Consensus Guidelines on Genetic` Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer from the American Society of Breast Surgeons

A Prospective Questionnaire-Based Study Evaluating Genetic Literacy and Impact of Brief Educational Intervention Among Breast Cancer Patients in a Low- to Middle-Income Country

INTRODUCTION

A significant proportion of breast cancer cases are hereditary and are potentially preventable. However, adoption of the preventive measures remains a significant challenge, particularly because of to lack of knowledge and awareness in low- to middle-income countries.

METHODS

This prospective study conducted at a high-volume tertiary care cancer center in North India to assess the knowledge, awareness, and attitudes of female breast cancer patients and impact of a brief educational intervention. The study involved three phases: pre-interventional assessment, educational intervention, and post-interventional assessment utilizing a structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

The study involved 300 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients; 16.7% were familial. At the outset, 87.0% patients had low knowledge of risk factors, 90.3% about screening, and 32.7% about treatment. Awareness levels were low: 13.7% aware of familial risk and 2.7% of breast cancer genes. Affordability of genetic testing was low (15.2%), and interest in testing for self and family members was limited (32.0% and 26.3%). Following educational intervention, a significant positive percentage change was noticed in knowledge (risk factors: 12.8%, screening: 36.2%, treatment: 82%), awareness (familial risk: 66.7%, BRCA gene: 12.3%), and attitude (testing for self: 17.8%, family: 19.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the significant knowledge gaps among breast cancer patients regarding genetics. The educational intervention led to notable improvements in knowledge, awareness, and attitudes, underscoring the importance of tailored patient education in breast cancer care.

Tumors, Treatments, and Trust: Cancer Characteristics, Outcomes, and Screening Uptake in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients

BACKGROUND

More than 2.5 million adults in the United States identify as transgender or gender-diverse (TGD), but little data exist on cancer screening and care for this population. We examined cancer characteristics, screening adherence, genetic testing, and provider inclusive language for TGD patients with cancer.

METHODS

This single institution retrospective cohort study identified TGD patients with cancer between 2000 and 2022. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment, and screening data were collected, as well as data on gender-affirming care (GAC) and use of patients' personal pronouns in medical records. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to report outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty unique patients with 69 cancer diagnoses were included: 63.3% were transgender women, 21.7% transgender men, 6.7% nonbinary, and 8.3% were genderqueer. Sixty-five percent had a family history of cancer. Only 46.2% of those who met genetic testing criteria were referred. On review of recommended cancer screening, colorectal screening had the greatest uptake (62%), followed by breast (48.3%), lung (35.7%), cervical (33.3%), and prostate (32%); 8.5% of cancers were diagnosed on screening. Individuals with Medicare had reduced odds of screening uptake (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) versus private insurance. With respect to GAC, 73.3% used gender-affirming hormone therapy and 41% had gender-affirming surgery. After initiating GAC and asserting personal pronouns, 75% were referred to by incorrect name/pronouns in provider documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our TGD cancer patient cohort had low rates of disease-specific cancer screening and inadequate genetic referrals. Many providers did not use appropriate patient names/pronouns. Provider and patient interventions are needed to ensure inclusive preventative and oncologic care for this marginalized population.

Using polygenic risk modification to improve breast cancer prevention: study protocol for the PRiMo multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Established personal and familial risk factors contribute collectively to a woman's risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Existing clinical services offer genetic testing for pathogenic variants in high-risk genes to investigate these risks but recent information on the role of common genomic variants, in the form of a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS), has provided the potential to further personalise breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. Data from cohort studies support the potential of an integrated risk assessment to improve targeted risk management but experience of this approach in clinical practice is limited.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The polygenic risk modification trial is an Australian multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial of integrated risk assessment including personal and family risk factors with inclusion of breast and ovarian PRS vs standard care. The study will enrol women, unaffected by cancer, undergoing predictive testing at a familial cancer clinic for a pathogenic variant in a known breast cancer (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC) predisposition gene (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C, RAD51D). Array-based genotyping will be used to generate breast cancer (313 SNP) and ovarian cancer (36 SNP) PRS. A suite of materials has been developed for the trial including an online portal for patient consent and questionnaires, and a clinician education programme to train healthcare providers in the use of integrated risk assessment. Long-term follow-up will evaluate differences in the assessed risk and management advice, patient risk management intentions and adherence, patient-reported experience and outcomes, and the health service implications of personalised risk assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and at all participating centres. Study findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and directly to participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000009819.

Germline Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Current Concepts in Risk Evaluation

Our understanding of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer has significantly improved over the past two decades. In addition to BRCA1/2, pathogenic variants in several other DNA-repair genes have been shown to increase the risks of breast and ovarian cancer. The magnitude of cancer risk is impacted not only by the gene involved, but also by family history of cancer, polygenic risk scores, and, in certain genes, pathogenic variant type or location. While estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants are available, these are predominantly based on studies of high-risk populations with young age at diagnosis of cancer, multiple primary cancers, or family history of cancer. More recently, breast cancer risk for germline pathogenic variant carriers has been estimated from population-based studies. Here, we provide a review of the field of germline genetic testing and risk evaluation for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in high-risk and population-based settings.

Universal genetic counseling in breast cancer patients significantly improves overall testing rates and improves completion rates in subpopulations

PURPOSE

The NCCN guidelines recommend genetic testing in those patients at increased risk of breast cancer in order to identify candidates for increased frequency of screening or prophylactic mastectomy. However, genetic testing may now identify patients who may benefit from recently developed targeted breast cancer therapy. In order to more widely identify these patients, we implemented genetic counseling for all patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

In 2021, all patients evaluated within a Midwestern community hospital system diagnosed with breast cancer were offered genetic counseling. This group of patients was compared to a cohort of patients in 2021 who were offered genetic counseling based on NCCN guidelines. With Pearson's chi square, Fisher's Exact test, Mann-Whitney U, and multivariate regression as appropriate, individual demographic data and genetic testing completion between 2019 and 2021 were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 973 patients were reviewed. 439 were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 and 534 in 2021. Demographics and stage at diagnosis (p = 0.194) were similar between years. Completion of genetic testing increased from 204 (46.5%) in 2019 to 338 (63.3%) in 2021 (p < 0.01) with the universal counseling protocol. Specifically, genetic testing completion increased significantly in older patients (p = 0.041) and patients receiving Medicare benefits (p = 0.005). The overall pathogenic variants found increased from 32 to 39 with the most common including BRCA2 (n = 11), CFTR (n = 9), CHEK2 (n = 8), BRCA1 (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

Universal genetic counseling was related to a significant increase in genetic testing completion and an increase in pathogenic variants found among breast cancer patients, specifically in subpopulations which may have been previously excluded by traditional NCCN genetic testing screening guidelines.

Screening and Testing for Homologous Recombination Repair Deficiency (HRD) in Breast Cancer: an Overview of the Current Global Landscape

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) increases breast cancer susceptibility and influences both prophylactic and active management of breast cancer. This review evaluates HRD testing and the therapeutic implications of HRD in a global context.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ongoing research efforts have highlighted the importance of HRD beyond BRCA1/2 as a potential therapeutic target in breast cancer. However, despite the improved affordability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and the discovery of PARP inhibitors, economic and geographical barriers in access to HRD testing and breast cancer screening do not allow all patients to benefit from the personalized treatment approach they provide. Advancements in HRD testing modalities and targeted therapeutics enable tailored breast cancer management. However, inequalities in access to testing and optimized treatments are contributing to widening health disparities globally.

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling

BACKGROUND

Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing.

RESULTS

A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Family Communication Into Survivorship After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To examine receipt of genetic testing and communication with relatives about results into survivorship after diagnosis of breast cancer.

METHODS

Women age 20-79 years diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in 2014-2015 and reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries were surveyed approximately 7 months and 6 years after diagnosis (n = 1,412). We asked about genetic counseling, testing, and communication with relatives about results. We categorized women into indications for testing on the basis of clinical guidelines at the time of diagnosis and at the time of the follow-up survey (FUPs).

RESULTS

A total of 47.4% had indications for genetic testing at any time: 28.0% at baseline and an additional 19.4% at the time of the FUPs (only); 71.9% (95% CI, 67.4 to 76.4) of those with a baseline indication reported genetic testing versus 53.3% (95% CI, 47.3 to 59.2) with an indication at FUPs only and 35.0% (95% CI, 31.6 to 38.4) with no indication (P < .001). There were no significant racial or ethnic differences in receipt of testing, controlling for age and clinical indications (P = .239); results for genetic counseling were similar. Only 3.4% of survivors had direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCt) for cancer. Testers who reported a pathogenic variant (n = 62) were much more likely to have talked to most or all their first-degree adult relatives about genetic testing than those with a variant of unknown significance (n = 49) or a negative finding (n = 419): 62.7% versus 38.8% and 38.0%, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Many women with indications for genetic counseling and testing into survivorship do not receive it. But those tested reach out to family members on the basis of the clinical relevance of their results. Very few patients obtained DTCt, which suggests that these tests do not substitute for clinical testing in breast cancer survivors.

Hereditary Breast Cancer: BRCA Mutations and Beyond

Hereditary breast cancers are manifested by pathogenic and likely pathogenic genetic mutations. Penetrance expresses the breast cancer risk associated with these genetic mutations. Although BRCA1/2 are the most widely known genetic mutations associated with breast cancer, numerous additional genes demonstrate high and moderate penetrance for breast cancer. This review describes current genetic testing, details the specific high and moderate penetrance genes for breast cancer and reviews the current approach to screening for breast cancer in patients with these genetic mutations.

Clinical genetics in breast cancer

As genetic testing becomes increasingly more accessible and more applicable with a broader range of clinical implications, it may also become more challenging for breast cancer providers to remain up-to-date. This review outlines some of the current clinical guidelines and recent literature surrounding germline genetic testing, as well as genomic testing, in the screening, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast cancer, while identifying potential areas of further research.

The Impact of a Breast Cancer Risk Assessment on the Decision for Gender-Affirming Chest Masculinization Surgery in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Pilot Single-Arm Educational Intervention Trial

BACKGROUND

Persons assigned female or intersex at birth and identify as transgender and/or gender-diverse (TGD) may undergo gender-affirming chest masculinization surgery (GACMS); however, GACMS is not considered equivalent to risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM). This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of elevated breast cancer (BC) risk in TGD persons, compare self-perceived versus calculated risk, and determine how risk impacts the decision for GACMS versus RRM.

METHODS

A prospective single-arm pilot educational intervention trial was conducted in individuals assigned female or intersex at birth, age ≥ 18 years, considering GACMS, without a BC history or a known pathogenic variant. BC risk was calculated using the Tyrer-Cuzik (all) and Gail models (age ≥ 35 years). Elevated risk was defined as ≥ 17%.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (N = 25) participants were enrolled with a median age of 24.0 years (interquartile range, IQR 20.0-30.0 years). All were assigned female sex at birth, most (84%) were Non-Hispanic (NH)-White, 48% identified as transgender and 40% as nonbinary, and 52% had a first- and/or second-degree family member with BC. Thirteen (52%) had elevated risk (prevalence 95% confidence interval (CI) 31.3-72.2%). Median self-perceived risk was 12% versus 17.5% calculated risk (p = 0.60). Of the 13 with elevated risk, 5 (38.5%) underwent/are scheduled to undergo GACMS, 3 (23%) of whom underwent/are undergoing RRM.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the cohort had elevated risk, and most of those who moved forward with surgery chose to undergo RRM. A BC risk assessment should be performed for TGD persons considering GACMS. Future work is needed to examine BC incidence and collect patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration Number ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT06239766).

Clinical Outcomes for BRCA Pathogenic Variant Carriers With Breast Cancer Undergoing Breast Conservation

Importance

Although most women with BRCA-associated breast cancer choose bilateral mastectomy, current guidelines support breast-conserving therapy as an option. As the indications for genetic testing expand and targeted therapies emerge, understanding the outcomes of breast-conserving therapy in the population of patients choosing breast conservation is important.

Objective

To describe the clinical outcomes of women with BRCA-associated breast cancer who were treated with breast-conserving therapy, including the risks of ipsilateral and contralateral cancer events and bilateral mastectomy-free survival.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study conducted at a single-institution academic national comprehensive cancer center included 172 women identified from a prospectively maintained database who had pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and were treated with breast-conserving therapy from January 1, 1977, to December 31, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical and pathologic characteristics for patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 were compared, and estimates of overall survival, bilateral mastectomy-free survival, distant disease-free survival, risk of ipsilateral breast cancer, and risk of contralateral cancer were computed.

Results

The cohort included 172 women (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [11.7] years), with 42 (24.4%) receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer prior to 40 years of age. Compared with BRCA2 variant carriers (80 [46.5%]), women with BRCA1 variants (92 [53.5%]) were younger at breast cancer diagnosis and tended to have more advanced tumors, which were more likely to be hormone receptor negative and higher grade. At a median follow-up of 11.8 years (IQR, 5.7-18.2 years), estimates of 10-year survival and risk were: overall survival, 88.5% (95% CI, 83.1%-94.2%); bilateral mastectomy-free survival, 70.7% (95% CI, 63.3%-78.9%); risk of an ipsilateral breast cancer event, 12.2% (95% CI, 5.8%-18.2%); and risk of contralateral cancer, 21.3% (95% CI, 13.3%-28.6%). Risks continued to increase after 10 years of follow-up.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, although women with breast cancer and pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants treated with breast-conserving therapy had above-average risks of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events, most did not have another cancer event and remained bilateral mastectomy free. These findings may be useful for informing patients with BRCA variants choosing breast conservation.

A predictive model using MRI and clinicopathologic features for breast cancer recurrence in young women treated with upfront surgery

OBJECTIVES

To identify preoperative breast MR imaging and clinicopathological variables related to recurrence and develop a risk prediction model for recurrence in young women with breast cancer treated with upfront surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 438 consecutive women with breast cancer aged 35 years or younger between January 2007 and December 2016. Breast MR images before surgery were independently reviewed by breast radiologists blinded to patient outcomes. The clinicopathological data including patient demographics, clinical features, and tumor characteristics were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent factors associated with recurrence. The risk prediction model for recurrence was developed, and the discrimination and calibration abilities were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 438 patients, 95 (21.7%) developed recurrence after a median follow-up of 65 months. Tumor size at MR imaging (HR = 1.158, p = 0.006), multifocal or multicentric disease (HR = 1.676, p = 0.017), and peritumoral edema on T2WI (HR = 2.166, p = 0.001) were identified as independent predictors of recurrence, while adjuvant endocrine therapy (HR = 0.624, p = 0.035) was inversely associated with recurrence. The prediction model showed good discrimination ability in predicting 5-year recurrence (C index, 0.707 in the development cohort; 0.686 in the validation cohort) and overall recurrence (C index, 0.699 in the development cohort; 0.678 in the validation cohort). The calibration plot demonstrated an excellent correlation (concordance correlation coefficient, 0.903).

CONCLUSION

A prediction model based on breast MR imaging and clinicopathological features showed good discrimination to predict recurrence in young women with breast cancer treated with upfront surgery, which could contribute to individualized risk stratification.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Our prediction model, incorporating preoperative breast MR imaging and clinicopathological features, predicts recurrence in young women with breast cancer undergoing upfront surgery, facilitating personalized risk stratification and informing tailored management strategies.

KEY POINTS

Younger women with breast cancer have worse outcomes than those diagnosed at more typical ages. The described prediction model showed good discrimination performance in predicting 5-year and overall recurrence. Incorporating better risk stratification tools in this population may help improve outcomes.

Genome-first evaluation with exome sequence and clinical data uncovers underdiagnosed genetic disorders in a large healthcare system

Population-based genomic screening may help diagnose individuals with disease-risk variants. Here, we perform a genome-first evaluation for nine disorders in 29,039 participants with linked exome sequences and electronic health records (EHRs). We identify 614 individuals with 303 pathogenic/likely pathogenic or predicted loss-of-function (P/LP/LoF) variants, yielding 644 observations; 487 observations (76%) lack a corresponding clinical diagnosis in the EHR. Upon further investigation, 75 clinically undiagnosed observations (15%) have evidence of symptomatic untreated disease, including familial hypercholesterolemia (3 of 6 [50%] undiagnosed observations with disease evidence) and breast cancer (23 of 106 [22%]). These genetic findings enable targeted phenotyping that reveals new diagnoses in previously undiagnosed individuals. Disease yield is greater with variants in penetrant genes for which disease is observed in carriers in an independent cohort. The prevalence of P/LP/LoF variants exceeds that of clinical diagnoses, and some clinically undiagnosed carriers are discovered to have disease. These results highlight the potential of population-based genomic screening.

Evaluating the utility of multi-gene, multi-disease population-based panel testing accounting for uncertainty in penetrance estimates

Panel germline testing allows for the efficient detection of deleterious variants for multiple conditions, but the benefits and harms of identifying these variants are not always well understood. We present a multi-gene, multi-disease aggregate utility formula that allows the user to consider adding or removing each gene in a panel based on variant frequency, estimated penetrances, and subjective disutilities for testing positive but not developing the disease and testing negative but developing the disease. We provide credible intervals for utility that reflect uncertainty in penetrance estimates. Rare, highly penetrant deleterious variants tend to contribute positive net utilities for a wide variety of user-specified disutilities, even when accounting for parameter estimation uncertainty. However, the clinical utility of deleterious variants with moderate, uncertain penetrance depends more on assumed disutilities. The decision to include a gene on a panel depends on variant frequency, penetrance, and subjective utilities and should account for uncertainties around these factors.

PARP Inhibitors for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review

Importance

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of patients with germline BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer, representing the first targeted therapy capable of improving outcomes in patients with hereditary tumors. However, resistance to PARP inhibitors occurs in almost all patients.

Observations

This narrative review summarizes the biological rationale behind the use of PARP inhibitors in breast cancer, as well as the available evidence, recent progress, and potential future applications of these agents. Recent studies have shown that the benefit of PARP inhibitors extends beyond patients with germline BRCA1/2-associated metastatic breast cancer to patients with somatic BRCA1/2 variants and to those with germline PALB2 alterations. Moreover, these agents proved to be effective both in the metastatic and adjuvant settings. However, patients with metastatic breast cancer usually do not achieve the long-term benefit from PARP inhibitors observed in other tumor types. Mechanisms of resistance have been identified, but how to effectively target them is largely unknown. Ongoing research is investigating both novel therapeutics and new combination strategies to overcome resistance. PARP1-selective inhibitors, by sparing the hematological toxic effects induced by the PARP2 blockade, are promising agents to be combined with chemotherapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and other targeted therapies.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although the efficacy of PARP inhibitors is well established, many questions persist. Future research should focus on identifying predictive biomarkers and therapeutic strategies to overcome resistance. Integrating well-designed translational efforts into all clinical studies is thereby crucial to laying the groundwork for future insights from ongoing research.

Integration and usability of a digital cancer risk stratification tool to optimize identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancers: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Patients with a personal or family history of cancer may have elevated risk of developing future cancers, which often remains unrecognized due to lapses in screening. This pilot study assessed the usability and clinical outcomes of a cancer risk stratification tool in a gynecologic oncology clinic.

METHODS

New gynecologic oncology patients were prompted to complete a commercially developed personal and family history-based risk stratification tool to assess eligibility for genetic testing using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and estimated lifetime breast cancer risk using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. After use of the risk stratification tool, usability was assessed via completion rate and the System Usability Scale, and health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF Health Literacy Screening Tool.

RESULTS

130 patients were prompted to complete the risk stratification tool; 93 (72%) completed the tool. Race and ethnicity and insurance type were not associated with tool completion. The median System Usability Scale score was 83 out of 100 (interquartile range, 60-95). Health literacy positively correlated with perceived usability. Public insurance and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White was associated with lower perceived usability. Sixty (65%) patients met eligibility criteria for genetic testing, and 21 (38% of 56 eligible patients) were candidates for enhanced breast cancer screening based on an estimated lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥20%.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients completed the digital cancer risk stratification tool. Older age, lower health literacy, public insurance, and race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White were associated with lower perceived tool usability.

Biomarker-specific biosensors revolutionise breast cancer diagnosis

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women across the globe. In order to treat breast cancer successfully, it is crucial to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the condition during its initial stages. Although mammogram screening has long been a common method of breast cancer screening, high rates of type I error and type II error results as well as radiation exposure have always been of concern. The outgrowth cancer mortality rate is primarily due to delayed diagnosis, which occurs most frequently in a metastatic III or IV stage, resulting in a poor prognosis after therapy. Traditional detection techniques require identifying carcinogenic properties of cells, such as DNA or RNA alterations, conformational changes and overexpression of certain proteins, and cell shape, which are referred to as biomarkers or analytes. These procedures are complex, long-drawn-out, and expensive. Biosensors have recently acquired appeal as low-cost, simple, and super sensitive detection methods for analysis. The biosensor approach requires the existence of biomarkers in the sample. Thus, the development of novel molecular markers for diverse forms of cancer is a rising complementary affair. These biosensor devices offer two major advantages: (1) a tiny amount of blood collected from the patient is sufficient for analysis, and (2) it could help clinicians swiftly select and decide on the best therapy routine for the individual. This review will include updates on prospective cancer markers and biosensors in cancer diagnosis, as well as the associated detection limitations, with a focus on biosensor development for marker detection.

TransEFVP: A Two-Stage Approach for the Prediction of Human Pathogenic Variants Based on Protein Sequence Embedding Fusion

Studying the effect of single amino acid variations (SAVs) on protein structure and function is integral to advancing our understanding of molecular processes, evolutionary biology, and disease mechanisms. Screening for deleterious variants is one of the crucial issues in precision medicine. Here, we propose a novel computational approach, TransEFVP, based on large-scale protein language model embeddings and a transformer-based neural network to predict disease-associated SAVs. The model adopts a two-stage architecture: the first stage is designed to fuse different feature embeddings through a transformer encoder. In the second stage, a support vector machine model is employed to quantify the pathogenicity of SAVs after dimensionality reduction. The prediction performance of TransEFVP on blind test data achieves a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.751, an F1-score of 0.846, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.871, higher than the existing state-of-the-art methods. The benchmark results demonstrate that TransEFVP can be explored as an accurate and effective SAV pathogenicity prediction method. The data and codes for TransEFVP are available at https://github.com/yzh9607/TransEFVP/tree/master for academic use.

Germline mutations of 4567 patients with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer spectrum in Thailand

Multi-gene panel testing has led to the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in many cancer susceptibility genes in patients with breast-ovarian cancer spectrum. However, the clinical and genomic data of Asian populations, including Thai cancer patients, was underrepresented, and the clinical significance of multi-gene panel testing in Thailand remains undetermined. In this study, we collected the clinical and genetic data from 4567 Thai patients with cancer in the hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) spectrum who underwent multi-gene panel testing. Six hundred and ten individuals (13.4%) had germline P/LP variants. Detection rates of germline P/LP variants in breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer were 11.8%, 19.8%, 14.0%, and 7.1%, respectively. Non-BRCA gene mutations accounted for 35% of patients with germline P/LP variants. ATM was the most common non-BRCA gene mutation. Four hundred and thirty-two breast cancer patients with germline P/LP variants (80.4%) met the current NCCN genetic testing criteria. The most common indication was early-onset breast cancer. Ten patients harbored double pathogenic variants in this cohort. Our result showed that a significant proportion of non-BRCA P/LP variants were identified in patients with HBOC-related cancers. These findings support the benefit of multi-gene panel testing for inherited cancer susceptibility among Thai HBOC patients. Some modifications of the testing policy may be appropriate for implementation in diverse populations.

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 Potential of Genetics in Identifying Women at Lower Risk of Breast Cancer

Importance

Genetic information is not being used to identify women at lower risk of breast cancer or other diseases in clinical practice. With the new US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines lowering the age for mammogram screening for all, there is a potential benefit in identifying women at lower risk of disease who may defer the start of mammographic screening. This genetic risk-based approach would help mitigate overscreening, associated costs, and anxiety.

Objective

To assess breast cancer incidence and age of onset among women at low genetic risk compared with women at average risk and evaluate the potential to delay mammography on the basis of genetic risk stratification.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective case-control study included 25 591 women from the Healthy Nevada Project sequenced by Helix between 2018 and 2022. Data extracted from electronic health records at the end of 2022 (mean length of electronic health record available was 12 years) were used for the analysis in 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Breast cancer diagnosis was identified from electronic health records. Classification to the low-risk genetic group required (1) the absence of pathogenic variants or a variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, or CHEK2, and (2) a low polygenic risk score (bottom 10%) using a 313-single-nucleotide variant model.

Results

Of 25 591 women in the study (mean [SD] age was 53.8 [16.9] years), 2338 women (9.1%) were classified as having low risk for breast cancer; 410 women (1.6%) were classified as high risk; and 22 843 women (89.3%) as average risk. There was a significant reduction in breast cancer diagnosis among the low-risk group (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.52; P < .001). By 45 years of age, 0.69% of women in the average-risk group were diagnosed with breast cancer, whereas women in the low-risk group reached this rate at 51 years. By 50 years of age, 1.41% of those in the average-risk group were diagnosed with breast cancer, whereas those in the low-risk group reached this rate at age 58 years. These findings suggest that deferring mammogram screening by 5 to 10 years for women at low risk of breast cancer aligns with new draft recommendations.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this retrospective case-control study underscore the value of genetics in individualizing the onset of breast cancer screening. Improving breast cancer risk stratification by implementing both high-risk and low-risk strategies in screening can refine preventive measures and optimize health care resource allocation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations

Importance

The OlympiA trial found that 1 year of adjuvant olaparib therapy can improve distant disease-free survival and overall survival from early-stage breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. However, olaparib, an oral poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitor, is estimated to cost approximately $14 000 per month in the US.

Objective

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib compared with no olaparib in eligible patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In an economic evaluation from a health care system perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib was analyzed using a Markov state-transition model. The model simulated costs and lifetime health outcomes of 42-year-old women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer and a known BRCA1/2 mutation who completed definitive primary therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2023. The effectiveness of olaparib was based on the findings of the OlympiA randomized clinical trial, and other model parameters were identified from the literature. The model was calibrated to the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year distant disease-free and overall survival observed in the OlympiA trial, and olaparib was assumed to reduce the risk of distant recurrence only in the first 4 years.

Exposure

One year of adjuvant olaparib or no adjuvant olaparib.

Main Outcome and Measure

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2021 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All outcomes were discounted by 3% annually.

Results

In the base case, adjuvant olaparib was associated with a 1.25-year increase in life expectancy and a 1.20-QALY increase at an incremental cost of $133 133 compared with no olaparib. The resulting ICER was approximately $111 000 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, olaparib was cost-effective at its 2021 price and in more than 92% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of olaparib and quality of life for patients with no disease recurrence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, from a US health care system perspective, adjuvant olaparib was a cost-effective option for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

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.

Influence of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy on textbook outcome attainment at time of mastectomy

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of textbook oncologic outcome (TOO) and its impact on overall survival (OS) among patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) following modified radical mastectomy (MRM) versus MRM with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (MRM ​+ ​CPM).

METHODS

The 2004-2017 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with IDC who underwent MRM and MRM ​+ ​CPM. TOO was defined as: resection with negative margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, length of stay ≤50th percentile, and no 30-day readmission or mortality.

RESULTS

87,573 patients were identified, of which 14.3% underwent MRM ​+ ​CPM. Logistic regression models revealed that MRM ​+ ​CPM is independently associated with a reduced likelihood of achieving TOO (AOR ​= ​0.71; P ​< ​0.001). MRM patients who achieved TOO had a higher median OS compared to those who did not (164.6 vs.142.2 months, P ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRM ​+ ​CPM is associated with a lower incidence of TOO attainment compared to MRM.

Pivotal Role of Genetic Counselors in the Uptake of Germline Genetic Testing in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer and the Impact of Testing on Surgical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in breast cancer patients; however, testing rates remain low. We aimed to evaluate the rate of genetic testing at a tertiary academic medical center utilizing a multidisciplinary clinic model including genetic counselor.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review was performed on a cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from January 2018 through February 2019. Patients were reviewed for genetic screening eligibility, consultation with a genetic counselor, and test results.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 426 patients. 261 (61.3%) were found to meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing, of which 178 patient (68.2%) underwent testing and 32 patients (12.3%) declined testing. Of the 165 not eligible for testing, 5 patients were tested. A total of 183 patients underwent testing and 116 (63.4%) had a negative result, 17 (9.3%) were positive for at least one gene mutation and 50 (27.3%) were identified to have a variant of unknown significance (VUS). There was a positive association between those patients who met with a genetic counselor and eligibility for testing (OR 31.1, 95% CI 16.0-60.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing result has become an increasingly important factor when defining optimal surgical treatment for breast cancer patients. Increasing the availability of genetic consultation for breast cancer patients can improve testing rates and patient selection.

Exome Sequencing Reveals Novel Germline Variants in Breast Cancer Patients in the Southernmost Region of Thailand

Germline carriers of pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes are at an increased risk of breast cancer (BC). We characterized germline variants in a cohort of 151 patients diagnosed with epithelial BC in the southernmost region of Thailand, where the predominant ethnicity differs from that of the rest of the country. Whole exome sequencing was used to identify and subsequently filter variants present in 26 genes known to be associated with cancer predisposition. Of the 151 individuals assessed, 23, corresponding to 15.2% of the sample, exhibited the presence of one or more pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with BC susceptibility. We identified novel germline truncating variants in BRIP1, CHEK2, MSH6, PALB2, and PTEN and annotated variants of uncertain significance (VUSs), both novel and previously documented. Therefore, it is advisable to use genetic testing as an additional risk screening method for BC in this area.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent.

METHODS

Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons.

RESULTS

Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Combining clinical and molecular characterization of CDH1: a multidisciplinary approach to reclassification of a splicing variant

Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in the CDH1 gene are associated with diffuse gastric and lobular breast cancer syndrome (DGLBC) and can increase the lifetime risk for both diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. Given the risk for diffuse gastric cancer among individuals with CDH1 PGVs is up to 30-40%, prophylactic total gastrectomy is often recommended to affected individuals. Therefore, accurate interpretation of CDH1 variants is of the utmost importance for proper clinical decision-making. Herein we present a 45-year-old female, with lobular breast cancer and a father with gastric cancer of unknown pathology at age 48, who was identified to have an intronic variant of uncertain significance in the CDH1 gene, specifically c.833-9 C > G. Although the proband did not meet the International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) criteria for gastric surveillance, she elected to pursue an upper endoscopy where non-targeted gastric biopsies identified a focus of signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC). The proband then underwent a total gastrectomy, revealing numerous SRCC foci, but no invasive diffuse gastric cancer. Simultaneously, a genetic testing laboratory performed RNA sequencing to further analyze the CDH1 intronic variant, identifying an abnormal transcript from a novel acceptor splice site. The RNA analysis in conjunction with the patient's gastric foci of SRCC and family history was sufficient evidence for reclassification of the variant from uncertain significance to likely pathogenic. In conclusion, we report the first case of the CDH1 c.833-9 C > G intronic variant being associated with DGLBC and illustrate how collaboration among clinicians, laboratory personnel, and patients is crucial for variant resolution.

Genetic counseling and testing for females at elevated risk for breast cancer: Protocol for the randomized controlled trial of the Know Your Risk intervention

BACKGROUND

Genetic counseling and testing have an important role in the care of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. However, conventional pre- and post-test genetic counseling is labor and time intensive, less accessible for patients living outside major urban centers, and impractical on a large scale. A patient-driven approach to genetic counseling and testing may increase access, improve patients' experiences, affect efficiency of clinical practice, and help meet workforce demand. The objective of this 2-arm randomized controlled trial is to determine the efficacy of Know Your Risk (KYR), a genetic counseling patient preference intervention.

METHODS

Females (n = 1000) at elevated risk (>20% lifetime) for breast cancer will be randomized to the KYR intervention or conventional genetic counseling. The study will provide comprehensive assessment of breast cancer risk by multigene panel testing and validated polygenic risk score. Primary outcome is adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for a clinical encounter every 6-12 months and an annual mammogram (breast MRI if recommended) determined by medical record review. Secondary outcomes include adherence to other recommended cancer screening tests determined by medical record review and changes in breast cancer knowledge, perception of risk, post-test/counseling distress, and satisfaction with counseling by completion of three surveys during the study. Study aims will be evaluated for non-inferiority of the KYR intervention compared to conventional genetic counseling.

CONCLUSION

If efficacious, the KYR intervention has the potential to improve patients' experience and may change how genetic counseling is delivered, inform best practices, and reduce workforce burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT05325151.

Genetic cancer risk assessment for PA practice

ABSTRACT

The roles of cancer genetics and risk assessment as areas of medicine are rapidly evolving. Genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) has begun to penetrate patient care for providers in all specialties and areas of expertise. To provide comprehensive patient care and thorough risk evaluation, physician associates/assistants (PAs) should have a fundamental understanding of the role of GCRA as it pertains to their patients' overall health and medical management. This article highlights the importance of GCRA services, outlines resources for PAs to gain proficiency in GCRA, and provides a walkthrough of GCRA practice development and maintenance.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

Exploring Breast Surgeons' Attitudes on Universal Genetic Testing: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons released a consensus statement that genetic testing should be made available to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer. However, it is not clear whether physicians feel comfortable with universal genetic testing (UGT) or if they have sufficient knowledge to interpret results and manage them appropriately.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore breast surgeons' attitudes toward UGT.

METHODS

Breast surgeons were consented and scheduled for a semi-structured virtual interview. Transcripts were uploaded into qualitative analysis software where they were exhaustively and iteratively coded. Codes were then organized into higher-order categories and themes and data saturation were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-one surgeons completed the qualitative interview. Most surgeons practiced in the academic or community setting and most practiced in the Midwest (71.0%). The majority (90.3%) reported having a structured genetics program. The majority (96.8%) referred their patients to genetics for counseling and most preferred ordering testing through a genetic services provider. Some surgeons had concerns about access to genetic services. A minority of surgeons order UGT for all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The majority of respondents thought that more training in genetics was needed for surgeons. Many surgeons expressed concern about the psychosocial effects of UGT on patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Many surgeons expressed concerns about UGT, mainly related to discomfort with their training, access to genetic services, and the psychosocial impact on their patients. Future work is needed to determine how to improve surgeon's comfort level in implementing UGT.

Management of breast cancer patients with BRCA gene mutations in Jordan: perspectives and challenges

BACKGROUND

This paper explores and discusses local challenges oncologists face for diagnosing and managing breast cancer patients with BRCA gene mutations in Jordan.

METHODS

A task force involving key opinion leaders, experts in the management of breast cancer, and stakeholders in healthcare systems where genetic testing is available in Jordan discussed current evidence and local real-life practice. The task force then formulated recommendations to achieve better patient outcomes and satisfaction based on evidence-based medicine and their clinical experience in BRCA-mutated breast cancer management.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Eligibility of patients for genetic testing, physician acceptance and willingness to integrate genetic testing into routine practice is encouraging but remains restricted by testing availability and financial coverage. Until more data is available, genetic testing should be targeted for breast cancer patients based on tumor subtypes, as well as family and personal history of cancer, as per international guidelines. Whenever possible, genetic testing should aim to detect all actionable genes through a multigene panel including BRCA1/2. Major challenges faced in clinical practice in Jordan include fear of genetic discrimination and social stigmatization, as well as hesitancy toward risk-reducing surgery. Pre-testing counseling is therefore critical to promote acceptance of genetic testing. Since geneticists are in short supply in Jordan, genetic counseling can be offered through a specially trained genetic counselor or through a hybrid system that includes oncologist-based counselling. In addition to cancer prevention, germline genetic testing may assist in the selection of specific anti-cancer therapy, such as PARP inhibitors, in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation. Nationwide initiatives are also needed to ensure access to PARP inhibition therapy and provide financial coverage for genetic screening, mastectomies and reconstructive surgery across Jordan.

Personalized medicine with germline pathogenic variants: Importance of population- and region-wide evidence

Rare germline pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposing genes have a high impact and potential for clinical utility. In the last 30 years, based on evidence of cancer risk associated with germline pathogenic variants, several measures have been suggested for personalized medicine, including the development of novel treatments, treatment stratification, risk reduction by surgical measures, chemoprevention, removal of environmental factors, and surveillance for early detection among specific high-risk individuals. However, this evidence is mainly based on evaluations of European populations. Our large-scale analyses of more than 100,000 individuals, including 14 disease cases and non-cancer controls in the Japanese population, suggest some discrepancies in the associations between cancer-predisposing genes and diseases, expansion of the targeted diseases of BRCA1 and BRCA2, and a potential novel risk-reduction measure for gastric cancer. They are likely to be explained by population and region variations; therefore, more population-wide and region-wide research could provide improved personalized medicine as well as a better understanding of disease mechanisms. This review summarizes current personalized medicine and discusses the potential use of germline pathogenic variants.

Diverse genetic spectrum among patients who met the criteria of hereditary breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Genetic high-risk assessment combines hereditary breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer into one syndrome. However, there is a lack of data for comparing the germline mutational spectrum of the cancer predisposing genes between these three cancers.

METHODS

Patients who met the criteria of the hereditary breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer were enrolled and received multi-gene sequencing.

RESULTS

We enrolled 730 probands: 418 developed breast cancer, 185 had ovarian cancer, and 145 had pancreatic cancer. Out of the 18 patients who had two types of cancer, 16 had breast and ovarian cancer and 2 had breast and pancreatic cancer. A total of 167 (22.9%) patients had 170 mutations. Mutation frequency in breast, ovarian and pancreatic cancer was 22.3%, 33.5% and 17.2%, respectively. The mutation rate was significantly higher in patients with double cancers than those with a single cancer (p<0.001). BRCA1 and BRCA2 were the most dominant genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, whereas ATM was the most prevalent gene related to hereditary pancreatic cancer. Genes of hereditary colon cancer such as lynch syndrome were presented in a part of patients with pancreatic or ovarian cancer but seldom in those with breast cancer. Families with a history of both ovarian and breast cancer were associated with a higher mutation rate than those with other histories.

CONCLUSION

The mutation spectrum varies across the three cancer types and family histories. Our analysis provides guidance for physicians, counsellors, and counselees on the offer and uptake of genetic counseling.

MRI-Conditional Breast Tissue Expander: First In-Human Multi-Case Assessment of MRI-Related Complications and Image Quality

This study aims to assess potential complications and effects on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality of a new MRI-conditional breast tissue expander (Motiva Flora^®) in its first in-human multi-case application. Twenty-four patients with 36 expanders underwent non-contrast breast MRI with T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences on a 3 T unit before breast tissue expander exchange surgery, being monitored during and after MRI for potential complications. Three board-certified breast radiologists blindly and independently reviewed image quality using a four-level scale ("poor", "sufficient", "good", and "excellent"), with inter-reader reliability being assessed with Kendall's τ_b. The maximum diameters of RFID-related artifacts on T1-weighted and DWI sequences were compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. All 24 examinations were completed without patient-related or device-related complications. The T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences of all the examinations had "excellent" image quality and a median 11 mm (IQR 9-12 mm) RFID artifact maximum diameter, significantly lower (p < 0.001) than on the DWI images (median 32.5 mm, IQR 28.5-34.5 mm). DWI quality was rated at least "good" in 63% of the examinations, with strong inter-reader reliability (Kendall's τ_b 0.837, 95% CI 0.687-0.952). This first in-human study confirms the MRI-conditional profile of this new expander, which does not affect the image quality of T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences and moderately affects DWI quality.

[Clinical Application Examples of a Next-Generation Sequencing based Multi-Genepanel Analysis]

This review provides an overview of clinically useful applications of a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multi-gene panel testing strategy in the areas of oncology, hereditary tumor syndromes, and hematology. In the case of solid tumors (e.g. lung carcinoma, colon-rectal carcinoma), the detection of somatic mutations contributes not only to a better diagnostic but also therapeutic stratification of those affected. The increasing genetic complexity of hereditary tumor syndromes (e.g. breast and ovarian carcinoma, lynch syndrome/polyposis) requires a multi-gene panel analysis of germline mutations in affected families. Another useful indication for a multi-gene panel diagnostics and prognosis assessment are acute and chronic myeloid diseases. The criteria of the WHO-classification and the European LeukemiaNet-prognosis system for acute myeloid leukemia can only be met by a multi-gene panel test strategy.

Shared Decision Making in the Care of Patients With Cancer

Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that is suitable for the care of patients with cancer. It involves a collaborative conversation seeking to respond sensibly to the problematic situation of the patient, cocreating a plan of care that makes sense intellectually, practically, and emotionally. Genetic testing to identify whether a patient has a hereditary cancer syndrome represents a prime example of the importance for SDM in oncology. SDM is important for genetic testing because not only results affect current cancer treatment, cancer surveillance, and care of relatives but also these tests generate both complex results and psychological concerns. SDM conversations should take place without interruptions, disruptions, or hurry and be supported, where available, by tools that assist in conveying the relevant evidence and in supporting plan development. Examples of these tools include treatment SDM encounter aids and the Genetics Adviser. Patients are expected to play a key role in making decisions and implementing plans of care, but several evolving challenges related to the unfettered access to information and expertise of varying trustworthiness and complexity in between interactions with clinicians can both support and complicate this role. SDM should result in a plan of care that is maximally responsive to the biology and biography of each patient, maximally supportive of each patient's goals and priorities, and minimally disruptive of their lives and loves.

Adjuvant Olaparib for Germline BRCA Carriers With HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer: Evidence and Controversies

In the OlympiA study, 1 year of adjuvant olaparib significantly extended invasive disease-free survival and overall survival. The benefit was consistent across subgroups, and this regimen is now recommended after chemotherapy for germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCA1/2m) carriers with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, the integration of olaparib in the landscape of agents currently available in the post(neo)adjuvant setting-ie, pembrolizumab, abemaciclib, and capecitabine-is challenging, as there are no data suggesting how to select, sequence, and/or combine these therapeutic approaches. Furthermore, it is unclear how to best identify additional patients who could benefit from adjuvant olaparib beyond the original OlympiA criteria. Since it is unlikely that new clinical trials will answer these questions, recommendations for clinical practice can be made through indirect evidence. In this article, we review available data that could help guide treatment decisions for gBRCA1/2m carriers with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.

Hereditary Breast Cancer in Romania-Molecular Particularities and Genetic Counseling Challenges in an Eastern European Country

In Romania, breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in women. However, there is limited data on the prevalence of predisposing germline mutations in the population in the era of precision medicine, where molecular testing has become an indispensable tool in cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutics. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the prevalence, mutational spectrum, and histopathological prediction factors for hereditary breast cancer (HBC) in Romania. A cohort of 411 women diagnosed with BC selected upon NCCN v.1.2020 guidelines underwent an 84-gene NGS-based panel testing for breast cancer risk assessment during 2018-2022 in the Department of Oncogenetics of the Oncological Institute of Cluj-Napoca, Romania. A total of 135 (33%) patients presented pathogenic mutations in 19 genes. The prevalence of genetic variants was determined, and demographic and clinicopathological characteristics were analyzed. We observed differences among BRCA and non-BRCA carriers regarding family history of cancer, age of onset, and histopathological subtypes. Triple-negative (TN) tumors were more often BRCA1 positive, unlike BRCA2 positive tumors, which were more often the Luminal B subtype. The most frequent non-BRCA mutations were found in CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2, and several recurrent variants were identified for each gene. Unlike other European countries, germline testing for HBC is still limited due to the high costs and is not covered by the National Health System (NSH), thus leading to significant discrepancies related to the screening and prophylaxis of cancer.

Effect on Germline Mutation Rate in a High-Risk Chinese Breast Cancer Cohort after Compliance with The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2023 v.1 Testing Criteria

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) testing criteria for the high-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, specifically BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, have been recently modified in 2023 to 2023 v.1. The following criteria have been changed: (1) from a person diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤45 to ≤50; (2) from aged 45-50 of personal breast diagnosis to any age of diagnosis with multiple breast cancers; and (3) from aged ≥51 of personal breast diagnosis to any age of diagnosis with family history listed in NCCN 2022 v.2.

METHODS

High-risk breast cancer patients (n = 3797) were recruited from the Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry between 2007 and 2022. Patients were grouped according to NCCN testing criteria 2023 v.1 and 2022 v.2. A 30-gene panel for hereditary breast cancer was performed. The mutation rates on high-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes were compared.

RESULTS

About 91.2% of the patients met the 2022 v.2 criteria, while 97.5% of the patients met the 2023 v.1 criteria. An extra 6.4% of the patients were included after the revision of the criteria, and 2.5% of the patients did not meet both testing criteria. The germline BRCA1/2 mutation rates for patients meeting the 2022 v.2 and 2023 v.1 criteria were 10.1% and 9.6%, respectively. The germline mutation rates of all 6 high-penetrance genes in these two groups were 12.2% and 11.6%, respectively. Among the additional 242 patients who were included using the new selection criteria, the mutation rates were 2.1% and 2.5% for BRCA1/2 and all 6 high-penetrance genes, respectively. Patients who did not meet both testing criteria were those with multiple personal cancers, a strong family history of cancers not listed in the NCCN, unclear pathology information, or the patient's voluntary intention to be tested. The mutation rates of BRCA1/2 and the 6 high-penetrance genes in these patients were 5.3% and 6.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study provided a real-world application of the revision of NCCN guidelines and its effect on the germline mutation rate in the Chinese population. Applying the updated criteria for further genetic investigation would increase the positive detection rate, and potentially more patients would benefit. The balance between the resource and outcome requires careful consideration.

Germline Testing Around the Globe: Challenges in Different Practice Settings

Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. Lately, more emphasis has emerged on the importance of heredity in cancer, mostly driven by the introduction of germline genetic variants-directed therapeutics. It is true that 40% of cancer risk is attributed to modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors; still, 16% of cancers could be heritable, accounting for 2.9 of the 18.1 million cases diagnosed worldwide. At least two third of those will be diagnosed in countries with limited resources-low- and middle-income countries, especially where high rates of consanguine marriage and early age at diagnosis are already prevalent. Both are hallmarks of hereditary cancer. This creates a new opportunity for prevention, early detection, and recently therapeutic intervention. However, this opportunity is challenged by many obstacles along the path to addressing germline testing in patients with cancer in the clinic worldwide. Global collaboration and expertise exchange are important to bridge the knowledge gap and facilitate practical implementation. Adapting existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society.

What is the appropriate genetic testing criteria for breast cancer in the Chinese population?-Analysis of genetic and clinical features from a single cancer center database

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing plays an important role in guiding screening, diagnosis, and precision treatment of breast cancer (BC). However, the appropriate genetic testing criteria remain controversial. The current study aims to facilitate the development of suitable strategies by analyzing the germline mutational profiles and clinicopathological features of large-scale Chinese BC patients.

METHODS

BC patients who had undergone genetic testing at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC) from September 2014 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Different screening criteria were applied and compared in the population cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1035 BC patients were enrolled, 237 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (P/LPV) were identified in 235 patients, including 41 out of 203 (19.6%) patients tested only for BRCA1/2 genes, and 194 out of 832 (23.3%) received 21 genes panel testing. Among the 235 P/LPV carriers, 222 (94.5%) met the NCCN high-risk criteria, and 13 (5.5%) did not. While using Desai's criteria of testing, all females diagnosed with BC by 60 years and NCCN criteria for older patients, 234 (99.6%) met the high-risk standard, and only one did not. The 21 genes panel testing identified 4.9% of non-BRCA P/LPVs and a significantly high rate of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) (33.9%). The most common non-BRCA P/LPVs were PALB2 (11, 1.3%), TP53 (10, 1.2%), PTEN (3, 0.4%), CHEK2 (3, 0.4%), ATM (3, 0.4%), BARD1 (3, 0.4%), and RAD51C (2, 0.2%). Compared with BRCA1/2 P/LPVs, non-BRCA P/LPVs showed a significantly low incidence of NCCN criteria listed family history, second primary cancer, and different molecular subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Desai's criteria might be a more appropriate genetic testing strategy for Chinese BC patients. Panel testing could identify more non-BRCA P/LPVs than BRCA1/2 testing alone. Compared with BRCA1/2 P/LPVs, non-BRCA P/LPVs exhibited different personal and family histories of cancer and molecular subtype distributions. The optimal genetic testing strategy for BC still needs to be investigated with larger continuous population studies.

The association between age at breast cancer diagnosis and prevalence of pathogenic variants

PURPOSE

Young age at breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and family history of BC are strongly associated with high prevalence of pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. There is limited evidence for such associations with moderate/high penetrance BC-risk genes such as ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2.

METHODS

We analyzed multi-gene panel testing results (09/2013-12/2019) for women unaffected by any cancer (N = 371,594) and those affected with BC (N = 130,151) ascertained for suspicion of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test association between PV status and age at BC diagnosis (≤ 45 vs. > 45 years) or family history of BC after controlling for personal/family non-BC histories and self-reported ancestry.

RESULTS

An association between young age (≤ 45 years) at diagnosis and presence of PVs was strong for BRCA1 (OR 3.95, 95% CI 3.64-4.29) and moderate for BRCA2 (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.84-2.14). Modest associations were observed between PVs and young age at diagnosis for ATM (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.37) and CHEK2 (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.47) genes, but not for PALB2 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.27). For women with BC, earliest age of familial BC diagnosis followed a similar pattern. For unaffected women, earliest age of family cancer diagnosis was significantly associated with PV status only for BRCA1 (OR 2.34, 95% CI 2.13-2.56) and BRCA2 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Young age at BC diagnosis is not a strong risk factor for carrying PVs in BC-associated genes ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2.

Molecular characteristics of breast tumors in patients screened for germline predisposition from a population-based observational study

BACKGROUND

Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in certain genes are linked to higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and can influence preventive surgery decisions and therapy choices. Public health programs offer genetic screening based on criteria designed to assess personal risk and identify individuals more likely to carry PGVs, dividing patients into screened and non-screened groups. How tumor biology and clinicopathological characteristics differ between these groups is understudied and could guide refinement of screening criteria.

METHODS

Six thousand six hundred sixty breast cancer patients diagnosed in South Sweden during 2010-2018 were included with available clinicopathological and RNA sequencing data, 900 (13.5%) of which had genes screened for PGVs through routine clinical screening programs. We compared characteristics of screened patients and tumors to non-screened patients, as well as between screened patients with (n = 124) and without (n = 776) PGVs.

RESULTS

Broadly, breast tumors in screened patients showed features of a more aggressive disease. However, few differences related to tumor biology or patient outcome remained significant after stratification by clinical subgroups or PAM50 subtypes. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the subgroup most enriched for PGVs, showed the most differences between screening subpopulations (e.g., higher tumor proliferation in screened cases). Significant differences in PGV prevalence were found between clinical subgroups/molecular subtypes, e.g., TNBC cases were enriched for BRCA1 PGVs. In general, clinicopathological differences between screened and non-screened patients mimicked those between patients with and without PGVs, e.g., younger age at diagnosis for positive cases. However, differences in tumor biology/microenvironment such as immune cell composition were additionally seen within PGV carriers/non-carriers in ER + /HER2 - cases, but not between screening subpopulations in this subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Characterization of molecular tumor features in patients clinically screened and not screened for PGVs represents a relevant read-out of guideline criteria. The general lack of molecular differences between screened/non-screened patients after stratification by relevant breast cancer subsets questions the ability to improve the identification of screening candidates based on currently used patient and tumor characteristics, pointing us towards universal screening. Nevertheless, while that is not attained, molecular differences identified between PGV carriers/non-carriers suggest the possibility of further refining patient selection within certain patient subsets using RNA-seq through, e.g., gene signatures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network - Breast (SCAN-B) was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02306096.

Breast cancer genetics and risk assessment: an overview for the clinician

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally with enormous associated morbidity, mortality and economic impact. Prevention of breast cancer is a global public health imperative. To date, most of our global efforts have been directed at expanding population breast cancer screening programs for early cancer detection and not at breast cancer prevention efforts. It is imperative that we change the paradigm. As with other diseases, prevention of breast cancer starts with identification of individuals at high risk, and for breast cancer this requires improved identification of individuals who carry a hereditary cancer mutation associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer, and identification of others who are at high risk due to non-genetic, established modifiable and non-modifiable factors. This article will review basic breast cancer genetics and the most common hereditary breast cancer mutations associated with increased risk. We will also discuss the other non-genetic modifiable and non-modifiable breast cancer risk factors, available risk assessment models and an approach to incorporating screening for genetic mutation carriers and identifying high-risk women in clinical practice. A discussion of guidelines for enhanced screening, chemoprevention and surgical management of high-risk women is beyond the scope of this review.