Germline Genetic Testing After Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Germline genetic testing is recommended by practice guidelines for patients diagnosed with cancer to enable genetically targeted treatment and identify relatives who may benefit from personalized cancer screening and prevention. Objective: To describe the prevalence of germline genetic testing among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study including patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, that was reported to statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in California and Georgia. These patients were linked to genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that performed most germline testing for California and Georgia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was germline genetic testing within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis. Testing trends were analyzed with logistic regression modeling. The results of sequencing each gene, including variants associated with increased cancer risk (pathogenic results) and variants whose cancer risk association was unknown (uncertain results), were evaluated. The genes were categorized according to their primary cancer association, including breast or ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other, and whether practice guidelines recommended germline testing. Results: Among 1 369 602 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2019 in California and Georgia, 93 052 (6.8%) underwent germline testing through March 31, 2021. The proportion of patients tested varied by cancer type: male breast (50%), ovarian (38.6%), female breast (26%), multiple (7.5%), endometrial (6.4%), pancreatic (5.6%), colorectal (5.6%), prostate (1.1%), and lung (0.3%). In a logistic regression model, compared with the 31% (95% CI, 30%-31%) of non-Hispanic White patients with male breast cancer, female breast cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent testing, patients of other races and ethnicities underwent testing less often: 22% (95% CI, 21%-22%) of Asian patients, 25% (95% CI, 24%-25%) of Black patients, and 23% (95% CI, 23%-23%) of Hispanic patients (P < .001 using the χ2 test). Of all pathogenic results, 67.5% to 94.9% of variants were identified in genes for which practice guidelines recommend testing and 68.3% to 83.8% of variants were identified in genes associated with the diagnosed cancer type. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, rates of testing were lower among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients.

Functional and Clinical Characterization of Variants of Uncertain Significance Identifies a Hotspot for Inactivating Missense Variants in RAD51C.

Pathogenic protein-truncating variants of RAD51C, which plays an integral role in promoting DNA damage repair, increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. A large number of RAD51C missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have been identified, but the effects of the majority of these variants on RAD51C function and cancer predisposition have not been established. Here, analysis of 173 missense variants by a homology-directed repair (HDR) assay in reconstituted RAD51C-/- cells identified 30 nonfunctional (deleterious) variants, including 18 in a hotspot within the ATP-binding region. The deleterious variants conferred sensitivity to cisplatin and olaparib and disrupted formation of RAD51C/XRCC3 and RAD51B/RAD51C/RAD51D/XRCC2 complexes. Computational analysis indicated the deleterious variant effects were consistent with structural effects on ATP-binding to RAD51C. A subset of the variants displayed similar effects on RAD51C activity in reconstituted human RAD51C-depleted cancer cells. Case-control association studies of deleterious variants in women with breast and ovarian cancer and noncancer controls showed associations with moderate breast cancer risk [OR, 3.92; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 2.18-7.59] and high ovarian cancer risk (OR, 14.8; 95% CI, 7.71-30.36), similar to protein-truncating variants. This functional data supports the clinical classification of inactivating RAD51C missense variants as pathogenic or likely pathogenic, which may improve the clinical management of variant carriers. SIGNIFICANCE: Functional analysis of the impact of a large number of missense variants on RAD51C function provides insight into RAD51C activity and information for classification of the cancer relevance of RAD51C variants.

Fibroblast testing can inform medical management in individuals with mosaic variants detected on hereditary cancer panels.

Mosaic variants are regularly detected on hereditary cancer genetic tests. While some of these variants may be constitutional, the majority are likely limited to blood lineages. In the present study, we correlate clinical histories from individuals with mosaic findings identified on hereditary cancer testing and the outcomes of follow-up fibroblast (FB) testing. We observed 620 mosaic variants, including 339 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) occurring most often in TP53, CHEK2, ATM, and NF1. About half of individuals with NF1 mosaic PVs did not report any clinical features of NF1 and were older at testing (p<0.0001) compared to those with an NF1-related phenotype. Among 42 mosaic PVs evaluated by FB testing, 17 (40.5%) were confirmed in FB and were mostly identified in individuals with phenotypes consistent with the gene disease spectrum. Our data show that FB testing is helpful for identifying those with likely constitutional mosaicism benefitting from increased screening and follow-up vs. those with blood-limited variants potentially not requiring intense surveillance but warranting further hematologic work-up.

Classification of BRCA2 Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS) Using an ACMG/AMP Model Incorporating a Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) Functional Assay.

PURPOSE: The identification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes by hereditary cancer testing poses great challenges for the clinical management of variant carriers. The ACMG/AMP (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology) variant classification framework, which incorporates multiple sources of evidence, has the potential to establish the clinical relevance of many VUS. We sought to classify the clinical relevance of 133 single-nucleotide substitution variants encoding missense variants in the DNA-binding domain (DBD) of BRCA2 by incorporating results from a validated functional assay into an ACMG/AMP-variant classification model from a hereditary cancer-testing laboratory. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The 133 selected VUS were evaluated using a validated homology-directed double-strand DNA break repair (HDR) functional assay. Results were combined with clinical and genetic data from variant carriers in a rules-based variant classification model for BRCA2. RESULTS: Of 133 missense variants, 44 were designated as non-functional and 89 were designated as functional in the HDR assay. When combined with genetic and clinical information from a single diagnostic laboratory in an ACMG/AMP-variant classification framework, 66 variants previously classified by the diagnostic laboratory were correctly classified, and 62 of 67 VUS (92.5%) were reclassified as likely pathogenic (n = 22) or likely benign (n = 40). In total, 44 variants were classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic, 84 as benign/likely benign, and 5 remained as VUS. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of HDR functional analysis into an ACMG/AMP framework model substantially improves BRCA2 VUS re-classification and provides an important tool for determining the clinical relevance of individual BRCA2 VUS.

Monoallelic MUTYH pathogenic variants ascertained via multi-gene hereditary cancer panels are not associated with colorectal, endometrial, or breast cancer.

We aimed to determine whether monoallelic MUTYH pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with colorectal, breast, and endometrial cancer. Cases were individuals with colorectal, female breast, or endometrial cancer who reported European ancestry alone and underwent a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel at a large reference laboratory. Controls were individuals of European (non-Finnish) descent from GnomAD with cancer cohorts removed. We performed a Fisher's exact test to generate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Prevalence of single MUTYH PVs in cancer cohorts versus controls, respectively, was: colorectal cancer, 2.1% vs. 1.8% (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.99-1.5, p = 0.064); breast cancer 1.9% vs. 1.7% (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.96-1.3, p = 0.15); and endometrial cancer, 1.7% vs. 1.7% (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.70-1.3, p = 0.94). Using the largest colorectal and endometrial cancer cohorts and one of the largest breast cancer cohorts from a single case-control study, we did not observe a significant difference in the prevalence of monoallelic MUTYH PVs in these cohorts compared to controls. Additionally, frequencies among cancer cohorts were consistent with the published MUTYH carrier frequency of 1-2%. These findings suggest there is no association between colorectal, endometrial, or breast cancer and MUTYH heterozygosity in individuals of European ancestry.

Differences in cancer prevalence among CHEK2 carriers identified via multi-gene panel testing.

PURPOSE: Although CHEK2 is a well-established cancer gene, questions remain including whether risks vary substantially between different variants and whether biallelic carriers have higher risks than heterozygotes. We report on a cohort of individuals with CHEK2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (collectively, PV) in order to better characterize this gene. METHODS: We retrospectively queried samples submitted for multi-gene hereditary cancer testing to identify individuals with CHEK2 PVs and assessed differences in phenotypes among various genotypes. RESULTS: CHEK2 PVs were identified in 2508 individuals, including 32 individuals with biallelic CHEK2 PVs. Breast (female, 59.9% and male, 11.8%), prostate (20.1%), and colorectal (3.5%), were among the most frequently reported cancers. Select missense PVs showed similar cancer prevalence to truncating PVs while some others showed lower prevalence. No significant differences were observed between biallelic carriers and heterozygotes. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support that some, but not all, CHEK2 missense PVs demonstrate lower cancer prevalence; further studies are needed to continue characterizing possible variant specific risks. In addition, biallelic CHEK2 PVs do not appear to be associated with a more severe phenotype than single CHEK2 PVs. Furthermore, co-occurrences with PVs in other cancer risk genes are common among CHEK2 heterozygotes and often warrant additional management.

Ancestry-specific hereditary cancer panel yields: Moving toward more personalized risk assessment.

Healthcare disparities in genomic medicine are well described. Despite some improvements, we continue to see fewer individuals of African American, Asian, and Hispanic ancestry undergo genetic counseling and testing compared to those of European ancestry. It is well established that variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rates are higher among non-European ancestral groups undergoing multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing. However, pathogenic variant (PV) yields, and genomic data in general, are often reported in aggregate and derived from cohorts largely comprised of individuals of European ancestry. We performed a retrospective review of clinical and ancestral data for individuals undergoing multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing to determine ancestry-specific PV and VUS rates. An ancestry other than European was reported in 29,042/104,851 (27.7%) of individuals. Compared to Europeans (9.4%), individuals of Middle Eastern ancestry were more likely to test positive for one or more pathogenic variants (12.1%, p = .0025), while African Americans were less likely (7.9%, p < .0001). Asian and Middle Eastern individuals were most likely (34.8% and 33.2%, respectively) to receive a report with an overall classification of VUS, while individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish and European ancestry were least likely (17.1% and 20.4%, respectively). These data suggest that in addition to higher VUS rates, there may be ancestry-specific PV yields. Providing aggregate data derived from cohorts saturated with European individuals does not adequately reflect genetic testing outcomes in minority groups, and interrogation of ancestry-specific data is a step toward a more personalized risk assessment.

Age-adjusted association of homologous recombination genes with ovarian cancer using clinical exomes as controls.

BACKGROUND: Genes in the homologous recombination pathway have shown varying results in the literature regarding ovarian cancer (OC) association. Recent case-control studies have used allele counts alone to quantify genetic associations with cancer. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was performed on 6,182 women with OC referred for hereditary cancer multi-gene panel testing (cases) and 4,690 mothers from trios who were referred for whole-exome sequencing (controls). We present age-adjusted odds ratios (ORAdj) to determine association of OC with pathogenic variants (PVs) in homologous recombination genes. RESULTS: Significant associations with OC were observed in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C and RAD51D. Other homologous recombination genes, BARD1, NBN, and PALB2, were not significantly associated with OC. ATM and CHEK2 were only significantly associated with OC by crude odds ratio (ORCrude) or by ORAdj, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between ORCrude and ORAdj for these two genes. The significant association of PVs in BRIP1 by ORCrude (2.05, CI = 1.11 to 3.94, P = 0.03) was not observed by ORAdj (0.87, CI = 0.41 to 1.93, P = 0.73). Interestingly, the confidence intervals of the two effect sizes were significantly different (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The lack of association of PVs in BRIP1 with OC by ORAdj is inconsistent with some previous literature and current management recommendations, highlighted by the significantly older age of OC onset for BRIP1 PV carriers compared to non-carriers. By reporting ORAdj, this study presents associations that reflect more informed genetic contributions to OC when compared to traditional count-based methods.

Comparison of CDH1 Penetrance Estimates in Clinically Ascertained Families vs Families Ascertained for Multiple Gastric Cancers.

IMPORTANCE: CDH1 pathogenic variants have been estimated to confer a 40% to 70% and 56% to 83% lifetime risk for gastric cancer in men and women, respectively. These are likely to be overestimates owing to ascertainment of families with multiple cases of gastric cancer. To our knowledge, there are no penetrance estimates for CDH1 without this ascertainment bias. OBJECTIVE: To estimate CDH1 penetrance in a patient cohort not exclusively ascertained based on strict hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of 75 families found to have pathogenic variants in CDH1 through clinical ascertainment and multigene panel testing at a large commercial diagnostic laboratory from August 5, 2013, to June 30, 2018. CDH1 pathogenic variants were identified in 238 individuals from 75 families. Pedigrees from those families included cancer status for 1679 relatives. Penetrance estimates are based on 41 families for which completed pedigrees were available. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Gastric cancer standardized incidence ratio estimates relative to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program incidence for pathogenic CDH1 variants from families ascertained without regard to HDGC criteria. RESULTS: Among the 238 individuals with a CDH1 pathogenic variant, mean (SD) age was 49.3 (18.1) years and 63.4% were female. Ethnicity was reported for 67 of 75 (89%) families; of these 67 families, 51 (76%) reported European ancestry, whereas Asian, African, Latino, and 2 or more ancestries were reported for 4 families (6%) each. Standardized incidence ratios for gastric and breast cancer were significantly elevated above SEER incidence. Extrapolated cumulative incidence of gastric cancer at age 80 years was 42% (95% CI, 30%-56%) for men and 33% (95% CI, 21%-43%) for women with pathogenic variants in CDH1, whereas cumulative incidence of female breast cancer was estimated at 55% (95% CI, 39%-68%). International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium criteria were met in 25 of the 75 (33%) families; however, dispensing with the requirement of confirmation of HDGC histologic subtype, 43 (57%) would meet criteria. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The cumulative incidence of gastric cancer for individuals with pathogenic variants in CDH1 is significantly lower than previously described. Because prophylactic gastrectomy can have bearing upon both physical and psychological health, further discussion is warranted to assess whether this surgical recommendation is appropriate for all individuals with pathogenic variants in CDH1.

Multi-gene panel testing confirms phenotypic variability in MUTYH-Associated Polyposis.

Biallelic pathogenic variants (PVs) in MUTYH cause MUTYH-Associated Polyposis (MAP), which displays phenotypic overlap with other hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes including Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) and Lynch syndrome. We report the phenotypic spectrum of MAP in the context of multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing. Genetic testing results and clinical histories were reviewed for individuals with biallelic MUTYH PVs detected by panel testing at a single commercial molecular diagnostic laboratory. Biallelic MUTYH PVs were identified in 82 individuals (representing 0.2% of tested individuals) with most (75/82; 91.5%) reporting a personal history of CRC and/or polyps. Ten percent (6/61) of individuals reporting polyp number reported fewer than 10 polyps and therefore did not meet current MAP testing criteria. Extracolonic cancers (21/82; 25.6%), multiple primaries (19/82; 23.2%), Lynch-like (17/82; 20.7%) and FAP-like phenotypes (16/82; 19.5%) were observed, including individuals with mismatch repair-deficient tumors (3/82; 3.7%), sebaceous neoplasms (2/82; 2.4%), or congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium (CHRPE) (2/82; 2.4%). We report what is to our knowledge the first cohort of individuals with MAP identified by panel testing. The phenotypic spectrum of MAP observed in this cohort aligns with the published literature. In addition to standard indications for MUTYH testing, our data provide evidence to support consideration of MAP in the differential diagnosis for some individuals with fewer than 10 polyps, depending on other personal and/or family history, as well as for individuals suspected to have Lynch syndrome or FAP.

Germline pathogenic variants identified in women with ovarian tumors.

OBJECTIVE: The recognition of genes implicated in ovarian cancer risk beyond BRCA1, BRCA2, and the Lynch syndrome genes has increased the variety of testing options available to providers and patients. We report the frequency of pathogenic variants identified among individuals with ovarian cancer undergoing clinical genetic testing via a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel. METHODS: Genetic testing of up to 32 genes using a hereditary cancer panel was performed on 4439 ovarian cancer cases, and results were analyzed for frequency of pathogenic variants. Statistical comparisons were made using t-tests and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: The positive yield was 13.2%. While BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants were most frequent, one third (33.7%) of positive findings were in other homologous recombination genes, and accounted for over 40.0% of findings in endometrioid and clear cell cases. Women with a personal history of breast cancer (22.1%), who reported a family history of ovarian cancer (17.7%), and/or serous histology (14.7%) were most likely to harbor a pathogenic variant. Those with very early onset (<30 years) and late onset (≥70 years) ovarian cancer had low positive yields. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the genetic heterogeneity of ovarian cancer, showing that a large proportion of cases are not due to BRCA1/2 and the Lynch syndrome genes, but still have an identifiable hereditary basis. These findings substantiate the utility of multi-gene panel testing in ovarian cancer care regardless of age at diagnosis, family history, or histologic subtype, providing evidence for testing beyond BRCA1/2 and the Lynch syndrome genes.

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

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of a germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV) may inform breast cancer management. BRCA1/2 PV often impact surgical decisions, but data for multi-gene panel testing are lacking. Expedited genetic testing reduces turn-around times based on request for treatment-related decision making. This report aims to describe the clinical utility of expedited multi-gene panel testing for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. METHODS: Clinical and demographic information were reviewed for patients with newly diagnosed female breast cancer undergoing expedited panel testing between 2013 and 2017. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (NCCN, version 1.2018) were evaluated in terms of published management recommendations for the genes in which PVs were identified. RESULTS: The overall PV yield was 9.5% (678/7127) for women undergoing expedited panel testing, with 700 PVs identified among 678 women. PVs were identified in genes other than BRCA1/2 in 55.9% (391/700) of cases. The NCCN guidelines recommend management for the genes in which 96.6% (676/700) of PVs are identified. The NCCN guidelines also recommend risk-reducing mastectomy for 46.0% (322/700) of PVs identified. An additional 45.6% (319/700) of PVs were identified in genes for which NCCN recommends mastectomy based on family history. In addition, 49.9% (349/700) of PVs were in genes with NCCN guidelines recommending prophylactic surgery for tissues other than breast. CONCLUSION: A majority of the patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were candidates for surgical intervention according to the NCCN guidelines, and half of these patients would have been missed if only BRCA1/2 testing had been ordered. Expedited multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing should be considered as a first-line approach to provide comprehensive information for breast cancer management.

MSH6 and PMS2 germ-line pathogenic variants implicated in Lynch syndrome are associated with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: An association of Lynch syndrome (LS) with breast cancer has been long suspected; however, there have been insufficient data to address this question for each of the LS genes individually. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of personal and family history in 423 women with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germ-line variants in MLH1 (N = 65), MSH2 (N = 94), MSH6 (N = 140), or PMS2 (N = 124) identified via clinical multigene hereditary cancer testing. Standard incidence ratios (SIRs) of breast cancer were calculated by comparing breast cancer frequencies in our study population with those in the general population (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 data). RESULTS: When evaluating by gene, the age-standardized breast cancer risks for MSH6 (SIR = 2.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56-2.86) and PMS2 (SIR = 2.92; 95% CI, 2.17-3.92) were associated with a statistically significant risk for breast cancer whereas no association was observed for MLH1 (SIR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.42-1.83) or MSH2 (SIR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72-2.06). CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that two LS genes, MSH6 and PMS2, are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and should be considered when ordering genetic testing for individuals who have a personal and/or family history of breast cancer.

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variant prevalence among the first 10,000 patients referred for next-generation cancer panel testing.

PURPOSE: Germ-line testing for panels of cancer genes using next-generation sequencing is becoming more common in clinical care. We report our experience as a clinical laboratory testing both well-established, high-risk cancer genes (e.g., BRCA1/2, MLH1, MSH2) as well as more recently identified cancer genes (e.g., PALB2, BRIP1), many of which have increased but less well-defined penetrance. METHODS: Clinical genetic testing was performed on over 10,000 consecutive cases referred for evaluation of germ-line cancer genes, and results were analyzed for frequency of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and were stratified by testing panel, gene, and clinical history. RESULTS: Overall, a molecular diagnosis was made in 9.0% of patients tested, with the highest yield in the Lynch syndrome/colorectal cancer panel. In patients with breast, ovarian, or colon/stomach cancer, positive yields were 9.7, 13.4, and 14.8%, respectively. Approximately half of the pathogenic variants identified in patients with breast or ovarian cancer were in genes other than BRCA1/2. CONCLUSION: The high frequency of positive results in a wide range of cancer genes, including those of high penetrance and with clinical care guidelines, underscores both the genetic heterogeneity of hereditary cancer and the usefulness of multigene panels over genetic tests of one or two genes.Genet Med 18 8, 823-832.

Evaluation of established breast cancer risk factors as modifiers of BRCA1 or BRCA2: a multi-center case-only analysis.

The incomplete penetrance of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 suggests that some combination of environmental and genetic factors modifies the risk of breast cancer in mutation carriers. This study sought to identify possible interactions between established breast cancer risk factors and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations using a case-only study design. Breast cancer cases that had been tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were identified from 11 collaborating centers. Comparisons of reproductive and lifestyle risk factors were made between women with breast cancer who were positive for BRCA1 mutations (n = 283), BRCA2 mutations (n = 204), or negative for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (n = 894). Interaction risk ratios (IRRs) were calculated using multinominal logistic regression models. Compared with non-carriers, statistically significant IRRs were observed for later age at menarche among BRCA2 mutation carriers, for a greater number of pregnancies among both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and for alcohol use among BRCA1 mutation carriers. Our data suggest that the risk for breast cancer among BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers may be modified by reproductive characteristics and alcohol use. However, our results should be interpreted cautiously given the overall inconsistency in the epidemiologic literature on modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Attitudes and practice of genetic counselors regarding anonymous testing for BRCA1/2.

Patients and clinicians alike view anonymous testing as a potential way to avoid perceived risks of genetic testing such as insurance and employment discrimination and the potential loss of privacy. To assess their experience with and attitudes towards anonymous testing for BRCA1/2, genetic counselors were invited to complete an internet-based survey via the NSGC Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group (FCRC-SIG) listerv. A majority of the 115 respondents (70%) had received requests from patients for anonymous BRCA1/2 testing at some point in their careers and 43% complied with this request. Most counselors, however, encountered such requests infrequently, 1-5 times per year. Although genetic counselors do not generally encourage anonymous testing and over a third of respondents feel it should never be offered, a substantial subset support its use under specific circumstances. In general, a strong consensus exists among counselors that anonymous testing should not be offered routinely. In light of the current legislative landscape, it is of note that a substantial proportion of respondents (42.7%) cited the threat of life insurance discrimination as a reason for pursuing AT, and fewer cited health insurance (30.0%) or employment discrimination (29.1%) as justifications. Since there exists no federal legislative protections against discrimination by life insurance companies, it makes sense that genetic counselors were more responsive to this issue as opposed to the threat of discrimination in health insurance and employment.

Increased uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among African American women with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Studies suggest that African American women are less likely to pursue BRCA1/2 genetic testing than white women. However, such studies are often confounded by unequal access to care. METHODS: Data from 132 African American and 636 white women, obtained from a clinical database at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC) between 1998 and 2005, were analyzed to assess BRCA1/2 genetic testing uptake. Importantly, the clinical setting minimized barriers of both cost and access. Race and time of new breast cancer diagnosis (recent v > 1 year before genetic evaluation) were assessed for association with BRCA1/2 testing uptake using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Both race (P = .0082) and a recent diagnosis of breast cancer (P = .014) were independently associated with testing uptake. African American women had a lower estimated odds of pursuing testing than white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95%CI, 0.34 to 0.85), and women with a recent diagnosis had a higher OR than those with a remote diagnosis (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.29). In a race-stratified analysis, there was no statistical evidence for association between recent status and testing uptake in the larger white stratum (OR, 1.38, P = .13) while there was for the smaller African American sample (OR, 2.77, P = .018). The test of interaction between race and remote status was not significant (P = .15). CONCLUSION: African American race was associated with an overall decreased uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing, even when barriers of ascertainment and cost were minimized. However, among African American women, a recent diagnosis of breast cancer was associated with substantially increased uptake of testing.

Genetics and the young woman with breast cancer.

While many individual risk factors have been defined for breast cancer, a family history was recognized long ago as one of the most potent. Mutations within BRCA1 or BRCA2, both identified about 10 years ago, are responsible for the majority of inherited breast cancer. By virtue of her age alone, a young woman diagnosed with breast cancer has a greatly elevated probability to carry a BRCA mutation. Other risk factors, including a personal or family history of ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer or Jewish ancestry, only serve to increase that chance. It is critical that clinicians caring for a young woman understand their patient's elevated risk to carry such a mutation and thoughtfully investigate this risk. Upon identification of a mutation in a young woman there are many consequences which necessitate careful consideration of various treatment and preventative options including prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy. Finally, the diagnosis of breast cancer in a young woman and the attendant genetic implications have immediate and serious consequences for her family members. Genetic professionals can help navigate the complex technical and psychosocial issues. This chapter explores the molecular, clinical and ethical intricacies of BRCA genetic testing.

Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research.

Family-based research is essential to understanding the genetic and environmental etiology of human disease. The success of family-based research often depends on investigators' ability to identify, recruit, and achieve a high participation rate among eligible family members. However, recruitment of family members raises ethical concerns due to the tension between protecting participants' privacy and promoting research quality, and guidelines for these activities are not well established. The Cancer Genetics Network Bioethics Committee assembled a multidisciplinary group to explore the scientific and ethical issues that arise in the process of family-based recruitment. The group used a literature review as well as expert opinion to develop recommendations about appropriate approaches to identifying, contacting, and recruiting family members. We conclude that there is no single correct approach, but recommend a balanced approach that takes into account the nature of the particular study as well as its recruitment goals. Recruitment of family members should be viewed as part of the research protocol and should require appropriate informed consent of the already-enrolled participant. Investigators should inform prospective participants why they are being contacted, how information about them was obtained, and what will happen to that information if they decide not to participate. The recruitment process should also be sensitive to the fact that some individuals from families at increased genetic risk will have no prior knowledge of their risk status. These recommendations are put forward to promote further discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to family-based recruitment. They suggest a framework for considering alternative recruitment strategies and their implications, as well as highlight areas in need of further empirical research.