NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

Prepubertal Internalizing Symptoms and Timing of Puberty Onset in Girls.

Stressful environments have been associated with earlier menarche. We hypothesized that anxiety, and possibly other internalizing symptoms, are also associated with earlier puberty in girls. The Lessons in Epidemiology and Genetics of Adult Cancer From Youth (LEGACY) Girls Study (2011-2016) included 1,040 girls aged 6-13 years at recruitment whose growth and development were assessed every 6 months. Prepubertal maternal reports of daughter's internalizing symptoms were available for breast onset (n = 447), pubic hair onset (n = 456), and menarche (n = 681). Using Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated prospective hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the relationship between 1 standard deviation of the percentiles of prepubertal anxiety, depression, and somatization symptoms and the timing of each pubertal outcome. Multivariable models included age, race/ethnicity, study center, maternal education, body mass index percentile, and family history of breast cancer. Additional models included maternal self-reported anxiety. A 1-standard deviation increase in maternally reported anxiety in girls at baseline was associated with earlier subsequent onset of breast (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09, 1.36) and pubic hair (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.30) development, but not menarche (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.07). The association of anxiety with earlier breast development persisted after adjustment for maternal anxiety. Increased anxiety in young girls may indicate risk for earlier pubertal onset.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 1.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2, pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Accuracy of Risk Estimates from the iPrevent Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Management Tool.

BACKGROUND: iPrevent is an online breast cancer (BC) risk management decision support tool. It uses an internal switching algorithm, based on a woman's risk factor data, to estimate her absolute BC risk using either the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) version 7.02, or Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm version 3 models, and then provides tailored risk management information. This study assessed the accuracy of the 10-year risk estimates using prospective data. METHODS: iPrevent-assigned 10-year invasive BC risk was calculated for 15 732 women aged 20-70 years and without BC at recruitment to the Prospective Family Study Cohort. Calibration, the ratio of the expected (E) number of BCs to the observed (O) number and discriminatory accuracy were assessed. RESULTS: During the 10 years of follow-up, 619 women (3.9%) developed BC compared with 702 expected (E/O = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.05 to 1.23). For women younger than 50 years, 50 years and older, and BRCA1/2-mutation carriers and noncarriers, E/O was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.16), 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39), 1.13 (95% CI = 0.96 to 1.34), and 1.13 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.24), respectively. The C-statistic was 0.70 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.73) overall and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.77), 0.63 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.66), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.64), and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.68), respectively, for the subgroups above. Applying the newer IBIS version 8.0b in the iPrevent switching algorithm improved calibration overall (E/O = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.15) and in all subgroups, without changing discriminatory accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: For 10-year BC risk, iPrevent had good discriminatory accuracy overall and was well calibrated for women aged younger than 50 years. Calibration may be improved in the future by incorporating IBIS version 8.0b.

A Better Pathway? Building Consensus and Engaging Providers with Feedback to Improve and Standardize Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: Unwanted clinical variation is common across the United States health care system and is particularly vexing in oncology owing to the complexity, morbidity, and high cost of the disease. Efforts to standardize care including guidelines and continuing medical education have had only limited impact. Disease-specific oncology clinical pathways hold the promise of reducing variation but have been hampered by a lack of ownership and accountability among oncology providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the utility of combining a patient simulation-based clinical variation measurement with the in-house development of multidisciplinary breast cancer pathways at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. RESULTS: At baseline, we found high variation in care decisions across the multidisciplinary team and within individual specialties in the management of simulated patients. Development and introduction of breast cancer clinical pathways combined with individual and group feedback on pathway adherence led to significant increases in pathway-aligned care decisions and decreases in measured variation. Overall quality scores increased from 47.5% to 61.1% (P < .001), with the largest improvement in diagnostic accuracy (+22.1%). Providers also ordered fewer unnecessary tests, saving an estimated $305 per patient case. Adherence to preferred chemotherapy regimens increased for both medical oncologists (+16%) and other members of the multidisciplinary team (+19%). CONCLUSION: Our work shows that a structured process to measure clinical variation and provide personalized feedback to an oncology multidisciplinary team drives adoption of evidence-based pathways, less unneeded spending, and higher quality care for patients.

Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode.

Background: This study evaluates predictors of BRCA1/2 testing among breast and ovarian cancer survivors who received genetic counseling as part of a randomized trial and evaluates moderators of counseling mode on testing uptake.Methods: Predictors of BRCA1/2 testing within one year postcounseling were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression in a population-based sample of breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased hereditary risk randomly assigned to in-person counseling (IPC; n = 379) versus telephone counseling (TC; n = 402). Variables that moderated the association between counseling mode and testing were identified by subgroup analysis.Results: Testing uptake was associated with higher perceived comparative mutation risk [OR = 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.57] in the adjusted analysis. Those without cost barriers had higher testing uptake (OR = 18.73; 95% CI, 7.09-49.46). Psychologic distress and perceived comparative mutation risk moderated the effect of counseling and testing. Uptake between IPC versus TC did not differ at low levels of distress and risk, but differed at high distress (26.3% TC vs. 44.3% IPC) and high perceived comparative risk (33.9% TC vs. 50.5% IPC).Conclusions: Cost concerns are a strong determinant of testing. Differences in testing uptake by counseling mode may depend on precounseling distress and risk perceptions.Impact: Cost concerns may contribute to low testing in population-based samples of at-risk cancer survivors. Precounseling psychosocial characteristics should be considered when offering in-person versus telephone counseling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1772-80. ©2017 AACR.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2015.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling and risk assessment and management for hereditary cancer syndromes. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer and are intended to assist with clinical and shared decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year included multigene testing, risk management recommendations for less common genetic mutations, and salpingectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction. The panel also discussed revisions to genetic testing criteria that take into account ovarian cancer histology and personal history of pancreatic cancer.

Economic Evaluation Alongside a Clinical Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for BRCA1/2 Mutations in Geographically Underserved Areas.

PURPOSE: BRCA1/2 counseling and mutation testing is recommended for high-risk women, but geographic barriers exist, and no data on the costs and yields of diverse delivery approaches are available. METHODS: We performed an economic evaluation with a randomized clinical trial comparing telephone versus in-person counseling at 14 locations (nine geographically remote). Costs included fixed overhead, variable staff, and patient time costs; research costs were excluded. Outcomes included average per-person costs for pretest counseling; mutations detected; and overall counseling, testing, and disclosure. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: In-person counseling was more costly per person counseled than was telephone counseling ($270 [range, $180 to $400] v $120 [range, $80 to $200], respectively). Counselors averaged 285 miles round-trip to deliver in-person counseling to the participants (three participants per session). There were no differences by arm in mutation detection rates (approximately 10%); therefore, telephone counseling was less costly per positive mutation detected than was in-person counseling ($37,160 [range, $36,080 to$38,920] v $40,330 [range, $38,010 to $43,870]). In-person counseling would only be less costly than telephone counseling if the most favorable assumptions were applied to in personc ounseling and the least favorable assumptions were applied to telephone counseling. CONCLUSION: In geographically underserved areas, telephone counseling is less costly than in-person counseling.

Building Successful Relationships in the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial.

Biomedical research cannot succeed without funding, knowledgeable staff, and appropriate infrastructure. There are however equally important but intangible factors that are rarely considered in planning large multidisciplinary endeavors or evaluating their success. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial required extensive collaborations between individuals from many fields, including clinicians, clinical trialists, and administrators; it also addressed questions across the spectrum of cancer prevention and control. In this manuscript, we examine the experiences and opinions of trial staff regarding the building of successful relationships in PLCO. We summarize, in narrative form, data collected using open-ended questionnaires that were administered to the National Cancer Institute project officers, coordinating center staff, screening center principal investigators, and screening center coordinators in 2015, about 3 years after publication of the final primary trial manuscript. Trust, respect, listening to others, and in-person interaction were frequently mentioned as crucial to building successful relationships.

Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 1.2014.

During the past few years, several genetic aberrations that may contribute to increased risks for development of breast and/or ovarian cancers have been identified. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian focus specifically on the assessment of genetic mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2, TP53, and PTEN, and recommend approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these mutations. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines includes recommendations regarding diagnostic criteria and management of patients with Cowden Syndrome/PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome.

Racial and ethnic differences in adjuvant hormonal therapy use.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, 5-year breast cancer survival is highest among Asian American women, followed by non-Hispanic white, Hispanic, and African American women. Breast cancer treatment disparities may play a role. We examined racial/ethnic differences in adjuvant hormonal therapy use among women aged 18-64 years, diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, using data collected by the Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR), and explored changes in use over time. METHODS: Odds ratios (OR) comparing self-reported ever-use by race/ethnicity (African American, Hispanic, non-Hispanic white vs. Asian American) were estimated using multivariable adjusted logistic regression. Analyses were stratified by recruitment phase (phase I, diagnosed January 1995-September 1998, phase II, diagnosed October 1998-April 2003) and genetic susceptibility, as cases with increased genetic susceptibility were oversampled. RESULTS: Among 1385 women (731 phase I, 654 phase II), no significant racial/ethnic differences in use were observed among phase I or phase II cases. However, among phase I cases with no susceptibility indicators, African American and non-Hispanic white women were less likely than Asian American women to use hormonal therapy (OR 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]0.06-0.60; OR 0.40, CI 0.17-0.94, respectively). No racial/ethnic differences in use were observed among women with 1+ susceptibility indicators from either recruitment phase. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic differences in adjuvant hormonal therapy use were limited to earlier diagnosis years (phase I) and were attenuated over time. Findings should be confirmed in other populations but indicate that in this population, treatment disparities between African American and Asian American women narrowed over time as adjuvant hormonal treatments became more commonly prescribed.