Reclassification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants found in ovarian epithelial, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers

Unrecognised actionability for breast cancer risk variants identified in a national-level review of Australian familial cancer centres

Breast cancer remains a significant global health challenge. In Australia, the adoption of publicly-funded multigene panel testing for eligible cancer patients has increased accessibility to personalised care, yet has also highlighted the increasing prevalence of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), complicating clinical decision-making. This project aimed to explore the spectrum and actionability of breast cancer VUS in Australian familial cancer centers (FCCs). Leveraging data from 11 FCCs participating in the Inherited Cancer Connect database, we retrieved VUS results from 1472 patients. Through ClinVar crosschecks and application of gene-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines, we showed the potential for reclassification of 4% of unique VUS as pathogenic or likely pathogenic, and 80% as benign or likely benign. Surveys conducted with FCCs and diagnostic laboratories described current practices and challenges in variant reclassifications, highlighting resource constraints preventing periodic VUS review and notifications from the laboratories to the FCCs. Our study suggests there are benefits to routine VUS review and reclassification, particularly in publicly-funded healthcare systems. Future research should focus on assessing the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of implementing routine variant review practices, alongside efforts to enhance communication between FCCs and laboratories.

Canadian College of Medical Geneticists: clinical practice advisory document - responsibility to recontact for reinterpretation of clinical genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology and knowledge have facilitated both an increase in the number of patient variants reported and variants reclassified. While there is currently no duty to recontact for reclassified genetic variants, there may be a responsibility. The purpose of this clinical practice advisory document is to provide healthcare practitioners guidance for recontact of previously identified and classified variants, suggest methods for recontact, and principles to consider, taking account patient safety, feasibility, ethical considerations, health service capacity and resource constraints. The target audience are practitioners who order genetic testing, follow patients who have undergone genetic testing and those analysing and reporting genetic testing.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of laboratory and ordering clinicians, patient representatives, ethics and legal researchers and a genetic counsellor from the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors reviewed the existing literature and guidelines on responsibility to recontact in a clinical context to make recommendations. Comments were collected from the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Education, Ethics, and Public Policy, Clinical Practice and Laboratory Practice committees, and the membership at large.

RESULTS

Following incorporation of feedback, and external review by the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors and patient groups, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is the Canadian organisation responsible for certifying laboratory and medical geneticists who provide medical genetics services, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada.

CONCLUSION

The document describes the ethical and practical factors and suggests a shared responsibility between patients, ordering clinician and laboratory practitioners.

Atypical cancer risk profile in carriers of Italian founder BRCA1 variant p.His1673del: Implications for classification and clinical management

BACKGROUND

BRCA1:c.5017_5019del (p.His1673del) is a founder variant relatively frequent in Northern Italy. Despite previous suggestion of pathogenicity, variant classification in public databases is still conflicting, needing additional evidence.

METHODS

Maximum likelihood penetrance of breast/ovarian and other cancer types was estimated using full pedigree data from 53 informative Italian families. The effect of the variant on BRCA1-ABRAXAS1 interaction was assessed using a GFP-fragment reassembly-based PPI assay. Results were combined with additional data from multiple sources to classify the variant according to ACMG/AMP classification rules specified for BRCA1/2.

RESULTS

Variant-carriers displayed increased risk for ovarian cancer (HR = 33.0, 95% CI = 7.0-155.0; cumulative risk at age 70 = 27.6%, 95% CI = 12.6-40.0%) but not for breast cancer (HR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.2-2.2). An increased risk of uterine cancer (HR = 8.0, 95% CI = 1.03-61.6) emerged, warranting further evaluation. Likelihood-ratio in favor of pathogenicity was 98898642.82 under assumption of standard BRCA1 breast and ovarian penetrance, and 104240832.84 after excluding breast cancer diagnoses (based on penetrance results). Functional analysis demonstrated that the variant abrogates the BRCA1-ABRAXAS1 binding, supporting the PS3 code assignment within the ACMG/AMP rule-based model. Collectively, these findings allowed to classify the variant as pathogenic.

CONCLUSION

Pathogenicity of BRCA1:c.5017_5019del(p.His1673del) has been confirmed; however, breast cancer risk in Italian families is not increased, unlike in families from other countries and in carriers of most BRCA1 pathogenic variants. The knowledge of atypical risk profiles for this and other variants will pave the way for personalized management based on specific genotype.

Variant reclassification and recontact research: A scoping review

Purpose

A primary challenge in clinical genetics is accurate interpretation of identified variants and relaying the information to patients and providers. Inconsistencies around handling variant reclassifications and notifying patients, combined with the lack of prescriptive guidelines on re-evaluation, reanalysis, and return of variants, has created practice challenges. Although relevant empirical work has emerged, the scope and outcomes of this research have not been characterized.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature review of variant reclassification and recontact research (2013-2023) across subdisciplines of medical genetics. Of the 159 nonduplicate records screened, we summarize findings from 54 included research articles describing variant reclassification frequencies, outcomes, and stakeholder perspectives on recontact.

Results

The included articles reported on active reclassification (n = 20), passive reclassification (n = 13), stakeholder surveys (n = 11), qualitative interviews (n = 7), and reanalysis of published or ClinVar data (n = 3). On average, active and passive approaches yielded different reclassification frequencies-31% and 20%, respectively, which were considerably higher than ClinVar (<0.1%-6.4%). Despite a wealth of data on individual stakeholder perspectives and opinions on reclassification, recontact, and consensus on the need for standardization in this space, opinions differ on how to develop and implement standardized processes.

Conclusion

Many active reclassification studies reapplied standard variant classification guideline to previously reported variants-thus demonstrating the number of variants that would be successfully reclassified if reinterpretation and reanalysis were performed routinely. Research gaps identified include the need for understanding practices and opinions of nongenetics providers and engaging in deliberative democracy exercises to reach consensus on these issues.

Variant reclassification and clinical implications

Genomic technologies have transformed clinical genetic testing, underlining the importance of accurate molecular genetic diagnoses. Variant classification, ranging from benign to pathogenic, is fundamental to these tests. However, variant reclassification, the process of reassigning the pathogenicity of variants over time, poses challenges to diagnostic legitimacy. This review explores the medical and scientific literature available on variant reclassification, focusing on its clinical implications.Variant reclassification is driven by accruing evidence from diverse sources, leading to variant reclassification frequency ranging from 3.6% to 58.8%. Recent studies have shown that significant changes can occur when reviewing variant classifications within 1 year after initial classification, illustrating the importance of early, accurate variant assignation for clinical care.Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are particularly problematic. They lack clear categorisation but have influenced patient treatment despite recommendations against it. Addressing VUS reclassification is essential to enhance the credibility of genetic testing and the clinical impact. Factors affecting reclassification include standardised guidelines, clinical phenotype-genotype correlations through deep phenotyping and ancestry studies, large-scale databases and bioinformatics tools. As genomic databases grow and knowledge advances, reclassification rates are expected to change, reducing discordance in future classifications.Variant reclassification affects patient diagnosis, precision therapy and family screening. The exact patient impact is yet unknown. Understanding influencing factors and adopting standardised guidelines are vital for precise molecular genetic diagnoses, ensuring optimal patient care and minimising clinical risk.

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey

PURPOSE

Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

CONCLUSION

These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

BACKGROUND

Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have an unknown impact on health but can be clarified through reclassification. There is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, and racial/ethnic differences.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of persons with and without a personal history of cancer carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer predisposition genes seen at four cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019.

RESULTS

In 2715 individuals included in the study, 3261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported; 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications and rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). Compared to their prevalence in the overall sample, reclassification rates for Black individuals were higher (13.6% vs. 19.0%), whereas the rates for Asian individuals were lower (6.3% vs. 3.5%) and rates for White and Hispanic individuals were proportional. Two-year prevalence of VUS reclassification remained steady between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals' clinical managements.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this large multisite study suggest that VUS reclassification alters clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for implementing practices and solutions for efficiently returning reinterpreted genetic test results.

Genetic, Surgical and Oncological Approach to Breast Cancer, with BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN and TP53 Variants

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of germline variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN and TP53 in patients admitted to a medical genetics clinic with breast cancer and to assess these identified variants according to published genetic, surgical and oncological perspectives.

Materials and Methods

Medical history, and cancer diagnosis information for 195 independent probands with operated breast cancer were collected from requisition forms and medical records. The exonic regions and exon-intron junctions in BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN and TP53 genes were sequenced. Analysis of fastq files was performed on the Qiagen Clinical Insight-Analyse Universal with panel-specific pipeline and vcf files were interpreted clinically using Qiagen Clinical Insight-Interpret.

Results

Gene variants (pathogenic, likely pathogenic and variants of unknown significance) were detected in 53 (27.2%). Detailed information about the patients (age of diagnosis, family history, gender), cancer stage, tumour characteristics (ER, PR, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status) and all information related to the detected variants (gene, location, nucleotide and amino acid change, exon number, impact, mutation classification, dbSNP number and HGMD variant class) were assessed. In total, 58 mutations were identified including 14 novel, previously unreported variants.

Conclusion

Molecular characterization and identification of mutations have important implications for predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine, including genetic counseling and development of specific treatment protocols. We emphasize variants of unknown significance (VUS) as the clinical significance of VUS changes over time and variant classification is important for clinical molecular genetic testing and clinical guidance. This study may provide new insights into risk assessment for variants in CDH1, PALB2, PTEN and TP53, in addition to BRCA1 and BRCA2, which may prove useful for clinical management of breast cancer patients. Further studies are needed to identify the common gene variants in the Turkish population and evaluate the pathogenity of VUS.

Comprehensive clinical characterization of patients with BRCA1: c.5017_5019del germline variant

Purpose

We provide evidence for the reclassification of the BRCA1:c.5017_5019del variant by presenting the clinicopathological characteristics, clinical outcomes, and family history of breast or ovarian cancer in 17 patients with this variant.

Methods

This study included breast or ovarian cancer patients tested for BRCA1/2 genes between January 2008 and June 2020 at 10 medical centers in Korea. We retrospectively reviewed 17 probands from 15 families who had the BRCA1:c.5017_5019del variant according to the electronic medical records.

Results

We present 10 breast cancer patients and 7 ovarian cancer patients from 15 families identified as having BRCA1:c.5017_5019del and a total of 19 cases of breast cancer and 14 cases of ovarian cancer in these families. The ratio of breast-to-ovarian cancer was 1.3:1. Breast cancer patients with this variant showed a rich family history of breast or ovarian cancer, 8 patients (80.0%). The mean age at diagnosis was 45.4 years and 6 patients (60.0%) were categorized into hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer. Also, the ovarian cancer patients with this variant showed strong family histories of breast and/or ovarian cancer in 4 patients (57.1%).

Conclusion

We presented clinical evidence for the reclassification of BRCA1:c.5017_5019del as a likely pathogenic variant (LPV). Reclassification as LPV could result in the prophylactic treatment and medical surveillance of probands, family testing recommendations, and appropriate genetic counseling of their families.

Hereditary variants of unknown significance in African American women with breast cancer

Expanded implementation of genetic sequencing has precipitously increased the discovery of germline and somatic variants. The direct benefit of identifying variants in actionable genes may lead to risk reduction strategies such as increased surveillance, prophylactic surgery, as well as lifestyle modifications to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, patients with African ancestry are more likely to receive inconclusive genetic testing results due to an increased number of variants of unknown significance decreasing the utility and impact on disease management and prevention. This study examines whole exome sequencing results from germline DNA samples in African American women with a family history of cancer including 37 cases that were diagnosed with breast cancer and 51 family members. Self-identified ancestry was validated and compared to the 1000 genomes population. The analysis of sequencing results was limited to 85 genes from three clinically available common genetic screening platforms. This target region had a total of 993 variants of which 6 (<1%) were pathogenic or likely pathogenic, 736 (74.1%) were benign, and 170 (17.1%) were classified as a variant of unknown significance. There was an average of 3.4±1.8 variants with an unknown significance per individual and 85 of 88 individuals (96.6%) harbored at least one of these in the targeted genes. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were only found in 6 individuals for the BRCA1 (p.R1726fs, rs80357867), BRCA2 (p.K589fs, rs397507606 & p.L2805fs, rs397507402), RAD50 (p.E995fs, rs587780154), ATM (p.V2424G, rs28904921), or MUTYH (p.G396D, rs36053993) genes. Strategies to functionally validate the remaining variants of unknown significance, especially in understudied and hereditary cancer populations, are greatly needed to increase the clinical utility and utilization of clinical genetic screening platforms to reduce cancer incidence and mortality.

Toward More Comprehensive Homologous Recombination Deficiency Assays in Ovarian Cancer, Part 1: Technical Considerations

Simple Summary

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most frequent and lethal form of ovarian cancer and is associated with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in 50% of cases. This specific alteration is associated with sensitivity to PARP inhibitors (PARPis). Despite vast prognostic improvements due to PARPis, current molecular assays assessing HRD status suffer from several limitations, and there is an urgent need for a more accurate evaluation. In these companion reviews (Part 1: Technical considerations; Part 2: Medical perspectives), we develop an integrative review to provide physicians and researchers involved in HGSOC management with a holistic perspective, from translational research to clinical applications.

Abstract

High-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), the most frequent and lethal form of ovarian cancer, exhibits homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in 50% of cases. In addition to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are the best known thus far, defects can also be caused by diverse alterations to homologous recombination-related genes or epigenetic patterns. HRD leads to genomic instability (genomic scars) and is associated with PARP inhibitor (PARPi) sensitivity. HRD is currently assessed through BRCA1/2 analysis, which produces a genomic instability score (GIS). However, despite substantial clinical achievements, FDA-approved companion diagnostics (CDx) based on GISs have important limitations. Indeed, despite the use of GIS in clinical practice, the relevance of such assays remains controversial. Although international guidelines include companion diagnostics as part of HGSOC frontline management, they also underscore the need for more powerful and alternative approaches for assessing patient eligibility to PARP inhibitors. In these companion reviews, we review and present evidence to date regarding HRD definitions, achievements and limitations in HGSOC. Part 1 is dedicated to technical considerations and proposed perspectives that could lead to a more comprehensive and dynamic assessment of HR, while Part 2 provides a more integrated approach for clinicians.

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

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

Differences in Ovarian and Other Cancers Risks by Population and BRCA Mutation Location

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer is caused by a germline mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. The frequency of germline BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and the ratio of germline BRCA1 to BRCA2 mutations in BRCA-related cancer patients vary depending on the population. Genotype and phenotype correlations have been reported in BRCA mutant families, however, the correlations are rarely used for individual risk assessment and management. BRCA genetic testing has become a companion diagnostic for PARP inhibitors, and the number of families with germline BRCA mutation identified is growing rapidly. Therefore, it is expected that analysis of the risk of developing cancer will be possible in a large number of BRCA mutant carriers, and there is a possibility that personal and precision medicine for the carriers with specific common founder mutations will be realized. In this review, we investigated the association of ovarian cancer risk and BRCA mutation location, and differences of other BRCA-related cancer risks by BRCA1/2 mutation, and furthermore, we discussed the difference in the prevalence of germline BRCA mutation in ovarian cancer patients. As a result, although there are various discussions, there appear to be differences in ovarian cancer risk by population and BRCA mutation location. If it becomes possible to estimate the risk of developing BRCA-related cancer for each BRCA mutation type, the age at risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy can be determined individually. The decision would bring great benefits to young women with germline BRCA mutations.