Consensus Guidelines on Genetic` Testing for Hereditary Breast Cancer from the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this consensus guideline is to outline recommendations for genetic testing that medical professionals can use to assess hereditary risk for breast cancer. METHODS: Literature review included large datasets, basic and clinical science publications, and recent updated national guidelines. Genetic testing to assess hereditary risk of cancer is a complex, broad, and dynamic area of medical research. The dominant focus of this guideline is limited in scope to breast cancer. RESULTS: There is a lack of consensus among experts regarding which genes among many should be tested in different clinical scenarios. There is also variation in the degree of consensus regarding the understanding of risk and appropriate clinical management of mutations in many genes. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing should be made available to all patients with a personal history of breast cancer. Recent data are reviewed that support genetic testing being offered to each patient with breast cancer (newly diagnosed or with a personal history). If genetic testing is performed, such testing should include BRCA1/BRCA2 and PALB2, with other genes as appropriate for the clinical scenario and family history. For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, identification of a mutation may impact local treatment recommendations. Patients who had genetic testing previously may benefit from updated testing. Genetic testing should be made available to patients without a history of breast cancer who meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Finally, variants of uncertain significance are not clinically actionable and these patients should be managed based on their individual risk factors.

Survival and Disease Recurrence Rates among Breast Cancer Patients following Mastectomy with or without Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been expressed about the oncologic safety of breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the association of breast reconstruction with breast cancer recurrence, and 5-year survival among breast cancer patients. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from The Johns Hopkins Hospital comprehensive cancer registry, comparing mastectomy-only to postmastectomy breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients to evaluate differences in breast cancer recurrence and 5-year survival. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare unadjusted estimates of survival or disease recurrence. Data were modeled through Cox proportional hazards regression, using as outcomes time to death from any cause or time to cancer recurrence. RESULTS: The authors analyzed data on 1517 women who underwent mastectomy for breast cancer at The Johns Hopkins hospital between 2003 and 2015. Of these, 504 (33.2 percent) underwent mastectomy only and 1013 (66.8 percent) underwent mastectomy plus immediate breast reconstruction. Women were followed up for a median of 5.1 years after diagnosis. There were 132 deaths and 100 breast cancer recurrences. A comparison of Kaplan-Meier survival estimates demonstrated a survival benefit among patients undergoing mastectomy plus reconstruction. After adjusting for various clinical and socioeconomic variables, there was still an overall survival benefit associated with breast reconstruction which, however, was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95 percent CI, 0.53 to 1.13). Patients who underwent reconstruction had a similar rate of recurrence compared to mastectomy-only patients (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95 percent CI, 0.69 to 1.69). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that breast reconstruction does not have a negative impact on either overall survival or breast cancer recurrence rates. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

The integration of next-generation sequencing panels in the clinical cancer genetics practice: an institutional experience.

PURPOSE: The advent of next-generation sequencing for cancer susceptibility genes holds promise for clinical genetics application, but the practical issues surrounding integration of this testing into the clinical setting have not been well addressed. This article describes the clinical experience of genetic counselors in an academic and community setting with next-generation sequencing cancer panels. METHODS: Between April 2012 and January 2013, 60 next-generation sequencing panels were ordered. A retrospective review was conducted to determine the indication for ordering the results of the tests and the patient management based on the results. RESULTS: Ten tests were canceled due to out-of-pocket costs or previously identified mutations. Among the 50 tests, 5 (10%) showed a positive result. Moreover, 15 of the 50 (30%) panels detected variant(s) of uncertain significance or variant(s) suspected benign. CONCLUSION: We propose clinical guidelines for identifying high-risk patients who should be offered this testing. Our data support the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations that next-generation sequencing be ordered as a second-tier test for high-risk individuals with cancer by trained cancer genetics providers. Literature review and expert knowledge should be used to create management plans for the identification of both positive and variants of uncertain significance results. Providers should be aware of limitations regarding reimbursement for testing and recommended management strategies.