Germline FFPE inherited cancer panel testing in deceased family members: implications for clinical management of unaffected relatives

EMQN best practice guidelines for genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) is a genetic condition associated with increased risk of cancers. The past decade has brought about significant changes to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) diagnostic testing with new treatments, testing methods and strategies, and evolving information on genetic associations. These best practice guidelines have been produced to assist clinical laboratories in effectively addressing the complexities of HBOC testing, while taking into account advancements since the last guidelines were published in 2007. These guidelines summarise cancer risk data from recent studies for the most commonly tested high and moderate risk HBOC genes for laboratories to refer to as a guide. Furthermore, recommendations are provided for somatic and germline testing services with regards to clinical referral, laboratory analyses, variant interpretation, and reporting. The guidelines present recommendations where 'must' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is essential; and 'should' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is highly advised but may not be universally applicable. Recommendations are presented in the form of shaded italicised statements throughout the document, and in the form of a table in supplementary materials (Table S4). Finally, for the purposes of encouraging standardisation and aiding implementation of recommendations, example report wording covering the essential points to be included is provided for the most common HBOC referral and reporting scenarios. These guidelines are aimed primarily at genomic scientists working in diagnostic testing laboratories.

Predicting the likelihood of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant being somatic by testing only tumour DNA in non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer

AIMS

Clinical guidelines recommend testing both germline and tumour DNA for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (NMEOC). In this study, we show that some tumour BRCA1/2 PVs are highly likely to be somatic based on certain clinical and variant characteristics, meaning it may not be necessary to test all NMEOC cases for germline BRCA1/2 PVs.

METHODS

An observational study that included all tumour BRCA1/2 PVs detected in cases of NMEOC in the Northwest of England between July 2017 and February 2022. All tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were compared with PVs recorded in a prospectively gathered pan-cancer germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA) testing database for the same geographical region (gBRCA1 PVs=910 and gBRCA2 PVs=922). Tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were categorised as common (≥1%), uncommon (<1%) or absent from the germline database.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were detected in 111 NMEOC cases. There were 69 germline and 44 somatic variants. The mean age at diagnosis for gBRCA and somatic BRCA1/2 (sBRCA) PVs was 56.9 and 68.5 years, respectively (Student's t-test p<0.0001). All sBRCA PVs were detected in non-familial cases. All tumour BRCA1/2 PVs with a variant allele frequency (VAF) <35% in non-familial cases were somatic variants. Eighty-one per cent of germline-tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were present (common=31, uncommon=25) in the gBRCA testing database, while 89% of somatic-tumour BRCA1/2 PVs were absent (n=39).

CONCLUSIONS

We predict the likelihood of a tumour BRCA1/2 PV being somatic is 99.8% in non-familial cases of NMEOC diagnosed aged ≥75, where the VAF is ≤30% and there is no regional germline commonality.

Effect of Carcinomas on Autosomal Trait Screening: A Review Article

This review highlights the effect of carcinomas on the results of the examination of autosomal genetic traits for identification and paternity tests when carcinoid tissue is the only source and no other samples are available. In DNA typing or genetic fingerprinting, variable elements are isolated and identified within the base pair sequences that form the DNA. The person's probable identity can be determined by analysing nucleotide sequences in particular regions of DNA unique to everyone. Genetics plays an increasingly important role in the risk stratification and management of carcinoma patients. The available information from previous studies has indicated that in some incidents, including mass disasters and crimes such as terrorist incidents, biological evidence may not be available at the scene of the accident, except for some unknown human remains found in the form of undefined human tissues. If these tissues have cancerous tumours, it may affect the examination of the genetic traits derived from these samples, thereby resulting in a failure to identify the person. Pathology units, more often, verify the identity of the patients who were diagnosed with cancer in reference to their deceased tumorous relatives. Genetic fingerprinting (GF) is also used in paternity testing when the alleged parent disappeared or died and earlier was diagnosed and treated for cancer.

Cross-sectional clinical cancer genomics community of practice survey analysis of provider attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of deceased family member tissue to guide living family member genetic cancer risk assessment

Next-generation tumor tissue sequencing techniques may result in the detection of putative germline pathogenic variants (PVs), raising the possibility that germline cancer predisposition could be identified from archival medical tissue samples of deceased relatives. The approach, termed traceback, is designed to inform risk management recommendations for living family members. Provider perspectives regarding traceback testing have not yet been explored, so we conducted a cross-sectional survey of Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice providers regarding their attitudes and beliefs toward traceback testing. Self-reported demographics, provider characteristics, attitudes and perceived barriers were collected. We evaluated responses in the context of whether providers had previous experience with traceback testing. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact testing. Among 207 respondents (of 816 eligible), most were women (89.4%), white (85.5%), and not Hispanic or Latino (89.7%). US-based providers represented the majority of respondents (87.4%). Relatively, few providers 32 of 207 (15.5%) had previous experience with traceback. Among the individuals without experience in traceback, 84.0% thought there would be barriers to implementation; however, only 68.8% of individuals with previous traceback experience agreed (p = .04). Respondents in both groups thought that traceback would be valuable in their practice (82.6%, p = .22) and that they would feel comfortable discussing the concept (83.6%, p = .83), interpreting the results (72.2%, p = .24), and discussing the results with their patients (80.7%, p = .38). Patient interest and cost were seen as less of a barrier by those with experience with traceback testing. Recurrent themes obtained in open-ended responses are also presented. Overall, providers believe that traceback would be a valuable tool in their practice. Individuals with previous experience identified less barriers with implementation of this testing, highlighting an area for future research and education.