The role of family history in predicting germline pathogenic variant carriers who develop pancreatic cancer: Results of a multicenter collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) surveillance is recommended for some individuals with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) in a PDAC susceptibility gene; the recommendation is often dependent on family history of PDAC. This study aimed to describe PDAC family history in individuals with PDAC who underwent genetic testing to determine the appropriateness of including a family history requirement in these recommendations. METHODS: Individuals with PDAC with a germline heterozygous PV/LPV in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, or PMS2 (PV/LPV carriers) were assessed for family history of PDAC in first-degree relatives (FDRs) or second-degree relatives (SDRs) from nine institutions. A control group of individuals with PDAC without a germline PV/LPV was also assessed. RESULTS: The study included 196 PV/LPV carriers and 1184 controls. In the PV/LPV carriers, 25.5% had an affected FDR and/or SDR compared to 16.9% in the control group (p = .004). PV/LPV carriers were more likely to have an affected FDR compared to the controls (p = .003) but there was no statistical difference when assessing only affected SDRs (p = .344). CONCLUSIONS: Most PV/LPV carriers who developed PDAC did not have a close family history of PDAC and would not have met most current professional societies' recommendations for consideration of PDAC surveillance before diagnosis. However, PV/LPV carriers were significantly more likely to have a family history of PDAC, particularly an affected FDR. These findings support family history as a risk modifier in PV/LPV carriers, and highlight the need to identify other risk factors.

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings. METHODS: Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction. RESULTS: Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.

Painting a portrait: Analysis of national health survey data for cancer genetic counseling.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing body of literature describing the geographic and sociodemographic distribution of cancer genetic testing, work focused on these domains in cancer genetic counseling is limited. Research describing the epidemiology of cancer genetic counseling has mainly focused on isolated populations, a single gender (women) and a single condition (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer). Study findings to date are contradictory, making it unclear what, if any, disparities in receipt of cancer genetic counseling exist. METHODS: Utilizing the 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)-a cross-sectional, in person interview survey collecting self-reported health data for the US population-geographic and sociodemographic factors were compared between those receiving genetic counseling and the national sample. Bivariate analysis and subsequent multivariable logistic regression were performed with stratification by cancer status (affected/unaffected). Reason for (eg, doctor recommended) and focus of (eg, breast/ovarian) genetic counseling were also assessed. To generate nationally representative estimates, all analyses were adjusted for survey weights. RESULTS: An estimated 4.8 million individuals in the United States had cancer genetic counseling. On bivariate analysis, there were significant differences in proportions undergoing genetic counseling by sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, citizenship, education, age, and cancer status (P < 0.01). After adjustment, however, only female sex (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.78 [95% CI: 1.18-2.67]) remained a significant predictor of genetic counseling among the affected. Among the unaffected, female sex (OR: 1.70 [1.30-2.21]), non-Hispanic black race (OR: 1.44 [1.02-2.05], reference: non-Hispanic white), graduate education (OR: 1.76 [1.03-2.98], reference: less than high school), and age (OR: 1.06 [1.01-1.11]) predicted higher rates of genetic counseling. An estimated 2.1 million individuals have undergone genetic counseling focused on breast/ovarian cancer, 1.3 million on colorectal cancer, and 1.4 million on "other" cancers. Of those receiving genetic counseling focused on breast/ovarian cancer, 3% were male and 97% female (breast cancer alone-4% male, 96% female); for colorectal cancer, 49% male and 51% female, and for "other" cancers, 60% male and 40% female. The majority of individuals receiving genetic counseling reported they did so because their doctor recommended it (66%), with smaller proportions describing self (12%), family (10%), or media (5%) influences as the primary reason. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to depict the sociodemographic and geographic distribution of cancer genetic counseling at the national level. Despite perceived disparities in access, cancer genetic counseling in the United States appears to be accessed by individuals of diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, with various insurance coverage and educational levels, and across a broad range of ages and geographic regions. The only sociodemographic factor that independently predicted receipt of genetic counseling across both the affected and unaffected population was sex. With physician recommendation as the predominant driver for counseling, targeting physician education, and awareness is crucial to utilization.

BRCA-mutated Invasive Breast Carcinomas: Immunohistochemical Analysis of Insulin-like Growth Factor II mRNA-binding Protein (IMP3), Cytokeratin 8/18, and Cytokeratin 14.

To evaluate the expression of insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein (IMP3), CK8/18, and CK14 in BRCA mutated and sporadic invasive breast carcinoma. Immunohistochemistry for IMP3, CK8/18, and CK14 was performed on 39 cases of invasive breast carcinomas with BRCA mutation (24 BRCA1, 14 BRCA2, and 1 dual BRCA1/BRCA2) and 54 cases of sporadic invasive breast carcinomas. The relationship between the IMP3, CK8/18, and CK14 and the tumor grade and molecular phenotypes were analyzed. IMP3, CK8/18, and CK14 positivity were present in 20 (51%), 22 (56%), and 14 (36%) of 39 BRCA-mutated breast carcinomas, and 11 (20%), 53 (98%), and 24 (44%) of 54 sporadic breast carcinomas respectively. The rates of IMP3 expression and absence of CK8/18 (44% versus 2%) in BRCA-mutated breast carcinomas was significantly higher than the sporadic breast carcinomas (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for CK14 among the two groups (p = 0.408). No significant difference was observed among BRCA1-related and BRCA2-related breast carcinomas in the immunoprofile for IMP3, CK8/18, and CK14. No significant correlation was identified between the expression of IMP3 and CK8/18 and the tumor grade in both BRCA-mutated and sporadic breast carcinomas (p > 0.05). In cases with luminal A and B phenotypes, the rates of expression of IMP3 and loss of CK8/18 were significantly higher in BRCA-mutated as compared to sporadic breast carcinoma (p < 0.001). In cases with basal-like phenotype, the absence of CK8/18 expression was significantly higher in BRCA-mutated breast carcinomas (54% versus 0%, p = 0.001), while no difference was observed for IMP3 expression (p = 0.435). Regardless of mutation type, histologic grade, or molecular phenotype, the absence of CK8/18 expression and presence of IMP3 expression are seen at much higher rate in BRCA mutated breast carcinomas.