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.

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.

Pretest prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO.

BACKGROUND: Because BRCA gene mutation testing is costly, occasionally uninformative, and frequently associated with ethical and legal issues, careful patient selection is required prior to testing. Estimation of BRCA gene mutation probability is an important component of pretest counseling, but the accuracy of these estimates is currently unknown. We measured the performance of eight cancer risk counselors and of a computer model, BRCAPRO, at identifying families likely to carry a BRCA gene mutation. METHODS: Eight cancer risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO estimated BRCA gene mutation probabilities for 148 pedigrees selected from an initial sample of 272 pedigrees. The final sample was limited to pedigrees with a proband affected by breast or ovarian cancer and BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequencing results unequivocally reported as negative or positive for a deleterious mutation. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and areas under receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated for each risk counselor and for BRCAPRO. All statistical tests were two sided. RESULTS: Using a greater-than-10% BRCA gene mutation probability threshold, the median sensitivity for identifying mutation carriers was 94% (range = 81% to 98%) for the eight risk counselors and 92% (range = 91% to 92%) for BRCAPRO. Median specificity at this threshold was 16% (range = 6% to 34%) for the risk counselors and 32% (range = 30% to 34%) for BRCAPRO (P =.04). Median area under the ROC curves was 0.671 for the risk counselors (range = 0.620 to 0.717) and 0.712 (range = 0.706 to 0.720) for BRCAPRO (P =.04). There was a slight, but not statistically significant, improvement in all counselor performance measures when BRCAPRO-assigned gene mutation probability information was included with the pedigrees. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity for identifying BRCA gene mutation carriers is similar for experienced risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO. Because the computer model consistently demonstrated superior specificity, overall discrimination between BRCA gene mutation carriers and BRCA gene mutation noncarriers was slightly better for BRCAPRO.