Disparate Rates of Germline Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes in African American/Black Compared With Non-Hispanic White Individuals Between 2015 and 2022.

PURPOSE: African American/Black (AA/B) individuals are under-represented in genomic databases and thus less likely to receive definitive information from germline genetic testing (GGT) than non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals. With nearly 500,000 AA/B and NHW individuals having undergone multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer risk at a single commercial laboratory, to our knowledge, we present the largest study to date investigating cancer GGT results in AA/B and NHW individuals. METHODS: MGPT results from a retrospective cohort of AA/B (n = 48,684) and NHW (n = 444,831) patients were evaluated. Frequencies of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were compared between AA/B and NHW individuals. Changes in frequency of VUS over time were determined. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables among groups. All significance tests were two-tailed, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, rates of VUS decreased 2.3-fold in AA/B and 1.8-fold in NHW individuals; however, frequencies of VUS and PGV remained significantly higher (46% v 32%; P < .0001) and lower (9% v 13%; P < .0001) in AA/B compared with NHW individuals. Rates of VUS in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and PMS2 were significantly higher in AA/B compared with NHW individuals, whereas rates of PGV in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were higher in AA/B compared with NHW individuals (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Despite reductions in VUS frequencies over time, disparities in definitive GGT results persist. Increasing inclusion of AA/B populations in both testing and research will further increase knowledge of genetic variants across these racial groups.

Recruitment and retention of rural allied health professionals: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to understand what literature exists to comprehend demographics and predicted trends of rural allied health professionals (AHPs), person factors of rural AHPs, and recruitment and retention of rural AHPs. METHODS: A scoping review was completed and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Articles were analyzed using three a priori categories of recruitment and retention, person factors, and demographics and trends. RESULTS: Eighty articles met inclusion criteria for the review. Most of the literature came from Australia. Most research studies were qualitative or descriptive. A priori coding of the articles revealed overlap of the a priori codes across articles; however, the majority of articles related to recruitment and retention followed by demographics and trends and person factors. Recruitment and retention articles focused on strategies prior to education, during education, and recruitment and retention, with the highest number of articles focused on retention. Overall, there were no specific best strategies. Demographic data most commonly gathered were age, practice location, profession, sex, gender, previous rural placement and number of years in practice. While person factors were not as commonly written about, psychosocial factors of rural AHPs were most commonly discussed, including desire to care for others, appreciation of feeling needed, connectedness to team and community and enjoyment of the rural lifestyle. CONCLUSION: The evidence available provides an understanding of what research exists to understand recruitment and retention of AHPs from a recruitment and retention approach, person factor approach, and demographics and trends approach. Based on this scoping review, there is not a clear road map for predicting or maintaining AHPs in a rural workforce. Further research is needed to support increased recruitment and retention of AHPs in rural areas.

Germline Pathogenic Variants Identified in Patients With Genitourinary Malignancies Undergoing Universal Testing: A Multisite Single-Institution Prospective Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in hereditary cancer genes utilizing a universal testing approach and to determine the rate of PGVs that would have been missed based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines in genitourinary (GU) malignancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multisite, single-institution prospective germline genetic test (GGT) was universally offered to patients with new or active diagnoses of GU malignancies (prostate, bladder, and renal) from April 2018 to March 2020 at Mayo Clinic sites. Participants were offered GGT using a next-generation sequencing panel of > 80 genes. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and genetic results were evaluated. NCCN GU cancer guidelines were used to identify whether patients had incremental findings, defined as PGV-positive patients who would not have received testing based on NCCN guidelines. RESULTS: Of 3095 individuals enrolled in the study, 601 patients had GU cancer (prostate = 358, bladder = 106, and renal = 137). The mean enrollment age was 67 years (SD 9.1), 89% were male, and 86% of patients were non-Hispanic White. PGVs were identified in 82 (14%) of all GU patients. PGV prevalence breakdown by cancer type was: 14% prostate, 14% bladder, and 13% renal cancer. Nearly one-third of identified PGVs were high penetrance, and the majority of these (67%) were clinically actionable. Incremental PGVs were identified in 28 (57%) prostate, 15 (100%) bladder, and 14 (78%) renal cancer patients. Of the 82 patients with PGV findings, 29 (35%) had at least 1 relative undergo cascade testing for the familial variant(s) identified. CONCLUSIONS: More than 1 in 8 patients with GU malignancies were found to carry a PGV, with 67% of patients with high-penetrance PGVs undergoing clinically actionable changes. The majority of these PGVs would not have been identified based on current testing criteria. These findings support universal GGT for GU malignancies and underscore its potential to enhance risk assessment and guide precision interventions in urologic oncology.

Implementation of Universal Pan-Cancer Germline Genetic Testing in an Arab Population: The Jordanian Exploratory Cancer Genetics Study.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GGT) significantly affects cancer care. While universal testing has been studied in Western societies, less is known about adoption elsewhere. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 3,319 unselected, pan-cancer Jordanian patients diagnosed between April 2021 and September 2022 received GGT. Pathogenic germline variant (PGV) frequency among patients who were in-criteria (IC) or out-of-criteria (OOC; 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria) and changes in clinical management in response to GGT results were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using two-tailed Fisher's exact test with significance level P < .05. RESULTS: The cohort was predominantly female (69.9%), with a mean age of 53.7 years at testing, and 53.1% were IC. While patients who were IC were more likely than patients who were OOC to have a PGV (15.8% v 9.6%; P < .0001), 149 (34.8%) patients with PGVs were OOC. Clinical management recommendations in response to GGT, including changes to treatment and/or follow-up, were made for 57.3% (161 of 281) of patients with high- or moderate-risk PGVs, including 26.1% (42 of 161) of patients who were OOC. CONCLUSION: Universal GGT of patients with newly diagnosed cancer was successfully implemented in Jordan and led to identification of actionable PGVs that would have been missed with guidelines-based testing.

Germline cancer susceptibility in individuals with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have estimated a small number of individuals with melanoma (2%-2.5%) have germline cancer predisposition, yet a recent twin study suggested melanoma has the highest hereditability among cancers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of hereditary melanoma and characterize the spectrum of cancer predisposition genes that may increase the risk of melanoma. METHODS: Four hundred individuals with melanoma and personal or family history of cancers underwent germline testing of >80 cancer predisposition genes. Comparative analysis of germline data was performed on 3 additional oncologic and dermatologic data sets. RESULTS: Germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants were identified in 15.3% (61) individuals with melanoma. Most variants (41, 67%) involved genes considered unrelated to melanoma (BLM, BRIP1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, RAD51C). A third (20, 33%) were in genes previously associated with familial melanoma (BAP1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, MITF, TP53). Nearly half (30, 46.9%) of P/LP variants were in homologous repair deficiency genes. Validation cohorts demonstrated P/LP rates of 10.6% from an unselected oncologic cohort, 15.8% from a selected commercial testing cohort, and 14.5% from a highly selected dermatologic study. LIMITATIONS: Cohorts with varying degrees of selection, some retrospective. CONCLUSION: Germline predisposition in individuals with melanoma is common, with clinically actionable findings diagnosed in 10.6% to 15.8%.

The impact of a regionally based translational cancer research collaborative in Australia using the FAIT methodology.

BACKGROUND: Translating research, achieving impact, and assessing impact are important aspirations for all research collaboratives but can prove challenging. The Hunter Cancer Research Alliance (HCRA) was funded from 2014 to 2021 to enhance capacity and productivity in cancer research in a regional centre in Australia. This study aimed to assess the impact and benefit of the HCRA to help inform future research investments of this type. METHOD: The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred methodology. FAIT incorporates three validated methodologies for assessing impact: 1) Modified Payback; 2) Economic Analysis; and 3) Narrative overview and case studies. All three FAIT methods are underpinned by a Program Logic Model. Data were collected from HCRA and the University of Newcastle administrative records, directly from HCRA members, and website searches. RESULTS: In addition to advancing knowledge and providing capacity building support to members via grants, fellowships, scholarships, training, events and targeted translation support, key impacts of HCRA-member research teams included: (i) the establishment of a regional biobank that has distributed over 13,600 samples and became largely self-sustaining; (ii) conservatively leveraging $43.8 M (s.a.$20.5 M - $160.5 M) in funding and support from the initial $9.7 M investment; (iii) contributing to clinical practice guidelines and securing a patent for identification of stem cells for endometrial cell regeneration; (iv) shifting the treatment paradigm for all tumour types that rely on nerve cell innervation, (v) development and implementation of the world's first real-time patient treatment verification system (Watchdog); (vi) inventing the effective 'EAT' psychological intervention to improve nutrition and outcomes in people experiencing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer; (vi) developing effective interventions to reduce smoking rates among priority groups, currently being rolled out to disadvantaged populations in NSW; and (vii) establishing a Consumer Advisory Panel and Consumer Engagement Committee to increase consumer involvement in research. CONCLUSION: Using FAIT methodology, we have demonstrated the significant impact and downstream benefits that can be achieved by the provision of infrastructure-type funding to regional and rural research collaboratives to help address inequities in research activity and health outcomes and demonstrates a positive return on investment.

Cascade testing for hereditary cancer: comprehensive multigene panels identify unexpected actionable findings in relatives.

Current guidelines recommend single variant testing in relatives of patients with known pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants in cancer predisposition genes. This approach may preclude the use of risk-reducing strategies in family members who have pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants in other cancer predisposition genes. Cascade testing using multigene panels was performed in 3696 relatives of 7433 probands. Unexpected pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants were identified in 230 (6.2%) relatives, including 144 who were negative for the familial pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant but positive for a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a different gene than the proband and 74 who tested positive for the familial pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant and had an additional pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a different gene than the proband. Of the relatives with unexpected pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, 36.3% would have qualified for different or additional cancer screening recommendations. Limiting cascade testing to only the familial pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant would have resulted in missed, actionable findings for a subset of relatives.

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.

Rate of Pathogenic Germline Variants in Patients With Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GGT) is now recommended for all patients diagnosed with ovarian or pancreatic cancer and for a large proportion of patients based solely on a diagnosis of colorectal or breast cancer. However, GGT is not yet recommended for all patients diagnosed with lung cancer (LC), primarily because of a lack of evidence that supports a significant frequency of identifying pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in these patients. This study characterizes GGT results in a cohort of patients with LC. METHODS: We reviewed deidentified data for 7,788 patients with GGT (2015-2022). PGV frequencies were compared to a control cohort of unaffected individuals. GGT results were stratified by genomic ancestry, history of cancer, and PGV clinical actionability per current guidelines. RESULTS: Of all patients with LC, 14.9% (1,161/7,788) had PGVs. The rate was similar when restricted to patients with no cancer family history (FH) or personal history (PH) of other cancers (14.3%). PGVs were significantly enriched in BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes compared with controls. Patients of European (EUR) genomic ancestry had the highest PGV rate (18%) and variants of uncertain significance were significantly higher in patients of non-EUR genomic ancestry. Of the PGVs identified, 61.3% were in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes and 95% were clinically actionable. CONCLUSION: This retrospective study shows a LC diagnosis identifies patients with a significant likelihood of having a cancer-predisposing PGV across genomic ancestries. Enrichment of PGVs in DDR genes suggests that these PGVs may contribute to LC cancer predisposition. The frequency of PGVs among patients with LC did not differ significantly according to FH or PH of other cancers.

Clinical and Functional Analyses of an African-ancestry Gain-of-function HOXB13 Variant Implicated in Aggressive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports have uncovered a HOXB13 variant (X285K) predisposing to prostate cancer in men of West African ancestry. The clinical relevance and protein function associated with this inherited variant are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical relevance of HOXB13 (X285K) in comparison with HOXB13 (G84E) and BRCA2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants, and to elucidate the oncogenic mechanisms of the X285K protein. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Real-world data were collected from 21,393 men with prostate cancer undergoing genetic testing from 2019 to 2022, and in vitro cell-line models were established for the evaluation of oncogenic functions associated with the X285K protein. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Genetic testing results were compared among patient groups according to self-reported race/ethnicity, Gleason scores, and American Joint Committee on Cancer stages using the exact test. Oncogenic functions of X285K were evaluated by RNA sequencing, chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing, and Western blot analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: HOXB13 (X285K) was significantly enriched in self-reported Black (1.01%) versus White (0.01%) patients. We observed a trend of more aggressive disease in the HOXB13 (X285K) and BRCA2 P/LP carriers than in the HOXB13 (G84E) carriers. Replacement of the wild-type HOXB13 protein with the X285K protein resulted in a gain of an E2F/MYC signature, validated by the elevated expression of cyclin B1 and c-Myc, without affecting the androgen response signature. Elevated expression of cyclin B1 and c-Myc was explained by enhanced binding of the X285K protein to the promoters and enhancers of these genes. The limitations of the study are the lack of complete clinical outcome data for all patients studied and the use of a single cell line in the functional analysis. CONCLUSIONS: HOXB13 (X285K) is significantly enriched in self-reported Black patients, and X285K carriers detected in the real-world clinical setting have aggressive prostate cancer features similar to the BRCA2 carriers. Functional studies revealed a unique gain-of-function oncogenic mechanism of X285K protein in regulating E2F/MYC signatures. PATIENT SUMMARY: The HOXB13 (X285K) variant is clinically and functionally linked to aggressive prostate cancer, supporting genetic testing for X285K in Black men and early disease screening of carriers of this variant.

Retrospective Cohort Study on the Limitations of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Screening in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: Among cancer predisposition genes, most direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests evaluate three Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) founder mutations in BRCA1/2, which represent a small proportion of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PLPV) in cancer predisposing genes. In this study, we investigate PLPV in BRCA1/2 and other cancer predisposition genes that are missed by testing only AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS: Individuals were referred to genetic testing for personal diagnoses of breast and/or ovarian cancer (clinical cohort) or were self-referred (nonindication-based cohort). There were 348,692 participants in the clinical cohort and 7,636 participants in the nonindication-based cohort. Both cohorts were analyzed for BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations. Full sequence analysis was done for PLPV in BRCA1/2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2 (truncating variants), EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2/6, NF1, PMS2, RAD51C/D, and 22 other genes. RESULTS: BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations accounted for 10.8% and 29.7% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in the clinical and nonindication-based cohorts, respectively. AJ founder mutations accounted for 89.9% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in those of full AJ descent, but only 69.6% of those of partial AJ descent. In total, 0.5% of all individuals had a BRCA1/2 AJ founder variant, while 7.7% had PLPV in a high-risk breast/ovarian cancer gene. For non-AJ individuals, limiting evaluation to the AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations missed >90% of mutations in actionable cancer risk genes. Secondary analysis revealed a false-positive rate of 69% for PLPV outside of non-AJ BRCA 1/2 founder mutations. CONCLUSION: DTC genetic testing misses >90% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in individuals of non-AJ ancestry and about 10% of BRCA1/2 PLPV among AJ individuals. There is a high false-positivity rate for non-AJ BRCA 1/2 PLPV with DTC genetic testing.

Efficacy of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines in Identifying Pathogenic Germline Variants Among Unselected Patients with Prostate Cancer: The PROCLAIM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in cancer predisposition genes may be eligible for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, clinical trials, or enhanced screening. Studies suggest that eligible patients are missing genetics-informed care due to restrictive testing criteria. OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of actionable PGVs among prospectively accrued, unselected PCa patients, stratified by their guideline eligibility. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive, unselected PCa patients were enrolled at 15 sites in the USA from October 2019 to August 2021, and had multigene cancer panel testing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Correlates between the prevalence of PGVs and clinician-reported demographic and clinical characteristics were examined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 958 patients (median [quartiles] age at diagnosis 65 [60, 71] yr), 627 (65%) had low- or intermediate-risk disease (grade group 1, 2, or 3). A total of 77 PGVs in 17 genes were identified in 74 patients (7.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-9.6%). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of PGVs among patients who met the 2019 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Prostate criteria (8.8%, 43/486, 95% CI 6.6-12%) versus those who did not (6.6%, 31/472, 95% CI 4.6-9.2%; odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 0.85-2.23), indicating that these criteria would miss 42% of patients (31/74, 95% CI 31-53%) with PGVs. The criteria were less effective at predicting PGVs in patients from under-represented populations. Most PGVs (81%, 60/74) were potentially clinically actionable. Limitations include the inability to stratify analyses based on individual ethnicity due to low numbers of non-White patients with PGVs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that almost half of PCa patients with PGVs are missed by current testing guidelines. Comprehensive germline genetic testing should be offered to all patients with PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: One in 13 patients with prostate cancer carries an inherited variant that may be actionable for the patient's current care or prevention of future cancer, and could benefit from expanded testing criteria.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education.

PURPOSE: We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results. METHODS: Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education. CONCLUSION: Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Racial disparities in cascade testing for cancer predisposition genes.

We sought to determine whether there are racial disparities in cascade testing rates and whether providing testing at no-charge impacts rates in Black and White at-risk-relatives (ARR). Probands with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variant in a cancer predisposition gene were identified up to one year before and up to one year after cascade testing became no-charge in 2017. Cascade testing rates were measured as the proportion of probands who had at least one ARR obtain genetic testing through one commercial laboratory. Rates were compared between self-reported Black and White probands using logistic regression. Interaction between race and cost (pre/post policy) was tested. Significantly fewer Black probands than White probands had at least one ARR undergo cascade genetic testing (11.9% versus 21.7%, OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39-0.61, p < 0.0001). This was seen both before (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.61, p < 0.001) and after (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41-0.68, p < 0.001) the no-charge testing policy. Rates of an ARR undergoing cascade testing were low overall, and significantly lower in Black versus White probands. The magnitude of difference in cascade testing rates between Blacks and Whites did not significantly change with no-charge testing. Barriers to cascade testing in all populations should be explored in order to maximize the benefits of genetic testing for both treatment and prevention of cancer.

Fumarate Hydratase Variants and Their Association With Paraganglioma/Pheochromocytoma.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the link between germline variants in fumarate hydratase (FH), hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC), and paraganglioma (PGL) and pheochromocytoma (PCC) we utilize a well-annotated hereditary cancer testing database. METHODS: Records of 120,061 patients receiving germline testing were obtained. FH variants were classified into 4 categories: autosomal dominant (AD) HLRCC variants, autosomal recessive (AR) fumarase deficiency (FMRD), variants, previously reported as PGL/PCC FH variants, and variants of unknown significance (VUS) not previously associated with PGL/PCC (NPP-VUS). Rates of PGL/PCC were compared with those with negative genetic testing. RESULTS: About 1.3% of individuals carried FH variants which were more common among individuals with PGL/PCC compared to those without (3.1% vs 1.3%, P < .0001). PGL/PCC rates were higher among individuals with PGL/PCC FH variants compared to those with negative genetic testing (22.2% vs 0.9%, P < .0001). Neither AD HLRCC variants (0.3% vs 0.9%, P = .35) nor AR FMRD variants (1.4% vs 0.9%, P = .19) carried an increased prevalence of PGL/PCC. An increased prevalence of PGL/PCC was detected in those with NPP-VUS (2.0% vs 0.9%, P = .0023). CONCLUSIONS: Certain FH variants confer an increased risk of PGL/PCC, but not necessarily HLRCC. While universal screening for PGL/PCC among all individuals with FH variants does not appear warranted, it should be considered in select high-risk PGL/PCC FH variants.

Prevalence and clinical implications of germline mutations among Jordanian patients with ovarian cancer. The Jordanian exploratory cancer genetics (Jo-ECAG) ovarian study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies. Due to the absence of effective screening methods, ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at late stages. Patients with pathogenic and likely-pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 harbor elevated risk of developing both ovarian and breast cancers. Identifying PGVs may help in both cancer prevention and active disease treatment. Worldwide prevalence of PGVs varies and the matter is poorly addressed among Arab patients. METHODS: Patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancers were offered the universal 20 or 84-multi-gene panel testing as per standard guidelines. Cascade family screening was also offered to all first and second-degree relatives of PGV positive patients. Genetic testing was done at a referral lab using a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based platform. RESULTS: During the study period, 152 patients, median age (range): 50 (18-79) years old, were tested. The majority (n = 100, 65.8%) had high-grade serous carcinoma, and 106 patients (69.7%) had metastatic disease at presentation. In total, 38 (25.0%) had PGVs, while 47 (30.9%) others had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). PGVs were mostly in BRCA1 (n = 21, 13.8%) and in BRCA2 (n = 12, 7.9%), while 6 (3.9%) others had PGVs in non-BRCA1/2 genes. PGV rates were significantly higher among 15 patients with a positive family history of ovarian cancer (60.0%, p = .022) and among 52 patients with a positive family history of breast cancer (40.4%, p = .017). CONCLUSIONS: PGVs are common among Jordanian women with ovarian cancer, and mostly occur in BRCA1/2. Given its clinical impact on disease prevention and precision therapy, universal testing should be routinely offered.

Breast Cancer Screening Modalities, Recommendations, and Novel Imaging Techniques.

Among women, breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Mammography remains the only validated screening tool to reduce breast cancer mortality. The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends that average-risk women undergo breast cancer screening every year starting at age 40. This article reviews the fundamentals of mammography screening, current age-based mammography screening recommendations, supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations in high-risk women, and novel imaging technologies. This review summarizes recommendations from the American Society of Breast Surgeons and published guidelines from major societies to reflect a range of evidence-based perspectives regarding mammographic screening.

Ashkenazi Jewish and Other White APC I1307K Carriers Are at Higher Risk for Multiple Cancers.

Purpose: APC I1307K has a higher prevalence among Ashkenazi Jews (AJ), and a two-fold increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to non-Jewish populations. We assessed CRC and extracolonic malignancies among I1307K carriers from AJ and non-AJ whites (NAW). Methods: We compared the rate of I1307K in cancer patients who underwent germline genetic testing via a multi-gene panel with healthy subjects retrieved from the gnomAD database. Cases undergoing testing were not selected and testing was undertaken through a commercial laboratory. Results: Overall, 586/7624 (7.6%) AJ with cancer carried I1307K compared to 342/4918 (6.9%) in the AJ control group (p = NS). In the NAW, 318/141,673 (0.2%) cancer patients and 73/58,918 (0.1%) controls carried the variant [OR = 1.8, (95% CI 1.41−2.35), p < 0.001]. I1307K in NAW was associated with an increased risk of CRC [OR = 1.95, (95% CI 1.39−2.73), p < 0.01], melanoma [OR = 2.54, (95% CI 1.57−3.98)], breast [females, OR = 1.73, (95% CI 1.18−2.65), p < 0.01], and prostate cancer [males, OR = 2.42, (95% CI 1.45−3.94), p < 0.01]. Among AJ, the variant increased the risk for CRC [OR = 1.67, (95% CI 1.36−2.05), p < 0.001] and renal cancer [OR = 1.64, (95% CI 1.04−2.47)]. AJ men had a higher risk for any cancer [OR = 1.32, (95% CI 1.05−1.66), p < 0.05] and melanoma [OR = 2.04, (95% CI 1.24−3.22); p < 0.05]. Conclusions: This is the most extensive study to date conducted on I1307K carriers, although it is amenable to selection bias. NAW carrying I1307K had a higher risk of any cancer and several specific cancer types, whereas AJ carrying the variant had a risk for only a few select cancers. Our data add to the research base on I1307 carriers concerning future risk management.