1
|
Ni M, Wang F, Yang A, Shao Q, Xue C, Xia W, Xu F, Lin X, Huang J, Bi X, Hong R, Chen M, Zheng Q, Jiang K, Xie X, Tang J, Wang X, Yuan Z, Wang S, Shi Y, An X. What is the appropriate genetic testing criteria for breast cancer in the Chinese population?-Analysis of genetic and clinical features from a single cancer center database. Cancer Med 2023. [PMID: 37096751 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5976] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2022] [Revised: 04/02/2023] [Accepted: 04/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Genetic testing plays an important role in guiding screening, diagnosis, and precision treatment of breast cancer (BC). However, the appropriate genetic testing criteria remain controversial. The current study aims to facilitate the development of suitable strategies by analyzing the germline mutational profiles and clinicopathological features of large-scale Chinese BC patients. METHODS BC patients who had undergone genetic testing at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC) from September 2014 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Different screening criteria were applied and compared in the population cohort. RESULTS A total of 1035 BC patients were enrolled, 237 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (P/LPV) were identified in 235 patients, including 41 out of 203 (19.6%) patients tested only for BRCA1/2 genes, and 194 out of 832 (23.3%) received 21 genes panel testing. Among the 235 P/LPV carriers, 222 (94.5%) met the NCCN high-risk criteria, and 13 (5.5%) did not. While using Desai's criteria of testing, all females diagnosed with BC by 60 years and NCCN criteria for older patients, 234 (99.6%) met the high-risk standard, and only one did not. The 21 genes panel testing identified 4.9% of non-BRCA P/LPVs and a significantly high rate of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) (33.9%). The most common non-BRCA P/LPVs were PALB2 (11, 1.3%), TP53 (10, 1.2%), PTEN (3, 0.4%), CHEK2 (3, 0.4%), ATM (3, 0.4%), BARD1 (3, 0.4%), and RAD51C (2, 0.2%). Compared with BRCA1/2 P/LPVs, non-BRCA P/LPVs showed a significantly low incidence of NCCN criteria listed family history, second primary cancer, and different molecular subtypes. CONCLUSIONS Desai's criteria might be a more appropriate genetic testing strategy for Chinese BC patients. Panel testing could identify more non-BRCA P/LPVs than BRCA1/2 testing alone. Compared with BRCA1/2 P/LPVs, non-BRCA P/LPVs exhibited different personal and family histories of cancer and molecular subtype distributions. The optimal genetic testing strategy for BC still needs to be investigated with larger continuous population studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengqian Ni
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fang Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Anli Yang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qiong Shao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Cong Xue
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wen Xia
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fei Xu
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xi Lin
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jiajia Huang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiwen Bi
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ruoxi Hong
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Meiting Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Qiufan Zheng
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Kuikui Jiang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xinhua Xie
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Tang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xi Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhongyu Yuan
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shusen Wang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yanxia Shi
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xin An
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Genetic Considerations in the Locoregional Management of Breast Cancer: a Review of Current Evidence. CURRENT BREAST CANCER REPORTS 2023. [DOI: 10.1007/s12609-023-00478-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2023]
|
3
|
Anaclerio F, Pilenzi L, Dell’Elice A, Ferrante R, Grossi S, Ferlito LM, Marinelli C, Gildetti S, Calabrese G, Stuppia L, Antonucci I. Clinical usefulness of NGS multi-gene panel testing in hereditary cancer analysis. Front Genet 2023; 14:1060504. [PMID: 37065479 PMCID: PMC10104445 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1060504] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Accepted: 01/04/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: A considerable number of families with pedigrees suggestive of a Mendelian form of Breast Cancer (BC), Ovarian Cancer (OC), or Pancreatic Cancer (PC) do not show detectable BRCA1/2 mutations after genetic testing. The use of multi-gene hereditary cancer panels increases the possibility to identify individuals with cancer predisposing gene variants. Our study was aimed to evaluate the increase in the detection rate of pathogenic mutations in BC, OC, and PC patients when using a multi-gene panel.Methods: 546 patients affected by BC (423), PC (64), or OC (59) entered the study from January 2020 to December 2021. For BC patients, inclusion criteria were i) positive cancer family background, ii) early onset, and iii) triple negative BC. PC patients were enrolled when affected by metastatic cancer, while OC patients were all submitted to genetic testing without selection. The patients were tested using a Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel containing 25 genes in addition to BRCA1/2.Results: Forty-four out of 546 patients (8%) carried germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV) on BRCA1/2 genes, and 46 (8%) presented PV or LPV in other susceptibility genes.Discussion: Our findings demonstrate the utility of expanded panel testing in patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes, since this approach increased the mutation detection rate of 15% in PC, 8% in BC and 5% in OC cases. In absence of multi-gene panel analysis, a considerable percentage of mutations would have been lost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federico Anaclerio
- Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G.d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
| | - Lucrezia Pilenzi
- Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G.d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
| | - Anastasia Dell’Elice
- Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G.d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
| | - Rossella Ferrante
- Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G.d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
- *Correspondence: Rossella Ferrante,
| | - Simona Grossi
- Eusoma Breast Centre, “G. Bernabeo” Hospital, Ortona, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Giuseppe Calabrese
- UOSD Genetica Oncoematologica, Dipartimento di Oncologico-Ematologico, Pescara, Italy
| | - Liborio Stuppia
- Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G.d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
| | - Ivana Antonucci
- Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G.d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Borle K, Kopac N, Dragojlovic N, Rodriguez Llorian E, Friedman JM, Elliott AM, Lynd LD. Where is genetic medicine headed? Exploring the perspectives of Canadian genetic professionals on future trends using the Delphi method. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30:496-504. [PMID: 35031678 PMCID: PMC9090755 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-01017-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2021] [Accepted: 11/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Driven by technological and scientific advances, the landscape of genetic medicine is rapidly changing, which complicates strategic planning and decision-making in this area. To address this uncertainty, we sought to understand genetic professionals' opinions about the future of clinical genetic and genomic services in Canada. We used the Delphi method to survey Canadian genetic professionals about their perspectives on whether scenarios about changes in service delivery and the use of genomic testing would be broadly implemented in their jurisdiction by 2030. We conducted two survey rounds; the response rates were 32% (27/84) and 67% (18/27), respectively. The most likely scenario was the universal use of noninvasive prenatal screening. The least likely scenarios involved population-based genome-wide sequencing for unaffected individuals. Overall, the scenarios perceived as most likely were those that have existing evidence about their benefit and potential medical necessity, whereas scenarios were seen as unlikely if they involved emerging technologies. Participants expected that the need for genetic healthcare services would increase by 2030 owing to changes in clinical guidelines and increased use of genome-wide sequencing. This study highlights the uncertainty in the future of genetic and genomic service provision and contributes evidence that could be used to inform strategic planning in clinical genetics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kennedy Borle
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Nicola Kopac
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Nick Dragojlovic
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Elisabet Rodriguez Llorian
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Jan M Friedman
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | - Alison M Elliott
- Department of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,BC Women's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Larry D Lynd
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. .,Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcomes Sciences, Providence Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Haverfield EV, Esplin ED, Aguilar SJ, Hatchell KE, Ormond KE, Hanson-Kahn A, Atwal PS, Macklin-Mantia S, Hines S, Sak CWM, Tucker S, Bleyl SB, Hulick PJ, Gordon OK, Velsher L, Gu JYJ, Weissman SM, Kruisselbrink T, Abel C, Kettles M, Slavotinek A, Mendelsohn BA, Green RC, Aradhya S, Nussbaum RL. Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study. BMC Med 2021; 19:199. [PMID: 34404389 PMCID: PMC8371767 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-01999-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings. METHODS Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction. RESULTS Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Kelly E Ormond
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Paldeep S Atwal
- Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.,Atwal Clinic, Palm Beach, FL, USA.,PWNHealth, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Ora K Gordon
- Providence Research Network, St John Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Scott M Weissman
- Genome Medical, San Francisco, CA, USA.,Chicago Genetic Consultants, Northbrook, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | - Anne Slavotinek
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Robert C Green
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.,The Broad Institute, Boston, MA, USA.,Ariadne Labs, Boston, MA, USA.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | - Robert L Nussbaum
- Invitae, 1400 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103, USA.,Volunteer Faculty, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sandoval RL, Leite ACR, Barbalho DM, Assad DX, Barroso R, Polidorio N, dos Anjos CH, de Miranda AD, Ferreira ACSDM, Fernandes GDS, Achatz MI. Germline molecular data in hereditary breast cancer in Brazil: Lessons from a large single-center analysis. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0247363. [PMID: 33606809 PMCID: PMC7895369 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Brazil is the largest country in South America and the most genetically heterogeneous. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in Brazilian patients with breast cancer (BC) who underwent genetic counseling and genetic testing at a tertiary Oncology Center. We performed a retrospective analysis of the medical records of Brazilian patients with BC referred to genetic counseling and genetic testing between August 2017 and August 2019. A total of 224 unrelated patients were included in this study. Premenopausal women represented 68.7% of the cohort. The median age at BC diagnosis was 45 years. Multigene panel testing was performed in 219 patients, five patients performed single gene analysis or family variant testing. Forty-eight germline PVs distributed among 13 genes were detected in 20.5% of the patients (46/224). Eighty-five percent of the patients (91/224) fulfilled NCCN hereditary BC testing criteria. Among these patients, 23.5% harbored PVs (45/191). In the group of patients that did not meet NCCN criteria, PV detection rate was 3% (1/33). A total of 61% of the patients (28/46) harbored a PV in a high-penetrance BC gene: 19 (8.5%) BRCA1/2, 8 (3.5%) TP53, 1 (0.5%) PALB2. Moderate penetrance genes (ATM, CHEK2) represented 15.2% (7/46) of the positive results. PVs detection was statistically associated (p<0.05) with BC diagnosis before age 45, high-grade tumors, bilateral BC, history of multiple primary cancers, and family history of pancreatic cancer. According to the current hereditary cancer guidelines, 17.4% (39/224) of the patients had actionable variants. Nine percent of the patients (20/224) had actionable variants in non-BRCA genes, it represented 43.5% of the positive results and 51.2% of the actionable variants. Considering the observed prevalence of PVs in actionable genes beyond BRCA1/2 (9%, 20/224), multigene panel testing may offer an effective first-tier diagnostic approach in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Daniele Xavier Assad
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
| | - Romualdo Barroso
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
| | - Natalia Polidorio
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | - Maria Isabel Achatz
- Department of Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yadav S, Hu C, Hart SN, Boddicker N, Polley EC, Na J, Gnanaolivu R, Lee KY, Lindstrom T, Armasu S, Fitz-Gibbon P, Ghosh K, Stan DL, Pruthi S, Neal L, Sandhu N, Rhodes DJ, Klassen C, Peethambaram PP, Haddad TC, Olson JE, Hoskin TL, Goetz MP, Domchek SM, Boughey JC, Ruddy KJ, Couch FJ. Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in a Hospital-Based Series of Women With Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:1409-1418. [PMID: 32125938 PMCID: PMC7193748 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.02190] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the sensitivity and specificity of genetic testing criteria for the detection of germline pathogenic variants in women with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Women with breast cancer enrolled in a breast cancer registry at a tertiary cancer center between 2000 and 2016 were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in 9 breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53). The performance of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) hereditary cancer testing criteria was evaluated relative to testing of all women as recommended by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. RESULTS Of 3,907 women, 1,872 (47.9%) meeting NCCN criteria were more likely to carry a pathogenic variant in 9 predisposition genes compared with women not meeting criteria (9.0% v 3.5%; P < .001). Of those not meeting criteria (n = 2,035), 14 (0.7%) had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for 9 predisposition genes and 87% for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a specificity of 53%. Expansion of the NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 65 years of age achieved > 90% sensitivity for the 9 predisposition genes and > 98% sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSION A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer carrying germline pathogenic variants in predisposition genes do not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria. Expansion of NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed at ≤ 65 years of age improves the sensitivity of the selection criteria without requiring testing of all women with breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Chunling Hu
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Steven N. Hart
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Eric C. Polley
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jie Na
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Rohan Gnanaolivu
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Kun Y. Lee
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Tricia Lindstrom
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Sebastian Armasu
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Janet E. Olson
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Tanya L. Hoskin
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Susan M. Domchek
- Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, and Basser Center for BRCA, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | - Fergus J. Couch
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|