Expanded Gene Panel Use for Women With Breast Cancer: Identification and Intervention Beyond Breast Cancer Risk

Germline mutations of breast cancer susceptibility genes through expanded genetic analysis in unselected Colombian patients

BACKGROUND

In Colombia and worldwide, breast cancer (BC) is the most frequently diagnosed neoplasia and the leading cause of death from cancer among women. Studies predominantly involve hereditary and familial cases, demonstrating a gap in the literature regarding the identification of germline mutations in unselected patients from Latin-America. Identification of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants is important for shaping national genetic analysis policies, genetic counseling, and early detection strategies. The present study included 400 women with unselected breast cancer (BC), in whom we analyzed ten genes, using Whole Exome Sequencing (WES), know to confer risk for BC, with the aim of determining the genomic profile of previously unreported P/LP variants in the affected population. Additionally, Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) was performed to identify Large Genomic Rearrangements (LGRs) in the BRCA1/2 genes. To ascertain the functional impact of a recurrent intronic variant (ATM c.5496 + 2_5496 + 5delTAAG), a minigene assay was conducted.

RESULTS

We ascertained the frequency of P/LP germline variants in BRCA2 (2.5%), ATM (1.25%), BRCA1 (0.75%), PALB2 (0.50%), CHEK2 (0.50%), BARD1 (0.25%), and RAD51D (0.25%) genes in the population of study. P/LP variants account for 6% of the total population analyzed. No LGRs were detected in our study. We identified 1.75% of recurrent variants in BRCA2 and ATM genes. One of them corresponds to the ATM c.5496 + 2_5496 + 5delTAAG. Functional validation of this variant demonstrated a splicing alteration probably modifying the Pincer domain and subsequent protein structure.

CONCLUSION

This study described for the first time the genomic profile of ten risk genes in Colombian women with unselected BC. Our findings underscore the significance of population-based research, advocating the consideration of molecular testing in all women with cancer.

Therapeutic applications of germline testing for cancer predisposition genes in Asia in the real world

BACKGROUND

Germline genetic testing is traditionally carried out in patients suspected with hereditary cancer syndrome for enhanced cancer surveillance and/or preventive strategies, but is increasingly carried out for therapeutic indications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent germline genetic testing at our centre to determine the prevalence of actionable pathogenic germline variants (PGV) and their clinical utility.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2022, 1154 cancer patients underwent germline testing, with the majority (945/1154) tested with multi-gene panels. Four hundred and eleven (35.6%) patients harboured a PGV and 334 (81%) were clinically actionable. BRCA1/2 accounted for 62.3% of actionable mutations, followed by mismatch repair (18%), and other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes (19.7%). One hundred and fifty-two germline-positive patients have advanced cancers, and 79 received germline-directed therapies (poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors = 75; immunotherapy = 4). Median duration of immunotherapy and poly ADP ribose polymerase were 20.5 months (range 5-40 months) and 8 months (range 1-76 months), respectively. Among BRCA/HRR mutation carriers who received platinum-based chemotherapy, pathological complete response rate in the neoadjuvant setting was 53% (n = 17 breast cancers) and objective response rate was >80% in the advanced setting (n = 71).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of cancer patients tested carried a PGV and ∼80% were clinically actionable. Three-quarters of germline-positive advanced cancer patients received germline-directed therapies in the real world, underscoring the practical utility of germline testing to guide cancer therapeutics.

Universal Germline-Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer: Implementation in a Rural Practice and Impact on Shared Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria restrict germline-genetic testing (GGT) to a subset of breast cancer (BC) patients, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends universal GGT. Although the yield of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in unselected BC patients has been studied, the practicality and utility of incorporating universal GGT into routine cancer care in community and rural settings is understudied. This study reports real-world implementation of universal GGT for patients with breast cancer and genetics-informed, treatment decision-making in a rural, community practice with limited resources.

METHODS

From 2019 to 2022, all patients with breast cancer at a small, rural hospital were offered GGT, using a genetics-extender model. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact test, t-tests, and calculation of odds ratios. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 210 patients with breast cancer who were offered GGT, 192 (91.4%) underwent testing with 104 (54.2%) in-criteria (IC) and 88 (45.8%) out-of-criteria (OOC) with NCCN guidelines. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 25 patients (13.0%), with PGV frequencies of 15 of 104 (14.4%) in IC and ten of 88 (11.4%) in OOC patients (p = 0.495). GGT informed treatment for 129 of 185 (69.7%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal GGT was successfully implemented in a rural, community practice with > 90% uptake. Treatment was enhanced or de-escalated in those with and without clinically actionable PGVs, respectively. Universal GGT for patients with breast cancer is feasible within rural populations, enabling optimization of clinical care to patients' genetic profile, and may reduce unnecessary healthcare, resource utilization.

Germline Mutations in 32 Cancer Susceptibility Genes by Next-Generation Sequencing among Breast Cancer Patients

INTRODUCTION

BRCA1/2 germline mutations are the most well-known genetic determinants for breast cancer. However, the distribution of germline mutations in non-BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility genes in Chinese breast cancer patients is unclear. The association between clinical characteristics and germline mutations remains to be explored.

METHODS

Consecutive breast cancer patients from Peking University People's Hospital were enrolled. Clinical characteristics were collected, and next-generation sequencing was performed using blood samples of participants to identify pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline mutations in 32 cancer susceptibility genes including homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes.

RESULTS

A total of 885 breast cancer patients underwent the detection of germline mutations. 107 P/LP germline mutations of 17 genes were identified in 116 breast cancer patients including 79 (8.9%) in BRCA1/2 and 40 (4.5%) in 15 non-BRCA1/2 genes. PALB2 was the most frequently mutated gene other than BRCA1/2 but still relatively rare (1.1%). There were 38 novel P/LP germline variants detected. P/LP germline mutations in BRCA1/2 were significantly associated with onset age (p < 0.001), the family history of breast/ovarian cancer (p = 0.010), and molecular subtype (p < 0.001), while being correlated with onset age (p < 0.001), site of breast tumor (p = 0.028), and molecular subtype (p < 0.001) in HRR genes.

CONCLUSIONS

The multiple-gene panel prominently increased the detection rate of P/LP germline mutations in 32 cancer susceptibility genes compared to BRCA1/2 alone. Onset younger than or equal to 45 years of age, bilateral and triple-negative breast cancer patients may be more likely to be recommended for detecting P/LP germline mutations in HRR genes.

Germline variants of uncertain significance, their frequency, and clinico-pathological features in a cohort of Sri Lankan patients with hereditary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-based testing in cancer patients has led to increased detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). VUS are genetic variants whose impact on protein function is unknown. VUS pose a challenge to clinicians and patients due to uncertainty regarding their cancer predisposition risk. Paucity of data exists on the pattern of VUS in under-represented populations. This study describes the frequency of germline VUS and clinico-pathological features in Sri Lankan hereditary breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Data of 72 hereditary breast cancer patients who underwent NGS-based testing between January 2015 and December 2021 were maintained prospectively in a database and analyzed retrospectively. Data were subjected to bioinformatics analysis and variants were classified according to international guidelines.

RESULTS

Germline variants were detected in 33/72(45.8%) patients, comprising 16(48.5%) pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants and 17(51.5%) VUS. Distribution of VUS in breast cancer predisposing genes were :APC:1(5.8%), ATM:2(11.7%), BRCA1:1(5.8%), BRCA2:5(29.4%), BRIP1:1(5.8%), CDKN2A:1(5.8%), CHEK2:2(11.7%), FANC1:1(5.8%), MET:1(5.8%), STK11:1(5.8%), NF2:1(5.8%). Mean age at cancer diagnosis in patients with VUS was 51.2 years. Most common tumour histopathology was ductal carcinoma 11(78.6%). 50% of tumours in patients having VUS in BRCA1/2 genes were hormone receptor negative. 73.3% patients had family history of breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant portion of patients had a germline VUS. Highest frequency was in BRCA2 gene. Majority had family history of breast cancer. This highlights the need to undertake functional genomic studies to determine the biological effects of VUS and identify potentially clinically actionable variants that would be useful for decision-making and patient management.

The Role of the Surgeon in the Germline Testing of the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patient

For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, information regarding hereditary predisposition can influence treatment decisions. From a surgical standpoint, patients with known germline mutations may alter decisions of local therapy to reduce the risk of second breast primaries. This information may also be considered in the choice of adjuvant therapies or eligibility for clinical trials. In recent years, the criteria for the consideration of germline testing in patients with breast cancer has expanded. Additionally, studies have shown a similar prevalence of pathogenic mutations in those patients outside of these traditional criteria, prompting calls for genetic testing for all patients with a history of breast cancer. While data confirms the benefit of counseling by certified genetics professionals, the capacity of genetic counselors may no longer meet the needs of these growing numbers of patients. National societies assert that counseling and testing can be performed by providers with training and experience in genetics. Breast surgeons are well positioned to offer this service, as they receive formal genetics training during their fellowship, manage these patients daily in their practices, and are often the first providers to see patients after their cancer diagnosis.

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.

Hereditary breast cancer: syndromes, tumour pathology and molecular testing

Hereditary factors account for a significant proportion of breast cancer risk. Approximately 20% of hereditary breast cancers are attributable to pathogenic variants in the highly penetrant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. A proportion of the genetic risk is also explained by pathogenic variants in other breast cancer susceptibility genes, including ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D and BARD1, as well as genes associated with breast cancer predisposition syndromes - TP53 (Li-Fraumeni syndrome), PTEN (Cowden syndrome), CDH1 (hereditary diffuse gastric cancer), STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers syndrome) and NF1 (neurofibromatosis type 1). Polygenic risk, the cumulative risk from carrying multiple low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles, is also a well-recognised contributor to risk. This review provides an overview of the established breast cancer susceptibility genes as well as breast cancer predisposition syndromes, highlights distinct genotype-phenotype correlations associated with germline mutation status and discusses molecular testing and therapeutic implications in the context of hereditary breast cancer.

Genetic testing women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: What criteria are the most predictive of a positive test?

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposing genes is important when making breast cancer treatment decisions, but genetic testing is not universal and criteria must be met to qualify for genetic testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pathogenic variant yield for nine cancer predisposition genes by testing criteria, singly and in combination.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with breast cancer between June 2013 and May 2018 were recruited from four centers in Toronto, Canada. Participants completed a demographics and family history questionnaire and clinical characteristics were collected from medical charts. Genetic testing was done for BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, RAD51D, RECQL, and TP53. Pathogenic variant frequencies were calculated according to five criteria (age ≤ 50, triple-negative breast cancer, family history, bilateral breast cancer, or Jewish ethnicity).

RESULTS

Of the 1006 women studied, 100 women (9.9%) were found to have a pathogenic variant in one of the nine genes tested. The highest prevalence of pathogenic variants was found in women with triple-negative breast cancer (23%). Of the 100 pathogenic variants detected, 78 were detected in women diagnosed at age 50 or less. A total of 96% of the mutations were identified with three criteria (age of diagnosis, family history, and triple-negative status).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing criteria for women with breast cancer should include women with triple-negative breast cancer, regardless of age. All women aged 50 years or below at time of breast cancer diagnosis should be offered genetic testing.

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022.

EXPOSURE

New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported.

RESULTS

Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Germline Testing in a Cohort of Patients at High Risk of Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: First Two-Year Results from South Italy

Germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes are responsible for 5 to 10% of all diagnosed cancers, which are commonly known as hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (HCPS). A total of 104 individuals at high risk of HCPS were selected by genetic counselling for genetic testing in the past 2 years. Most of them were subjects having a personal and family history of breast cancer (BC) selected according to current established criteria. Genes analysis involved in HCPS was assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using a custom cancer panel with high- and moderate-risk susceptibility genes. Germline PVs were identified in 17 of 104 individuals (16.3%) analysed, while variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were identified in 21/104 (20.2%) cases. Concerning the germline PVs distribution among the 13 BC individuals with positive findings, 8/13 (61.5%) were in the BRCA1/2 genes, whereas 5/13 (38.4%) were in other high- or moderate-risk genes including PALB2, TP53, ATM and CHEK2. NGS genetic testing showed that 6/13 (46.1%) of the PVs observed in BC patients were detected in triple-negative BC. Interestingly, the likelihood of carrying the PVs in the moderate-to-high-risk genes calculated by the cancer risk model BOADICEA was significantly higher in pathogenic variant carriers than in negative subjects. Collectively, this study shows that multigene panel testing can offer an effective diagnostic approach for patients at high risk of hereditary cancers.

Utility of germline multi-gene panel testing in patients with endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVES

Patients with germline mutations in mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an increased lifetime risk of endometrial cancer (EC). Multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) is a recent hereditary cancer risk tool enabling next-generation sequencing of numerous genes in parallel. We determined the prevalence of actionable cancer predisposition gene mutations identified through MGPT in an EC patient cohort.

METHODS

A single center retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with EC who had a clinical indication for genetic testing and who underwent MGPT as part of standard of care treatment between 2012 and 2021. Pathogenic mutations were identified and actionable mutations were defined as those with clinical management implications. Additionally, the number of individuals identified with LS was compared between MGPT and tumor-based screening.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 224 patients. Thirty-three patients [14.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 10.4-20.1] had actionable mutations. Twenty-one patients (9.4%, 95% CI = 5.9-14.0) had mutations in LS genes (4 MLH1, 5 MSH2, 7 MSH6, 4 PMS2, 1 Epcam-MSH2). MGPT revealed two patients with LS (9.5% of LS cases) not identified through routine tumor-based screening. Thirteen patients (5.8%, 95% CI = 3.1-9.7) had at least one actionable mutation in a non-Lynch syndrome gene (6 CHEK2, 2 BRCA2, 2 ATM, 2 APC, 1 RAD51C, 1 BRCA1).

CONCLUSIONS

Germline MGPT is both feasible and informative as it identifies LS cases not found on tumor testing as well as additional actionable mutations in patients with EC.

Multi-Gene Panel Testing in Gastroenterology: Are We Ready for the Results?

Genetic testing aims to identify patients at risk for inherited cancer susceptibility. In the last decade, there was a significant increase in the request of broader panels of genes as multi-gene panel testing became widely available. However, physicians may be faced with genetic findings for which there is lack of management evidence, despite some progress in understanding their clinical relevance. In this short review, we discuss the advantages and the drawbacks related to multi-gene panel testing in the setting of a Gastrointestinal Familial Cancer Risk clinic. We also summarize the available recommendations on management of pathogenic variant carriers.

Characteristics of Germline Non-BRCA Mutation Status of High-Risk Breast Cancer Patients in China and Correlation with High-Risk Factors and Multigene Testing Suggestions

Background:Expert consensus on BRCA1/2 genetic testing and clinical application in Chinese breast cancer patients recommends that BRCA1/2 testing should be performed in those with clinical risk factors, such as an early onset, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or family history of cancer. With the increasing application of multigene panels, testing for genes beyond BRCA1/2 has become more prevalent. However, the non-BRCA mutation status of Chinese high-risk breast cancer patients has not been fully explored.

Methods: A total of 230 high-risk breast cancer patients from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center who had undergone peripheral blood germline 72 genes next-generation sequencing (NGS) from June 2018 to June 2020 were enrolled for retrospective analysis. The 72 genes include common hereditary breast cancer genes, such as homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and other DNA damage repair genes. High-risk factors included: 1) TNBC; 2) male breast cancer; 3) primary bilateral breast cancer; 4) diagnosed with breast cancer at age less than or equal to 40 years; or 5) at least one first- and/or second-degree relative with BRCA-related cancer (breast or ovarian or prostate or pancreatic cancer).

Results: The germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutation rate was 29.6% (68/230) in high-risk breast cancer patients. Among them, 44 (19.1%, 44/230) were identified as harboring BRCA1/2 mutation, and 28 (12.2%, 28/230) patients carried non-BRCA germline variants. Variants were detected in 16 non-BRCA genes, including PALB2 (5, 2.2%), ATM (4, 1.7%), RAD51D (3, 1.3%), TP53 (3, 1.3%), CHEK2 (2, 0.9%), FANCA (2, 0.9%) and ATR, BARD1, BRIP1, ERCC3, HOXB13, MLH1, MRE11, PMS2, RAD51C, RAD54L (1, 0.4%). Besides, 22 (9.6%, 22/230) patients were non-BRCA HRR gene mutation (including ATM, ATR, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, FANCA, MRE11, PALB2, RAD51C RAD51D and RAD54L) carriers. Among high-risk factors, family history showed a correlation with both BRCA (p = 0.005) and non-BRCA HRR gene mutation status (p = 0.036). In addition, TNBC showed a correlation with BRCA1 gene mutation status (p = 0.038). However, other high-risk factors have not shown significantly related to BRCA1/2, non-BRCA genes and non-BRCA HRR gene mutations (p > 0.05). In addition, 312 unique variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were identified among 175 (76.1%, 175/230) patients and 65 different genes.

Conclusions: Non-BRCA gene mutations are frequently identified in breast cancer patients with high risk factors. Family history showed a correlation with both BRCA (p = 0.005) and non-BRCA HRR gene mutation status (p = 0.036), so we strongly suggest that breast cancer patients with a BRCA-related family history receive comprehensive gene mutation testing in China, especially HRR genes, which are not only related to high risk of breast cancer, but also potentially related to poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) targeted therapy. The exact relationship of rare gene mutations to breast cancer predisposition and the pathogenicity of VUS need to be further investigated.

The ACMG SF v3.0 gene list increases returnable variant detection by 22% when compared with v2.0 in the ClinSeq cohort

PURPOSE

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommends the return of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) secondary findings from exome and genome sequencing. The latest version (ACMG secondary finding [SF] v3.0) includes 14 additional genes. We interrogated the ClinSeq cohort for variants in these genes to determine the additional yield in unselected individuals.

METHODS

Exome data from 1473 individuals (60% White, 34% African American or Black, 6% other) were analyzed. We restricted our analyses to coding variants; +1,+2,-1, and -2 splice site variants; and the pathogenic GAA variant, NM_000152.5:c.-32-13T>G. Variants were assessed with slightly modified ACMG/Association of Molecular Pathology guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 25 P/LP variants were identified. In total, 7 individuals had P/LP variants in genes recommended for return of heterozygous variants, namely HNF1A (1), PALB2 (3), TMEM127 (1), and TTN (2). In total, 4 individuals had a homozygous variant in a gene recommended for biallelic variant return, namely HFE, NM_000410.3(HFE):c.845G>A p.Cys282Tyr. A total of 17 P/LP variants were identified in the heterozygous state in genes recommended only for biallelic variant reporting and were not returned. The frequency of returnable P/LP variants did not significantly differ by race.

CONCLUSION

Using the ACMG SF v3.0, the returnable P/LP variant frequency increased in the ClinSeq cohort by 22%, from 3.4% (n = 50, ACMG SF v2.0) to 4.1% (n = 61, ACMG SF v3.0).

Liquid Biopsy as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Tool for Women and Female Dogs with Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) is the malignant neoplasm with the highest mortality rate in women and female dogs are good models to study BC.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the efficacy of liquid biopsy to detect gene mutations in the diagnosis and follow-up of women and female dogs with BC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 57 and 37 BC samples were collected from women and female dogs, respectively. After core biopsy and plasma samples were collected, the DNA and ctDNA of the tumor fragments and plasma were processed for next generation sequencing (NGS) assay. After preprocessing of the data, they were submitted to the Genome Analysis ToolKit (GATK).

RESULTS

In women, 1788 variants were identified in tumor fragments and 221 variants in plasma; 66 variants were simultaneously detected in tumors and plasma. Conversely, in female dogs, 1430 variants were found in plasma and 695 variants in tumor fragments; 59 variants were simultaneously identified in tumors and plasma. The most frequently mutated genes in the tumor fragments of women were USH2A, ATM, and IGF2R; in female dogs, they were USH2A, BRCA2, and RRM2. Plasma of women showed the most frequent genetic variations in the MAP3K1, BRCA1, and GRB7 genes, whereas plasma from female dogs had variations in the NF1, ERBB2, and KRT17 genes. Mutations in the AKT1, PIK3CA, and BRIP genes were associated with tumor recurrence, with a highly pathogenic variant in PIK3CA being particularly prominent. We also detected a gain-of-function mutation in the GRB7, MAP3K1, and MLH1 genes.

CONCLUSION

Liquid biopsy is useful to identify specific genetic variations at the beginning of BC manifestation and may be accompanied over the entire follow-up period, thereby supporting the clinicians in refining interventions.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Utilization of breast cancer risk prediction models by cancer genetic counselors in clinical practice predominantly in the United States

Risk assessment in cancer genetic counseling is essential in identifying individuals at high risk for developing breast cancer to recommend appropriate screening and management options. Historically, many breast cancer risk prediction models were developed to calculate an individual's risk to develop breast cancer or to carry a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. However, how or when genetic counselors use these models in clinical settings is currently unknown. We explored genetic counselors' breast cancer risk model usage patterns including frequency of use, reasons for using or not using models, and change in usage since the adoption of multi-gene panel testing. An online survey was developed and sent to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors; board-certified genetic counselors whose practice included cancer genetic counseling were eligible to participate in the study. The response rate was estimated at 23% (243/1,058), and respondents were predominantly working in the United States. The results showed that 93% of all respondents use at least one breast cancer risk prediction model in their clinical practice. Among the six risk models selected for the study, the Tyrer-Cuzick (IBIS) model was used most frequently (95%), and the BOADICEA model was used least (40%). Determining increased or decreased surveillance and breast MRI eligibility were the two most common reasons for most model usage, while time consumption and difficulty in navigation were the two most common reasons for not using models. This study provides insight into perceived benefits and limitations of risk models in clinical use in the United States, which may be useful information for software developers, genetic counseling program curriculum developers, and currently practicing cancer genetic counselors.

Multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the province of Ontario

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of multigene panel testing among patients referred with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC).

METHODS

Patients who met provincial eligibility criteria were tested at the Advanced Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto. Gene sequencing and exon-level copy number variant (CNV) analysis was performed. The referring physician had the opportunity to choose between several different gene panels based on patient phenotype. Cases were included in the analysis based on personal and family history of cancer and the type of panel ordered.

RESULTS

3251 cases that received panel testing were included in this analysis. Overall, 9.1% (295) had a positive (pathogenic or likely pathogenic) result and 27.1% (882) had an inconclusive result (variant of uncertain significance). The genes with the highest prevalence of positive results were in BRCA2 (2.2%, 71/3235), BRCA1 (1.9%, 62/3235), and CHEK2 (1.4%, 40/2916). Of the positive cases, 9.8% (29) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with Lynch syndrome (MSH6, MSH2, MLH1, or PMS2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our overall positive yield is similar to that reported in the literature. The yield of inconclusive results was three times that of positive results. By testing more individuals in families with HBOC and through data-sharing efforts, the clinical significance of most variants may eventually be determined and panel testing for monogenic cancer predisposition syndromes will have greater utility.

Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!

Since the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes 3 decades ago, genetic testing and genetic counseling have become an integral part of routine clinical practice. The risk of breast cancer among carriers of germline pathogenic variants, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, is well established. Risk-reducing interventions, including bilateral mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies are both effective and have become more acceptable. Many researchers and professional societies view current guidelines as restrictive and may miss many at-risk women, and are calling to expand testing to include all patients with breast cancer, regardless of their personal or family history of cancer, while others are calling for wider adoption to even include all healthy women at age 30 or older. This review will address expanding testing in two directions; horizontally to include more patients, and even healthy women, and vertically to include more genes using next-generation sequencing-based multi-gene panel testing.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway

Studies have shown that a significant number of eligible breast cancer patients are not offered genetic testing or referral to genetic counseling. To increase access to genetic testing in South Eastern Norway, testing has since 2014 been offered directly to breast cancer patients by surgeons and oncologists. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients in South Eastern Norway are offered testing. Three hundred and sixty one patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 at one regional and one university hospital in South Eastern Norway were included. Data on whether the patients fulfilled the criteria, whether they had been offered testing and if they were tested were collected. In total, 26.6% (96/361) fulfilled the criteria for testing. Seventy five percent (69/92) of these were offered testing, and 71.7% (66/92) were tested. At the university hospital, 90.2% (37/41) of eligible patients were offered testing, and at the regional hospital 62.7% (32/51). Fifty two percent (12/23) of eligible patient not offered testing were younger than 50 years at time of diagnosis. As many as 95.4% (125/131) of all patients who were offered testing, wanted to be tested. The majority of patients who fulfilled the criteria were offered testing, supporting the practice of mainstreamed genetic testing. There were nevertheless differences in rates of testing between the hospitals that affected all groups of patients, indicating that genetic testing may not be equally accessible to all patients. We suggest that efforts should be made to increase awareness and improve routines for genetic testing of breast cancer patients in Norway.

Economic impact of multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Aim: Healthcare utilization and costs were compared following 25-gene panel (panel) or single syndrome (SS) testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Materials & methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients unaffected by cancer with panel (n = 6359) or SS (n = 4681) testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (01 January 2014 to 31 December 2016). Groups were determined by test type and result (positive, negative, variant of uncertain significance [VUS]). Results: There were no differences in total unadjusted healthcare costs between the panel (US$14,425) and SS (US$14,384) groups (p = 0.942). Among VUS patients in the panel and SS groups, mean all-cause costs were US$14,404 versus US$20,607 (p = 0.361) and mean risk-reduction/early detection-specific costs were US$718 versus US$679 (p = 0.890), respectively. Adjusted medical costs were not significantly different between panel and SS cohorts. Conclusion: Healthcare utilization and costs were comparable between the SS and panel tests overall and for patients with VUS.

Prevalence and Spectrum of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Japanese Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal, Breast, and Prostate Cancer

PUPOSE

We investigated the prevalence and spectrum of pathogenic germline variants in patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), breast cancer (BC), and prostate cancer (PCA) in the Japanese population. We also identified pathogenic variants in other cancer risk genes, giving consideration to future multigene testing panels for this population.

METHODS

We performed whole-genome sequencing for 1,037 Japanese individuals, including patients with early-onset CRC (n = 196), BC (n = 237), and PCA (n = 215) and controls (n = 389). We screened for pathogenic variants, including single nucleotide variants and copy number variants, among well-established first-tier cancer genes for each cancer type and examined an expended second-tier panel including cancer-predisposing genes from the Cancer Gene Census.

RESULTS

Proportions of patients with germline pathogenic variants differed by cancer subgroup, with the highest in BC (14.8%), followed by CRC (9.2%), and PCA (3.7%). In contrast, 2 of 389 control subjects (0.5%) carried a germline pathogenic variant. In comparison with controls, the proportion of patients with pathogenic variants in the second-tier panel was increased significantly for PCA (3.7% to 11.6%, P = 2.96 × 10^-4), but not for CRC or BC, after multitesting adjustment. In patients with PCA, DNA repair pathway genes in the extended panel often contained pathogenic variants (P = .011).

CONCLUSION

Our analyses support the clinical usefulness of established cancer gene panels in the Japanese population for 3 major cancer types. Additional genes, especially those involved in DNA repair, might be considered for developing multipanel testing in Japanese patients with early-onset PCA.

Exon splicing analysis of intronic variants in multigene cancer panel testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer

The use of multigene panel testing for patients with a predisposition to breast/ovarian cancer is increasing as the identification of variants is useful for diagnosis and disease management. We identified pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants of high-and moderate-risk genes using a 23-gene germline cancer panel in 518 patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOC). The frequency of P/LP variants was 12.4% (64/518) for high- and moderate-penetrant genes, namely, BRCA2 (5.6%), BRCA1 (3.3%), CHEK2 (1.2%), MUTYH (0.8%), PALB2 (0.8%), MLH1 (0.4%), ATM (0.4%), BRIP1 (0.4%), TP53 (0.2%), and PMS2 (0.2%). Five patients possessed two P/LP variants in BRCA1/2 and other genes. We also compared the results from in silico splicing predictive tools and exon splicing patterns from patient samples by analyzing RT-PCR product sequences in six P/LP intronic variants and two intronic variants of unknown significance (VUS). Altered transcriptional fragments were detected for P/LP intronic variants in BRCA1, BRIP1, CHEK2, PARB2, and PMS2. Notably, we identified an in-frame deletion of the BRCA1 C-terminal (BRCT) domain by exon skipping in BRCA1 c.5152+6T>C-as known VUS-indicating a risk for HBOC. Thus, exon splicing analysis can improve the identification of veiled intronic variants that would aid decision making and determination of hereditary cancer risk.

Mutation Rates in Cancer Susceptibility Genes in Patients With Breast Cancer With Multiple Primary Cancers

PURPOSE

Women with breast cancer have a 4%-16% lifetime risk of a second primary cancer. Whether mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are enriched in patients with breast and another primary cancer over those with a single breast cancer (S-BC) is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified pathogenic germline mutations in 17 cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer in 2 different cohorts: cohort 1, high-risk breast cancer program (multiple primary breast cancer [MP-BC], n = 551; S-BC, n = 449) and cohort 2, familial breast cancer research study (MP-BC, n = 340; S-BC, n = 1,464). Mutation rates in these 2 cohorts were compared with a control data set (Exome Aggregation Consortium [ExAC]).

RESULTS

Overall, pathogenic mutation rates for autosomal, dominantly inherited genes were higher in patients with MP-BC versus S-BC in both cohorts (8.5% v 4.9% [P = .02] and 7.1% v 4.2% [P = .03]). There were differences in individual gene mutation rates between cohorts. In both cohorts, younger age at first breast cancer was associated with higher mutation rates; the age of non-breast cancers was unrelated to mutation rate. TP53 and MSH6 mutations were significantly enriched in patients with MP-BC but not S-BC, whereas ATM and PALB2 mutations were significantly enriched in both groups compared with ExAC.

CONCLUSION

Mutation rates are at least 7% in all patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-negative MP-BC, regardless of age at diagnosis of breast cancer, with mutation rates up to 25% in patients with a first breast cancer diagnosed at age < 30 years. Our results suggest that all patients with breast cancer with a second primary cancer, regardless of age of onset, should undergo multigene panel testing.

Risk for breast cancer and management of unaffected individuals with non-BRCA hereditary breast cancer

About 5%-10% of breast cancer is hereditary with BRCA1 and BRCA2 being the most common genes associated with hereditary breast cancer (HBC). Several additional genes have recently been associated with HBC. These genes can be classified as highly or moderately penetrant genes with lifetime risk >30% or 17%-30%, respectively. Highly penetrant genes associated with HBC include TP53, PTEN, CDH1, STK11, and PALB2. While, moderately penetrant genes include CHEK2, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, NBN, NF1, RAD51D, and MSH6. Breast cancer risk and recommendations for screening and risk-reduction vary by gene. In general, screening breast MRI is recommended for women at >20% lifetime risk, which includes women with mutations in highly penetrant genes and the majority (but not all) moderately penetrant genes. Consideration of chemoprevention is recommended for women with mutations in high and moderately penetrant genes. Risk-reducing mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast cancer to the greatest extent and can be considered for women with highly penetrant genes. However, this procedure is associated with significant morbidities that should be considered, especially given the benefit of using screening breast MRI for high-risk women. BSO is only recommended for women with mutations in genes associate with increased risk for ovarian cancer and not as a breast cancer risk-reducing strategy. As more women undergo testing, additional genes may be identified and risk estimates for current genes and management recommendations may be modified.

Update on multi-gene panel testing and communication of genetic test results

With technological advances, multi-gene panel testing has become increasingly used to identify patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer (HBC). There are currently evidence-based interventions and breast cancer screening strategies that exist for cancer prevention and early detection among patients with HBC. Moreover, in addition to the personal impact of identifying HBC, this information may be shared with at-risk family members to amplify the benefits of testing and subsequent care among those at high risk. Opportunities and challenges with the utilization of updated multi-gene panel testing for HBC, including: (a) tumor sequencing with germline consequences; (b) genetic counseling implications; and (c) strategies to improve the communication of genetic test results to family members will be reviewed. With the advances and expansion of genetic testing, all health care providers need to be updated on both the importance and complexities of HBC counseling and testing, in order to optimize patient care.

TP53 variants of uncertain significance: increasing challenges in variant interpretation and genetic counseling

Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) and Li-Fraumeni Like (LFL) are autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndromes caused by pathogenic germline variants in the TP53 gene. Recent studies have shown that the incorporation of next-generation sequencing by using multigene panels in clinical practice has resulted in the frequent identification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Given that there is no established medical management for VUS carriers, the identification of these variants may cause confusion and anxiety for both patients and practitioners. Herein, we aimed to verify VUS frequency and review VUS classification and interpretation in 1844 patients submitted for comprehensive germline TP53 testing independent of clinical criteria. Variant characterization was done assessing clinical information whenever available, variant frequency in population databases, pathogenicity predictions using in silico tools and previous functional studies. All variants were classified based on the guidelines proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (2015) and by the Sherloc framework (2017). Of the twelve VUS (0.65%) identified in TP53, two were classified as likely pathogenic and two were classified as likely benign after re-evaluation, potentially resulting in significant management modification for the proband and relatives. This report cases highlights the challenges and impact of TP53 variant interpretation especially when there is no clear LFS/LFL phenotype.

Diagnostic yield of a custom-designed multi-gene cancer panel in Irish patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is genetically heterogeneous, and parellel multi-gene sequencing is the most cost- and time-efficient manner to investigate breast cancer predisposition. Numerous multi-gene panels (MGPs) are commercially available, but many include genes with weak/unproven associaton with breast cancer, or with predisposition to cancer of other types. This study investigates the utility of a custom-designed multi-gene panel in an Irish cohort with breast cancer.

METHODS

A custom panel comprising 83 genes offered by 19 clinical "breast cancer predisposition" MGPs was designed and applied to germline DNA from 91 patients with breast cancer and 77 unaffected ethnicially matched controls. Variants were identified and classified using a custom pipeline.

RESULTS

Nineteen loss-of-function (LOF) and 334 missense variants were identified. After removing common and/or benign variants, 15 LOF and 30 missense variants were analysed. Variants in known breast cancer susceptibility genes were identified, including in BRCA1 and ATM in cases, and in NF1 and CHEK2 in controls. Most variants identified were in genes associated with predisposition to cancers other than breast cancer (BRIP1, RAD50, MUTYH, and mismatch repair genes), or in genes with unknown or unproven association with cancer.

CONCLUSION

Using multi-gene panels enables rapid, cost-effective identification of individuals with high-risk cancer predisposition syndromes. However, this approach also leads to an increased amount of uncertain results. Clinical management of individuals with particular genetic variants in the absence of a matching phenotype/family history is challenging. Further population and functional evidence is required to fully elucidate the clinical relevance of variants in genes of uncertain significance.

SEOM clinical guidelines in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (2019)

Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 high penetrance genes account for most hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, although other new high-moderate penetrance genes included in multigene panels have increased the genetic diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families by 50%. Multigene cancer panels provide new challenges related to increased frequency of variants of uncertain significance, new gene-specific cancer risk assessments, and clinical recommendations for carriers of mutations of new genes. Although clinical criteria for genetic testing continue to be largely based on personal and family history with around a 10% detection rate, broader criteria are being applied with a lower threshold for detecting mutations when there are therapeutic implications for patients with breast or ovarian cancer. In this regard, new models of genetic counselling and testing are being implemented following the registration of PARP inhibitors for individuals who display BRCA mutations. Massive sequencing techniques in tumor tissue is also driving a paradigm shift in genetic testing and potential identification of germline mutations. In this paper, we review the current clinical criteria for genetic testing, as well as surveillance recommendations in healthy carriers, risk reduction surgical options, and new treatment strategies in breast cancer gene-mutated carriers.

Identifying sequence variants contributing to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative breast and ovarian cancer patients

Families with breast and ovarian cancer are often tested for disease associated sequence variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Pathogenic sequence variants (PVs) in these two genes are known to increase breast and ovarian cancer risks in females. However, in most families no PVs are detected in these two genes. Currently, several studies have identified other genes involved in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). To identify genetic risk factors for breast and ovarian cancer in a Norwegian HBOC cohort, 101 breast and/or ovarian cancer patients negative for PVs and variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS) in BRCA1/2 were screened for PVs in 94 genes using next-generation sequencing. Sixteen genes were closely scrutinized. Nine different deleterious germline PVs/likely pathogenic variants (LPVs) were identified in seven genes in 12 patients: three in ATM, and one in CHEK2, ERCC5, FANCM, RAD51C, TP53 and WRN. Additionally, 32 different VUSs were identified and these require further characterization. For carriers of PV/LPV in many of these genes, there are no national clinical management programs in Norway. The diversity of genetic risk factors possibly involved in cancer development show the necessity for more knowledge to improve the clinical follow-up of this genetically diverse patient group.

Germline Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Risk: The Past, Present, and Future

The field of germline genetic testing for breast cancer (BC) risk has evolved substantially in the last decade. The introduction of multigene panel testing (MGPT) led to an urgent need to understand the cancer risk associated with several genes included in the panels. Although the research on understanding the cancer risk associated with mutations in several genes continues, there is also a need to understand the modifying effects of race and ethnicity, family history, and BC pathology on the prevalence of germline mutations and associated BC risk. Furthermore, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to predict BC risk in patients with or without germline mutations in cancer-predisposition genes are now available for clinical use, although data on the clinical utility of PRSs are lacking. In patients with advanced BC associated with BRCA1/2 mutation, olaparib and talazoparib are now approved for treatment. In addition, molecular profiling studies are being used to clarify the BC tumor biology in mutation carriers to identify potential therapeutic options. In this article, we discuss these advances in the field of germline genetic testing and highlight current limitations and implications for clinical care.

RAD51D splice variants and cancer-associated mutations reveal XRCC2 interaction to be critical for homologous recombination

The proficiency of cancer cells to repair DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) by homologous recombination (HR) is a key determinant in predicting response to targeted therapies such as PARP inhibitors. The RAD51 paralogs work as multimeric complexes and act downstream of BRCA1 to facilitate HR. Numerous epidemiological studies have linked RAD51 paralog mutations with hereditary cancer predisposition. Despite their substantial links to cancer, RAD51 paralog HR function has remained elusive. Here we identify isoform 1 as the functional isoform of RAD51D, whereas isoform 4 which has a large N-terminal deletion (including the Walker A motif), and isoform 6 which includes an alternate exon in the N-terminus, are non-functional. To determine the importance of this N-terminal region, we investigated the impact of cancer-associated mutations and SNPs in this variable RAD51D N-terminal region using yeast-2-hybrid and yeast-3-hybrid assays to screen for altered protein-protein interactions. We identified two cancer-associated mutations close to or within the Walker A motif (G96C and G107 V, respectively) that independently disrupt RAD51D interaction with XRCC2. We validated our yeast interaction data in human U2OS cells by co-immunoprecipitation and determined the impact of these mutations on HR-proficiency using a sister chromatid recombination reporter assay in a RAD51D knock-out cell line. Our investigation reveals that the interaction of RAD51D with XRCC2 is required for DSB repair. By characterizing the impact of cancer-associated mutations on RAD51D interactions, we aim to develop predictive models for therapeutic sensitivity and resistance in patients who harbor similar mutations in RAD51D.

Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?

PURPOSE

An estimated 10% of breast and ovarian cancers result from hereditary causes. Current testing guidelines for germ line susceptibility genes in patients with breast carcinoma were developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/ 2 variants and have evolved in the panel-testing era. We evaluated the capability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to identify patients with breast cancer with pathogenic variants in expanded panel testing.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved multicenter prospective registry was initiated with 20 community and academic sites experienced in cancer genetic testing and counseling. Eligibility criteria included patients with a previously or newly diagnosed breast cancer who had not undergone either single- or multigene testing. Consecutive patients 18 to 90 years of age were consented and underwent an 80-gene panel test. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic case report forms collected information on patient demographics, diagnoses, phenotypes, and test results.

RESULTS

More than 1,000 patients were enrolled, and data records for 959 patients were analyzed; 49.95% met NCCN criteria, and 50.05% did not. Overall, 8.65% of patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. Of patients who met NCCN guidelines with test results, 9.39% had a P/LP variant. Of patients who did not meet guidelines, 7.9% had a P/LP variant. The difference in positive results between these groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test P = .4241).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that nearly half of patients with breast cancer with a P/LP variant with clinically actionable and/or management guidelines in development are missed by current testing guidelines. We recommend that all patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergo expanded panel testing.

Horizon Scan Of Clinical Laboratories Offering Pharmacogenetic Testing

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing involves the analysis of genes known to affect response to medications. The field has been projected as a leading application of personalized or precision medicine, but the use of PGx tests has been stymied, in part, by the lack of clinical evidence of utility and reported low provider awareness. Another factor is the availability of testing. The range and types of PGx tests available have not been assessed to date. In the period September 2017-January 2018 we analyzed the numbers and types of PGx tests offered by clinical testing laboratories in the US. Of the 111 such labs that we identified, we confirmed that 76 offered PGx testing services. Of these, 31 offered only tests for single genes; 30 offered only tests for multiple genes; and 15 offered both types of tests. Collectively, 45 laboratories offered 114 multigene panel tests covering 295 genes. The majority of these tests did not have any clinical guidelines. PGx tests vary in type and makeup, which presents challenges in appropriate test evaluation and selection for providers, insurers, health systems, and patients alike.

Validation of a digital identification tool for individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes

Background

The number of individuals meeting criteria for genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) is far less than the number that actually receive it. To facilitate identification of patients at risk for HCS, Counsyl developed a digital identification tool (digital ID tool) to match personal and family cancer history to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) BRCA-related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, and polyposis testing criteria in one-to-one, automated fashion. The purpose of this study was to validate the ability of the digital ID tool to accurately identify histories that do and do not meet NCCN testing criteria.

Methods

Third-party recorded three-generation pedigrees were retrospectively reviewed by a certified genetic counselor (CGC) to determine if independent events included in pedigree histories met NCCN guidelines, and were then sorted into groups: high risk events (meets criteria) and low risk events (does not meet criteria). Events were entered into the digital ID tool to determine the extent of its concordance with events sorted by CGC review. Statistical tests of accuracy were calculated at a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

One hundred ninety-seven pedigrees were reviewed consecutively representing 765 independent events for analysis across groups. 382/382 (100%) high risk events identified by the digital ID tool and 381/383 (99.47%) low risk events identified by the digital ID tool were concordant with CGC sorting. The digital ID tool had a sensitivity of 100% (99.04–100% CI) and specificity of 99.48% (98.13–99.94% CI). The overall accuracy of the digital ID tool was estimated to be 99.74% (99.06–99.97% CI), reflecting the rate at which the digital ID tool reached the same conclusion as that of CGC review of pedigree events for the recommendation of genetic testing for individuals at risk for HCS.

Conclusions

The digital ID tool accurately matches NCCN criteria in one-to-one fashion to identify at-risk individuals for HCS and may be useful in clinical practice, specifically for BRCA-related HBOC and Lynch Syndrome.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13053-018-0099-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prevalence of nonfounder BRCA1/2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish patients presenting for genetic testing at a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer center

BACKGROUND

Genetic assessment in Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) patients often is limited to BRCA1/2 founder mutation testing. With access to time-efficient and cost-efficient multigene panel testing, some advocate expanding genetic testing in this population. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, rates of nonfounder BRCA1/2 mutations and mutations in cancer-associated genes other than BRCA1/2 among AJ are not known. In the current study, the authors sought to assess the prevalence of mutations other than BRCA1/2 founder mutations among AJ patients undergoing genetic assessment.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the medical records for all AJ patients who underwent genetic assessment at a single institution between June 2013 and December 2016. Mutations were categorized as 1) BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations (BRCA1 185delAG, BRCA1 5382insC, or BRCA2 6174delT); 2) nonfounder BRCA1/2 mutations; or 3) mutations in non-BRCA1/2 cancer-associated genes.

RESULTS

A total of 732 AJ patients underwent genetic assessment. Of these, 371 patients (51%) had a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer, 540 patients (73.8%) had a family history of breast cancer, and 132 patients (18%) had a family history of ovarian cancer. In the study population, 101 patients (13.8%) were found to have a pathogenic mutation, 78 patients (10.7%) had a BRCA1/2 founder mutation, 3 patients (0.4%) had a nonfounder BRCA1/2 mutation, and 20 patients (2.7%) had a mutation in a non-BRCA1/2 cancer-associated gene. Non-BRCA1/2 cancer-associated genes harboring mutations included RAD51D, TP53, mutS homolog 6 (MSH6), checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2), adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), and Fanconi anemia group C protein (FANCC).

CONCLUSIONS

Among AJ patients found to have a pathogenic mutation on genetic assessment, approximately 22.8% had a mutation that would be missed with BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutation testing. Comprehensive multigene panel sequencing can provide clinically relevant genetic information for AJ patients and should be considered for genetic assessment in this population.

Next Generation Sequencing: From Research Area to Clinical Practice

Translating the power of high-throughput sequencing technologies from research area into clinical medicine is one of the major goal for several researchers and health-care providers. One of the important advantages of these technologies is that they can be successfully used in a numerous range of clinical applications. The efficiency of sequencing, that can now be achieved, is leading impressive progress in the diagnostics of common and rare genetic disorders, inherited forms of cancer, prenatal testing or infectious diseases, to cite some examples. Despite several challenges and limitations still remain to overcome, the high-throughput sequencing technologies are leading to real and unprecedented benefits for the medical care of patients.

Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in Medicare Patients: Genetic Testing Criteria Miss the Mark

BACKGROUND

An estimated 5-10% of breast and ovarian cancers are due to hereditary causes such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Medicare, the third-party payer that covers 44 million patients in the United States, has implemented a set of clinical criteria to determine coverage for the testing of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. These criteria, developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/2 variants, have not been evaluated in the panel testing era. This study investigated a series of Medicare patients undergoing genetic testing for HBOC to determine the efficacy of genetic testing criteria in identifying patients with hereditary risk.

METHODS

This study retrospectively examined de-identified data from a consecutive series of Medicare patients undergoing genetic testing based on personal and family history of breast and gynecologic cancer. Ordering clinicians indicated whether patients did or did not meet established criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. The genetic test results were compared between the group that met the criteria and the group that did not. Patients in families with known pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variants were excluded from the primary analysis.

RESULTS

Among 4196 unique Medicare patients, the rate of P/LP variants for the patients who met the criteria for genetic testing was 10.5%, and for those who did not, the rate was 9% (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that a substantial number of Medicare patients with clinically actionable genetic variants are being missed by current testing criteria and suggest the need for significant expansion and simplification of the testing criteria for HBOC.

Utility of Expedited Hereditary Cancer Testing in the Surgical Management of Patients with a New Breast Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of a germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV) may inform breast cancer management. BRCA1/2 PV often impact surgical decisions, but data for multi-gene panel testing are lacking. Expedited genetic testing reduces turn-around times based on request for treatment-related decision making. This report aims to describe the clinical utility of expedited multi-gene panel testing for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

METHODS

Clinical and demographic information were reviewed for patients with newly diagnosed female breast cancer undergoing expedited panel testing between 2013 and 2017. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (NCCN, version 1.2018) were evaluated in terms of published management recommendations for the genes in which PVs were identified.

RESULTS

The overall PV yield was 9.5% (678/7127) for women undergoing expedited panel testing, with 700 PVs identified among 678 women. PVs were identified in genes other than BRCA1/2 in 55.9% (391/700) of cases. The NCCN guidelines recommend management for the genes in which 96.6% (676/700) of PVs are identified. The NCCN guidelines also recommend risk-reducing mastectomy for 46.0% (322/700) of PVs identified. An additional 45.6% (319/700) of PVs were identified in genes for which NCCN recommends mastectomy based on family history. In addition, 49.9% (349/700) of PVs were in genes with NCCN guidelines recommending prophylactic surgery for tissues other than breast.

CONCLUSION

A majority of the patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were candidates for surgical intervention according to the NCCN guidelines, and half of these patients would have been missed if only BRCA1/2 testing had been ordered. Expedited multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing should be considered as a first-line approach to provide comprehensive information for breast cancer management.

Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations

In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients' representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the "actionability" of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.

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.