Uptake of Family-Specific Mutation Genetic Testing Among Relatives of Patients with Ovarian Cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation

Cascade testing in Italian Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer families: a missed opportunity for cancer prevention?

Healthy carriers of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) may benefit from risk-reducing measures of proven efficacy. The main approach to identify these individuals is cascade testing, and strategies to support this complex process are under investigation. In Italy, cascade testing has received little attention; therefore, we analyzed the uptake and characteristics of BRCA1/2 cascade testing in families diagnosed with HBOC between 2017 and 2019 at two Italian genetics centers. All blood relatives aged 18 years or older at September 2022 and who could be involved in the first step of cascade testing (i.e., all the living relatives closest to the proband) were included. In addition to first-degree relatives, individuals who were second-, third- or fourth-degree relatives were included if the closest relative(s) was/were deceased. Overall, 213 families were included (103, Genoa; 110, Bologna). Most probands were women affected by breast and/or ovarian cancer (86.4%, Genoa; 84.5%, Bologna), and the branch segregating the PV was known/suspected in 62% of families (62.1%, Genoa; 60.9%, Bologna). Overall, the uptake of cascade testing was 22.8% (25.8%, Genoa; 19.9%, Bologna; OR = 0.59: 95%CI 0.43-0.82). It was strongly associated with female gender (OR = 3.31, 95%CI 2.38-4.59), age ≤ 70 years (< 30 years OR = 3.48, 95%CI 1.85-6.56; 30-70 years OR = 3.08, 95%CI 2.01-4.71), first-degree relationship with the proband (OR = 16.61, 95%CI 10.50-26.28) and segregation of the PV in both the maternal (OR = 2.54, 95%CI 1.72-3.75) and the paternal branch (OR = 4.62, 95%CI 3.09-6.91). These real-world data may be important to inform the design and implementation of strategies aimed at improving the uptake of HBOC cascade testing in Italy.

The spectrum of clinical and genetic findings in hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) with relevance to patient outcomes: a retrospective study from a large academic tertiary referral center

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) is an autosomal dominant condition attributed to pathogenic variants in fumarate hydratase (FH) and presents with cutaneous leiomyomas (CLMs), uterine leiomyomas (ULMs) and renal cell cancer (RCC). The objective of this study was to characterize the spectrum of clinical and genetic findings in HLRCC at a large academic tertiary care referral center with a focus on dermatologic manifestations. Fifty-seven patients, 41 female and 16 male, with 27 unique pathogenic or likely-pathogenic FH variants were identified from 38 families. Mean age of HLRCC diagnosis was 44.4 years (range 8-82). CLMs were the primary reason for referral in 49.1% (n=28). CLMs were present in 43/56 patients who underwent full skin examination. Three of these 56 patients were diagnosed with cutaneous leiomyosarcoma. Incidence of ULMs was 37/41 female patients; no uterine leiomyosarcomas were observed. RCC was observed in 6/57 patients (mean age of diagnosis: 47.3 years (range 28-79)). CLMs predated RCC in the 3 patients diagnosed with both. Dermatologists have an opportunity to recognize cutaneous manifestations of HLRCC, including cutaneous leiomyomas and rarely cutaneous leiomyosarcomas, and refer for genetic evaluation to provide definitive diagnosis. Identification of HLRCC can promote family cascade testing and screening for RCC.

Cascade Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Should We Move Toward Direct Relative Contact? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, providing relatives the opportunity for early detection and prevention of cancer. The current standard is for patients to contact and encourage relatives (patient-mediated contact) to undergo counseling and testing. Direct relative contact by the medical team or testing laboratory has shown promise but is complicated by privacy laws and lack of infrastructure. We sought to compare outcomes associated with patient-mediated and direct relative contact for hereditary cancer cascade genetic counseling and testing in the first meta-analysis on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020134276). We searched key electronic databases to identify studies evaluating hereditary cancer cascade testing. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Among relatives included in the meta-analysis, 48% (95% CI, 38 to 58) underwent cascade genetic counseling and 41% (95% CI, 34 to 48) cascade genetic testing. Compared with the patient-mediated approach, direct relative contact resulted in significantly higher uptake of genetic counseling for all relatives (63% [95% CI, 49 to 75] v 35% [95% CI, 24 to 48]) and genetic testing for first-degree relatives (62% [95% CI, 49 to 73] v 40% [95% CI, 32 to 48]). Methods of direct contact included telephone calls, letters, and e-mails; respective rates of genetic testing completion were 61% (95% CI, 51 to 70), 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59), and 48% (95% CI, 45 to 50).

CONCLUSION

Most relatives at risk for hereditary cancer do not undergo cascade genetic counseling and testing, forgoing potentially life-saving medical interventions. Compared with patient-mediated contact, direct relative contact increased rates of cascade genetic counseling and testing, arguing for a shift in the care delivery paradigm, to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Differences in Cancer Phenotypes Among Frequent CHEK2 Variants and Implications for Clinical Care-Checking CHEK2

Importance

Germline CHEK2 pathogenic variants (PVs) are frequently detected by multigene cancer panel testing (MGPT), but our understanding of PVs beyond c.1100del has been limited.

Objective

To compare cancer phenotypes of frequent CHEK2 PVs individually and collectively by variant type.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study was carried out in a single diagnostic testing laboratory from 2012 to 2019. Overall, 3783 participants with CHEK2 PVs identified via MGPT were included. Medical histories of cancer in participants with frequent PVs, negative MGPT (wild type), loss-of-function (LOF), and missense were compared.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants were stratified by CHEK2 PV type. Descriptive statistics were summarized including median (IQR) for continuous variables and proportions for categorical characteristics. Differences in age and proportions were assessed with Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher exact tests, respectively. Frequencies, odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and P values were corrected for multiple comparisons where appropriate.

Results

Of the 3783 participants with CHEK2 PVs, 3473 (92%) were female and most reported White race. Breast cancer was less frequent in participants with p.I157T (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; P<.001), p.S428F (OR, 0.59; 95% CI. 0.46-0.76; P<.001), and p.T476M (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98; P = .04) PVs compared with other PVs and an association with nonbreast cancers was not found. Following the exclusion of p.I157T, p.S428F, and p.T476M, participants with monoallelic CHEK2 PV had a younger age at first cancer diagnosis (P < .001) and were more likely to have breast (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.66-2.02; P < .001), thyroid (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.26-2.08; P < .001), and kidney cancer (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.75-3.68; P < .001) than the wild-type cohort. Participants with a CHEK2 PV were less likely to have a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.76; P < .001) compared with those in the wild-type cohort. There were no significant differences between frequent CHEK2 PVs and c.1100del and no differences between CHEK2 missense and LOF PVs.

Conclusions and Relevance

CHEK2 PVs, with few exceptions (p.I157T, p.S428F, and p.T476M), were associated with similar cancer phenotypes irrespective of variant type. CHEK2 PVs were not associated with colorectal cancer, but were associated with breast, kidney, and thyroid cancers. Compared with other CHEK2 PVs, the frequent p.I157T, p.S428F, and p.T476M alleles have an attenuated association with breast cancer and were not associated with nonbreast cancers. These data may inform the genetic counseling and care of individuals with CHEK2 PVs.

Health equity in the implementation of genomics and precision medicine: A public health imperative

Recent reviews have emphasized the need for a health equity agenda in genomics research. To ensure that genomic discoveries can lead to improved health outcomes for all segments of the population, a health equity agenda needs to go beyond research studies. Advances in genomics and precision medicine have led to an increasing number of evidence-based applications that can reduce morbidity and mortality for millions of people (tier 1). Studies have shown lower implementation rates for selected diseases with tier 1 applications (familial hypercholesterolemia, Lynch syndrome, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) among racial and ethnic minority groups, rural communities, uninsured or underinsured people, and those with lower education and income. We make the case that a public health agenda is needed to address disparities in implementation of genomics and precision medicine. Public health actions can be centered on population-specific needs and outcomes assessment, policy and evidence development, and assurance of delivery of effective and ethical interventions. Crucial public health activities also include engaging communities, building coalitions, improving genetic health literacy, and building a diverse workforce. Without concerted public health action, further advances in genomics with potentially broad applications could lead to further widening of health disparities in the next decade.

Prevalence and spectrum of pathogenic variants among patients with multiple primary cancers evaluated by clinical characteristics

BACKGROUND

Multiple primary cancers (MPCs) are a hallmark of cancer predisposition syndromes. Here the frequency of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) among patients with MPCs is reported.

METHODS

Patients with MPCs who underwent multigene panel testing from March 2012 to December 2016 were studied. Eligible patients had an analysis of 21 genes: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53. The frequencies of PVs by sex, number of cancers, and age at diagnosis were compared with 2-sided χ² tests or Fisher exact tests when the number was <10.

RESULTS

Among the 9714 patients analyzed, most were female (91.1%) and White (71.0%); the median age at testing was 63 years, and the median ages at first and second cancer diagnoses were 49 and 58 years, respectively. Overall, 1320 (13.6%) had PVs. The prevalence of PVs increased with the number of primary cancers (PCs): 13.1% with 2 PCs, 15.9% with 3 PCs, and 18.0% with ≥4 PCs (P = .00056). Differences in the prevalence of PVs by age at diagnosis were significant: 14.7% with 2 PCs at an age < 50 years, 15.8% with 1 PC at an age < 50 years, and 12.0% with all PCs at an age ≥ 50 years (P = 2.07E-05). PVs by the age at second cancer diagnosis were also significant: 14.7% at an age < 50 years, 13.9% at an age of 50 to 69 years, and 11.4% at an age ≥ 70 years (P for trend = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with MPCs, there is a high frequency of germline PVs, with a higher frequency found among patients with a higher number of PCs. These findings suggest that genetic testing should be considered even among patients who are older at the diagnosis of an additional primary malignancy.