). However, 7.7% (2048 of 26 670) of unique variants of uncertain significance were reclassified: 91.2% (1867 of 2048) were downgraded to benign or likely benign (median time to amended report, 1.17 years), 8.7% (178 of 2048) were upgraded to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (median time to amended report, 1.86 years). Because most variants were observed in more than 1 individual, 24.9% (46 890 of 184 327) of all reported variants of uncertain significance were reclassified.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Following hereditary cancer genetic testing at a single commercial laboratory, 24.9% of variants of uncertain significance were reclassified, which included both downgrades and upgrades. Further research is needed to assess generalizability of the findings for other laboratories, as well as the clinical consequences of the reclassification as a component of a genetic testing program.

Dealing With BRCA1/2 Unclassified Variants in a Cancer Genetics Clinic: Does Cosegregation Analysis Help?

Background: Detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes poses relevant challenges for counseling and managing patients. VUS carriers should be managed similarly to probands with no BRCA1/2 variants detected, and predictive genetic testing in relatives is discouraged. However, miscomprehension of VUSs is common and can lead to inaccurate risk perception and biased decisions about prophylactic surgery. Therefore, efforts are needed to improve VUS evaluation and communication at an individual level.

Aims: We aimed at investigating whether cosegregation analysis, integrated with a careful review of available functional data and in silico predictions, may improve VUSs interpretation and counseling in individual families.

Methods: Patients with Breast Cancer (BC) and/or Ovarian Cancer (OC) fulfilling established criteria were offered genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 testing; VUSs identified in index cases were checked in other relatives affected by BC/OC whenever possible. As an alternative, if BC/OC clustered only in one branch of the family, the parental origin of the VUS was investigated. Public prediction tools and databases were used to collect additional information on the variants analyzed.

Results: Out of 1045 patients undergoing BRCA1/2 testing in the period October 2011–April 2018, 66 (6.3%) carried class 3 VUSs. Cosegregation analysis was performed for 13 VUSs in 11 kindreds. Seven VUSs (53.8%) did not cosegregate with breast/ovarian cancer in the family, which provided evidence against their role in cancer clustering in those families. Among the 6 cosegregating VUSs, for two (BRCA1 c.5152+2T>G and BRCA2 c.7975A>G) additional evidence exists from databases and in silico tools supporting their pathogenicity, which reinforces the hypothesis they may have had a predisposing effect in respective families. For the remaining four VUSs (31%), cosegregation analysis failed to provide relevant information.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that cosegregation analysis in a clinical context may be helpful to improve test result interpretation in the specific family and, therefore, should be offered whenever possible. Besides, obtaining and sharing cosegregation data helps gathering evidence that may eventually contribute to VUS classification.

Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?

In silico tools for splicing defect prediction have a key role to assess the impact of variants of uncertain significance. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a set of commonly used splicing in silico tools comparing the predictions against RNA in vitro results. This was done for natural splice sites of clinically relevant genes in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome. A study divided into two stages was used to evaluate SSF-like, MaxEntScan, NNSplice, HSF, SPANR, and dbscSNV tools. A discovery dataset of 99 variants with unequivocal results of RNA in vitro studies, located in the 10 exonic and 20 intronic nucleotides adjacent to exon-intron boundaries of BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, ATM, BRIP1, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53, was collected from four Spanish cancer genetic laboratories. The best stand-alone predictors or combinations were validated with a set of 346 variants in the same genes with clear splicing outcomes reported in the literature. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV) and Mathews Coefficient Correlation (MCC) scores were used to measure the performance. The discovery stage showed that HSF and SSF-like were the most accurate for variants at the donor and acceptor region, respectively. The further combination analysis revealed that HSF, HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES achieved a high performance for predicting the disruption of donor sites, and SSF-like or a sequential combination of MES and SSF-like for predicting disruption of acceptor sites. The performance confirmation of these last results with the validation dataset, indicated that the highest sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV (99.44%, 99.44%, and 96.88, respectively) were attained with HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES for donor sites and SSF-like (92.63%, 92.65%, and 84.44, respectively) for acceptor sites. We provide recommendations for combining algorithms to conduct in silico splicing analysis that achieved a high performance. The high NPV obtained allows to select the variants in which the study by in vitro RNA analysis is mandatory against those with a negligible probability of being spliceogenic. Our study also shows that the performance of each specific predictor varies depending on whether the natural splicing sites are donors or acceptors.

BRCA1 founder mutations and beyond in the Polish population: A single-institution BRCA1/2 next-generation sequencing study

Hereditary mutations in BRCA1/2 genes increase the risk of breast cancer by 60–80% and ovarian cancer by about 20–40% in female carriers. Detection of inherited mutations in asymptomatic carriers allows for the implementation of appropriate preventive measures. BRCA1/2 genotyping is also important for poly(adenosine diphosphate)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor administration. This work addresses the need for next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology for the detection of BRCA1/2 mutations in Poland where until recently mostly founder mutations have been tested, and whether BRCA diagnostics should be extended beyond the panel of founder mutations in this population. The study comprises 2931 patients who were referred for genetic counseling and tested for founder and recurrent mutations in BRCA1 (5382insC (c.5266dupC; p.Gln1756Profs), c.5370C>T (c.5251C>T; p.R1751*), 300T>G (c.181T>G; p.Cys61Gly), 185delAG (c.68_69delAG; p.Glu23Valfs), and 4153delA (c.4035delA; p.Glu1346Lysfs)) by high-resolution melting/Sanger sequencing. A total of 103 (3.5%) mutations were detected, including 53 (51%) in healthy subjects and 50 (49%) in cancer patients. Then, based on more stringent clinical and pedigree criteria, sequencing of all BRCA1/2 exons was performed in 454 (16%) patients without founder mutations by NGS, which detected 58 mutations (12.8%), 40 (8.8%) of which were pathogenic. In 14 (3.1%) subjects, variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were detected, and in four (0.9%) subjects, the detected mutations were benign. In total, 161 mutations were detected using our two-step algorithm (founder test and NGS), of which 64% were founder mutations, 25% were NGS-detected pathogenic mutations, 9% were VUS, and 2% were benign. In addition, 38 mutations not yet reported in the Polish population were detected. In total, founder mutations accounted for only 64% of all detected mutations, and the remaining mutations (36%) were dispersed across the BRCA1/2 gene sequences. Thus, in Poland, testing for constitutional mutations in BRCA1/2 should be carried out in two stages, where NGS is performed in qualifying subjects if founder mutations are not identified.

[Recommendations for biomarker testing in epithelial ovarian cancer. A national consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology]

Advances in the understanding of the histological and molecular characteristics of ovarian cancer now allow 5subtypes to be identified, leading to a more refined therapeutic approach and improved clinical trials. Each of the subtypes has specific histological features and a particular biomarker expression, as well as mutations in different genes, some of which have prognostic and predictive value. CA125 and HE4 are examples of ovarian cancer biomarkers used in diagnosis and follow-up. Currently, somatic or germinal mutations on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the most important biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer, having prognostic and predictive value. In this article, a group of experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology review the histological and molecular characteristics of the 5subtypes of ovarian cancer and describe the most useful biomarkers and mutations for diagnosis, screening and tailored treatment strategy.

Performance of in silico prediction tools for the classification of rare BRCA1/2 missense variants in clinical diagnostics

Background

The use of next-generation sequencing approaches in clinical diagnostics has led to a tremendous increase in data and a vast number of variants of uncertain significance that require interpretation. Therefore, prediction of the effects of missense mutations using in silico tools has become a frequently used approach. Aim of this study was to assess the reliability of in silico prediction as a basis for clinical decision making in the context of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Methods

We tested the performance of four prediction tools (Align-GVGD, SIFT, PolyPhen-2, MutationTaster2) using a set of 236 BRCA1/2 missense variants that had previously been classified by expert committees. However, a major pitfall in the creation of a reliable evaluation set for our purpose is the generally accepted classification of BRCA1/2 missense variants using the multifactorial likelihood model, which is partially based on Align-GVGD results. To overcome this drawback we identified 161 variants whose classification is independent of any previous in silico prediction. In addition to the performance as stand-alone tools we examined the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of combined approaches.

Results

PolyPhen-2 achieved the lowest sensitivity (0.67), specificity (0.67), accuracy (0.67) and MCC (0.39). Align-GVGD achieved the highest values of specificity (0.92), accuracy (0.92) and MCC (0.73), but was outperformed regarding its sensitivity (0.90) by SIFT (1.00) and MutationTaster2 (1.00). All tools suffered from poor specificities, resulting in an unacceptable proportion of false positive results in a clinical setting. This shortcoming could not be bypassed by combination of these tools. In the best case scenario, 138 families would be affected by the misclassification of neutral variants within the cohort of patients of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

Conclusion

We show that due to low specificities state-of-the-art in silico prediction tools are not suitable to predict pathogenicity of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1/2. Thus, clinical consequences should never be based solely on in silico forecasts. However, our data suggests that SIFT and MutationTaster2 could be suitable to predict benignity, as both tools did not result in false negative predictions in our analysis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12920-018-0353-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Somatic BRCA1 mutations in clinically sporadic breast cancer with medullary histological features

BACKGROUND

The role of somatic BRCA1/2 gene mutations in breast cancer is getting increasing attention in view of hereditary disease. The medullary phenotype and triple negative intrinsic subtypes are often, but not exclusively encountered in BRCA1 germline mutated breast cancer, whilst for BRCA2, no association to specific histological features are known. In this study, we addressed the relationship between morphological medullary phenotype and BRCA1/2 somatic mutations in breast cancer without known positive family anamnesis.

METHODS

32 clinically sporadic breast cancers with medullary features were analyzed for somatic BRCA1/2 mutations (all coding exons) with next-generation sequencing technology. Paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed breast cancer samples from all patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three of 32 tumors (9%) had pathogenic (ARUP class-5) BRCA1 gene alterations. Two of these pathogenic variants exhibited deletions leading to frameshift mutations (p.Glu23fs, p.Val1234fs), and the remaining single-nucleotid-variant resulted in premature STOP codon (p.Glu60Ter). In one patient, the same pathogenic BRCA1 mutation was detected (p.Glu23fs) in normal breast tissue. Retrospective follow-up in two patients revealed a positive family history for breast cancer and consecutive germline mutation testing confirmed presence of BRCA1 mutations. No somatic pathogenic BRCA2 mutations were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

BRCA1 mutation testing may be useful in clinically sporadic breast cancer patients with medullary features to identify potential mutation carriers independently from intrinsic molecular subtype. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cancer tissue can undergo testing within a routine molecular-diagnostic setting as a clinical BRCA1/2 mutation screening strategy.

Patient-Centered Care in Breast Cancer Genetic Clinics

With advances in breast cancer (BC) gene panel testing, risk counseling has become increasingly complex, potentially leading to unmet psychosocial needs. We assessed psychosocial needs and correlates in women initiating testing for high genetic BC risk in clinics in France and Germany, and compared these results with data from a literature review. Among the 442 counselees consecutively approached, 212 (83%) in France and 180 (97%) in Germany, mostly BC patients (81% and 92%, respectively), returned the ‘Psychosocial Assessment in Hereditary Cancer’ questionnaire. Based on the Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) BC risk estimation model, the mean BC lifetime risk estimates were 19% and 18% in France and Germany, respectively. In both countries, the most prevalent needs clustered around the “living with cancer” and “children-related issues” domains. In multivariate analyses, a higher number of psychosocial needs were significantly associated with younger age (b = −0.05), higher anxiety (b = 0.78), and having children (b = 1.51), but not with country, educational level, marital status, depression, or loss of a family member due to hereditary cancer. These results are in line with the literature review data. However, this review identified only seven studies that quantitatively addressed psychosocial needs in the BC genetic counseling setting. Current data lack understandings of how cancer risk counseling affects psychosocial needs, and improves patient-centered care in that setting.

Combined annotation-dependent depletion score for BRCA1/2 variants in patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer

Utility of combined annotation‐dependent depletion (CADD) score was recently reported to rank pathogenicity as C‐scores ranging 1‐99 for both confirmed deleterious mutation. Using C‐scores for BRCA1/2 variants, we tried to constitute the classification system for variant of uncertain significance (VUS), which had been a major problem of genetic testing for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. We analyzed BRCA1/2 genes for 283 patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer. The deleterious mutation and missesne mutations, minor variant, and wild type of BRCA1 and ‐2 were 5, 27, 251 and 15, 85, 183, respectively. Meanwhile, the variants with C‐score ≥10 were involved in 19/283 (6.7%) in BRCA1 and 34/283 (12%) in BRCA2. All deleterious mutations were included in this group. Frequency of personal history and family history of ovarian cancer were significantly high, and frequency of serous adenocarcinoma of ovary and triple negative breast cancer was relatively high in the group with deleterious mutations. Similar findings were seen in patients with variants of C‐score ≥10. According to the C‐score and population frequency, we could define VUS for 11 patients out of 283 patients (3.9 CADD is useful to classify the variant of BRCA1/2 and selecting the patient who needs further segregation studies.

Changes in classification of genetic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2

INTRODUCTION

Classification of variants of unknown significance (VUS) in the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 changes with accumulating evidence for clinical relevance. In most cases down-staging towards neutral variants without clinical significance is possible.

METHODS

We searched the database of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) for changes in classification of genetic variants as an update to our earlier publication on genetic variants in the Centre of Dresden. Changes between 2015 and 2017 were recorded.

RESULTS

In the group of variants of unclassified significance (VUS, Class 3, uncertain), only changes of classification towards neutral genetic variants were noted. In BRCA1, 25% of the Class 3 variants (n = 2/8) changed to Class 2 (likely benign) and Class 1 (benign). In BRCA2, in 50% of the Class 3 variants (n = 16/32), a change to Class 2 (n = 10/16) or Class 1 (n = 6/16) was observed. No change in classification was noted in Class 4 (likely pathogenic) and Class 5 (pathogenic) genetic variants in both genes. No up-staging from Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 to more clinical significance was observed.

CONCLUSION

All variants with a change in classification in our cohort were down-staged towards no clinical significance by a panel of experts of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). Prevention in families with Class 3 variants should be based on pedigree based risks and should not be guided by the presence of a VUS.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

A comparison of cancer risk assessment and testing outcomes in patients from underserved vs. tertiary care settings

In cancer genetics, technological advances (next generation sequencing) and the expansion of genetic test options have resulted in lowered costs and increased access to genetic testing. Despite this, the majority of patients utilizing cancer genetics services lack diversity of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Through retrospective chart review, we compared outcomes of cancer genetics consultations at a tertiary cancer center and a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) (58 tertiary and 23 FQHC patients) from 2013 to 2015. The two groups differed in race, ethnicity, use of translator services, and type of insurance coverage. There were also significant differences in completeness of family history information, with more missing information about relatives in the FQHC group. In spite of these differences, genetic testing rates among those offered testing were comparable across the two groups with 74% of tertiary patients and 60% of FQHC patients completing testing. Implementation of community-based cancer genetics outreach clinics represents an opportunity to improve access to genetic counseling services, but more research is needed to develop effective counseling models for diverse patient populations.

From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals

Despite ongoing research efforts to reclassify BRCA variant of uncertain significance (VUS), results for strategies to disseminate findings to genetic counselors are lacking. We disseminated results from a study on reclassification of BRCA VUS using a mailed reclassification packet including a reclassification guide, patient education aid, and patient letter template for patients/families with BRCA VUS. This study reports on genetic counselors' responses to the dissemination materials. Eligible participants (n = 1015) were identified using mailing lists from professional genetics organizations. Participants were mailed a BRCA VUS reclassification packet and a return postcard to assess responses to the materials. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses. In response to the mailing, 128 (13.0%) genetic counselors completed and returned postcards. The majority of respondents (n = 117; 91.4%) requested the patient letter template and patient education guides as PDFs (n = 122; 95.3%). The majority (n = 123; 96.9%) wanted an updated reclassification guide upon availability. Open-ended responses demonstrate the material was well-received; some specified they would tailor the patient letter to fit their practice and patients' needs. Participants requested additional patient and provider educational materials for use in practice. Materials communicating BRCA VUS reclassification updates were liked and were likely to be used in practice. To achieve the benefits of VUS reclassification in clinical practice, ongoing efforts are needed to continuously and effectively disseminate findings to providers and patients.

CDH1 mutation screen in a BRCA1/2-negative familial breast-/ovarian cancer cohort

PURPOSE

Mutations in the CDH1 gene are linked both to diffuse gastric cancer and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). A high mutation rate is found in families fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Aim of this study was to clarify whether or not there is a significant contribution of CDH1 mutations in hereditary breast-/ovarian cancer (HBOC).

METHODS

Ninety-seven unrelated probands fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for HBOC (96 affected, 1 unaffected) but tested negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations were screened for CDH1 mutations by denaturing high performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) and subsequent Sanger sequencing of suspicious and positive DHPLC results.

RESULTS

In total, we found two potentially pathogenic CDH1 alterations, c.1774G > A, pAla592Thr, and c.2512 A > G, p.Ser838Gly, classified as variants of unknown significance according to ClinVar. In addition, we detected a high number of known CDH1 polymorphisms (n = 62), some of them more frequent in patients with lobular (55%) than in those with invasive ductal carcinoma (27%).

CONCLUSION

Although none of the probands studied carried a clearly pathogenic CDH1 mutation, CDH1 could be considered a potential breast cancer gene, esp. for ILC worth including it in the NGS (next generation sequencing) HBOC panel.

A mutational signature reveals alterations underlying deficient homologous recombination repair in breast cancer

Biallelic inactivation of BRCA1 or BRCA2 is associated with a pattern of genome-wide mutations known as signature 3. By analyzing ∼1,000 breast cancer samples, we confirmed this association and established that germline nonsense and frameshift variants in PALB2, but not in ATM or CHEK2, can also give rise to the same signature. We were able to accurately classify missense BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants known to impair homologous recombination (HR) on the basis of this signature. Finally, we show that epigenetic silencing of RAD51C and BRCA1 by promoter methylation is strongly associated with signature 3 and, in our data set, was highly enriched in basal-like breast cancers in young individuals of African descent.

Germline genetic variants with implications for disease risk and therapeutic outcomes

Genetic testing has multiple clinical applications including disease risk assessment, diagnosis, and pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics can be utilized to predict whether a pharmacologic therapy will be effective or to identify patients at risk for treatment-related toxicity. Although genetic tests are typically ordered for a distinct clinical purpose, the genetic variants that are found may have additional implications for either disease or pharmacology. This review will address multiple examples of germline genetic variants that are informative for both disease and pharmacogenomics. The discussed relationships are diverse. Some of the agents are targeted for the disease-causing genetic variant, while others, although not targeted therapies, have implications for the disease they are used to treat. It is also possible that the disease implications of a genetic variant are unrelated to the pharmacogenomic implications. Some of these examples are considered clinically actionable pharmacogenes, with evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment recommendations, while others are still investigative as areas for additional research. It is important that clinicians are aware of both the disease and pharmacogenomic associations of these germline genetic variants to ensure patients are receiving comprehensive personalized care.

Genetic testing in women with breast cancer: implications for treatment

INTRODUCTION

Mutations in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are responsible for approximately 42,000 cases of breast cancer annually. Identifying these germline mutations in a woman with breast cancer is important because it can influence her immediate and long-term management and has important implications for other family members. Areas covered: This review highlights how treatment-focussed genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations can potentially influence cancer treatment and secondary prevention decisions in women with breast cancer. Expert commentary: Testing women with breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations has the potential to decrease cancer burden and improve cancer outcomes. It can help optimise surgical and systemic therapy approaches. Clinicians should actively consider whether genetic testing is appropriate for each woman with breast cancer, and if so should instigate it early in the treatment trajectory when it can most influence cancer care.

Recommendations for biomarker testing in epithelial ovarian cancer: a National Consensus Statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology

Because of advances in the understanding of histological and molecular characteristics in ovarian cancer, it is now possible to recognize the existence of five subtypes, which in turn has allowed a more refined therapeutic approach and better design of clinical trials. Each of these five subtypes has specific histological features and a particular biomarker expression, as well as mutations in different genes, some of which have prognostic and predictive value. CA125 and HE4 are examples of ovarian cancer biomarkers used in the diagnosis and follow-up of these malignancies. Currently, somatic or germinal mutations on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the most important biomarkers in epithelial ovarian cancer having prognostic and predictive value. This article will review the histological and molecular characteristics of the five subtypes of ovarian cancer, describing the most important biomarkers and mutations that can guide in diagnosis, screening and tailored treatment strategy.

BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses

INTRODUCTION

The clinical implications of genetic variants in BRCA1/2 in healthy and affected individuals are considerable. Variant interpretation, however, is especially challenging for missense variants. The majority of them are classified as variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Computational (in-silico) predictive programs are easy to access, but represent only one tool out of a wide range of complemental approaches to classify VUS. With this single-center study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of in-silico analyses in a spectrum of different BRCA1/2 missense variants.

METHODS

We conducted mutation analysis of BRCA1/2 in 523 index patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Classification of the genetic variants was performed according to the German Consortium (GC)-HBOC database. Additionally, all missense variants were classified by the following three in-silico prediction tools: SIFT, Mutation Taster (MT2) and PolyPhen2 (PPH2).

RESULTS

Overall 201 different variants, 68 of which constituted missense variants were ranked as pathogenic, neutral, or unknown. The classification of missense variants by in-silico tools resulted in a higher amount of pathogenic mutations (25% vs. 13.2%) compared to the GC-HBOC-classification. Altogether, more than fifty percent (38/68, 55.9%) of missense variants were ranked differently. Sensitivity of in-silico-tools for mutation prediction was 88.9% (PPH2), 100% (SIFT) and 100% (MT2).

CONCLUSION

We found a relevant discrepancy in variant classification by using in-silico prediction tools, resulting in potential overestimation and/or underestimation of cancer risk. More reliable, notably gene-specific, prediction tools and functional tests are needed to improve clinical counseling.

Data sharing as a national quality improvement program: reporting on BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant-interpretation comparisons through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository (COGR)

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop a national program for Canadian diagnostic laboratories to compare DNA-variant interpretations and resolve discordant-variant classifications using the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes as a case study.MethodsBRCA1 and BRCA2 variant data were uploaded and shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository (COGR; http://www.opengenetics.ca). A total of 5,554 variant observations were submitted; classification differences were identified and comparison reports were sent to participating laboratories. Each site had the opportunity to reclassify variants. The data were analyzed before and after the comparison report process to track concordant- or discordant-variant classifications by three different models.ResultsVariant-discordance rates varied by classification model: 38.9% of variants were discordant when using a five-tier model, 26.7% with a three-tier model, and 5.0% with a two-tier model. After the comparison report process, the proportion of discordant variants dropped to 30.7% with the five-tier model, to 14.2% with the three-tier model, and to 0.9% using the two-tier model.ConclusionWe present a Canadian interinstitutional quality improvement program for DNA-variant interpretations. Sharing of variant knowledge by clinical diagnostic laboratories will allow clinicians and patients to make more informed decisions and lead to better patient outcomes.

Clinical outcomes of female breast cancer according to BRCA mutation status

BACKGROUND

To investigate breast cancer prognosis (disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS)) among carriers of germline BRCA mutations (BRCAm) in Denmark.

METHODS

We identified all women in Central and Northern Denmark diagnosed with breast cancer during 2004-2011. We retrieved information on germline BRCAm testing from Clinical Genetics departments and clinical/treatment characteristics from population-based medical registries. Follow-up for recurrence, new primary cancer, and mortality extended from 180days after diagnosis until 31/12/2012. We estimated median DFS and OS and five-year cumulative incidence and incidence rates (IR/1000 person-years), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), for each outcome.

RESULTS

Among 9874 patients, 523 (5%) underwent BRCA testing-90 were BRCAm carriers, 433 were BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt). Compared with BRCAwt women, BRCAm carriers were younger, had lower stage, and ER- and HER2- tumors. Median time from diagnosis to BRCA testing was 0.91 years and 1.3 years in BRCAm and BRCAwt women; median follow-up to first event was 3.9 and 3.4 years, respectively. Five-year DFS and OS were higher in BRCAm than BRCAwt women: 88% (95%CI=78.3-93.5) vs. 75.3% (95%CI=70.2-79.6) and 97.8% (95%CI=91.4-99.4) vs 92.2% (95%CI=88.5-94.7), respectively. Five-year IRs of recurrence were 36.7/1000 person-years (95%CI=15.8-72.2) in the BRCAm cohort vs. 58.4 (95%CI=42.9-77.6) in the BRCAwt cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

BRCAm carriers may have a better prognosis than BRCAwt women. However, limited testing conducted mainly during follow-up, yielded low numbers for precise estimations, and may be attributable to selection bias.

Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing for risk of hereditary cancer can help patients to make important decisions about prevention or early detection. US and UK studies show that people from ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive genetic testing. It is important to understand various groups' awareness of genetic testing and its acceptability to avoid further disparities in health care. This review aims to identify and detail awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic counselling/testing for cancer risk prediction in ethnic minority groups.

METHODS

A search was carried out in PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. Search terms referred to ethnicity, genetic testing/counselling, cancer, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. Quantitative and qualitative studies, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2015, were included.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies were selected for review: 39 from the US, and two from Australia. Results revealed low awareness and knowledge of genetic counselling/testing for cancer susceptibility amongst ethnic minority groups including African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. Attitudes towards genetic testing were generally positive; perceived benefits included positive implications for personal health and being able to inform family. However, negative attitudes were also evident, particularly the anticipated emotional impact of test results, and concerns about confidentiality, stigma, and discrimination. Chinese Australian groups were less studied, but of interest was a finding from qualitative research indicating that different views of who close family members are could impact on reported family history of cancer, which could in turn impact a risk assessment.

CONCLUSION

Interventions are needed to increase awareness and knowledge of genetic testing for cancer risk and to reduce the perceived stigma and taboo surrounding the topic of cancer in ethnic minority groups. More detailed research is needed in countries other than the US and across a broader spectrum of ethnic minority groups to develop effective culturally sensitive approaches for cancer prevention.

Therapeutic targeting and patient selection for cancers with homologous recombination defects

INTRODUCTION

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) are toxic DNA lesions that can be repaired by non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR). Mutations in HR genes elicit a predisposition to cancer; yet, they also result in increased sensitivity to certain DNA damaging agents and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. To optimally implement PARP inhibitor treatment, it is important that patients with HR-deficient tumors are adequately selected. Areas covered: Herein, the authors describe the HR pathway mechanistically and review the treatment of HR-deficient cancers, with a specific focus on PARP inhibition for BRCA1/2-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. In addition, mechanisms of acquired PARP inhibitor resistance are discussed. Furthermore, combination therapies with PARP inhibitors are reviewed, in the context of both HR-deficient and HR-proficient tumors and methods for proper patient selection are also discussed. Expert opinion: Currently, only patients with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations are eligible for PARP inhibitor treatment and only a proportion of patients respond. Patients with HR-deficient tumors caused by other (epi)genetic events may also benefit from PARP inhibitor treatment. Ideally, selection of eligible patients for PARP inhibitor treatment include a functional HR read-out, in which cancer cells are interrogated for their ability to perform HR repair and maintain replication fork stability.

Traceback: A Proposed Framework to Increase Identification and Genetic Counseling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through Family-Based Outreach

In May 2016, the Division of Cancer Prevention and the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, convened a workshop to discuss a conceptual framework for identifying and genetically testing previously diagnosed but unreferred patients with ovarian cancer and other unrecognized BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers to improve the detection of families at risk for breast or ovarian cancer. The concept, designated Traceback, was prompted by the recognition that although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are frequent in women with ovarian cancer, many such women have not been tested, especially if their diagnosis predated changes in testing guidelines. The failure to identify mutation carriers among probands represents a lost opportunity to prevent cancer in unsuspecting relatives through risk-reduction intervention in mutation carriers and to provide appropriate reassurances to noncarriers. The Traceback program could provide an important opportunity to reach families from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups who historically have not sought or been offered genetic counseling and testing and thereby contribute to a reduction in health disparities in women with germline BRCA mutations. To achieve an interdisciplinary perspective, the workshop assembled international experts in genetics, medical and gynecologic oncology, clinical psychology, epidemiology, genomics, cost-effectiveness modeling, pathology, bioethics, and patient advocacy to identify factors to consider when undertaking a Traceback program. This report highlights the workshop deliberations with the goal of stimulating research and providing a framework for pilot studies to assess the feasibility and ethical and logistical considerations related to the development of best practices for implementation of Traceback studies.

Functional classification of DNA variants by hybrid minigenes: Identification of 30 spliceogenic variants of BRCA2 exons 17 and 18

Mutation screening of the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 identifies a large fraction of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) whose functional and clinical interpretations pose a challenge for genomic medicine. Likewise, an increasing amount of evidence indicates that genetic variants can have deleterious effects on pre-mRNA splicing. Our goal was to investigate the impact on splicing of a set of reported variants of BRCA2 exons 17 and 18 to assess their role in hereditary breast cancer and to identify critical regulatory elements that may constitute hotspots for spliceogenic variants. A splicing reporter minigene with BRCA2 exons 14 to-20 (MGBR2_ex14-20) was constructed in the pSAD vector. Fifty-two candidate variants were selected with splicing prediction programs, introduced in MGBR2_ex14-20 by site-directed mutagenesis and assayed in triplicate in MCF-7 cells. Wild type MGBR2_ex14-20 produced a stable transcript of the expected size (1,806 nucleotides) and structure (V1-[BRCA2_exons_14–20]–V2). Functional mapping by microdeletions revealed essential sequences for exon recognition on the 3’ end of exon 17 (c.7944-7973) and the 5’ end of exon 18 (c.7979-7988, c.7999-8013). Thirty out of the 52 selected variants induced anomalous splicing in minigene assays with >16 different aberrant transcripts, where exon skipping was the most common event. A wide range of splicing motifs were affected including the canonical splice sites (15 variants), novel alternative sites (3 variants), the polypyrimidine tract (3 variants) and enhancers/silencers (9 variants). According to the guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), 20 variants could be classified as pathogenic (c.7806-2A>G, c.7806-1G>A, c.7806-1G>T, c.7806-1_7806-2dup, c.7976+1G>A, c.7977-3_7978del, c.7977-2A>T, c.7977-1G>T, c.7977-1G>C, c.8009C>A, c.8331+1G>T and c.8331+2T>C) or likely pathogenic (c.7806-9T>G, c.7976G>C, c.7976G>A, c.7977-7C>G, c.7985C>G, c.8023A>G, c.8035G>T and c.8331G>A), accounting for 30.8% of all pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants of exons 17–18 at the BRCA Share database. The remaining 8 variants (c.7975A>G, c.7977-6T>G, c.7988A>T, c.7992T>A, c.8007A>G, c.8009C>T, c.8009C>G, and c.8072C>T) induced partial splicing anomalies with important ratios of the full-length transcript (≥70%), so that they remained classified as VUS. Aberrant splicing is therefore especially prevalent in BRCA2 exons 17 and 18 due to the presence of active ESEs involved in exon recognition. Splicing functional assays with minigenes are a valuable strategy for the initial characterization of the splicing outcomes and the subsequent clinical interpretation of variants of any disease-gene, although these results should be checked, whenever possible, against patient RNA.

A significant proportion of disease-causing mutations of inherited disorders impair splicing. Massive sequencing projects of genetic diseases generate thousands of sequence variations that require functional and clinical interpretations. We have shown that splicing reporter minigenes of the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 are useful tools to functionally test DNA variants. In this work, we have constructed a 7-exon BRCA2 minigene (exons 14 to 20) where we mapped critical splicing regulatory sequences and tested 52 selected variants of exons 17 and 18 detected in breast cancer patients. We finely located three DNA segments on both exons that presumably contain splicing enhancer sequences. We observed that a total of 30 variants of any type disrupted the splicing patterns and, given the severity of their outcomes, we classified 20 of them as pathogenic or likely pathogenic. We also showed that a wide range of splicing elements were affected including canonical and novel 5’ and 3’ splice sites, the polypyrimidine tract and enhancer and silencer sequences. We concluded that splicing aberrations are frequent in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and that minigenes are valuable tools to functionally classify DNA variants of any human disease gene under the splicing viewpoint.

Spectrum of genetic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in a German single center study

BACKGROUND

Determination of mutation status of BRCA1 and BRCA2 has become part of the clinical routine. However, the spectrum of genetic variants differs between populations. The aim of this study was to deliver a comprehensive description of all detected variants.

METHODS

In families fulfilling one of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) criteria for genetic testing, one affected was chosen for analysis. DNA of blood lymphocytes was amplified by PCR and prescreened by DHPLC. Aberrant fragments were sequenced. All coding exons and splice sites of BRCA1 and BRCA2 were analyzed. Screening for large rearrangements in both genes was performed by MLPA.

RESULTS

Of 523 index patients, 121 (23.1%) were found to carry a pathogenic or likely pathogenic (class 4/5) mutation. A variant of unknown significance (VUS) was detected in 73/523 patients (13.9%). Two mutations p.Gln1756Profs*74 and p.Cys61Gly comprised 42.3% (n = 33/78) of all detected pathogenic mutations in BRCA1. Most of the other mutations were unique mutations. The most frequently detected mutation in BRCA2 was p.Val1283Lys (13.9%; n = 6/43). Altogether, 101 different neutral genetic variants were counted in BRCA1 (n = 35) and in BRCA2 (n = 66).

CONCLUSION

The two most frequently detected mutations are founder mutations in Poland and Czech Republic. More similarities seem to be shared with our direct neighbor countries compared to other European countries. For comparison of the extended genotype, a shared database is needed.

Molecular Testing in Breast Cancer: A Guide to Current Practices

CONTEXT

-Molecular diagnostics play a role in the management of many cancers, including breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE

-To provide an update on molecular testing in current clinical practice, targeted at practicing pathologists who are not breast cancer specialists.

DATA SOURCES

-This study is a narrative literature review.

CONCLUSIONS

-In addition to routine hormone (estrogen and progesterone) receptor testing, new and recurrent tumors are tested for HER2 amplification by in situ hybridization or overexpression by immunohistochemistry. Intrinsic subtyping of tumors represents a fundamental advance in our understanding of breast cancer biology, but currently it has an indirect role in patient management. Clinical next-generation sequencing (tumor profiling) is increasingly used to identify potentially actionable mutations in tumor tissue. Multianalyte assays with algorithmic analysis, including MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and Prosigna, play a larger role in breast cancer than in many other malignancies. Given that a proportion of breast cancers are familial, testing of nontumor tissue for cancer predisposition mutations also plays a role in breast cancer care.

Effect on perceived control and psychological distress of genetic knowledge in women with breast cancer receiving a BRCA1/2 test result

Information provision during BRCA1/2 genetic counseling is complex and expected to be increasingly so with gene panel testing. This prospective study evaluated whether genetic knowledge in counselees with breast cancer (BC) after a pre-test genetic counseling visit (T1) enhance their feeling of personal control while minimizing distress after the notification of BRCA1/2 result (T2). At T1, 243 (89% response rate) counselees completed questionnaires on genetic knowledge (BGKQ), perceived cancer genetic risk; of which, at T2, 180 (66%) completed the BGKQ again, scales of anxiety/depression, distress specific to genetic risk, and perceived control. Multilevel models were performed accounting for clinician, and testing an effect of knowledge on psychological outcomes according to the adequacy of counselees' perceived genetic predisposition to cancer. The mean knowledge score was moderate at T1, decreased while not significantly differing by BRCA1/2 test result at T2. Knowledge at T1 had no direct effect on psychological outcomes, but in counselees who over-estimated their cancer genetic risk, higher knowledge at T1 predicted higher specific distress at T2. In BC affected counselees who over-estimate their cancer genetic risk, higher BRCA1/2 pre-test genetic knowledge seem to lead to increased specific distress. Identifying these BC affected counselees who over-estimate their genetic cancer risk and helping them to interpret their genetic knowledge instead of providing them with exhaustive genetic information could minimize their distress after test result receipt.

Routine use of gene panel testing in hereditary breast cancer should be performed with caution

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer occurring in women. Ten percent of these cancers are considered hereditary. Among them, 30% are attributed to germline mutations in the tumor suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Other genes of lower penetrance are also known, explaining together up to 40% of the hereditary risk of breast cancer. New techniques, such as next-generation sequencing, allow the simultaneous analysis of multiple genes in a cost-effective way. As a logical consequence, gene panel testing is entering clinical practice with the promise of personalized care. We however advocate that gene panel testing is not ready for non-specialist clinical use, as it generates many variants of unknown significance and includes more genes than are presently considered clinically useful. We hereby review the data for each gene that can change the risk management of patients carrying a pathogenic variant.

Conflicting Interpretation of Genetic Variants and Cancer Risk by Commercial Laboratories as Assessed by the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing

Purpose Massively parallel sequencing allows simultaneous testing of multiple genes associated with cancer susceptibility. Guidelines are available for variant classification; however, interpretation of these guidelines by laboratories and providers may differ and lead to conflicting reporting and, potentially, to inappropriate medical management. We describe conflicting variant interpretations between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved commercial clinical laboratories, as reported to the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), an online genetic registry. Methods Clinical data and genetic testing results were gathered from 1,191 individuals tested for inherited cancer susceptibility and self-enrolled in PROMPT between September 2014 and October 2015. Overall, 518 participants (603 genetic variants) had a result interpreted by more than one laboratory, including at least one submitted to ClinVar, and these were used as the final cohort for the current analysis. Results Of the 603 variants, 221 (37%) were classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 191 (32%) as pathogenic, and 34 (6%) as benign. The interpretation differed among reporting laboratories for 155 (26%). Conflicting interpretations were most frequently reported for CHEK2 and ATM, followed by RAD51C, PALB2, BARD1, NBN, and BRIP1. Among all participants, 56 of 518 (11%) had a variant with conflicting interpretations ranging from pathogenic/likely pathogenic to VUS, a discrepancy that may alter medical management. Conclusions Conflicting interpretation of genetic findings from multiplex panel testing used in clinical practice is frequent and may have implications for medical management decisions.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes in confined pathways

Genetic abnormalities in the DNA repair genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). However, only approximately 25% of cases of HBOC can be ascribed to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Recently, exome sequencing has uncovered substantial locus heterogeneity among affected families without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The new pathogenic variants are rare, posing challenges to estimation of risk attribution through patient cohorts. In this Review article, we examine HBOC genes, focusing on their role in genome maintenance, the possibilities for functional testing of putative causal variants and the clinical application of new HBOC genes in cancer risk management and treatment decision-making.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies.

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies.

Implementing rapid, robust, cost-effective, patient-centred, routine genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients

Advances in DNA sequencing have made genetic testing fast and affordable, but limitations of testing processes are impeding realisation of patient benefits. Ovarian cancer exemplifies the potential value of genetic testing and the shortcomings of current pathways to access testing. Approximately 15% of ovarian cancer patients have a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation which has substantial implications for their personal management and that of their relatives. Unfortunately, in most countries, routine implementation of BRCA testing for ovarian cancer patients has been inconsistent and largely unsuccessful. We developed a rapid, robust, mainstream genetic testing pathway in which testing is undertaken by the trained cancer team with cascade testing to relatives performed by the genetics team. 207 women with ovarian cancer were offered testing through the mainstream pathway. All accepted. 33 (16%) had a BRCA mutation. The result informed management of 79% (121/154) women with active disease. Patient and clinician feedback was very positive. The pathway offers a 4-fold reduction in time and 13-fold reduction in resource requirement compared to the conventional testing pathway. The mainstream genetic testing pathway we present is effective, efficient and patient-centred. It can deliver rapid, robust, large-scale, cost-effective genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 and may serve as an exemplar for other genes and other diseases.

Targeted sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 across a large unselected breast cancer cohort suggests that one-third of mutations are somatic

We carried out targeted sequencing of BRCA1/2 in an unselected cohort of patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer within a population without strong founder mutations. Eleven percent of cases harbored a germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutation, and the ratio of germline versus somatic mutation was 2 : 1. This has implications for treatment, genetic counseling, and interpretation of tumor-only testing.

Background

A mutation found in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene of a breast tumor could be either germline or somatically acquired. The prevalence of somatic BRCA1/2 mutations and the ratio between somatic and germline BRCA1/2 mutations in unselected breast cancer patients are currently unclear.

Patients and methods

Paired normal and tumor DNA was analyzed for BRCA1/2 mutations by massively parallel sequencing in an unselected cohort of 273 breast cancer patients from south Sweden.

Results

Deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 (n = 10) or BRCA2 (n = 10) were detected in 20 patients (7%). Deleterious somatic mutations in BRCA1 (n = 4) or BRCA2 (n = 5) were detected in 9 patients (3%). Accordingly, about 1 in 9 breast carcinomas (11%) in our cohort harbor a BRCA1/2 mutation. For each gene, the tumor phenotypes were very similar regardless of the mutation being germline or somatically acquired, whereas the tumor phenotypes differed significantly between wild-type and mutated cases. For age at diagnosis, the patients with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations resembled the wild-type patients (median age at diagnosis, germline BRCA1: 41.5 years; germline BRCA2: 49.5 years; somatic BRCA1/2: 65 years; wild-type BRCA1/2: 62.5 years).

Conclusions

In a population without strong germline founder mutations, the likelihood of a BRCA1/2 mutation found in a breast carcinoma being somatic was ∼1/3 and germline 2/3. This may have implications for treatment and genetic counseling.

Testing for Hereditary Predisposition in Patients with Gynecologic Cancers, Quo Vadis?

Genetic testing for a hereditary predisposition to gynecologic cancers has been available clinically since the 1990s. Since then, knowledge of the hereditary contribution to gynecologic cancers has dramatically increased, especially with respect to ovarian cancer. Although knowledge of the number of gynecologic cancer-predisposing genes has increased, the integration of genetic predisposition testing into routine clinical practice has been much slower. This article summarizes the technical and practical aspects of genetic testing in gynecologic cancers, the potential barriers to more widespread access and practice of genetic testing for hereditary predisposition to gynecologic cancers, and the potential solutions to these barriers.

Homologous recombination deficiency and ovarian cancer

The discovery that PARP inhibitors block an essential pathway of DNA repair in cells harbouring a BRCA mutation has opened up a new therapeutic avenue for high-grade ovarian cancers. BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins are essential for high-fidelity repair of double-strand breaks of DNA through the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway. Deficiency in HRR (HRD) is a target for PARP inhibitors. The first PARP inhibitor, olaparib, has now been licensed for BRCA-mutated ovarian cancers. While mutated BRCA genes are individually most commonly associated with HRD other essential HRR proteins may be mutated or functionally deficient potentially widening the therapeutic opportunities for PARP inhibitors. HRD is the first phenotypically defined predictive marker for therapy with PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer. Several different PARP inhibitors are being trialled in ovarian cancer and this class of drugs has been shown to be a new selective therapy for high-grade ovarian cancer. Around 20% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers harbour germline or somatic BRCA mutations and testing for BRCA mutations should be incorporated into routine clinical practice. The expanded use of PARP inhibitors in HRD deficient (non-BRCA mutant) tumours using a signature of HRD in clinical practice requires validation.

Prevalence of BRCA1/2 germline mutations in 21 401 families with breast and ovarian cancer

PURPOSE

To characterise the prevalence of pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in families with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) history.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 21 401 families were gathered between 1996 and 2014 in a clinical setting in the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, comprising full pedigrees with cancer status of all individual members at the time of first counselling, and BRCA1/2 mutation status of the index patient.

RESULTS

The overall BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence was 24.0% (95% CI 23.4% to 24.6%). Highest mutation frequencies were observed in families with at least two OCs (41.9%, 95% CI 36.1% to 48.0%) and families with at least one breast and one OC (41.6%, 95% CI 40.3% to 43.0%), followed by male BC with at least one female BC or OC (35.8%; 95% CI 32.2% to 39.6%). In families with a single case of early BC (<36 years), mutations were found in 13.7% (95% CI 11.9% to 15.7%). Postmenopausal unilateral or bilateral BC did not increase the probability of mutation detection. Occurrence of premenopausal BC and OC in the same woman led to higher mutation frequencies compared with the occurrence of these two cancers in different individuals (49.0%; 95% CI 41.0% to 57.0% vs 31.5%; 95% CI 28.0% to 35.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers to identify individuals who should undergo genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Moreover, it supports informed decision-making of counselees on the uptake of genetic testing.

Classification and Clinical Management of Variants of Uncertain Significance in High Penetrance Cancer Predisposition Genes

In 2008, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) proposed a system for classifying sequence variants in highly penetrant breast and colon cancer susceptibility genes, linked to clinical actions. This system uses a multifactorial likelihood model to calculate the posterior probability that an altered DNA sequence is pathogenic. Variants between 5%-94.9% (class 3) are categorized as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). This interval is wide and might include variants with a substantial difference in pathogenicity at either end of the spectrum. We think that carriers of class 3 variants would benefit from a fine-tuning of this classification. Classification of VUS to a category with a defined clinical significance is very important because for carriers of a pathogenic mutation full surveillance and risk-reducing surgery can reduce cancer incidence. Counselees who are not carriers of a pathogenic mutation can be discharged from intensive follow-up and avoid unnecessary risk-reducing surgery. By means of examples, we show how, in selected cases, additional data can lead to reclassification of some variants to a different class with different recommendations for surveillance and therapy. To improve the clinical utility of this classification system, we suggest a pragmatic adaptation to clinical practice.

Selecting Patients with Ovarian Cancer for Germline BRCA Mutation Testing: Findings from Guidelines and a Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

One of the most significant risk factors for the development of ovarian cancer (OC) is a genetic mutation in BRCA1 (breast cancer gene 1) or BRCA2. Here we describe the impact of previous and current guidance on BRCA testing practices and provide evidence about which characteristics best identify patients with OC and an underlying germline BRCA mutation.

METHODS

A search was conducted for guidelines recommending genetic testing to identify constitutional pathogenic mutations in the BRCA genes. In addition, a systematic literature search of studies published in 2003-2015 was performed to assess BRCA mutation frequency in population-based OC patients unselected for patient characteristics (personal history, family history, and Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity) and to describe the association of patient characteristics with BRCA mutation. Exclusively, studies assessing epithelial OC or invasive epithelial OC with full-gene screening of both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 15 guidelines recommending genetic testing for OC patients, only 5 do not require co-occurrence of specific patient or family characteristics. Twenty-two full publications were identified that assessed germline BRCA mutation frequency in women with OC, utilizing a range of different full mutation detection methods. Germline BRCA mutation prevalence in patients with OC was 5.8-24.8%. Using criteria recommended in guidelines that are yet to be updated, we estimated that 27.5% of all germline BRCA mutations present in patients with OC may be missed because patients do not meet appropriate criteria.

CONCLUSION

With the availability of BRCA mutation-targeted therapies, identification of patients with OC with germline BRCA mutations has potential therapeutic consequences. For identified gene carriers, predictive testing to allow cancer prevention strategies, including bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, provides wider benefit to identifying such gene carriers. Updating guidelines will increase the opportunity for targeted treatment among patients and risk reduction in relatives.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

NIH working group report-using genomic information to guide weight management: From universal to precision treatment

OBJECTIVE

Precision medicine utilizes genomic and other data to optimize and personalize treatment. Although more than 2,500 genetic tests are currently available, largely for extreme and/or rare phenotypes, the question remains whether this approach can be used for the treatment of common, complex conditions like obesity, inflammation, and insulin resistance, which underlie a host of metabolic diseases.

METHODS

This review, developed from a Trans-NIH Conference titled "Genes, Behaviors, and Response to Weight Loss Interventions," provides an overview of the state of genetic and genomic research in the area of weight change and identifies key areas for future research.

RESULTS

Although many loci have been identified that are associated with cross-sectional measures of obesity/body size, relatively little is known regarding the genes/loci that influence dynamic measures of weight change over time. Although successful short-term weight loss has been achieved using many different strategies, sustainable weight loss has proven elusive for many, and there are important gaps in our understanding of energy balance regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Elucidating the molecular basis of variability in weight change has the potential to improve treatment outcomes and inform innovative approaches that can simultaneously take into account information from genomic and other sources in devising individualized treatment plans.