Identification of a Variety of Mutations in Cancer Predisposition Genes in Patients With Suspected Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Multigene panels are commercially available tools for hereditary cancer risk assessment that allow for next-generation sequencing of numerous genes in parallel. However, it is not clear if these panels offer advantages over traditional genetic testing. We investigated the number of cancer predisposition gene mutations identified by parallel sequencing in individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We performed germline analysis with a 25-gene, next-generation sequencing panel using DNA from 1260 individuals who underwent clinical genetic testing for Lynch syndrome from 2012 through 2013. All patients had a history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancer and/or polyps. We classified all identified germline alterations for pathogenicity and calculated the frequencies of pathogenic mutations and variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS). We also analyzed data on patients' personal and family history of cancer, including fulfillment of clinical guidelines for genetic testing. RESULTS: Of the 1260 patients, 1112 met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for Lynch syndrome testing (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86%-90%). Multigene panel testing identified 114 probands with Lynch syndrome mutations (9.0%; 95% CI, 7.6%-10.8%) and 71 with mutations in other cancer predisposition genes (5.6%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.1%). Fifteen individuals had mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2; 93% of these met the NCCN criteria for Lynch syndrome testing and 33% met NCCN criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 analysis (P = .0017). An additional 9 individuals carried mutations in other genes linked to high lifetime risks of cancer (5 had mutations in APC, 3 had bi-allelic mutations in MUTYH, and 1 had a mutation in STK11); all of these patients met NCCN criteria for Lynch syndrome testing. A total of 479 individuals had 1 or more VUS (38%; 95% CI, 35%-41%). CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with suspected Lynch syndrome, multigene panel testing identified high-penetrance mutations in cancer predisposition genes, many of which were unexpected based on patients' histories. Parallel sequencing also detected a high number of potentially uninformative germline findings, including VUS.

Hereditary cancer-associated mutations in women diagnosed with two primary cancers: an opportunity to identify hereditary cancer syndromes after the first cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with hereditary cancer syndromes are at high risk for a second primary cancer. Early identification of these patients after an initial cancer diagnosis is the key to implementing cancer risk-reducing strategies. METHODS: A commercial laboratory database was searched for women with a history of both breast and ovarian or colorectal and endometrial cancer who underwent genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS). RESULTS: Among women with both breast and ovarian cancer, 22.4% (2,237/9,982) had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Among women with both colorectal and ovarian cancer, 28.1% (264/941) had a mutation associated with LS. In 66.6% of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and in 58.3% of LS mutation carriers, >5 years passed between the cancer diagnoses. Of patients with HBOC and LS, 56 and 65.2%, respectively, met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for hereditary cancer testing after their initial diagnosis based on their personal cancer history alone. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of women tested for LS or HBOC after being diagnosed with two successive primary cancers were diagnosed with a hereditary cancer syndrome. In many cases, the time interval between the diagnoses was long enough to allow for the implementation of surveillance and/or prophylactic measures.

Prevalence of BRCA mutations in an unselected population of triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence in an unselected cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (BC). METHODS: One hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled. Triple negativity was defined as <1% estrogen and progesterone staining by immunohistochemistry and HER-2/neu not overexpressed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Having given consent, patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 full sequencing and large rearrangement analysis. Mutation prevalence was assessed among the triple-negative BC patients and the subset of patients without a family history of breast/ovarian cancer. Independent pathological review was completed on 50 patients. RESULTS: Twenty-one deleterious BRCA mutations were identified--13 in BRCA1 and 8 in BRCA2 (prevalence, 10.6%). In 153 patients (76.9%) without significant family history (first-degree or second-degree relatives with BC aged <50 years or ovarian cancer at any age), 8 (5.2%) mutations were found. By using prior National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommending testing for triple-negative BC patients aged <45 years, 4 of 21 mutations (19%) would have been missed. Two of 21 mutations (10%) would have been missed using updated NCCN guidelines recommending testing for triple-negative BC patients aged <60 years. CONCLUSIONS: The observed mutation rate was significantly higher (P = .0005) than expected based on previously established prevalence tables among patients unselected for pathology. BRCA1 mutation prevalence was lower, and BRCA2 mutation prevalence was higher, than previously described. Additional mutation carriers would have met new NCCN testing guidelines, underscoring the value of the updated criteria. Study data suggest that by increasing the age limit to 65 years, all carriers would have been identified.

Modeling the 5-fluorouracil area under the curve versus dose relationship to develop a pharmacokinetic dosing algorithm for colorectal cancer patients receiving FOLFOX6.

BACKGROUND: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is administered based on standard body surface area (BSA) dosing. BSA administration results in highly variable exposure, measured as the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). An immunoassay (OnDose®; Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) that measures plasma 5-FU concentration and reports an AUC in mg · h/L has been developed to optimize therapy using pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing. The results of an analysis to model the 5-FU AUC-dose relationship are presented. METHODS: A set of 589 sequential patients from a clinical database receiving 5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (the FOLFOX6 regimen) for colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment was analyzed. A subset including only patients who had at least two consecutive cycles tested, received 1,600-3,600 mg/m2 of continuous infusion 5-FU during the initial test cycle, and had a blood sample collected after ≥18 hours, was used to conduct regression modeling of the change in AUC versus change in dose. RESULTS: A simple regression model with R(2) = 0.51 developed over n = 307 cycle-pair observations characterizes the AUC-Dose relationship as: change in AUC = 0.02063 * dose change. The model suggests that dose changes in the range of 145-727 mg/m2 would be sufficient to adjust the AUC to a potential therapeutic threshold of >20 mg · h/L for most patients. CONCLUSIONS: 5-FU is an ideal candidate for PK dose optimization. Because individual factors other than dose change may also affect the change in AUC, longitudinal PK monitoring in all cycles and dose adjustment to ensure AUC in the desired range of 20-30 mg · h/L are recommended.

Cell cycle progression score and treatment decisions in prostate cancer: results from an ongoing registry.

OBJECTIVE: The cell cycle progression (CCP) test (Prolaris) is a novel prognostic assay that provides accurate risk of prostate cancer-specific disease progression and disease specific mortality when combined with standard clinicopathologic parameters. This prospective study evaluated the impact of the CCP report on physician treatment recommendations for prostate cancer. METHODS: Physicians ordering the CCP test in clinical practice completed surveys regarding treatment recommendations before and after they received and discussed the test results with patients. Clinicians also rated the influence of the test result on treatment decisions. Treatment selections were confirmed via third-party audit of patient charts following final survey responses. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of cases showed a change between intended treatment pre- and post-CCP test reporting. Pre-CCP testing, 164 of 305 cases received a recommendation for interventional treatment. Post-CCP test, interventional therapy was recommended for 103 of these cases, a reduction of 37.2%. Conversely, 141 of 305 cases were recommended pre-CCP testing for non-interventional treatment; 108 of these remained with non-interventional treatment while 33 shifted to interventional options, a 23.4% increase. There was a 49.5% reduction in surgical interventions and a 29.6% reduction in radiation treatment. A third-party audit identified 80.2% concordance between the post-CCP testing treatment recommendation and actual treatment. Re-assignment to intervention or non-intervention generally correlated with the result of the CCP report. Study limitations included physician selection of patients for testing, no evaluation of patient input in therapeutic choice, and other potential treatment decision factors not queried by the survey. CONCLUSION: Based on responses of ordering physicians, the CCP report adds meaningful new information to risk assessment for localized prostate cancer patients. Test results led to changes in treatment with reductions and increases in interventional treatment that were directionally aligned with prostate cancer risk specified by the test.