Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk.

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Cross-sectional clinical cancer genomics community of practice survey analysis of provider attitudes and beliefs regarding the use of deceased family member tissue to guide living family member genetic cancer risk assessment.

Next-generation tumor tissue sequencing techniques may result in the detection of putative germline pathogenic variants (PVs), raising the possibility that germline cancer predisposition could be identified from archival medical tissue samples of deceased relatives. The approach, termed traceback, is designed to inform risk management recommendations for living family members. Provider perspectives regarding traceback testing have not yet been explored, so we conducted a cross-sectional survey of Clinical Cancer Genomics Community of Practice providers regarding their attitudes and beliefs toward traceback testing. Self-reported demographics, provider characteristics, attitudes and perceived barriers were collected. We evaluated responses in the context of whether providers had previous experience with traceback testing. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact testing. Among 207 respondents (of 816 eligible), most were women (89.4%), white (85.5%), and not Hispanic or Latino (89.7%). US-based providers represented the majority of respondents (87.4%). Relatively, few providers 32 of 207 (15.5%) had previous experience with traceback. Among the individuals without experience in traceback, 84.0% thought there would be barriers to implementation; however, only 68.8% of individuals with previous traceback experience agreed (p = .04). Respondents in both groups thought that traceback would be valuable in their practice (82.6%, p = .22) and that they would feel comfortable discussing the concept (83.6%, p = .83), interpreting the results (72.2%, p = .24), and discussing the results with their patients (80.7%, p = .38). Patient interest and cost were seen as less of a barrier by those with experience with traceback testing. Recurrent themes obtained in open-ended responses are also presented. Overall, providers believe that traceback would be a valuable tool in their practice. Individuals with previous experience identified less barriers with implementation of this testing, highlighting an area for future research and education.

Multigene assessment of genetic risk for women for two or more breast cancers.

PURPOSE: The prevalence, penetrance, and spectrum of pathogenic variants that predispose women to two or more breast cancers is largely unknown. METHODS: We queried clinical and genetic data from women with one or more breast cancer diagnosis who received multigene panel testing between 2013 and 2018. Clinical data were obtained from provider-completed test request forms. For each gene on the panel, a multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to test for association with risk of multiple breast cancer diagnoses. Models accounted for age of diagnosis, personal and family cancer history, and ancestry. Results are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: This study included 98,979 patients: 88,759 (89.7%) with a single breast cancer and 10,220 (10.3%) with ≥ 2 breast cancers. Of women with two or more breast cancers, 13.2% had a pathogenic variant in a cancer predisposition gene compared to 9.4% with a single breast cancer. BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MSH6, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53 were significantly associated with two or more breast cancers, with ORs ranging from 1.35 for CHEK2 to 3.80 for PTEN. Overall, pathogenic variants in all breast cancer risk genes combined were associated with both metachronous (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.53-1.79, p = 7.2 × 10-33) and synchronous (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.19-1.50, p = 2.4 × 10-6) breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that several high and moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes are associated with ≥ 2 breast cancers, affirming the association of two or more breast cancers with diverse genetic etiologies.

Mutational spectrum in a worldwide study of 29,700 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

The prevalence and spectrum of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been reported in single populations, with the majority of reports focused on White in Europe and North America. The Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) has assembled data on 18,435 families with BRCA1 mutations and 11,351 families with BRCA2 mutations ascertained from 69 centers in 49 countries on six continents. This study comprehensively describes the characteristics of the 1,650 unique BRCA1 and 1,731 unique BRCA2 deleterious (disease-associated) mutations identified in the CIMBA database. We observed substantial variation in mutation type and frequency by geographical region and race/ethnicity. In addition to known founder mutations, mutations of relatively high frequency were identified in specific racial/ethnic or geographic groups that may reflect founder mutations and which could be used in targeted (panel) first pass genotyping for specific populations. Knowledge of the population-specific mutational spectrum in BRCA1 and BRCA2 could inform efficient strategies for genetic testing and may justify a more broad-based oncogenetic testing in some populations.

Somatic TP53 variants frequently confound germ-line testing results.

PURPOSE: Blood/saliva DNA is thought to represent the germ line in genetic cancer-risk assessment. Cases with pathogenic TP53 variants detected by multigene panel testing are often discordant with Li-Fraumeni syndrome, raising concern about misinterpretation of acquired aberrant clonal expansions (ACEs) with TP53 variants as germ-line results. METHODS: Pathogenic TP53 variants with abnormal next-generation sequencing metrics (e.g., decreased ratio (<25%) of mutant to wild-type allele, more than two detected alleles) were selected from a CLIA laboratory testing cohort. Alternate tissues and/or close relatives were tested to distinguish between ACE and germ-line status. Clinical data and Li-Fraumeni syndrome testing criteria were examined. RESULTS: Among 114,630 multigene panel tests and 1,454 TP53 gene-specific analyses, abnormal next-generation sequencing metrics were observed in 20% of 353 TP53-positive results, and ACE was confirmed for 91% of cases with ancillary materials, most of these due to clonal hematopoiesis. Only four met Chompret criteria. Individuals with ACE were older (50 years vs. 33.7; P = 0.02) and were identified more frequently in multigene panel tests (66/285; 23.2%) than in TP53 gene-specific tests (6/68; 8.8%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: ACE confounds germ-line diagnosis, may portend hematologic malignancy, and may provoke unwarranted clinical interventions. Ancillary testing to confirm germ-line status should precede Li-Fraumeni syndrome management.

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.

Significant clinical impact of recurrent BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Frequent recurrent mutations in the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility (BRCA) genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Hispanics, including a large rearrangement Mexican founder mutation (BRCA1 exon 9-12 deletion [ex9-12del]), suggest that an ancestry-informed BRCA-testing strategy could reduce disparities and promote cancer prevention by enabling economic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in Mexico. METHODS: In a multistage approach, 188 patients with cancer who were unselected for family cancer history (92 with ovarian cancer and 96 with breast cancer) were screened for BRCA mutations using a Hispanic mutation panel (HISPANEL) of 115 recurrent mutations in a multiplex assay (114 were screened on a mass spectroscopy platform, and a polymerase chain reaction assay was used to screen for the BRCA1 ex9-12del mutation). This was followed by sequencing of all BRCA exons and adjacent intronic regions and a BRCA1 multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay (MLPA) for HISPANEL-negative patients. BRCA mutation prevalence was calculated and correlated with histology and tumor receptor status, and HISPANEL sensitivity was estimated. RESULTS: BRCA mutations were detected in 26 of 92 patients (28%) with ovarian cancer, in 14 of 96 patients (15%) with breast cancer overall, and in 9 of 33 patients (27%) who had tumors that were negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epithelial growth factor 2 (triple-negative breast cancer). Most patients with breast cancer were diagnosed with locally advanced disease. The Mexican founder mutation (BRCA1 ex9-12del) accounted for 35% of BRCA-associated ovarian cancers and 29% of BRCA-associated breast cancers. At 2% of the sequencing and MLPA cost, HISPANEL detected 68% of all BRCA mutations. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a remarkably high prevalence of BRCA mutations was observed among patients with ovarian cancer and breast cancer who were not selected for family history, and the BRCA1 ex9-12del mutation explained 33% of the total. The remarkable frequency of BRCA1 ex9-12del in Mexico City supports a nearby origin of this Mexican founder mutation and may constitute a regional public health problem. The HISPANEL mutation panel presents a translational opportunity for cost-effective genetic testing to enable breast and ovarian cancer prevention.

Uptake of Risk-Reducing Surgeries in an International Real-World Cohort of Hispanic Women.

PURPOSE: Women with pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) associated genes are candidates for cancer risk-reducing strategies. Limited information is available regarding risk-reducing surgeries (RRS) among Hispanics. The aim of this study was to describe the uptake of RRS in an international real-world experience of Hispanic women referred for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) and to identify factors affecting uptake. METHODS: Between July 1997 and December 2019, Hispanic women, living in the United States or in Latin America, enrolled in the Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network registry were prospectively included. Demographic characteristics and data regarding RRS were obtained from chart reviews and patient-reported follow-up questionnaires. Median follow-up was 41 months. RESULTS: Among 1,736 Hispanic women referred for GCRA, 27.2% women underwent risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), 25.5% risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and, 10.7% both surgeries. Among BRCA carriers, rates of RRM and RRSO were 47.6% and 56.7%, respectively. In the multivariate analyses, being a carrier of a BC susceptibility gene (odds ratio [OR], 3.44), personal history of BC (OR, 6.22), living in the US (OR, 3.90), age ≤50 years (OR, 1.68) and, family history of BC (OR, 1.56) were associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing RRM. Carrying an OC susceptibility gene (OR, 6.72) was associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing RRSO. CONCLUSION: The rate of RRS among Hispanic women is suboptimal. PV carriers, women with personal history of cancer, and those with a family history of cancer were more likely to have RRS, with less uptake outside the US. Understanding personal and systemic factors influencing uptake may enable interventions to increase risk appropriate uptake of RRS.

Impact of web-based case conferencing on cancer genetics training outcomes for community-based clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: Technology and market forces are driving the demand for cancer risk assessment services in the community setting, where few clinicians are trained to order and interpret predictive genetic tests. City of Hope conducts a three-phase course in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) for community-based clinicians, comprised of distance didactics, face-to-face workshops, and 12 months of professional development. As designed, the course cannot meet increasing demands for GCRA training. Action research identified face-to-face workshops as a barrier to increasing course capacity. This study compared the learning effectiveness of Web-based case conferencing to face-to-face training. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design compared pre- to post-knowledge, skills, and professional self-efficacy outcomes from 2009 to 2010 course cohorts (n = 96). The intervention group (n = 52) engaged in Web-based case conferences during distance learning; the comparison group (n = 44) participated in the course as originally designed. RESULTS: Both groups and all practice disciplines demonstrated significant pre- to post-increases on all measures. Knowledge increases were higher for the intervention group (p < 0.015); skills and self-efficacy increases were comparable between groups (p < 0.33 and p < 0.30, respectively). DISCUSSION: Findings support the learning utility of Web-based case conferencing. Further studies may inform the development of tools to assess the impact of Web-based case conferencing on practice change and patient outcomes, in alignment with the highest standards of continuing professional development.

Closing the loop: action research in a multimodal hereditary cancer patient conference is an effective tool to assess and address patient needs.

This paper describes the use of action research in a patient conference to provide updated hereditary cancer information, explore patient and family member needs and experiences related to genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA), elicit feedback on how to improve the GCRA process, and inform future research efforts. Invitees completed GCRA at City of Hope or collaborating facilities and had a BRCA mutation or a strong personal or family history of breast cancer. Action research activities were facilitated by surveys, round table discussions, and reflection time to engage participants, faculty, and researchers in multiple cycles of reciprocal feedback. The multimodal action research design effectively engaged conference participants to share their experiences, needs, and ideas for improvements to the GCRA process. Participants indicated that they highly valued the information and resources provided and desired similar future conferences. The use of action research in a patient conference is an innovative and effective approach to provide health education, elicit experiences, identify and help address needs of high-risk patients and their family members, and generate research hypotheses. Insights gained yielded valuable feedback to inform clinical care, future health services research, and continuing medical education activities. These methods may also be effective in other practice settings.

Personalized cancer genetics training for personalized medicine: improving community-based healthcare through a genetically literate workforce.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a multimodal interdisciplinary course on genetic cancer risk assessment and research collaboration for community-based clinicians. Clinicians are increasingly requested to conduct genetic cancer risk assessment, but many are inadequately prepared to provide these services. METHODS: A prospective analysis of 131 participants (48 physicians, 41 advanced-practice nurses, and 42 genetic counselors) from community settings across the United States. The course was delivered in three phases: distance didactic learning, face-to-face training, and 12 months of web-based professional development activities to support integration of skills into practice. Cancer genetics knowledge, skills, professional self-efficacy, and practice changes were measured at baseline, immediate, and 14 months postcourse. RESULTS: Knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy scores were significantly different between practice disciplines; however, postscores increased significantly overall and for each discipline (P < 0.001). Fourteen-month practice outcomes reflect significant increases in provision of genetic cancer risk assessment services (P = 0.018), dissemination of cancer prevention information (P = 0.005) and high-risk screening recommendations (P = 0.004) to patients, patient enrollment in research (P = 0.013), and educational outreach about genetic cancer risk assessment (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Results support the efficacy of the multimodal course as a tool to develop a genetically literate workforce. Sustained alumni participation in web-based professional development activities has evolved into a distance-mediated community of practice in clinical cancer genetics, modeling the lifelong learning goals envisioned by leading continuing medical education stakeholders.

Development and Pilot Implementation of the Genomic Risk Assessment for Cancer Implementation and Sustainment (GRACIAS) Intervention in Mexico.

PURPOSE: Genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) is standard-of-care practice that uses genomic tools to identify individuals with increased cancer risk, enabling screening for early detection and cancer prevention interventions. GCRA is not available in most of Mexico, where breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer death and ovarian cancer has a high mortality rate. METHODS: Guided by an implementation science framework, we piloted the Genomic Risk Assessment for Cancer Implementation and Sustainment (GRACIAS) intervention, combining GCRA training, practice support, and low-cost BRCA1/2 (BRCA) gene testing at four centers in Mexico. The RE-AIM model was adapted to evaluate GRACIAS intervention outcomes, including reach, the proportion of new patients meeting adapted National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria who participated in GCRA. Barriers to GCRA were identified through roundtable sessions and semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians were trained across four sites. Mean pre-post knowledge score increased from 60% to 67.2% (range 53%-86%). GCRA self-efficacy scores increased by 31% (95% CI, 6.47 to 55.54; P = .02). Participant feedback recommended Spanish content to improve learning. GRACIAS promoted reach at all sites: 77% in Universidad de Guadalajara, 86% in Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, 90% in Tecnológico de Monterrey, and 77% in Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán. Overall, a pathogenic BRCA variant was identified in 15.6% (195 of 1,253) of patients. All trainees continue to provide GCRA and address barriers to care. CONCLUSION: We describe the first project to use implementation science methods to develop and deliver an innovative multicomponent implementation intervention, combining low-cost BRCA testing, comprehensive GCRA training, and practice support in Mexico. Scale-up of the GRACIAS intervention will promote risk-appropriate care, cancer prevention, and reduction in related mortality.

The Burden of Breast Cancer Predisposition Variants Across The Age Spectrum Among 10 000 Patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Women diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) at an older age are less likely to undergo genetic cancer risk assessment and genetic testing since the guidelines and referrals are biased toward earlier age at diagnosis. Thus, we determined the prevalence and type of pathogenic cancer predisposition variants among women with a history of BC diagnosed at the age of 65 years or older vs younger than 65 years. DESIGN: Prospective registration cohort. SETTING: The Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, including 40 community-based clinics in the United States and 5 in Latin America. PARTICIPANTS: Women with BC and genetic testing results. MEASUREMENTS: Sociodemographic characteristics, clinical variables, and genetic profiles were compared between women aged 65 years and older and those younger than 65 years at BC diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 588 women diagnosed with BC and aged 65 years and older and 9412 diagnosed at younger than 65 years, BC-associated pathogenic variants (PVs) were detected in 5.6% of those aged 65 years and older (n = 33) and 14.2% of those younger than 65 years (n = 1340) (P < .01). PVs in high-risk genes (eg, BRCA1 and BRCA2) represented 81.1% of carriers among women aged 65 years and older (n = 27) and 93.1% of those younger than 65 years (n = 1248) (P = .01). BRCA2 PVs represented 42.4% of high-risk gene findings for those aged 65 years and older, whereas BRCA1 PVs were most common among carriers younger than 65 years (49.7%). PVs (n = 7) in moderate-risk genes represented 21.2% for carriers aged 65 years and older and 7.3% of those younger than 65 years (n = 98; P < .01). CHEK2 PVs were the most common moderate-risk gene finding in both groups. CONCLUSION: Clinically actionable BC susceptibility PVs, particularly in BRCA2 and CHEK2, were relatively prevalent among older women undergoing genetic testing. The significant burden of PVs for older women with BC provides a critical reminder to recognize the full spectrum of eligibility and provide genetic testing for older women, rather than exclusion based on chronological age alone. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:884-888, 2019.

Influence of genetic discrimination perceptions and knowledge on cancer genetics referral practice among clinicians.

PURPOSE: To describe nongenetics clinicians' perceptions and knowledge of cancer genetics and laws prohibiting genetic discrimination, attitudes toward the use of cancer genetic testing, and referral practices. METHODS: Invitations to participate were sent to a random stratified sample of California Medical Association members and to all members of California Association of Nurse Practitioners and California Latino Medical Association. Responders in active practice were eligible and completed a 47-item survey. RESULTS: There were 1181 qualified participants (62% physicians). Although 96% viewed genetic testing as beneficial for their patients, 75% believed fear of genetic discrimination would cause patients to decline testing. More than 60% were not aware of federal or California laws prohibiting health insurance discrimination--concern about genetic discrimination was selected as a reason for nonreferral by 11%. A positive attitude toward genetic testing was the strongest predictor of referral (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 2.24-5.63], P < 0.001) in stepwise logistic regression analyses. The higher the belief in genetic discrimination, the less likely a participant was to refer (odds ratio: 0.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.518-0.991], P < 0.05), whereas more knowledge of genetic discrimination law was associated with comfort recommending (odds ratio: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.25], P < 0.001) and actual referral (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 2.24-5.63], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Concerns about genetic discrimination and knowledge deficits may be barriers to cancer genetics referrals. Clinician education may help promote access to cancer screening and prevention.

Working through a diagnostic challenge: colonic polyposis, Amsterdam criteria, and a mismatch repair mutation.

The two most common causes of hereditary colorectal cancer are Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). The phenotype of Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), is differentiated in part from FAP by the lack of profuse colonic polyposis. Here we describe a proband who presented with greater than 50 adenomatous colonic polyps prior to developing cancer of the colon and urinary bladder, and a family history that fulfills the Amsterdam criteria. Germline analyses of APC and MYH in the proband did not reveal any mutations. Comprehensive analysis of the mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome revealed a germline hMSH6 missense mutation 2314C>T (arg772trp) and normal sequencing for hMSH2 and hMLH1. We outline evidence supporting the pathogenicity of the identified hMSH6 mutation (arg772trp) and suggest possible etiologies for the unexplained colonic adenomatous polyposis.

Social-cognitive aspects of underserved Latinas preparing to undergo genetic cancer risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: As Latinos are a growing ethnic group in the United States, it is important to understand the socio-cultural factors that may be associated with cancer screening and prevention in this population. The socio-cultural factors that may affect preparedness to undergo genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) deserve particular attention. The pre-GCRA period can provide insight into variables that may influence how medically underserved Latinas, with limited health resources and access, understand hereditary cancer information and subsequently implement cancer risk management recommendations. This study explores social, cognitive and cultural variables in Latinas prior to undergoing GCRA. METHODS: The study sample consisted of low-income, underserved Latinas referred for GCRA because of a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Acculturation, cancer-specific fatalism, self-efficacy and social support were assessed prior to GCRA. RESULTS: Fifty Latinas (mean age=40.1+/-7.7) completed instruments; 86% had invasive cancer, 78% spoke primarily Spanish and 61% were of Mexican ancestry. Low levels of acculturation (n=50, mean=9.0+/-5.8) and cancer-specific fatalism (n=43, mean=5.6+/-3.2), but relatively high self-efficacy (n=49, mean=40.9+/-7.8) and social support (n=49, mean=37.3+/-8.7) were reported. Cancer-specific fatalism and self-efficacy were inversely correlated (r=-0.47, p=0.002). Those over age 38 at the time of cancer diagnosis reported higher acculturation (mean=11.4+/-7.2, p=0.02) and social support (mean=40.5+/-1.2, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that medically underserved Latinas may already possess some of the necessary skills to successfully approach the GCRA process, but that special attention should be given to cultural factors.

Reduced mammographic density with use of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-based chemoprevention regimen in BRCA1 carriers.

PURPOSE: Women with a BRCA1 mutation (BRCA1(mut)) need risk reduction options beyond mastectomy and oophorectomy. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of hormonal chemoprevention with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHA) with low-dose add-back steroids in BRCA1(mut) carriers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The 12-month open label clinical trial used the GnRHA deslorelin, ultra-low-dose estradiol (E(2)), and replacement testosterone, administered via daily intranasal spray in premenopausal women with a BRCA1(mut), and intermittent oral medroxyprogesterone acetate. The end points included mammographic percent density, bone mineral density, endometrial hyperplasia, symptom inventory, and quality of life (Medical Outcomes SF-36 survey). RESULTS: Six of eight BRCA1(mut) women (mean age, 30.3 years; range, 25-36 years) completed the study. Mammographic percent density was significantly reduced at 12 months (median absolute mammographic percent density decrease, 8.3%; P = 0.043), representing a 29.2% median reduction in mammographic percent density. Bone mineral density remained within reference limits for all participants; there were no cases of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and menses resumed within a median of 67 days (range, 35-110 days) after last drug treatment day. The treatment was well tolerated; hypoestrogenic side effects were minimal and transient; and there were no significant changes in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The GnRHA deslorelin, with low-dose add-back steroids, was well tolerated and significantly decreased mammographic percent density in BRCA1(mut) carriers. This regimen may reduce breast cancer risk and improve the usefulness of mammographic surveillance by reducing density. This is the first demonstration, to our knowledge, of a direct reduction of mammographic densities in young BRCA1(mut) carriers.

Clinical interpretation of pathogenic ATM and CHEK2 variants on multigene panel tests: navigating moderate risk.

Comprehensive genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) helps patients, family members, and providers make informed choices about cancer screening, surgical and chemotherapeutic risk reduction, and genetically targeted cancer therapies. The increasing availability of multigene panel tests for clinical applications allows testing of well-defined high-risk genes, as well as moderate-risk genes, for which the penetrance and spectrum of cancer risk are less well characterized. Moderate-risk genes are defined as genes that, when altered by a pathogenic variant, confer a 2 to fivefold relative risk of cancer. Two such genes included on many comprehensive cancer panels are the DNA repair genes ATM and CHEK2, best known for moderately increased risk of breast cancer development. However, the impact of screening and preventative interventions and spectrum of cancer risk beyond breast cancer associated with ATM and/or CHEK2 variants remain less well characterized. We convened a large, multidisciplinary, cross-sectional panel of GCRA clinicians to review challenging, peer-submitted cases of patients identified with ATM or CHEK2 variants. This paper summarizes the inter-professional case discussion and recommendations generated during the session, the level of concordance with respect to recommendations between the academic and community clinician participants for each case, and potential barriers to implementing recommended care in various practice settings.

Prospective Study of Cancer Genetic Variants: Variation in Rate of Reclassification by Ancestry.

Background: In germline genetic testing, variants from understudied ancestries have been disproportionately classified as being of uncertain significance. We hypothesized that the rate of variant reclassification likewise differs by ancestry. Methods: Nonbenign variants in actionable genes were collected from consenting subjects undergoing genetic testing at two Southern California sites from September 1996 through December 2016. Variant reclassifications were recorded as they were received, until February 2017 or reclassification to benign. Excluding duplicate variants (same ancestry, laboratory, classification), generalized linear models for the hereditary breast cancer genes (BRCA1/2) and other variants investigated whether rate of reclassification differed for seven categories of ancestry compared with non-Hispanic European. Models took into account laboratory, year, gene, sex, and current classification (handled as a time-dependent covariate) and were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing. Results: Among 1483 nonbenign variants, 693 (46.7%) involved BRCA1/2. Overall, 268 (18.1%) variants were reclassified at least once. Few (9.7%) reclassified variants underwent a net upgrade in pathogenicity. For BRCA1/2 variants, reclassification rates varied by ancestry and increased over time, more steeply for ancestries with lower initial rates (African, Ashkenazi, Chinese) than for ancestries whose initial rates were high (Middle Eastern) or similar to non-Hispanic European (non-Chinese Asian, Native American, Hispanic). In contrast, reclassification rates of non-BRCA1/2 variants did not vary over time but were elevated for most minority ancestries except non-Chinese Asian and Native American. Conclusions: For nonbenign variants in cancer-related genes, the rates at which reclassifications are issued vary by ancestry in ways that differ between BRCA1/2 and other genes.

Evidence for common ancestral origin of a recurring BRCA1 genomic rearrangement identified in high-risk Hispanic families.

BACKGROUND: Large rearrangements account for 8% to 15% of deleterious BRCA mutations, although none have been characterized previously in individuals of Mexican ancestry. METHODS: DNA from 106 Hispanic patients without an identifiable BRCA mutation by exonic sequence analysis was subjected to multiplexed quantitative differential PCR. One case of Native American and African American ancestry was identified via multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Long-range PCR was used to confirm deletion events and to clone and sequence genomic breakpoints. Splicing patterns were derived by sequencing cDNA from reverse transcription-PCR of lymphoblastoid cell line RNA. Haplotype analysis was conducted for recurrent mutations. RESULTS: The same deletion of BRCA1 exons 9 through 12 was identified in five unrelated families. Long-range PCR and sequencing indicated a deletion event of 14.7 kb. A 3-primer PCR assay was designed based on the deletion breakpoints, identified within an AluSp element in intron 8 and an AluSx element in intron 12. Haplotype analysis confirmed common ancestry. Analysis of cDNA showed direct splicing of exons 8 to 13, resulting in a frameshift mutation and predicted truncation of the BRCA1 protein. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and characterized a novel large BRCA1 deletion in five unrelated families-four of Mexican ancestry and one of African and Native American ancestry, suggesting the possibility of founder effect of Amerindian or Mestizo origin. This BRCA1 rearrangement was detected in 3.8% (4 of 106) of BRCA sequence-negative Hispanic families. An assay for this mutation should be considered for sequence-negative high-risk Hispanic patients.