Challenges and approaches to calibrating patient phenotype as evidence for cancer gene variant classification under ACMG/AMP guidelines.

Since first publication of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guidelines, additional recommendations for application of certain criteria have been released (https://clinicalgenome.org/docs/), to improve their application in the diagnostic setting. However, none have addressed use of the PS4 and PP4 criteria, capturing patient presentation as evidence towards pathogenicity. Application of PS4 can be done through traditional case-control studies, or "proband counting" within or across clinical testing cohorts. Review of the existing PS4 and PP4 specifications for Hereditary Cancer Gene Variant Curation Expert Panels revealed substantial differences in the approach to defining specifications. Using BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 as exemplar genes, we calibrated different methods proposed for applying the "PS4 proband counting" criterion. For each approach, we considered limitations, non-independence with other ACMG/AMP criteria, broader applicability, and variability in results for different datasets. Our findings highlight inherent overlap of proband-counting methods with ACMG/AMP frequency codes, and the importance of calibration to derive dataset-specific code weights that can account for potential between-dataset differences in ascertainment and other factors. Our work emphasizes the advantages and generalizability of logistic regression analysis over simple proband-counting approaches to empirically determine the relative predictive capacity and weight of various personal clinical features in the context of multigene panel testing, for improved variant interpretation. We also provide a general protocol, including instructions for data formatting and a web-server for analysis of personal history parameters, to facilitate dataset-specific calibration analyses required to use such data for germline variant classification.

Mutation prevalence tables for hereditary cancer derived from multigene panel testing.

Multigene panel testing for cancer predisposition mutations is becoming routine in clinical care. However, the gene content of panels offered by testing laboratories vary significantly, and data on mutation detection rates by gene and by the panel is limited, causing confusion among clinicians on which test to order. Using results from 147,994 multigene panel tests conducted at Ambry Genetics, we built an interactive prevalence tool to explore how differences in ethnicity, age of onset, and personal and family history of different cancers affect the prevalence of pathogenic mutations in 31 cancer predisposition genes, across various clinically available hereditary cancer gene panels. Over 13,000 mutation carriers were identified in this high-risk population. Most were non-Hispanic white (74%, n = 109,537), but also Black (n = 10,875), Ashkenazi Jewish (n = 10,464), Hispanic (n = 10,028), and Asian (n = 7,090). The most prevalent cancer types were breast (50%), ovarian (6.6%), and colorectal (4.7%), which is expected based on genetic testing guidelines and clinician referral for testing. The Hereditary Cancer Multi-Gene Panel Prevalence Tool presented here can be used to provide insight into the prevalence of mutations on a per-gene and per-multigene panel basis, while conditioning on multiple custom phenotypic variables to include race and cancer type.

Diagnosing hereditary cancer predisposition in men with prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We describe the pathogenic variant spectrum and identify predictors of positive results among men referred for clinical genetic testing for prostate cancer. METHODS: One thousand eight hundred twelve men with prostate cancer underwent clinical multigene panel testing between April 2012 and September 2017. Stepwise logistic regression determined the most reliable predictors of positive results among clinical variables reported on test requisition forms. RESULTS: A yield of 9.4-12.1% was observed among men with no prior genetic testing. In this group, the positive rate of BRCA1 and BRCA2 was 4.6%; the positive rate for the mismatch repair genes was 2.8%. Increasing Gleason score (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.45); personal history of breast or pancreatic cancer (OR 3.62; 95% CI 1.37-9.46); family history of breast, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer (OR 2.32 95% CI 1.48-3.65); and family history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.23-3.15) were predictors of positive results. CONCLUSION: These results support multigene panel testing as the primary genetic testing approach for hereditary prostate cancer and are supportive of recommendations for consideration of germline testing in men with prostate cancer. Expanding the criteria for genetic testing should be considered as many pathogenic variants are actionable for treatment of advanced prostate cancer.

Classification of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 using personal and family history of cancer from individuals in a large hereditary cancer multigene panel testing cohort.

PURPOSE: Genetic testing of individuals often results in identification of genomic variants of unknown significance (VUS). Multiple lines of evidence are used to help determine the clinical significance of these variants. METHODS: We analyzed ~138,000 individuals tested by multigene panel testing (MGPT). We used logistic regression to predict carrier status based on personal and family history of cancer. This was applied to 4644 tested individuals carrying 2383 BRCA1/2 variants to calculate likelihood ratios informing pathogenicity for each. Heterogeneity tests were performed for specific classes of variants defined by in silico predictions. RESULTS: Twenty-two variants labeled as VUS had odds of >10:1 in favor of pathogenicity. The heterogeneity analysis found that among variants in functional domains that were predicted to be benign by in silico tools, a significantly higher proportion of variants were estimated to be pathogenic than previously indicated; that missense variants outside of functional domains should be considered benign; and that variants predicted to create de novo donor sites were also largely benign. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented here supports the use of personal and family history from MGPT in the classification of VUS and will be integrated into ongoing efforts to provide large-scale multifactorial classification.

A clinical guide to hereditary cancer panel testing: evaluation of gene-specific cancer associations and sensitivity of genetic testing criteria in a cohort of 165,000 high-risk patients.

PURPOSE: Despite the rapid uptake of multigene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer predisposition, there is limited guidance surrounding indications for testing and genes to include. METHODS: To inform the clinical approach to hereditary cancer MGPT, we comprehensively evaluated 32 cancer predisposition genes by assessing phenotype-specific pathogenic variant (PV) frequencies, cancer risk associations, and performance of genetic testing criteria in a cohort of 165,000 patients referred for MGPT. RESULTS: We identified extensive genetic heterogeneity surrounding predisposition to cancer types commonly referred for germline testing (breast, ovarian, colorectal, uterine/endometrial, pancreatic, and melanoma). PV frequencies were highest among patients with ovarian cancer (13.8%) and lowest among patients with melanoma (8.1%). Fewer than half of PVs identified in patients meeting testing criteria for only BRCA1/2 or only Lynch syndrome occurred in the respective genes (33.1% and 46.2%). In addition, 5.8% of patients with PVs in BRCA1/2 and 26.9% of patients with PVs in Lynch syndrome genes did not meet respective testing criteria. CONCLUSION: Opportunities to improve upon identification of patients at risk for hereditary cancer predisposition include revising BRCA1/2 and Lynch syndrome testing criteria to include additional clinically actionable genes with overlapping phenotypes and relaxing testing criteria for associated cancers.

Family communication and patient distress after germline genetic testing in individuals with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing currently is recommended for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the current study, the authors assessed how often results are communicated to first-degree relatives within 3 months and the emotional impact of testing on patients. METHODS: A total of 148 patients who were newly diagnosed with PDAC and who had undergone testing of 32 cancer susceptibility genes at 3 academic centers were selected; 71% participated. Subjects completed the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) and a family communication survey. The results of both surveys were assessed at 3 months according to the genetic test result (positive, negative, or variant of unknown significance [VUS]) and whether a patient met criteria for genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients completed the MICRA survey and 104 completed the family communication survey. The average age of the patients was 67 years, 47% were female, 29% had stage III/IV (AJCC 8th edition) disease, and 42% met genetic testing criteria. Approximately 80% of patients told at least 1 first-degree relative about their result. There was a trend toward greater disclosure among patients who tested positive (93% vs 77% for those with a VUS result [P = .149] and 74% for those who tested negative [P = .069]). Patients not meeting genetic testing criteria were less likely to disclose results (69% vs 93%; P = .003). MICRA scores did not differ by test result, age, stage of disease, or sex. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of result communication was high, although it was lower among patients who did not meet genetic testing criteria, those who tested negative, or those who had a VUS result. Testing-associated distress was similar across patient groups, and was comparable to that reported by other patients with cancer. Improved communication for all patients is crucial given the prognosis of PDAC, which limits time for disclosure.

Genotype-phenotype associations among panel-based TP53+ subjects.

PURPOSE: Panel testing has led to the identification of TP53 pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant carriers (TP53+) who exhibit a broad range of phenotypes. We sought to evaluate and compare genotype-phenotype associations among TP53+ panel-ascertained subjects. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2017, 317 TP53+ subjects (279 females and 38 males) identified through panel testing at one testing laboratory were found to have evaluable clinical histories and molecular results. Subject cancer histories were obtained from test requisition forms. P/LP variants were categorized by type and were examined in relation to phenotype. RESULTS: Loss-of-function (LOF) variants were associated with the earliest age at first cancer, with a median age of 30.5 years (P = 0.014); increased frequency of a sarcoma diagnosis (P = 0.016); and more often meeting classic LFS testing and Chompret 2015 criteria (P = 0.004 and 0.002 respectively), as compared with dominant-negative missense, other missense, or miscellaneous (splice or in-frame deletion) P/LP variant categories. CONCLUSION: Loss-of-function variants were more often associated with characteristic LFS cancer histories than other variant categories in TP53+ carriers ascertained through multigene panel testing. These findings require validation in other TP53+ cohorts. Genetic counseling for panel-ascertained TP53+ individuals should reflect the dynamic expansion of the Li-Fraumeni syndrome phenotype.

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.

Male breast cancer in a multi-gene panel testing cohort: insights and unexpected results.

PURPOSE: Genetic predisposition to male breast cancer (MBC) is not well understood. The aim of this study was to better define the predisposition genes contributing to MBC and the utility of germline multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for explaining the etiology of MBCs. METHODS: Clinical histories and molecular results were retrospectively reviewed for 715 MBC patients who underwent MGPT from March 2012 to June 2016. RESULTS: The detection rate of MGPT was 18.1% for patients tested for variants in 16 breast cancer susceptibility genes and with no prior BRCA1/2 testing. BRCA2 and CHEK2 were the most frequently mutated genes (11.0 and 4.1% of patients with no prior BRCA1/2 testing, respectively). Pathogenic variants in BRCA2 [odds ratio (OR) = 13.9; p = 1.92 × 10-16], CHEK2 (OR = 3.7; p = 6.24 × 10-24), and PALB2 (OR = 6.6, p = 0.01) were associated with significantly increased risks of MBC. The average age at diagnosis of MBC was similar for patients with (64 years) and without (62 years) pathogenic variants. CHEK2 1100delC carriers had a significantly lower average age of diagnosis (n = 7; 54 years) than all others with pathogenic variants (p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed between history of additional primary cancers (non-breast) and family history of male breast cancer for patients with and without pathogenic variants. However, patients with pathogenic variants in BRCA2 were more likely to have a history of multiple primary breast cancers. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that all MBC patients regardless of age of diagnosis, history of multiple primary cancers, or family history of MBC should be offered MGPT.

Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar.

PURPOSE: Data sharing through ClinVar offers a unique opportunity to identify interpretation differences between laboratories. As part of a ClinGen initiative, four clinical laboratories (Ambry, GeneDx, Partners Healthcare Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, and University of Chicago Genetic Services Laboratory) collaborated to identify the basis of interpretation differences and to investigate if data sharing and reassessment resolve interpretation differences by analyzing a subset of variants. METHODS: ClinVar variants with submissions from at least two of the four participating laboratories were compared. For a subset of identified differences, laboratories documented the basis for discordance, shared internal data, independently reassessed with the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines, and then compared interpretations. RESULTS: At least two of the participating laboratories interpreted 6,169 variants in ClinVar, of which 88.3% were initially concordant. Laboratories reassessed 242/724 initially discordant variants, of which 87.2% (211) were resolved by reassessment with current criteria and/or internal data sharing; 12.8% (31) of reassessed variants remained discordant owing to differences in the application of the ACMG-AMP guidelines. CONCLUSION: Participating laboratories increased their overall concordance from 88.3 to 91.7%, indicating that sharing variant interpretations in ClinVar-thereby allowing identification of differences and motivation to resolve those differences-is critical to moving toward more consistent variant interpretations.Genet Med advance online publication 09 March 2017.

Frequency of mutations in a large series of clinically ascertained ovarian cancer cases tested on multi-gene panels compared to reference controls.

OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of adequate screening modalities, knowledge of ovarian cancer risks for carriers of pathogenic alterations in predisposition genes is important for decisions about risk-reduction by salpingo-oophorectomy. We sought to determine which genes assayed on multi-gene panels are associated with ovarian cancer, the magnitude of the associations, and for which clinically meaningful associations could be ruled out. METHODS: 7768 adult ovarian cancer cases of European ancestry referred to a single clinical testing laboratory underwent multi-gene panel testing for detection of pathogenic alterations in known or suspected ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. A targeted capture approach was employed to assay each of 19 genes for the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic alterations. Mutation frequencies in ovarian cancer cases were compared to mutation frequencies in individuals from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). Analyses stratified by family and personal history of other cancers and age at diagnosis were also performed. RESULTS: Significant associations (p<0.001) were identified between alterations in 11 genes and ovarian cancer, with eight of these displaying ≥5-fold increased risk (BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, MSH2, MSH6, RAD51C, RAD51D). Relative risks of ovarian cancer greater than two-fold were also observed for ATM, but could reliably be ruled out for RAD50 and CHEK2. CONCLUSIONS: These results will inform clinical management of women found to carry pathogenic alterations in genes tested on multi-gene panels. The knowledge that some genes are not associated with OC can reduce concerns of women found to carry pathogenic alterations in those genes.

Hereditary predisposition to ovarian cancer, looking beyond BRCA1/BRCA2.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer is well documented. With the advent of next generation sequencing, hereditary panel testing provides an efficient method for evaluating multiple genes simultaneously. Therefore, we sought to investigate the contribution of 19 genes identified in the literature as increasing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative population of patients with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer by means of a hereditary cancer panel. METHODS: Subjects were referred for multi-gene panel testing between February 2012 and March 2014. Clinical data was ascertained from requisition forms. The incidence of pathogenic mutations (including likely pathogenic), and variant of unknown significance were then calculated for each gene and/or patient cohort. RESULTS: In this cohort of 911 subjects, panel testing identified 67 mutations. With 7.4% of subjects harboring a mutation on this multi-gene panel, the diagnostic yield was increased, compared to testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations alone. In the ovarian cancer probands, the most frequently mutated genes were BRIP1 (n=8; 1.72%) and MSH6 (n=6; 1.29%). In the breast cancer probands, mutations were most commonly observed in CHEK2 (n=9; 2.54%), ATM (n=3; 0.85%), and TP53 (n=3; 0.85%). CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies are needed to clarify the exact management of patients with a mutation in each gene, this study highlights information that can be captured with panel testing and provides support for incorporation of panel testing into clinical practice.

Utilization of multigene panels in hereditary cancer predisposition testing: analysis of more than 2,000 patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and molecular characteristics of 2,079 patients who underwent hereditary cancer multigene panel testing. METHODS: Panels included comprehensive analysis of 14-22 cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2 not included), depending on the panel ordered (BreastNext, OvaNext, ColoNext, or CancerNext). Next-generation sequencing and deletion/duplication analyses were performed for all genes except EPCAM (deletion/duplication analysis only). Clinical histories of ColoNext patients harboring mutations in genes with well-established diagnostic criteria were assessed to determine whether diagnostic/testing criteria were met. RESULTS: Positive rates were defined as the proportion of patients with a pathogenic mutation/likely pathogenic variant(s) and were as follows: 7.4% for BreastNext, 7.2% for OvaNext, 9.2% for ColoNext, and 9.6% for CancerNext. Inconclusive results were found in 19.8% of BreastNext, 25.6% of OvaNext, 15.1% of ColoNext, and 23.5% of CancerNext tests. Based on information submitted by clinicians, 30% of ColoNext patients with mutations in genes with well-established diagnostic criteria did not meet corresponding criteria. CONCLUSION: Our data point to an important role for targeted multigene panels in diagnosing hereditary cancer predisposition, particularly for patients with clinical histories spanning several possible diagnoses and for patients with suspicious clinical histories not meeting diagnostic criteria for a specific hereditary cancer syndrome.

A genotype-first approach identifies high incidence of NF1 pathogenic variants with distinct disease associations.

Loss of function variants in the NF1 gene cause neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), a genetic disorder characterized by complete penetrance, prevalence of 1 in 3,000, characteristic physical exam findings, and a substantially increased risk for malignancy. However, our understanding of the disorder is entirely based on patients ascertained through phenotype-first approaches. Leveraging a genotype-first approach in two large patient cohorts, we demonstrate unexpectedly high prevalence (1 in 450-750) of NF1 pathogenic variants. Half were identified in individuals lacking clinical features of NF1, with many appearing to have post-zygotic mosaicism for the identified variant. Incidentally discovered variants were not associated with classic NF1 features but were associated with an increased incidence of malignancy compared to a control population. Our findings suggest that NF1 pathogenic variants are substantially more common than previously thought, often characterized by somatic mosaicism and reduced penetrance, and are important contributors to cancer risk in the general population.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Clinician-Reported Impact of Germline Multigene Panel Testing on Cancer Risk Management Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: With increased adoption of multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer, management guidelines now include a wider range of predisposition genes. Yet little is known about whether MGPT results prompt changes to clinicians' risk management recommendations and whether those recommendations adhere to guidelines. METHODS: We assessed cancer risk management recommendations made by clinicians ordering MGPT for hereditary cancer at a diagnostic laboratory using an internet-based survey. We received paired pre- and posttest responses for 2172 patients (response rate = 14.3%). Unpaired posttest responses were received in 168 additional patients with positive results. All tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Clinicians reported a change in risk management recommendations for 76.6% of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, with changes to surveillance being most common (71.1%), followed by surgical (33.6%), chemoprevention (15.1%), and clinical trial (9.4%) recommendations. Clinicians recommended risk-reducing interventions more often for patients with pathogenic variants in high-risk than moderate-risk genes (P < .001), whereas surveillance recommendations were similar for high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Guideline adherence was high for surveillance (86.3%) and surgical (79.6%) recommendations. Changes to risk management recommendations occurred in 8.8% and 7.6% of patients with uncertain and negative results, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians report frequent changes to cancer risk management recommendations based on positive results in both high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Reported introduction of interventions in patients with inconclusive and negative results is rare and adherence to practice guidelines is high in patients with positive results, suggesting a low probability of harm resulting from MGPT.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Test Results for Women With Breast Cancer.

To evaluate the racial and ethnic differences in prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and the effect of race and ethnicity on breast cancer (BC) risk among carriers, results of multigene testing of 77 900 women with BC (non-Hispanic White [NHW] = 57 003; Ashkenazi-Jewish = 4798; Black = 6722; Hispanic = 5194; and Asian = 4183) were analyzed, and the frequency of PVs in each gene were compared between BC patients (cases) and race- and ethnicity-matched gnomAD reference controls. Compared with NHWs, BRCA1 PVs were enriched in Ashkenazi-Jews and Hispanics, whereas CHEK2 PVs were statistically significantly lower in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (all 2-sided P < .05). In case-control studies, BARD1 PVs were associated with high risks (odds ratio > 4.00) of BC in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; ATM PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among all races and ethnicities except Asians, whereas CHEK2 and BRIP1 PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among NHWs and Hispanics only. These findings suggest a need for personalized management of BC risk in PV carriers based on race and ethnicity.

Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes Among Women With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast.

PURPOSE: To determine the contribution of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in hereditary cancer testing panel genes to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 2,999 women with ILC from a population-based cohort and 3,796 women with ILC undergoing clinical multigene panel testing (clinical cohort). Frequencies of germline PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were compared between women with ILC and unaffected female controls and between women with ILC and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). RESULTS: The frequency of PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes among women with ILC was 6.5% in the clinical cohort and 5.2% in the population-based cohort. In case-control analysis, CDH1 and BRCA2 PVs were associated with high risks of ILC (odds ratio [OR] > 4) and CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PVs were associated with moderate (OR = 2-4) risks. BRCA1 PVs and CHEK2 p.Ile157Thr were not associated with clinically relevant risks (OR < 2) of ILC. Compared with IDC, CDH1 PVs were > 10-fold enriched, whereas PVs in BRCA1 were substantially reduced in ILC. CONCLUSION: The study establishes that PVs in ATM, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with an increased risk of ILC, whereas BRCA1 PVs are not. The similar overall PV frequencies for ILC and IDC suggest that cancer histology should not influence the decision to proceed with genetic testing. Similar to IDC, multigene panel testing may be appropriate for women with ILC, but CDH1 should be specifically discussed because of low prevalence and gastric cancer risk.

Risk of Late-Onset Breast Cancer in Genetically Predisposed Women.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in established breast cancer predisposition genes in women in the general population over age 65 years is not well-defined. However, testing guidelines suggest that women diagnosed with breast cancer over age 65 years might have < 2.5% likelihood of a PV in a high-penetrance gene. This study aimed to establish the frequency of PVs and remaining risks of breast cancer for each gene in women over age 65 years. METHODS: A total of 26,707 women over age 65 years from population-based studies (51.5% with breast cancer and 48.5% unaffected) were tested for PVs in germline predisposition gene. Frequencies of PVs and associations between PVs in each gene and breast cancer were assessed, and remaining lifetime breast cancer risks were estimated for non-Hispanic White women with PVs. RESULTS: The frequency of PVs in predisposition genes was 3.18% for women with breast cancer and 1.48% for unaffected women over age 65 years. PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were found in 3.42% of women diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, 1.0% with ER-positive, and 3.01% with triple-negative breast cancer. Frequencies of PVs were lower among women with no first-degree relatives with breast cancer. PVs in CHEK2, PALB2, BRCA2, and BRCA1 were associated with increased risks (odds ratio = 2.9-4.0) of breast cancer. Remaining lifetime risks of breast cancer were ≥ 15% for those with PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that all women diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer or ER-negative breast cancer should receive genetic testing and that women over age 65 years with BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs and perhaps with PALB2 and CHEK2 PVs should be considered for magnetic resonance imaging screening.

The Contribution of Germline Predisposition Gene Mutations to Clinical Subtypes of Invasive Breast Cancer From a Clinical Genetic Testing Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The germline cancer predisposition genes associated with increased risk of each clinical subtype of breast cancer, defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2, are not well defined. METHODS: A total of 54 555 invasive breast cancer patients with 56 480 breast tumors were subjected to clinical hereditary cancer multigene panel testing. Heterogeneity for predisposition genes across clinical breast cancer subtypes was assessed by comparing mutation frequencies by gene among tumor subtypes and by association studies between each tumor subtype and reference controls. RESULTS: Mutations in 15 cancer predisposition genes were detected in 8.6% of patients with ER+/HER2-; 8.9% with ER+/HER2+; 7.7% with ER-/HER2+; and 14.4% of ER-/PR-/HER2- tumors. BRCA1, BRCA2, BARD1, and PALB2 mutations were enriched in ER- and HER2- tumors; RAD51C and RAD51D mutations were enriched in ER- tumors only; TP53 mutations were enriched in HER2+ tumors, and ATM and CHEK2 mutations were enriched in both ER+ and/or HER2+ tumors. All genes were associated with moderate (odds ratio > 2.00) or strong (odds ratio > 5.00) risks of at least one subtype of breast cancer in case-control analyses. Mutations in ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53 had predicted lifetime absolute risks of at least 20.0% for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Germline mutations in hereditary cancer panel genes confer subtype-specific risks of breast cancer. Combined tumor subtype, age at breast cancer diagnosis, and family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer information provides refined categorical estimates of mutation prevalence for women considering genetic testing.