Uptake of screening and risk-reducing recommendations among women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome due to pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants evaluated at a large urban comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 have an elevated lifetime cancer risk warranting high-risk screening and risk-reducing procedures for early detection and prevention. We report on prevention practices among women with pathogenic BRCA variants in order to document follow through with NCCN recommendations and to identify barriers to guideline-recommended care. METHODS: Our cohort included women who had genetic testing through a cancer genetic clinic and completed a 54-item questionnaire to measure socio-demographics, medical history, rates of cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery, disclosure of test results, and cancer worry. Outcomes included rates of completion of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), and NCCN risk-reducing and age-dependent screening guidelines (version 3.2019). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate potential predictors of these outcomes. RESULTS: Of 129 evaluable women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants, 95 (74%) underwent RRSO and 77 (60%) had RRM, respectively, and 107 (83%) were considered adherent to NCCN guidelines. Women with a history of breast or ovarian cancer were more likely to have RRM (OR = 4.38; 95% CI 1.80-11.51; p = 0.002). Increasing age was associated with an increased likelihood of RRSO (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09; p = 0.019) and decreased likelihood for RRM (OR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.92-0.99; p = 0.013). Women who had RRM were 3 times more likely to undergo RRSO (OR = 2.81; 95% CI 1.10-7.44; p = 0.025). Women who had genetic testing after June 2013 were less likely to have RRM than those tested before June 2013 (OR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.18-0.95; p = 0.040. None of the other measured factors were associated with rates of RRSO, RRM or follow through with NCCN recommendations. There was near universal (127/129) reported disclosure of genetic test results to family members, resulting in the discovery of a median of 1 relative with a pathogenic variant (range = 0-8). CONCLUSION: An evaluation of follow up practice in a cohort of women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 revealed high rates of reported completion of screening and surgical risk-reducing recommendations. Educational efforts should continue to reinforce the importance of follow-through with guideline recommended care among this high-risk group.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Racial and ethnic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic test results among individuals referred for genetic counseling at a large urban comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in populations other than Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) is not well defined. We describe the racial and ethnic-specific prevalence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among individuals referred for genetic testing in a large urban comprehensive cancer center over a 20-year period. METHODS: The population included 3,537 unrelated individuals who underwent genetic testing from January 1999 to October 2019 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute. We estimated the prevalence of pathogenic variants and VUS and evaluated associations with race and ethnicity for African American (AA), Arab, AJ and Hispanic individuals compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). We used multivariable models to adjust for other predictors of pathogenic variants. We also reported the most common pathogenic variants by racial and ethnic group. RESULTS: The racial and ethnic breakdown of our population was: NHW (68.9%), AA (20.3%), AJ (2.5%), Arab (2.2%), Hispanic (1.0%), Asian Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native (4.7%), and < 1% unknown. The overall prevalence of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 was 8.9% and the prevalence of VUS was 5.6%. Compared to NHW, there were no racial or ethnic differences in the rate of pathogenic variants. However, AA individuals were more likely to have VUS in BRCA1 (adjusted OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.38-4.28) and AJ were more likely to have VUS in BRCA2 (adjusted OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.61-6.58). CONCLUSION: These results suggest the continued need for genetic testing and variant reclassification for individuals of all racial and ethnic groups.

Racial and ethnic variation in multigene panel testing in a cohort of BRCA1/2-negative individuals who had genetic testing in a large urban comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: There is sparse clinical information on the racial and ethnic distribution of results of multigene panel testing among individuals at high risk for hereditary cancer. METHODS: We evaluated the results of multigene panel testing across eight clinical sites across the state of Michigan for individuals seen for genetic counseling from May 13, 2013 to October 31, 2019 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute's cancer genetics clinic. We estimated the prevalence of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) from genes other than BRCA1/2 among individuals of non-Hispanic White (NHW), Black or African American (AA), Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ), Arab, Hispanic, and other ancestry. RESULTS: The racial and ethnic distribution of 2419 individuals who had panel testing included 68.8% NHW, 22.1% AA, 2.3% Arab, 2.2% AJ, 1.0% Hispanic, and 3.6% other. Of these, 11.2% had pathogenic variants and 17.5% had VUS. After multivariable analyses, compared to NHW, AA were less likely to have pathogenic variants (OR 95% CI, 0.38, 0.24-0.59, p < 0.001). Both AA and Arabs were more likely to have VUS (OR 95% CI, 1.53, 1.18-1.98, p = 0.001 and OR 95% CI, 2.28, 1.17-4.43, p = 0.015, respectively). There were no significant differences for other groups. The most common pathogenic variants were CHEK2 (n = 65), MUTYH (n = 45), ATM (n = 28), and MSH2 (n = 22); the most common pathogenic variants by race and ethnicity were CHEK2 (NHW), MSH2 and MUTYH (AA), MSH2 (Arab), MSH6 and CHEK2 (AJ), and MLH1 (Hispanic); the most common pathogenic variants by primary cancer site were CHEK2 (breast), MSH2 (colon), BRIP1 and MUTYH (ovarian), and MSH2 and MSH6 (endometrial). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the racial and ethnic distribution of pathogenic variants in multi-gene panels has the potential to lead to better identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

Cell-free DNA results lead to unexpected diagnosis.

Maternal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) results that are discordant with the diagnostic fetal karyotype should prompt further investigation. If deeper analysis of the cfDNA results demonstrates a "saw-tooth" pattern characteristic of genome-wide imbalance, maternal malignancy is suggested. Identifying the maternal malignancy can, however, be difficult.

Reanalysis of BRCA1/2 negative high risk ovarian cancer patients reveals novel germline risk loci and insights into missing heritability.

While up to 25% of ovarian cancer (OVCA) cases are thought to be due to inherited factors, the majority of genetic risk remains unexplained. To address this gap, we sought to identify previously undescribed OVCA risk variants through the whole exome sequencing (WES) and candidate gene analysis of 48 women with ovarian cancer and selected for high risk of genetic inheritance, yet negative for any known pathogenic variants in either BRCA1 or BRCA2. In silico SNP analysis was employed to identify suspect variants followed by validation using Sanger DNA sequencing. We identified five pathogenic variants in our sample, four of which are in two genes featured on current multi-gene panels; (RAD51D, ATM). In addition, we found a pathogenic FANCM variant (R1931*) which has been recently implicated in familial breast cancer risk. Numerous rare and predicted to be damaging variants of unknown significance were detected in genes on current commercial testing panels, most prominently in ATM (n = 6) and PALB2 (n = 5). The BRCA2 variant p.K3326*, resulting in a 93 amino acid truncation, was overrepresented in our sample (odds ratio = 4.95, p = 0.01) and coexisted in the germline of these women with other deleterious variants, suggesting a possible role as a modifier of genetic penetrance. Furthermore, we detected loss of function variants in non-panel genes involved in OVCA relevant pathways; DNA repair and cell cycle control, including CHEK1, TP53I3, REC8, HMMR, RAD52, RAD1, POLK, POLQ, and MCM4. In summary, our study implicates novel risk loci as well as highlights the clinical utility for retesting BRCA1/2 negative OVCA patients by genomic sequencing and analysis of genes in relevant pathways.

Large, Prospective Analysis of the Reasons Patients Do Not Pursue BRCA Genetic Testing Following Genetic Counseling.

Genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) identifies high-risk individuals who benefit from enhanced medical management. Not all individuals undergo GT following GC and understanding the reasons why can impact clinical efficiency, reduce GT costs through appropriate identification of high-risk individuals, and demonstrate the value of pre-GT GC. A collaborative project sponsored by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services prospectively collects anonymous data on BRCA-related GC visits performed by providers in Michigan, including demographics, patient/family cancer history, GT results, and reasons for declining GT. From 2008 to 2012, 10,726 patients underwent GC; 3476 (32.4%) did not pursue GT. Primary reasons included: not the best test candidate (28.1%), not clinically indicated (23.3%), and insurance/out of pocket cost concerns (13.6%). Patient disinterest was the primary reason for declining in 17.1%. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns were the primary reason for not testing in 13.4% of untested individuals with private insurance. Among untested individuals with breast and/or ovarian cancer, 22.5% reported insurance/out of pocket cost concerns as the primary reason for not testing and 6.6% failed to meet Medicare criteria. In a five-year time period, nearly one-third of patients who underwent BRCA GC did not pursue GT. GT was not indicated in almost half of patients. Insurance/out of pocket cost concerns continue to be barriers.

Familial clustering of breast and prostate cancer and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in the Women's Health Initiative Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the risk of breast and prostate cancer is increased among those with a family history of the same disease and particularly among first-degree relatives. However, less is known about the relationship between breast and prostate cancer within families and particularly among minority populations. METHODS: Analyses of participants in the Women's Health Initiative observational cohort who were free of breast cancer at the time of their baseline examination were conducted. Subjects were followed for breast cancer through August 31, 2009. A Cox proportional hazards regression modeling approach was used to estimate the risk of breast cancer associated with a family history of prostate cancer, breast cancer, and both among first-degree relatives. RESULTS: There were 78,171 eligible participants, and 3506 breast cancer cases were diagnosed during the study period. A family history of prostate cancer was associated with a modest increase in breast cancer risk after adjustments for confounders (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.26). In a separate analysis examining the joint impact of both cancers, a family history of both breast and prostate cancer was associated with a 78% increase in breast cancer risk (aHR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.45-2.19). Risk estimates associated with a family history of both breast and prostate cancer were higher among African American women (aHR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.09-5.02) versus white women (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33-2.08). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that prostate cancer diagnosed among first-degree family members increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Future studies are needed to determine the relative contributions of genes and a shared environment to the risk for both cancers.

To reflex or not: additional BRCA1/2 testing in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals without founder mutations.

This study determined the prevalence of non-Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/2 mutations in the Ashkenazi Jewish population in the state of Michigan, current provider testing practices, and the use of mutation probability models in determining which Ashkenazi Jewish individuals should be offered further analysis following negative BRCA1/2 founder testing. Testing patterns, mutation probabilities, and testing results were assessed for 327 Ashkenazi Jewish individuals seen for BRCA1/2 counseling in the state of Michigan who underwent testing for the Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations. Only one (0.6 %) Ashkenazi Jewish individual with sequencing after negative founder analysis was found to have a non-founder mutation; no rearrangements were identified. Testing patterns varied by clinic, with the proportion of Ashkenazi Jewish individuals undergoing additional sequencing ranging from 22.2 to 92.9 %. In Ashkenazi Jewish individuals with a pre-test BRCAPRO risk calculation, the mean risk was significantly higher in those with follow-up sequencing compared to those who did not pursue additional testing. The low prevalence of non-founder BRCA1/2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals does not warrant automatically reflexing to full analysis after negative mutation testing. Increased use of mutation probability models may aid in determining which cases warrant additional testing.

Prospective analysis of association between statin use and breast cancer risk in the women's health initiative.

BACKGROUND: Statins are a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs that affect many intracellular pathways that may have implications for chemoprevention against cancer. Epidemiologic data on statins and breast cancer are conflicting. We analyzed updated data from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) to assess the relationship between statins and breast cancer risk. METHODS: The population included 154,587 postmenopausal women ages 50 to 79 years, with 7,430 pathologically confirmed cases of breast cancer identified over an average of 10.8 (SD, 3.3) years. Information on statins was collected at baseline and years one, three, six, and nine. Self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires were used to collect information on risk factors. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to calculate HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate the relationship between statin use and cancer risk. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Statins were used by 11,584 (7.5%) women at baseline. The annualized rate of breast cancer was 0.42% among statin users and 0.42% among nonusers. The multivariable adjusted HR of breast cancer for users versus nonusers was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06). In the multivariable-adjusted, time-dependent model, the HR for simvastatin was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07). There was no significant trend by overall duration of use (P value for trend 0.68). There was no effect of tumor stage, grade, or hormone receptor status. CONCLUSION: Overall, statins were not associated with breast cancer risk. IMPACT: Our study is one of the largest prospective observational studies on this topic, and substantially adds to the literature suggesting no relationship between statins and breast cancer risk.

Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider's professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Variants in the Signaling Protein TSAd are Associated with Susceptibility to Ovarian Cancer in BRCA1/2 Negative High Risk Families.

A substantial fraction of familial ovarian cancer cases cannot be attributed to specific genetic factors. The discovery of additional susceptibility genes will permit a more accurate assessment of hereditary cancer risk and allow for monitoring of predisposed women in order to intervene at the earliest possible stage. We focused on a population with elevated familial breast and ovarian cancer risk. In this study, we identified a SNP rs926103 whose minor allele is associated with predisposition to ovarian but not breast cancer in a Caucasian high-risk population without BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. We have found that the allelic variation of rs926103, which alters amino acid 52 of the encoded protein SH2D2A/TSAd, results in differences in the activity of this protein involved in multiple signal transduction pathways, including regulation of immune response, tumor vascularization, cell growth, and differentiation. Our observation provides a novel candidate genetic biomarker of elevated ovarian cancer risk in members of high-risk families without BRCA1/2 mutations, as well as a potential therapeutic target, TSAd.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is the most common cause of hereditary forms of both breast and ovarian cancer. The overall prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations is estimated to be from 1 in 400 to 1 in 800 with a higher prevalence in the Ashkenazi Jewish population (1 in 40). Estimates of penetrance (cancer risk) vary considerably depending on the context in which they were derived and have been shown to vary within families with the same BRCA1/2 mutation. This suggests there is no exact risk estimate that can be applied to all individuals with a BRCA1/2 mutation. The likelihood of harboring a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is dependent on one's personal and/or family history of cancer and can be estimated using various mutation probability models. For those individuals who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, several screening and primary prevention options have been suggested, including prophylactic surgery and chemoprevention. Once a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been identified in a family, testing of at-risk relatives can identify those family members who also have the familial mutation and thus need increased surveillance and early intervention when a cancer is diagnosed.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome : the impact of race on uptake of genetic counseling and testing.

Breast cancer is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although breast cancer is more common among White American (WA) women, incidence rates are higher among young African American (AA) women. Approximately 5-10% of all breast cancer can be accounted for by germline mutations in the breast cancer (BRCA)1 and BRCA2 genes responsible for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Although genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT) for HBOC have become widely accepted by the WA population, cancer genetic services are underused among AA. Many investigators have evaluated a wide spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in the AA and African population with the possible identification of African founder mutations. Barriers to GC and GT include lack of knowledge and/or negative attitudes regarding genetics and genetics research, and concerns regarding the potential for racial discrimination. It is important for future research to focus on ways in which to eliminate barriers to GC and GT to alleviate disparity in the use of genetic services among high-risk AA women.

Clinical interpretation and recommendations for patients with a variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a survey of genetic counseling practice.

The intent of this study was to document current practices in breast cancer genetic counseling and identify areas of variability for patients with a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. Registered members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group (SIG) were sent an invitation via electronic mail to participate in an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: clinical experience, clinical meaning, and risk perceptions and clinical recommendations for clinical situations involving a VUS. Fifty-seven of the eligible members responded. During the pre-test counseling session for a BRCA risk assessment patient, the vast majority of counselors (80.7%) mention VUS as a possible test result. Nearly half, 49.1%, report having given such a result to their patients at least one to four times. However, only 63.2% felt as though their patients understood the meaning of a VUS result. When asked to conclude the implication of a VUS and make medical management recommendations, the responses were varied. Nevertheless, a good proportion of counselors expressed the importance of testing other family members to help clarify the proband's risk and aid in medical management issues. Although the recent recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics suggest standards for the interpretation of sequence variations, they do not provide guidelines for making clinical recommendations based on these variations. The results of this study reveal significant diversity in the personal interpretation of a VUS result, leading to various clinical recommendations, and suggest a need for clinical management recommendations as well.