Variants of uncertain significance in BRCA testing: evaluation of surgical decisions, risk perception, and cancer distress

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Clinical Utility of Genomic Sequencing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: An Observational Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly used to improve diagnoses and inform targeted therapies. GS can also be used to identify the 10% of cancer patients with an underlying hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS), who can benefit from surveillance and preventive surgery that reduce morbidity/mortality. However, the evidence on clinical utility of GS for HCS is limited: we aimed to fill this gap by assessing yield of all cancer results and associated recommendations for patients undergoing GS for HCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational chart review and survey were conducted for cancer patients with previous uninformative cancer gene panel results, who received GS as part of the Incidental Genomics Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03597165). Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographics and clinical history. Proportions were calculated to compare frequencies of result types and recommendations made and followed.

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were eligible and included. Participants were mostly female (n = 240), European (n = 158), and with breast cancer history (n = 168). Yield: 25 patients (9.1%) received ≥1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant, 246 (89%) received ≥1 variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 27 (10%) were negative. Most pathogenic variants (20/26) were in low/moderate cancer risk genes. The mean number of VUS was 2.7/patient and higher in non-Europeans versus Europeans (3.5 v 2.5, P < .05). Recommendations: Pathogenic variants triggered 100 recommendations in 21/25 patients; most were for genetic counseling, communication to relatives, and cascade testing.

CONCLUSION

GS provided a modest increase in utility after first-tier cancer gene panels, at the cost of a high frequency of uncertain results. Furthermore, most positives were low/moderate cancer risk results that did not have corresponding evidence-based, management guidelines.

Multigenic panels in breast cancer: Clinical utility and management of patients with pathogenic variants other than BRCA1/2

Multigene panels can analyze high and moderate/intermediate penetrance genes that predispose to breast cancer (BC), providing an opportunity to identify at-risk individuals within affected families. However, considering the complexity of different pathogenic variants and correlated clinical manifestations, a multidisciplinary team is needed to effectively manage BC. A classification of pathogenic variants included in multigene panels was presented in this narrative review to evaluate their clinical utility in BC. Clinical management was discussed for each category and focused on BC, including available evidence regarding the multidisciplinary and integrated management of patients with BC. The integration of both genetic testing and counseling is required for customized decisions in therapeutic strategies and preventative initiatives, as well as for a defined multidisciplinary approach, considering the continuous evolution of guidelines and research in the field.

Clinical implications of VUS reclassification in a single-centre series from application of ACMG/AMP classification rules specified for BRCA1/2

BACKGROUND

BRCA1/2 testing is crucial to guide clinical decisions in patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, but detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) prevents proper management of carriers. The ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) BRCA1/2 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) has recently developed BRCA1/2 variant classification guidelines consistent with ClinGen processes, specified against the ACMG/AMP (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular-Pathology) classification framework.

METHODS

The ClinGen-approved BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP classification guidelines were applied to BRCA1/2 VUSs identified from 2011 to 2022 in a series of patients, retrieving information from the VCEP documentation, public databases, literature and ENIGMA unpublished data. Then, we critically re-evaluated carrier families based on new results and checked consistency of updated classification with main sources for clinical interpretation of BRCA1/2 variants.

RESULTS

Among 166 VUSs detected in 231 index cases, 135 (81.3%) found in 197 index cases were classified by applying BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP criteria: 128 (94.8%) as Benign/Likely Benign and 7 (5.2%) as Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic. The average time from the first report as 'VUS' to classification using this approach was 49.4 months. Considering that 15 of these variants found in 64 families had already been internally reclassified prior to this work, this study provided 121 new reclassifications among the 151 (80.1%) remaining VUSs, relevant to 133/167 (79.6%) families.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrated the effectiveness of new BRCA1/2 ACMG/AMP classification guidelines for VUS classification within a clinical cohort, and their important clinical impact. Furthermore, they suggested a cadence of no more than 3 years for regular review of VUSs, which however requires time, expertise and resources.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

The landscape of reported VUS in multi-gene panel and genomic testing: Time for a change

PURPOSE

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are a common result of diagnostic genetic testing and can be difficult to manage with potential misinterpretation and downstream costs, including time investment by clinicians. We investigated the rate of VUS reported on diagnostic testing via multi-gene panels (MGPs) and exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) to measure the magnitude of uncertain results and explore ways to reduce their potentially detrimental impact.

METHODS

Rates of inconclusive results due to VUS were collected from over 1.5 million sequencing test results from 19 clinical laboratories in North America from 2020 to 2021.

RESULTS

We found a lower rate of inconclusive test results due to VUSs from ES/GS (22.5%) compared with MGPs (32.6%; P < .0001). For MGPs, the rate of inconclusive results correlated with panel size. The use of trios reduced inconclusive rates (18.9% vs 27.6%; P < .0001), whereas the use of GS compared with ES had no impact (22.2% vs 22.6%; P = ns).

CONCLUSION

The high rate of VUS observed in diagnostic MGP testing warrants examining current variant reporting practices. We propose several approaches to reduce reported VUS rates, while directing clinician resources toward important VUS follow-up.

Communication About Negative and Uncertain Results: Interactional Dilemmas During a Genetic Telehealth Consult

This case study focuses on a video telehealth consult to discuss genetic testing results. Participants include a Genetic Counselor (GC) and a Patient (P) previously diagnosed with ovarian cancer who is currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Utilizing conversation analysis (CA), attention is first given to a series of interactional dilemmas as GC delivers and P responds to negative, uncertain, and complex test results. Specific findings address practices employed by GC to structure the encounter and establish authority, impacts on P's participation and understandings, recurring and at times problematic orientations to "negative" findings, and inherent ambiguities faced by GC and P when attempting to discern good and bad news. Close examination of these moments provides a unique opportunity to identify, describe, and explain genetic counseling as a co-produced, interactional achievement. These findings are then integrated with patient's post-counseling survey (susceptibility, anxiety, uncertainty, fear, and hope), including reported experiences which broaden understandings of the interactional environment. Specific recommendations are raised for improving counseling skills, enhancing patients' understandings, and building therapeutic alliances addressing both patients' emotional circumstances and the complexities of genetic test results.

Breast/ovarian cancer genetic counseling: Do anxiety, depression, and health care-related fears influence cancer worry and risk perception?

BACKGROUND

The impact of family and personal cancer history and emotional factors, such as depression and anxiety, on disease representation has received limited attention in studies investigating the development of cancer-related worry and risk perception within the context of genetic counseling. The current study endeavors to fill this gap by exploring the extent to which depression and anxiety influence cancer worry and risk perception, and the role of health care-related fear as potential mediator in this relationship.

METHODS

A sample of 178 women who underwent their first genetic counseling for breast/ovarian cancer, 52% of whom had previous cancer diagnoses, completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical information, emotional distress in terms of anxiety and depression, cancer-related worry, risk perception, and health care-related fears.

RESULTS

Results of mediation analyses showed that cancer-related worry and risk perception increased with rising levels of depression and anxiety, with health care-related fears acting as a mediator in the relationship of depression and anxiety with cancer worry and risk perception. Covariate analysis revealed that previous cancer diagnosis increases cancer-related worry but not risk perception, while the number of family members affected by cancer increases both outcomes.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach in genetic counseling and have implications for the clinical practice.

Impact of High-to-Moderate Penetrance Genes on Genetic Testing: Looking over Breast Cancer

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Since the discovery of the highly penetrant susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, many other predisposition genes that confer a moderate risk of BC have been identified. Advances in multigene panel testing have allowed the simultaneous sequencing of BRCA1/2 with these genes in a cost-effective way. Germline DNA from 521 cases with BC fulfilling diagnostic criteria for hereditary BC were screened with multigene NGS testing. Pathogenic (PVs) and likely pathogenic (LPVs) variants in moderate penetrance genes were identified in 15 out of 521 patients (2.9%), including 2 missense, 7 non-sense, 1 indel, and 3 splice variants, as well as two different exon deletions, as follows: ATM (n = 4), CHEK2 (n = 5), PALB2 (n = 2), RAD51C (n = 1), and RAD51D (n = 3). Moreover, the segregation analysis of PVs and LPVs into first-degree relatives allowed the detection of CHEK2 variant carriers diagnosed with in situ melanoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), respectively. Extended testing beyond BRCA1/2 identified PVs and LPVs in a further 2.9% of BC patients. In conclusion, panel testing yields more accurate genetic information for appropriate counselling, risk management, and preventive options than assessing BRCA1/2 alone.

Challenges in periodic revision of genetic testing results: Comparison of the main classification guidelines and report of a retrospective analysis involving BRCA1/BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance

In the context of cancer predisposition syndromes, it is widely known that the correct interpretation of germline variants identified in multigene panel testing is essential for adequate genetic counseling and clinical decision making, in which variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are not considered actionable findings. Thus, their periodic re-evaluation using appropriate guidelines is notably important. In the present study, we compared the performance of the main variant classification guidelines (ACMG, Sherloc and ENIGMA) in variant reassessment, using as input a BRCA1/2 VUS case series (retrospective analysis) from Brazil, an ethnically diverse and admixed country with substantial challenges in VUS reclassification. As main findings, two of the 15 VUS analyzed were reclassified as likely pathogenic by the 3 guidelines, BRCA1 c.4987-3C > G (rs397509213) and BRCA2 c.7868A > G (rs80359012). Moreover, challenges in variant classification and reassessment are described and additional in silico data about structural impact of the variant BRCA2 c.7868A > G are provided. We hypothesize that the establishment of a framework to reassess VUS could improve this process in health centers that have not yet implemented this practice. Results of this study underscore that periodic monitoring of the functional, clinical, and bioinformatics data of a VUS by a multidisciplinary team are of utmost importance in clinical practice. When there is a specific guideline for a given gene, such as ENIGMA for BRCA1/2, it should be considered the first option for variant assessment. Finally, recruitment of VUS carriers and their relatives to participate in variant segregation studies and publication of VUS reclassification results in the international scientific literature should be encouraged.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

Assessing the pathogenicity of BRCA1/2 variants of unknown significance: Relevance and challenges for breast cancer precision medicine

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide. Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes account for approximately 50% of all hereditary BC, with 60-80% of patients characterized by Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) at an early stage phenotype. The identification of a pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant has important and expanding roles in risk-reducing surgeries, treatment planning, and familial surveillance. Otherwise, finding unclassified Variants of Unknown Significance (VUS) limits the clinical utility of the molecular test, leading to an "imprecise medicine".

Methods

We reported the explanatory example of the BRCA1 c.5057A>C, p.(His1686Pro) VUS identified in a patient with TNBC. We integrated data from family history and clinic-pathological evaluations, genetic analyses, and bioinformatics in silico investigations to evaluate the VUS classification.

Results

Our evaluation posed evidences for the pathogenicity significance of the investigated VUS: 1) association of the BRCA1 variant to cancer-affected members of the family; 2) absence of another high-risk mutation; 3) multiple indirect evidences derived from gene and protein structural analysis.

Discussion

In line with the ongoing efforts to uncertain variants classification, we speculated about the relevance of an in-depth assessment of pathogenicity of BRCA1/2 VUS for a personalized management of patients with BC. We underlined that the efficient integration of clinical data with the widest number of supporting molecular evidences should be adopted for the proper management of patients, with the final aim of effectively guide the best prognostic and therapeutic paths.

Occurrence of variants of unknown clinical significance in genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and Lynch syndrome: a literature review and analytical observational retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Over the last decade, the implementation of multigene panels for hereditary tumor syndrome has increased at our institution (Inselspital, University Hospital Berne, Switzerland). The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of variants of unknown significance (VUS) in patients with suspected Lynch syndrome and suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, the latter in connection with the trend toward ordering larger gene panels.

RESULTS

Retrospectively collected data from 1057 patients at our institution showed at least one VUS in 126 different cases (11.9%). In patients undergoing genetic testing for BRCA1/2, the prevalence of VUS was 6%. When < 10 additional genes were tested in addition to BRCA1/2, the prevalence increased to 13.8%, and 31.8% for > 10 additional genes, respectively. The gene most frequently affected with a VUS was ATM. 6% of our patients who were tested for Lynch syndrome had a VUS result in either MLH1, MSH2 or MSH6.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that panel testing statistically significantly increases VUS rates due to variants in non-BRCA genes. Good genetic counseling before and after obtaining results is therefore particularly important when conducting multigene panels to minimize patient uncertainty due to VUS results.

Screening Programs for Breast Cancer: Toward Individualized, Risk-Adapted Strategies of Early Detection

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) comprises two approaches: screening of asymptomatic women in a specified target population at risk (usually a target age range for women at average risk), and early diagnosis for women with BC signs and symptoms. Screening for BC is a key health intervention for early detection. While population-based screening programs have been implemented for age-selected women, the pivotal clinical trials have not addressed the global utility nor the improvement of screening performance by utilizing more refined parameters for patient eligibility, such as individualized risk stratification. In addition, with the exception of the subset of women known to carry germline pathogenetic mutations in (high- or moderately-penetrant) cancer predisposition genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, there has been less success in outreach and service provision for the unaffected relatives of women found to carry a high-risk mutation (i.e., "cascade testing") as it is in these individuals for whom such actionable information can result in cancers (and/or cancer deaths) being averted. Moreover, even in the absence of clinical cancer genetics services, as is the case for the immediate and at least near-term in most countries globally, the capacity to stratify the risk of an individual to develop BC has existed for many years, is available for free online at various sites/platforms, and is increasingly being validated for non-Caucasian populations. Ultimately, a precision approach to BC screening is largely missing. In the present chapter, we aim to address the concept of risk-adapted screening of BC, in multiple facets, and understand if there is a value in the implementation of adapted screening strategies in selected women, outside the established screening prescriptions, in the terms of age-range, screening modality and schedules of imaging.

Transcriptome analysis provides critical answers to the "variants of uncertain significance" conundrum

While whole-genome and exome sequencing have transformed our collective understanding of genetics' role in disease pathogenesis, there are certain conditions and populations for whom DNA-level data fails to identify the underlying genetic etiology. Specifically, patients of non-White race and non-European ancestry are disproportionately affected by "variants of unknown/uncertain significance" (VUS), limiting the scope of precision medicine for minority patients and perpetuating health disparities. VUS often include deep intronic and splicing variants which are difficult to interpret from DNA data alone. RNA analysis can illuminate the consequences of VUS, thereby allowing for their reclassification as pathogenic versus benign. Here we review the critical role transcriptome analysis plays in clarifying VUS in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases.

Experiences of individuals with a variant of uncertain significance on genetic testing for hereditary cancer risks: a mixed method systematic review

The expansion of Multi-Gene Panel Testing (MGPT) has led to increased detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among individuals with personal or family history of cancer. However, having a VUS result can impact on emotional and psychological wellbeing and cause challenges for non-geneticist healthcare providers. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review was to examine what is currently known about the experiences of individuals with a VUS on genetic testing for inherited cancer susceptibility. The initial search was conducted in June 2020 using PUBMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsychInfo according to the Joanna Briggs methodology for systematic reviews. A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies included in this review identified a range of emotional reactions to a VUS result, a general lack of understanding of a VUS result and its implications, frustration with a lack of healthcare provider knowledge, and a need for clear communication with healthcare providers. This review identified critical gaps in current knowledge to guide genetic counseling praxis, specifically in the knowledge of communication patterns and methods of improving communication with healthcare providers and family members and preferred risk management strategies. This will help to improve the counseling process and the management of care during and after genetic testing.

Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy

PURPOSE

Genetic testing (GT) can identify individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, who may consider contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). We report on CRRM rates in young women newly diagnosed with BC who received GT through a multidisciplinary clinic.

METHODS

Clinical data were reviewed for patients seen between November 2014 and June 2019. Patients with non-metastatic, unilateral BC diagnosed at age ≤ 45 and completed GT prior to surgery were included. Associations between surgical intervention and age, BC stage, family history, and GT results were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 194 patients, 30 (15.5%) had a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, NBN, NF1), with 66.7% in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Of 164 (84.5%) uninformative results, 132 (68%) were negative and 32 (16.5%) were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 67 (34.5%) had CRRM, including 25/30 (83.3%) PV/LPV carriers and 42/164 (25.6%) non-carriers. A positive test result (p < 0.01) and significant family history were associated with CRRM (p = 0.02). For the 164 with uninformative results, multivariate analysis showed that CRRM was not associated with age (p = 0.23), a VUS, (p = 0.08), family history (p = 0.10), or BC stage (p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of young women with BC, the identification of a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene and a significant family history were associated with the decision to pursue CRRM. Thus, incorporation of genetic services in the initial evaluation of young patients with a new BC could contribute to the surgical decision-making process.

Parental segregation study reveals rare benign and likely benign variants in a Brazilian cohort of rare diseases

Genomic studies may generate massive amounts of data, bringing interpretation challenges. Efforts for the differentiation of benign and pathogenic variants gain importance. In this article, we used segregation analysis and other molecular data to reclassify to benign or likely benign several rare clinically curated variants of autosomal dominant inheritance from a cohort of 500 Brazilian patients with rare diseases. This study included only symptomatic patients who had undergone molecular investigation with exome sequencing for suspected diseases of genetic etiology. Variants clinically suspected as the causative etiology and harbored by genes associated with highly-penetrant conditions of autosomal dominant inheritance underwent Sanger confirmation in the proband and inheritance pattern determination because a "de novo" event was expected. Among all 327 variants studied, 321 variants were inherited from asymptomatic parents. Considering segregation analysis, we have reclassified 51 rare variants as benign and 211 as likely benign. In our study, the inheritance of a highly penetrant variant expected to be de novo for pathogenicity assumption was considered as a non-segregation and, therefore, a key step for benign or likely benign classification. Studies like ours may help to identify rare benign variants and improve the correct interpretation of genetic findings.

Discovery of over 200 new and expanded genetic conditions using GeneMatcher

GeneMatcher is a platform through which various stakeholders can connect with others interested in candidate gene findings. GeneDx, a diagnostic laboratory, has utilized GeneMatcher over the last seven years to successfully facilitate connections between clinicians and researchers, generating fruitful research collaborations. Our ultimate goal in reporting candidate gene findings is to amass sufficient evidence to establish novel disease–gene relationships (DGRs), thus providing diagnostic answers to families and clinicians. Our database of over 300,000 clinical exomes has been a major driver of DGR discovery. Our laboratory accounts for over 20% of total GeneMatcher submissions. Largely fueled by GeneMatcher matches, we have published over 200 articles involving new DGRs or expanded phenotypes for known disease‐causing genes in the past three years. These endeavors require commitments to sharing data and dedicating resources to investigate potential matches. Ultimately, GeneMatcher enables collaboration on a broad scale: we are grateful to the clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers who have partnered with us to accelerate the pace of DGR discovery. GeneMatcher opens the door to new partnerships, new discoveries, and families finding answers that otherwise may not have been possible.

BRCA1/2 variants of unknown significance in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome: looking for the hidden meaning

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is caused by germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. These genes are very large and their mutations are heterogeneous and scattered throughout the coding sequence. In addition to the above-mentioned mutations, variants of uncertain/unknown significance (VUSs) have been identified in BRCA genes, which make more difficult the clinical management of the patient and risk assessment. In the last decades, several laboratories have developed different databases that contain more than 2000 variants for the two genes and integrated strategies which include multifactorial prediction models based on direct and indirect genetic evidence, to classify the VUS and attribute them a clinical significance associated with a deleterious, high-low or neutral risk. This review provides a comprehensive overview of literature studies concerning the VUSs, in order to assess their impact on the population and provide new insight for the appropriate patient management in clinical practice.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Germline Genetic Testing of Patients With Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Up to 20% of younger patients (age <50 years) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) have germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes. Germline genetic testing may guide clinical management and facilitate earlier intervention in affected relatives. Few studies have characterized differences in genetic testing by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

We identified young adults (age 18-49 years) diagnosed with CRC between 2009 and 2017 in 2 health systems in Dallas, TX. We evaluated referral to genetic counseling, attendance at genetic counseling appointments, and receipt of germline genetic testing by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Of 385 patients with young-onset CRC (median age at diagnosis 44.4 years), 176 (45.7%) were Hispanic, 98 (25.4%) non-Hispanic Black, and 111 (28.8%) non-Hispanic White. Most patients (76.9%) received immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair proteins, and there was no difference in receipt of IHC by race/ethnicity. However, a lower proportion of Black patients were referred to genetic counseling (50.0% vs White patients 54.1% vs Hispanic patients 65.9%; P = .02) and attended genetic counseling appointments (61.2% vs 81.7% White patients vs 86.2% Hispanic patients; P < .01). Of 141 patients receiving genetic testing, 38 (27.0%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a cancer susceptibility gene. An additional 33 patients (23.4%) had variants of uncertain significance, of which 84.8% occurred in racial/ethnic minorities.

CONCLUSIONS

In a diverse population of patients diagnosed with young-onset CRC, we observed racial/ethnic differences in referral to and receipt of germline genetic testing. Our findings underscore the importance of universal genetic testing to address racial/ethnic disparities in young-onset CRC.

BRCA1 Variant Assessment Using a Simple Analytic Assay

BACKGROUND

We previously developed a biological assay to accurately predict BRCA1 (BRCA1 DNA repair associated) mutation status, based on gene expression profiles of Epstein-Barr virus-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines. The original work was done using whole genome expression microarrays, and nearest shrunken centroids analysis. While these approaches are appropriate for model building, they are difficult to implement clinically, where more targeted testing and analysis are required for time and cost savings.

METHODS

Here, we describe adaptation of the original predictor to use the NanoString nCounter platform for testing, with analysis based on the k-top scoring pairs (k-TSP) method.

RESULTS

Assessing gene expression using the nCounter platform on a set of lymphoblastoid cell lines yielded 93.8% agreement with the microarray-derived data, and 87.5% overall correct classification of BRCA1 carriers and controls. Using the original gene expression microarray data used to develop our predictor with nearest shrunken centroids, we rebuilt a classifier based on the k-TSP method. This classifier relies on the relative expression of 10 pairs of genes, compared to the original 43 identified by nearest shrunken centroids (NSC), and was 96.2% concordant with the original training set prediction, with a 94.3% overall correct classification of BRCA1 carriers and controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The k-TSP classifier was shown to accurately predict BRCA1 status using data generated on the nCounter platform and is feasible for initiating a clinical validation.

The Intersection of Palliative Care and Genetic Counseling in Cancer Care: A Case Discussion

Up to 10% of cancers have a strong hereditary component. The diagnosis of a hereditary cancer may alter treatment recommendations for the patient. However, the optimal timing and best practices for integrating genetic counseling and testing into the care of women diagnosed with cancer remains unclear. In this study, we demonstrate the potential benefits of discussing genetic testing and counseling in the context of palliative care through two cases. Incorporating referrals for genetic testing into the palliative care context is important. This provides an opportunity to perform previously missed genetic testing. It is also a chance for the patient to leave a legacy while also potentially allowing for alternate targeted treatment possibilities that may be well tolerated and provide a better quality of life for the patients themselves. The benefits of referral to palliative care by the genetics team includes assisting patients with the management of not only physical but also psychological symptoms as well as conducting advanced care planning in patients and families with hereditary mutations.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Genetic Access Program: Paving the Way for Genetic Characterization of ALS in the Clinic

Objective

To report the frequency of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) genetic variants in a nationwide cohort of clinic-based patients with ALS with a family history of ALS (fALS), dementia (dALS), or both ALS and dementia (fALS/dALS).

Methods

A multicenter, prospective cohort of 573 patients with fALS, dALS, or fALS/dALS, underwent genetic testing in the ALS Genetic Access Program (ALS GAP), a clinical program for clinics of the Northeast ALS Consortium. Patients with dALS underwent C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) testing; those with fALS or fALS/dALS underwent C9orf72 HRE testing, followed by sequencing of SOD1, FUS, TARDBP, TBK1, and VCP.

Results

A pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variant was identified in 171/573 (30%) of program participants. About half of patients with fALS or fALS/dALS (138/301, 45.8%) had either a C9orf72 HRE or a P or LP variant identified in SOD1, FUS, TARDBP, TBK1, or VCP. The use of a targeted, 5-gene sequencing panel resulted in far fewer uncertain test outcomes in familial cases compared with larger panels used in other in clinic-based cohorts. Among dALS cases 11.8% (32/270) were found to have the C9orf72 HRE. Patients of non-Caucasian geoancestry were less likely to test positive for the C9orf72 HRE, but were more likely to test positive on panel testing, compared with those of Caucasian ancestry.

Conclusions

The ALS GAP program provided a genetic diagnosis to ∼1 in 3 participants and may serve as a model for clinical genetic testing in ALS.

Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Improper medical use of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) remains a concern in hereditary cancer genetic testing. The goal of this study was to assess the association between pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP), VUS, and benign and likely benign (B/LB) genetic test results and cancer-related surgical and screening management. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were conducted from 1946 to August 26, 2020. Eligible studies included individuals with cancer genetic test result and surgical or screening management outcomes. We reviewed 885 abstracts and 22 studies that reported relevant surgical and screening outcomes were included. Meta-analysis revealed significantly higher surgical rates among individuals with P/LP than among those with VUS for therapeutic mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 7.35, 95% CI, 4.14-13.64), prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 3.05, 95% CI, 1.5-6.19), and oophorectomy (OR = 6.46, 95% CI, 3.64-11.44). There were no significant differences in therapeutic mastectomy, or breast conservation or lumpectomy rates between individuals with P/LP and VUS, or in any outcomes between patients with VUS and B/LB. Studies evaluating screening outcomes were limited, and results were conflicting. Comprehensive analysis do not indicate that a significant number of individuals with VUS results undergo inappropriate clinical management.

Prevalence and predictors of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among young patients with breast cancer in Jordan

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are not uncommon in breast cancer patients. Western studies show that such mutations are more prevalent among younger patients. This study evaluates the prevalence of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 among breast cancer patients diagnosed at age 40 or younger in Jordan. Blood samples of patients with breast cancer diagnosed at age 40 years or younger were obtained for DNA extraction and BRCA sequencing. Mutations were classified as benign/likely benign (non-carrier), pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (carrier) and variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Genetic testing and counseling were completed on 616 eligible patients. Among the whole group, 75 (12.2%) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants; two of the BRCA2 mutations were novel. In multivariate analysis, triple-negative disease (Odd Ratio [OR]: 5.37; 95% CI 2.88-10.02, P < 0.0001), breast cancer in ≥ 2 family members (OR: 4.44; 95% CI 2.52-7.84, P < 0.0001), and a personal history ≥ 2 primary breast cancers (OR: 3.43; 95% CI 1.62-7.24, P = 0.001) were associated with higher mutation rates. In conclusion, among young Jordanian patients with breast cancer, mutation rates are significantly higher in patients with triple-negative disease, personal history of breast cancer and those with two or more close relatives with breast cancer.

Genetic Counseling for Men with Prostate Cancer

Germline genetic testing is becoming more prevalent in urology clinics because of precision medicine for prostate cancer treatment. Genetic testing results can also influence cancer screening discussions for patients and/or their families. An important part of germline genetic testing is genetic counseling. This article provides an overview of the historical aspects of genetic counseling, discusses the components needed to provide proper genetic counseling, summarizes genes related to hereditary prostate cancer risk, and reviews genetic privacy and genetic discrimination concerns related to germline genetic testing.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Genetic Testing at a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

Prior studies suggest that referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing vary by race/ethnicity; however, the data are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate patterns of genetic testing and clinical outcomes across race/ethnicity at a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer center.

DESIGN

The medical records for all patients undergoing genetic assessment at a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer center were reviewed and stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1666 patients met inclusion criteria (non-Hispanic Whites, 1367; Hispanics, 85, non-Hispanic Blacks, 101; Asians, 113).

MAIN MEASURES

Demographics, patient characteristics, and referral patterns for patients who underwent genetic testing were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests, chi-square test, or Fisher's exact tests, stratifying by self-reported race/ethnicity. Pathogenic mutations and variants of unknown significance (VUS) were reviewed. Outcomes of patients with genetic mutations and personal history of breast and/or gynecologic malignancies were compared.

KEY RESULTS

Non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to be referred due to family cancer history compared to all other ethnicities while Non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were more likely to be referred due to personal history of cancer (p < 0.001). Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to have advanced-stage cancer at the time of genetic testing (p < 0.02). Rates of mutations did not differ by race/ethnicity when Ashkenazi Jewish patients were excluded (p = 0.08). Among patients found to have a BRCA1/2 mutation, Non-Hispanic Whites were more likely to undergo cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery compared with all other ethnicities (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Minority patients were more likely to utilize genetic services following a cancer diagnosis and less likely due to family cancer history, suggesting a missed opportunity for mutation detection and cancer prevention in this population. Efforts to eradicate racial/ethnic disparities in early access to genetic testing and guided cancer prevention strategies are essential.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

The impact of communicating uncertain test results in cancer genetic counseling: A systematic mixed studies review

OBJECTIVE

Cancer genetic counseling increasingly involves discussing uncertain test results, for example because multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This review was performed to provide insight into how counselors' communication of uncertain test results during genetic counseling for cancer affects counselors and counselees.

METHODS

A systematic mixed studies review was undertaken to review research on the effects of communicating uncertain test results. Four databases were searched using a PICO search strategy. Study findings of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included. Uncertain test results encompassed either an inconclusive test result or a variant of unknown significance (VUS). Counselees involved almost exclusively women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. None of the articles reported effects on counselor outcomes. Counselee outcomes were categorized as cognitive, affective or behavioral. Interpretation of a VUS was overall reported as difficult, and counselees' distress and worry were repeatedly found to decrease over time after the discussion of any uncertain test result. For most other outcomes, findings were sparse and/or inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on effects on counselee outcomes is scant and inconsistent. Future studies are warranted to provide insight into how counselees and counselors are affected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinical practice could benefit from guidelines on how to address uncertain test results during pre- and posttest genetic consultations.

Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in a Hospital-Based Series of Women With Breast Cancer

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.

The influence of BRCA variants of unknown significance on cancer risk management decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To compare gynecological cancer risk management between women with BRCA variants of unknown significance (VUS) to women with negative genetic testing.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients whose BRCA genetic testing yielded VUS were matched with 99 control patients with definitive negative BRCA results at a single institution. Demographics and risk management decisions were obtained through chart review. Primary outcome was the rate of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO). Chi square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression were performed, with significance of p<0.05.

RESULTS

VUS patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (p=0.000) and of Ashkenazi-Jewish descent (p=0.000). There was no difference in gynecologic oncology referrals or recommendations to screen or undergo risk-reducing surgery for VUS vs. negative patients. Ultimately, 44 patients (22%) underwent RRBSO, with no significant difference in surgical rate based on the presence of VUS. Ashkenazi-Jewish descent was associated with a 4.5 times increased risk of RRBSO (OR=4.489; 95% CI=1.484-13.579) and family history of ovarian cancer was associated with a 2.6 times risk of RRBSO (OR=2.641; 95% CI=1.107-6.299).

CONCLUSION

In our institution, patients with VUS were surgically managed similarly to those with negative BRCA testing. The numbers of patients with VUS are likely to increase with the implementation of multi-gene panel testing. Our findings underscore the importance of genetic counseling and individualized screening and prevention strategies in the management of genetic testing results.

Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance

A growing number of physicians will interact with genetic test results as testing becomes more commonplace. While variants of uncertain significance can complicate results, it is equally important that physicians understand how to incorporate these results into clinical care. An online survey was created to assess physician self-reported comfort level with genetics and variants of uncertain significance. Physicians were asked to respond to three case examples involving genetic test results. The survey was sent to 488 physicians at Mayo Clinic FL on 8/16/2017. Physicians from all specialties were invited to participate. A total of 92 physicians responded to the survey. Only 13/84 (14.6%) responded to all three case examples with the answer deemed "most correct" by review of literature. Physicians that specialized in cancer were more likely to answer questions appropriately (P = .02). Around half (39/84) of the physicians incorrectly defined a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Over 75% made a recommendation for genetic testing that was not warranted. Many physicians have never received formal genetics training; however, they will be expected to provide an accurate explanation of the genetic test results and subsequent evidence-based medical management recommendations. These results demonstrate that a substantial proportion of physicians lack a true understanding of the implications a VUS. Utilization of supplemental genetics training programs coupled with increase awareness of genetic services may help to improve patient care.

Patients' reactions and follow-up testing decisions related to Tay-Sachs (HEXA) variants of uncertain significance results

JScreen is a national public health initiative based out of Emory University that provides reproductive carrier screening through an online portal and follow-up genetic counseling services. In 2014, JScreen began reporting to patients variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease (HEXA). Genetic counseling was provided to discuss the VUS and patients were offered hexosaminidase A (HEXA) blood enzyme testing to assist with VUS reclassification. To identify patient reactions and factors influencing their follow-up testing decisions after receiving these results, we conducted a retrospective quantitative study by administering online surveys to 62 patients with HEXA VUSs. Participants who pursued enzyme testing and those who did not both experienced low levels of distress when receiving the VUS results. Perceptions of HEXA carrier status after genetic counseling, decisional conflict levels, plans to have children in the near future, time available to pursue enzyme testing, and eligibility for research were significant factors influencing decision-making to pursue or not pursue enzyme testing. Genetic counseling played an important role in helping patients understand the VUS and follow-up testing options. When discussing VUSs with patients, it would be beneficial for genetic counselors to focus on the patient's perception of the VUS, anxiety related to the uncertainty of their results, and follow-up options, when available.

Patient goals, motivations, and attitudes in a patient-driven variant reclassification study

Family studies to reclassify clinically ascertained variants of uncertain significance (VUS) can impact risk assessment, medical management, and psychological outcomes for patients and their families. There are limited avenues for patients and their families to actively participate in VUS reclassification, and access to family studies at most commercial laboratories is restricted by multiple factors. To explore patient attitudes about participation in family studies for VUS reclassification, we conducted semistructured pre- and post-participation telephone interviews with 38 participants in a family-based VUS reclassification study that utilized a patient-driven approach for family ascertainment and recruitment. Participants had VUS from multigene panel testing performed at multiple clinical laboratories for cancer or other disease risk. Inductive thematic analysis of transcribed interviews highlighted four major themes: (a) Participants' study goals were driven by the desire to resolve uncertainty related to the VUS, (b) Participants had mixed reactions to the VUS reclassification outcomes of the study, (c) Personal, public, and familial knowledge increased through study participation and (d) Participants used study participation to actively cope with the uncertainty of a VUS. As personalized genomic medicine becomes more prevalent, clinicians, clinical laboratories, and researchers could consider creating more opportunities for active partnership with patients and families, who are motivated to contribute data to familial VUS studies.

Outcomes of 92 patient-driven family studies for reclassification of variants of uncertain significance

PURPOSE

Family studies are an important but underreported source of information for reclassification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We evaluated outcomes of a patient-driven framework that offered familial VUS reclassification analysis to any adult with any clinically ascertained VUS from any laboratory in the United States.

METHODS

With guidance from FindMyVariant.org, participants recruited their own relatives for study participation. We genotyped relatives, calculated quantitative cosegregation likelihood ratios, and evaluated variant classifications using Tavtigian's unified framework for Bayesian analysis with American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) criteria. We report participation and VUS reclassification rates from the 50 families enrolled for at least one year and reclassification results for 112 variants from the larger 92-family cohort.

RESULTS

For the 50-family cohort, 6.7 relatives per family were invited to participate and 67% of relatives returned samples for genotyping. Sixty-one percent of VUS were reclassified, 84% of which were classified as benign or likely benign. Genotyping relatives identified a de novo variant, phase variants, and relatives with phenotypes highly specific for or incompatible with specific classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Motivated families can contribute to successful VUS reclassification at substantially higher rates than those previously published. Clinical laboratories could consider offering family studies to all patients with VUS.

Factors predicting reclassification of variants of unknown significance

Genetic variants of unknown significance (VUS) are an increasingly common result of genetic testing. VUS present dilemmas for treatment and surveillance. Family history may play a role in VUS reclassification over time.

METHODS

All genetic tests performed at a tertiary referral center 2006-2015 were evaluated for the presence of VUS. Patients with VUS were evaluated for demographics, clinical characteristics, family history, and gene characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 2291 individuals were tested from 1639 families; 150 VUS were identified. Twenty-eight VUS reclassified, 21 to benign and 7 to pathogenic. Logistic regression demonstrated the number of family members with associated phenotypic disease was a significant predictor of reclassification.

CONCLUSION

The likelihood of VUS reclassification can be predicted by increased positive family history of disease. Most VUS reclassify to benign, but one-fourth reclassify to pathogenic. The actual risk of a VUS should be assessed based on family history and routinely checked for reclassification.

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.

Experiences of patients seeking to participate in variant of uncertain significance reclassification research

Patients' understanding of a genetic variant of unknown clinical significance (VUS) is likely to influence beliefs about risk implications, consequent medical decisions, and other actions such as involvement in research. We interviewed 26 self-selected participants with a clinically identified VUS before they enrolled into a VUS reclassification study. Semi-structured interviews addressed topics including motivation to get genetic test, experience with the VUS result, affective responses to receiving VUS, and perceived effect of VUS and reclassification on medical care. We found that family and personal history of disease were the most prevalent motivators for getting a genetic test. Participants demonstrated mixed understanding of VUS. Most expressed negative effect on learning of their VUS result and uncertainty about its impact on clinical management. Most expected reclassification efforts to benefit their family members but not themselves. Some expressed distrust of their providers following a VUS result. Participation in the VUS reclassification study appeared to be motivated by four factors for patients with VUS-negative effect about VUS, uncertainty about its impact on clinical management, concern for family members' well-being, and to advance science. Perhaps the direct acknowledgement and appraisal of uncertainty as a means of coping was missing in some pre-test counseling experienced by our participants and thus they were not psychologically prepared for atypical VUS results. The finding of VUS-induced provider distrust suggests a need for careful consideration of appropriate pre- and post-test counseling about VUS.

Health behaviors among unaffected participants following receipt of variants of uncertain significance in cardiomyopathy-associated genes

Purpose

Studies on returning variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have predominantly included patients with a personal or family history of cancer and cancer-associated gene VUS. This study examined health behaviors amongst participants with cardiomyopathy-associated gene VUS, but without a personal history of cardiomyopathy.

Methods

Sixty-eight eligible participants without apparent cardiomyopathy who received VUS in cardiomyopathy-associated genes completed a survey of health behaviors, disclosure, distress, uncertainty, positive experiences, decisional conflict, and perceived value. Medical records of participants who reported cardiac testing because of their VUS were reviewed for testing indication(s).

Results

Two participants had cardiac testing due to their VUS alone. Four had cardiac testing because of their VUS and other clinical indications and 12 changed health behaviors, including one participant who was subsequently diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. Distress, uncertainty, and decisional conflict were low (means= 1.2, 4.2, 24.5; scale ranges= 0–30, 0–45, 15–75, respectively), and positive experiences and perceived value were moderate (means= 12.4, 14.4; scale range= 0–20, 4–20, respectively). Greater perceived value was associated with greater likelihood to engage in health behaviors (p= 0.04).

Conclusion

VUS can be returned to apparently unaffected individuals with modest use of healthcare resources, minimal behavioral changes, and favorable psychological reactions.

Disclosure of cardiac variants of uncertain significance results in an exome cohort

This study examined the impact of disclosing subclassifications of genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUS) on behavioral intentions. We studied return of VUS results to 79 individuals with a cardiomyopathy-associated VUS, subclassified into VUS-high or VUS-low. Primary outcomes were perceived risk (absolute and comparative), perceived severity, perceived value of information, self-efficacy, decision regret, and behavioral intentions to share results and change behaviors. There was no significant difference between the 2 subclasses in overall behavioral intentions (t = 0.023, P = .982) and each of the individual items on the behavioral intentions scale; absolute (t = -1.138, P = .259) or comparative (t = -0.463, P = .645) risk perceptions; perceived value of information (t = 0.582, P = .563) and self-efficacy (t = -0.733, P = .466). Decision regret was significantly different (t = 2.148, P = .035), with VUS-low (mean = 17.24, SD = 16.08) reporting greater regret. Combining the subclasses, perceived value of information was the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions (β = 0.524, P < .001). Participants generally understood the meaning of a genetic VUS result classification and reported satisfaction with result disclosure. No differences in behavioral intentions were found, but differences in decision regret suggest participants distinguish subclasses of VUS results. The perceived value of VUS may motivate recipients to pursue health-related behaviors.

Impact of Multigene Panel Testing on Surgical Decision Making in Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

With the advent of multigene panel testing for breast cancer patients, germline mutations with unknown association with cancer risk, known as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), are being increasingly identified. Some studies have shown higher rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPM) in these patients, despite lack of evidence to support this intervention. We analyzed surgical choices in patients who were identified to have VUS.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective review was performed of patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated at a single institution after multigene panel tests became available (September 1, 2013 to February 28, 2017). Rates of genetic testing, results of testing, and surgical decision making were evaluated. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 477 triple-negative breast cancer patients identified; 331 met established criteria for genetic testing and 226 (68.3%) underwent genetic testing (multigene panel, n = 130 and BRCA1/2 testing, n = 96). All of them received risk-appropriate genetic counseling and follow-up. Of these, 29 (12.8%) patients had pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 (Mut+), 42 (18.6%) had VUS (VUS+), and 155 (68.6%) had no mutations identified (Mut-). Variants of uncertain significance in 6 of 42 patients (14.3%) were later reclassified as normal variants. Eighty-eight percent of Mut+ patients underwent CPM compared with 20.1% of Mut- and 21.4% of VUS+ patients (p < 0.001 for both). Rates of CPM were not significantly different between VUS+ and Mut- (p = 0.37). Multigene panel testing detected pathogenic mutations in non-breast cancer-associated genes in 6 patients, with significant management implications.

CONCLUSIONS

When combined with risk-appropriate genetic counseling, detection of VUS did not lead to excessive CPM in this cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients. Furthermore, panel testing detected mutations in non-breast cancer-associated genes, which had significant implications on management and outcomes.

Men seeking counselling in a Breast Cancer Risk Evaluation Clinic

BACKGROUND

Hereditary breast and ovary cancer syndrome affects both genders but little is known about the uptake of genetic services by men. The objective of this study is to characterise the male population counselled through a multidisciplinary breast/ovarian program.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of male patients counselled from January 2000 to December 2015. Data in this analysis include new cancer diagnoses during prospective follow up.

RESULTS

From 4,320 families registered, 362 male patients were identified: 236 (65.2%) from hereditary cancer families (HCF) and 126 (34.8%) from non-HCF. In HCF, 121 patients (51.3%) were mutation carriers (MC): BRCA2 - 102 (84.3%), BRCA1 - 16 (13.2%), CHEK2 - 1 (0.8%) and TP53 - 2 (1.7%). Non-HCF included 126 patients: 85 (67.5%) belonged to families without pathogenic mutations or with variants of unknown clinical significance; 22 (17.5%) refused testing after counselling and 19 (15.0%) did not meet criteria for testing. Both HCF and non-HCF included patients with previous cancer diagnoses: HCF- Breast Cancer (BC) - 18; prostate cancer (PC) - 13; melanoma - 1; others - 7) and non-HCF (BC - 77; PC - 20; gastric cancer (GC) - 1; melanoma - 8; bladder cancer - 1; others - 22). From the 121 MC identified (including the TP53 and CHEK2 carriers), 97 patients (80.2%) adhered to prospective surveillance. With a median follow-up of 36.9 months, 17 cancers were diagnosed in 14 patients, PC being the most frequently diagnosed neoplasia (5 cases). Eleven patients (78.6%) are alive and three patients died of advanced cancer (2 with GC, 1 with disseminated adenocarcinoma).

CONCLUSION

We observed a high adherence to counselling, genetic testing and active surveillance by men belonging to hereditary BC families. Male carriers of pathogenic DNA variants are at risk for several cancers and should be included in prospective follow-up studies.

BRCA1 p.His1673del is a pathogenic mutation associated with a predominant ovarian cancer phenotype

We have investigated the clinical significance of the BRCA1 variant p.His1673del in 14 families from the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy, including 20 breast and 23 ovarian cancer cases; four families displayed site-specific ovarian cancer.

The variant, absent in human variation databases, has been reported three times in BRCA1 specific databases; all probands shared the same rare haplotype at the BRCA1 locus, consistent with a common ancestor.

The multifactorial likelihood method by Goldgar, used to estimate the probability of the variant being causative, gave a ratio of 2,263,474:1 in favor of causality. Moreover, in silico modeling suggested that His1673-lacking BRCA1 protein may have a decreased ability to bind BARD1 and other related proteins. All six ovarian carcinomas and two out of four breast carcinomas available showed a loss of the BRCA1 wild-type allele, which in three out of four ovarian carcinomas analyzed by FISH was associated with duplication of the chromosome 17 containing the variant. Although the pathogenicity of the allele is strongly supported by the multifactorial ratio, we cannot exclude that p.His1673del is not itself deleterious, but is linked to another undetected mutation on the same ancestral allele.

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing: Perspectives of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Patients and Gynecologic Oncology Healthcare Providers

Multi-gene panel testing has expanded the genetic information available to cancer patients. The objective was to assess provider behaviors and attitudes and patient knowledge and attitudes towards genetic counseling and testing. An online survey was distributed to Society of Gynecologic Oncology members and a written questionnaire was administered to patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer at a tertiary care referral center. Most of the 233 (18% response rate) provider respondents were gynecologic oncologists. Access to a genetic counselor was reported by 87% of providers and 55% deferred all testing to genetic counselors. Of 53 ovarian cancer patient respondents, two-thirds had previously seen a genetic counselor or undergone testing. Patients' attitudes about genetic counseling and/or testing were favorable with respect to themselves (70-81%) and their family members (94%). Less than 25% of patients indicated worrying about health care discrimination, lack of privacy, or high cost. Seventy-seven percent of patients demonstrated a desire to obtain genetic information even if the results were not currently actionable, and 20% of providers stated they test for only those genes with guideline-supported actionable results. Provider practice differences were identified in screening and prevention strategies for patients with deleterious non-BRCA mutations and variants of uncertain significance. The variation in clinical interpretation of results associated with poorly defined cancer risks signals a need for more comprehensive training and guidelines to ensure access to evidence-based care.