RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes are responsible for approximately 5-10% of all diagnosed cancer cases. In the past, single-gene analysis of specific high risk genes was used for the determination of the genetic cause of cancer heritability in certain families. The application of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology has facilitated multigene panel analysis and is widely used in clinical practice, for the identification of individuals with cancer predisposing gene variants. The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent and nature of variants in genes implicated in hereditary cancer predisposition in individuals referred for testing in our laboratory. METHODS: In total, 1197 individuals from Greece, Romania and Turkey were referred to our laboratory for genetic testing in the past 4 years. The majority of referrals included individuals with personal of family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The analysis of genes involved in hereditary cancer predisposition was performed using a NGS approach. Genomic DNA was enriched for targeted regions of 36 genes and sequencing was carried out using the Illumina NGS technology. The presence of large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) was investigated by computational analysis and Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA). RESULTS: A pathogenic variant was identified in 264 of 1197 individuals (22.1%) analyzed while a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) was identified in 34.8% of cases. Clinically significant variants were identified in 29 of the 36 genes analyzed. Concerning the mutation distribution among individuals with positive findings, 43.6% were located in the BRCA1/2 genes whereas 21.6, 19.9, and 15.0% in other high, moderate and low risk genes respectively. Notably, 25 of the 264 positive individuals (9.5%) carried clinically significant variants in two different genes and 6.1% had a LGR. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, analysis of all the genes in the panel allowed the identification of 4.3 and 8.1% additional pathogenic variants in other high or moderate/low risk genes, respectively, enabling personalized management decisions for these individuals and supporting the clinical significance of multigene panel analysis in hereditary cancer predisposition.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Mutação , Síndromes Neoplásicas Hereditárias/genética , Neoplasias Ovarianas/genética , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Genes BRCA1 , Genes BRCA2 , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Variação Genética , Grécia , Sequenciamento de Nucleotídeos em Larga Escala , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Linhagem , Romênia , Turquia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIM: The use of multi-gene panels for germline testing in breast cancer enables the estimation of cancer risk and guides risk-reducing management options. The aim of this study was to present data that demonstrate the different levels of actionability for multi-gene panels used in genetic testing of breast cancer patients and their family members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an analysis in our clinical database to identify breast cancer patients undergoing genetic testing. We reviewed positive results in respect of risk estimation and management, cascade family testing, secondary findings and information for treatment decision-making. RESULTS: A total of 415 positive test reports were identified with 57.1%, 18.1%, 10.8% and 13.5% of individuals having pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in high, moderate, low and with insufficient evidence for breast cancer risk genes, respectively. Six point seven percent of individuals were double heterozygotes. CONCLUSION: Germline findings in 92% of individuals are linked to evidence-based treatment information and risk estimates for predisposition to breast and/or other cancer types. The use of germline findings for treatment decision making expands the indication of genetic testing to include individuals that could benefit from targeted treatments.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama Masculina/epidemiologia , Neoplasias da Mama/epidemiologia , Análise Mutacional de DNA/normas , Testes Genéticos/normas , Mutação em Linhagem Germinativa , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Biomarcadores Tumorais/antagonistas & inibidores , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama/genética , Neoplasias da Mama/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias da Mama Masculina/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama Masculina/genética , Neoplasias da Mama Masculina/prevenção & controle , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Família , Feminino , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Heterozigoto , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia de Alvo Molecular/métodos , Medicina de Precisão/métodos , Medicina de Precisão/normas , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Medição de Risco/normas , Adulto JovemRESUMO
There is discrepancy and failure to adhere to current international guidelines for the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) in hospitals in Greece and Cyprus. The aim of the present document is to provide a consensus on the multidisciplinary management of metastastic CRC, considering both special characteristics of our Healthcare System and international guidelines. Following discussion and online communication among the members of an executive team chosen by the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology (HeSMO), a consensus for metastastic CRC disease was developed. Statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology on two voting rounds by invited multidisciplinary international experts on CRC. Statements reaching level of agreement by ≥80% were considered as having achieved large consensus, whereas statements reaching 60-80% moderate consensus. One hundred and nine statements were developed. Ninety experts voted for those statements. The median rate of abstain per statement was 18.5% (range: 0-54%). In the end of the process, all statements achieved a large consensus. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and personalization is emphasized. R0 resection is the only intervention that may offer substantial improvement in the oncological outcomes.
RESUMO
Despite considerable improvement in the management of colon cancer, there is a great deal of variation in the outcomes among European countries, and in particular among different hospital centers in Greece and Cyprus. Discrepancy in the approach strategies and lack of adherence to guidelines for the management of colon cancer may explain the situation. The aim was to elaborate a consensus on the multidisciplinary management of colon cancer, based on European guidelines (ESMO and EURECCA), and also taking into account local special characteristics of our healthcare system. Following discussion and online communication among members of an executive team, a consensus was developed. Statements entered the Delphi voting system on two rounds to achieve consensus by multidisciplinary international experts. Statements with an agreement rate of ≥80% achieved a large consensus, while those with an agreement rate of 60-80% a moderate consensus. Statements achieving an agreement of <60% after both rounds were rejected and not presented. Sixty statements on the management of colon cancer were subjected to the Delphi methodology. Voting experts were 109. The median rate of abstain per statement was 10% (range: 0-41%). In the end of the voting process, all statements achieved a consensus by more than 80% of the experts. A consensus on the management of colon cancer was developed by applying the Delphi methodology. Guidelines are proposed along with algorithms of diagnosis and treatment. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, and adherence to guidelines is emphasized.
RESUMO
Colorectal cancer remains a major cause of cancer mortality in the Western world both in men and women. In this manuscript a concise overview and recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer are presented. An executive team from the Hellenic Society of Medical Oncology was assigned to develop a consensus statement and guidelines on the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer. Fourteen statements on adjuvant treatment were subjected to the Delphi methodology. Voting experts were 68. All statements achieved a rate of consensus above than 80% (>87%) and none revised and entered to a second round of voting. Three and 8 of them achieved a 100 and an over than 90% consensus, respectively. These statements describe evaluations of therapies in clinical practice. They could be considered as general guidelines based on best available evidence for assistance in treatment decision-making. Furthermore, they serve to identify questions and targets for further research and the settings in which investigational therapy could be considered.
RESUMO
In rectal cancer management, accurate staging by magnetic resonance imaging, neo-adjuvant treatment with the use of radiotherapy, and total mesorectal excision have resulted in remarkable improvement in the oncological outcomes. However, there is substantial discrepancy in the therapeutic approach and failure to adhere to international guidelines among different Greek-Cypriot hospitals. The present guidelines aim to aid the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer, considering both the local special characteristics of our healthcare system and the international relevant agreements (ESMO, EURECCA). Following background discussion and online communication sessions for feedback among the members of an executive team, a consensus rectal cancer management was obtained. Statements were subjected to the Delphi methodology voting system on two rounds to achieve further consensus by invited multidisciplinary international experts on colorectal cancer. Statements were considered of high, moderate or low consensus if they were voted by ≥80%, 60-80%, or <60%, respectively; those obtaining a low consensus level after both voting rounds were rejected. One hundred and two statements were developed and voted by 100 experts. The mean rate of abstention per statement was 12.5% (range: 2-45%). In the end of the process, all statements achieved a high consensus. Guidelines and algorithms of diagnosis and treatment were proposed. The importance of centralization, care by a multidisciplinary team, adherence to guidelines, and personalization is emphasized.