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.

Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests in Preventive Oncology: Emerging Needs and Opportunities.

Cancer predictive or diagnostic assays, offered as Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs), have been subject to regulatory authority and enforcement discretion by the US Food and Drug Administration. Many LDTs enter the market without US Food and Drug Administration or any regulatory review. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments focuses on analytic performance, but has limited oversight of the quality or utility of LDTs, including whether patients have been harmed as a result of their use. Increasingly, LDTs for cancer risk or early detection have been marketed directly to consumers, with many LDT developers depicting these tests, requested by patients but ordered by personal or company-associated physicians, as procedures falling under the practice of medicine. This patchwork of regulation and enforcement uncertainty regarding LDTs and public concerns about accuracy of tests given emergency authorization during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT (in vitro clinical test) Development Act of 2021. This pending federal legislation represents an opportunity to harmonize regulatory policies and address growing concerns over quality, utility, and safety of LDTs for cancer genomics, including tests marketed directly to consumers. We review here questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of some cancer-related LDTs for cancer risk and presymptomatic molecular diagnosis, increasingly marketed to oncologists or directly to the worried well. We offer specific proposals to strengthen oversight of the accuracy and clinical utility of cancer genetic testing to ensure public safety.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

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.

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.

Health outcomes, utility and costs of returning incidental results from genomic sequencing in a Canadian cancer population: protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic sequencing has rapidly transitioned into clinical practice, improving diagnosis and treatment options for patients with hereditary disorders. However, large-scale implementation of genomic sequencing faces challenges, especially with regard to the return of incidental results, which refer to genetic variants uncovered during testing that are unrelated to the primary disease under investigation, but of potential clinical significance. High-quality evidence evaluating health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results is critical for the adoption of genomic sequencing into clinical care and to understand the unintended consequences of adoption of genomic sequencing. We aim to evaluate the health outcomes and costs of receiving incidental results for patients undergoing genomic sequencing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare health outcomes and costs of receiving, versus not receiving, incidental results for adult patients with cancer undergoing genomic sequencing in a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. Two hundred and sixty patients who have previously undergone first or second-tier genetic testing for cancer and received uninformative results will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto, Ontario. Participants in both arms will receive cancer-related results. Participants in the intervention arm have the option to receive incidental results. Our primary outcome is psychological distress at 2 weeks following return of results. Secondary outcomes include behavioural consequences, clinical and personal utility assessed over the 12 months after results are returned and health service use and costs at 12 months and 5 years. A subset of participants and providers will complete qualitative interviews about utility of incidental results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System that provides ethical review and oversight for multiple sites participating in the same clinical trial in Ontario.Results from the trial will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences, and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03597165.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Several genes on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility test panels have not been systematically examined for strength of association with disease. We employed the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) clinical validity framework to assess the strength of evidence between selected genes and breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Thirty-one genes offered on cancer panel testing were selected for evaluation. The strength of gene-disease relationship was systematically evaluated and a clinical validity classification of either Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Refuted, Disputed, or No Reported Evidence was assigned. RESULTS: Definitive clinical validity classifications were made for 10/31 and 10/32 gene-disease pairs for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Two genes had a Moderate classification whereas, 6/31 and 6/32 genes had Limited classifications for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Contradictory evidence resulted in Disputed or Refuted assertions for 9/31 genes for breast and 4/32 genes for ovarian cancer. No Reported Evidence of disease association was asserted for 5/31 genes for breast and 11/32 for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of gene-disease association using the ClinGen clinical validity framework revealed a wide range of classifications. This information should aid laboratories in tailoring appropriate gene panels and assist health-care providers in interpreting results from panel testing.

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.

Educational and Psychosocial Support Needs in Lynch Syndrome: Implementation and Assessment of an Educational Workshop and Support Group.

Few reports of educational and counseling support resources exist for Lynch syndrome (LS), a disorder requiring multi-organ cancer screening and specialized medical care throughout adult life. Here we describe the development and efficacy of two resources designed to address this need, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Clinical Genetics Service annual Lynch Syndrome Educational Workshop (LSEW), and a quarterly Lynch Syndrome Patient Advocacy Network (LSPAN) support group. The LSEW and LSPAN were implemented beginning in 2012. Participant survey data evaluating satisfaction, clarity, and unmet needs for each event were retrospectively analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Annual LSEW attendance ranged from 53 to 75 total participants. LSEW year 1 participants indicated a need for a support group, and preferred in-person meetings at a frequency of every 3-6 months. For LSEW year 2-5 participants, >96 % reported satisfaction with the LSEW, and >82 % expressed interest in secure online support. Common themes for improvement included increased time for question and answer sessions and additional introductory genetics education. Responding LSPAN participants (n = 57 total survey responses in 11 meetings) found the meetings helpful (100 %), information clear (91 %), and presence of a genetic counselor useful (67 %). Desired discussion topics included coping with stress and anxiety, development of a support network, family communication about LS, genetic testing decisions, and bereavement. Following genetic counseling, a need exists for ongoing educational and emotional support in LS. Implementation of resources such as the LSEW and LSPAN is feasible and perceived as helpful by participants.

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.

Tissue-Specific Enrichment of Lymphoma Risk Loci in Regulatory Elements.

Though numerous polymorphisms have been associated with risk of developing lymphoma, how these variants function to promote tumorigenesis is poorly understood. Here, we report that lymphoma risk SNPs, especially in the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma subtype chronic lymphocytic leukemia, are significantly enriched for co-localization with epigenetic marks of active gene regulation. These enrichments were seen in a lymphoid-specific manner for numerous ENCODE datasets, including DNase-hypersensitivity as well as multiple segmentation-defined enhancer regions. Furthermore, we identify putatively functional SNPs that are both in regulatory elements in lymphocytes and are associated with gene expression changes in blood. We developed an algorithm, UES, that uses a Monte Carlo simulation approach to calculate the enrichment of previously identified risk SNPs in various functional elements. This multiscale approach integrating multiple datasets helps disentangle the underlying biology of lymphoma, and more broadly, is generally applicable to GWAS results from other diseases as well.

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.

Assessment of individuals with BRCA1 and BRCA2 large rearrangements in high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families.

BRCA1/2 large rearrangement (LR) testing has been available to patients since 2006. Three existing models commonly used in cancer genetics clinical and research settings (BRCAPRO, Penn II and Myriad II) have not been assessed for their performance in predicting the presence of BRCA1/2 large genomic rearrangements in patients who do not have mutations detectable by the traditional Sanger sequencing approach. This study sought to determine if there is an optimal pre-test probability "cut off" value, calculated using these models, to optimize detection of large rearrangements (LRs). Our cohort consisted of 3,301 probands seen for genetic counseling and BRCA1/2 clinical testing from September 2006 to September 2011. A detailed personal and three-generation family history, including self-reported ethnicity, was taken as part of our standard clinical practice. We applied the BRCAPRO, Penn II, and Myriad II models to the probands with LRs. In our cohort of 3,301 probands, 150 carried a non-Ashkenazi mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Seventeen unrelated probands carried a private BRCA1/2 LR (17/150, 11.3 % of all detectable non-AJ mutations). At a pre-test probability cutoff of 10 %, all three empiric risk models would have failed to identify almost 30 % of probands with LRs. Our study shows that BRCA1/2 LR testing should be offered to all women who meet criteria for BRCA1/2 sequence analysis.

Translating genomics in cancer care.

There is increasing enthusiasm for genomics and its promise in advancing personalized medicine. Genomic information has been used to personalize health care for decades, spanning the fields of cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, endocrinology, metabolic medicine, and hematology. However, oncology has often been the first test bed for the clinical translation of genomics for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications. Notable hereditary cancer examples include testing for mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in unaffected women to identify those at significantly elevated risk for developing breast and ovarian cancers, and screening patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for mutations in 4 mismatch repair genes to reduce morbidity and mortality in their relatives. Somatic genomic testing is also increasingly used in oncology, with gene expression profiling of breast tumors and EGFR testing to predict treatment response representing commonly used examples. Health technology assessment provides a rigorous means to inform clinical and policy decision-making through systematic assessment of the evidentiary base, along with precepts of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and consideration of risks and benefits for health care delivery and society. Although this evaluation is a fundamental step in the translation of any new therapeutic, procedure, or diagnostic test into clinical care, emerging developments may threaten this standard. These include "direct to consumer" genomic risk assessment services and the challenges posed by incidental results generated from next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. This article presents a review of the evidentiary standards and knowledge base supporting the translation of key cancer genomic technologies along the continuum of validity, utility, cost-effectiveness, health service impacts, and ethical and societal issues, and offers future research considerations to guide the responsible introduction of NGS technologies into health care. It concludes that significant evidentiary gaps remain in translating genomic technologies into routine clinical practice, particularly in efficacy, health outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and health services research. These caveats are especially germane in the context of NGS, wherein efforts are underway to translate NGS results despite their limited accuracy, lack of proven efficacy, and significant computational and counseling challenges. Further research across these domains is critical to inform the effective, efficient, and equitable translation of genomics into cancer care.

Assessment of SLX4 Mutations in Hereditary Breast Cancers.

BACKGROUND: SLX4 encodes a DNA repair protein that regulates three structure-specific endonucleases and is necessary for resistance to DNA crosslinking agents, topoisomerase I and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Recent studies have reported mutations in SLX4 in a new subtype of Fanconi anemia (FA), FA-P. Monoallelic defects in several FA genes are known to confer susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers. METHODS AND RESULTS: To determine if SLX4 is involved in breast cancer susceptibility, we sequenced the entire SLX4 coding region in 738 (270 Jewish and 468 non-Jewish) breast cancer patients with 2 or more family members affected by breast cancer and no known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We found a novel nonsense (c.2469G>A, p.W823*) mutation in one patient. In addition, we also found 51 missense variants [13 novel, 23 rare (MAF<0.1%), and 15 common (MAF>1%)], of which 22 (5 novel and 17 rare) were predicted to be damaging by Polyphen2 (score = 0.65-1). We performed functional complementation studies using p.W823* and 5 SLX4 variants (4 novel and 1 rare) cDNAs in a human SLX4-null fibroblast cell line, RA3331. While wild type SLX4 and all the other variants fully rescued the sensitivity to mitomycin C (MMC), campthothecin (CPT), and PARP inhibitor (Olaparib) the p.W823* SLX4 mutant failed to do so. CONCLUSION: Loss-of-function mutations in SLX4 may contribute to the development of breast cancer in very rare cases.

Incorporating information regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis into discussions concerning testing and risk management for BRCA1/2 mutations: a qualitative study of patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are interested in learning about reproductive options such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to prevent passing their risk onto their children. However, attitudes vary widely, and the procedure raises complex ethical and psychosocial issues. This complexity, plus the highly technical nature of PGD, makes it difficult to integrate PGD information into genetic counseling sessions that already cover probabilistic, emotionally charged risk information. METHODS: A total of 33 carriers of the BRCA1/2 mutation who were of reproductive age and had previously undergone genetic counseling viewed a tutorial regarding PGD and were interviewed concerning their attitudes toward PGD and preferences about how to include PGD information in genetic counseling. RESULTS: The majority of participants preferred to be briefly informed of the availability of PGD information, and to receive written materials regarding PGD, but with the option of deferring detailed discussion if they already believed themselves to be overloaded or perceived that PGD was not immediately relevant to their risk management and/or childbearing plans. For some individuals, the stress of testing temporarily interfered with information processing, producing states of cognitive avoidance ("in a fog," or "tuning out"). Some preferred to discuss PGD with a physician with whom they had an ongoing relationship (eg, obstetrician/gynecologist, primary care provider, or oncologist). CONCLUSIONS: Providers offering cancer genetic testing may consider indicating the availability of PGD information to their patients, while attending to the patients' level of interest and ability to absorb information. Research is needed to link patient responses to information overload with psychosocial outcomes (eg, distress, and quality of decision-making). Continuing medical education is needed to support providers in facilitating informed decisions regarding PGD.

Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence-based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first-generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine.

Immunohistochemistry as first-line screening for detecting colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: a 2-antibody panel may be as predictive as a 4-antibody panel.

The utility of immunohistochemical detection of DNA mismatch repair proteins in screening colorectal cancer for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is being widely investigated. Currently, in both research and clinical settings, a 4-antibody panel that includes the 4 most commonly affected proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) is being used generally. On the basis of the biochemical properties of these proteins, we hypothesized that a 2-antibody panel, comprising MSH6 and PMS2, would be sufficient to detect abnormalities in all 4 proteins. We tested this hypothesis on a series of 232 colorectal carcinoma samples derived from 2 patient cohorts: (1) a prospectively accrued series of patients who were judged to carry a higher-than-average risk for HNPCC based on the revised Bethesda guidelines (n=190); and (2) a retrospective series of patients who were 40 years of age or younger (n=42). Immunohistochemical stains were regarded as negative (protein lost), when there was no nuclear labeling in tumor cells (with positive internal control). Overall, 70 of the 232 tumors demonstrated loss of at least one protein. The most common abnormality was concurrent loss of MLH1 and PMS2 (observed in 17% of the cases), followed by concurrent loss of MSH2 and MSH6 (6%). All MLH1 and MSH2-abnormal cases were also abnormal for PMS2 and MSH6, respectively, whereas 9 of 50 (18%) PMS2 and 6 of 20 (30%) MSH6-abnormal cases showed only isolated loss of PMS2 or MSH6 (with normal staining for MLH1 and MSH2). As such, our findings provide evidence that a 2-antibody panel (PMS2 and MSH6) is as effective as the current 4-antibody panel in detecting DNA mismatch repair protein abnormalities. Such a cost-effective approach carries significant implication, as immunohistochemistry is being widely used as first-line screening for HNPCC.