Family health beliefs and cascade genetic testing in Asian families with hereditary cancer risk: "Okay, now what?"

The limited literature on Asian family communication of hereditary cancer risk and cascade genetic testing for pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 has reported that Asian patients have selective communication of test results and lower cascade testing rates. To better understand the factors that impact communication and cascade testing in Asian families, we conducted an in-depth qualitative study guided by the Health Belief Model. Participants with heterozygous PVs in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2, who identified their family's origins to an Asian country, were recruited from the Stanford Cancer Genetics Research Database in October-November 2021. Utilizing a constructivist approach, we conducted sixteen semi-structured interviews around family communication and cascade genetic testing. The research team analyzed the transcript data using a reflexive thematic approach. Extensive discussions between the research team resulted in three primary themes presented in this paper: (1) the role of family health beliefs in cascade genetic testing, (2) changes in communication as a result of genetic testing, and (3) genetics providers' role in supporting family discussions on cascade genetic testing. Certain health beliefs, such as perceived susceptibility to cancer and self-efficacy to take action, were co-created by family members and these shared beliefs influenced decisions about genetic testing, family communication, and family support during the cascade genetic testing process. Participants shared strategies for how genetics providers can prepare Asian patients for more effective conversations with relatives and better address potential testing barriers by tailoring information and providing anticipatory guidance. This study represents an important contribution to the literature about cascade testing among an underrepresented group. Shared family health beliefs about genetic testing may be particularly relevant for this community and these findings can inform strategies to increase cascade genetic testing in Asian families.

Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of commercial laboratories issuing conflicting classifications of genetic variants. METHODS: Results from 2000 patients undergoing a multigene hereditary cancer panel by a single laboratory were analyzed. Clinically significant discrepancies between the laboratory-provided test reports and other major commercial laboratories were identified, including differences between pathogenic/likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) classifications, via review of ClinVar archives. For patients carrying a VUS, clinical documentation was assessed for evidence of provider awareness of the conflict. RESULTS: Fifty of 975 (5.1%) patients with non-negative results carried a variant with a clinically significant conflict, 19 with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant reported in APC or MUTYH, and 31 with a VUS reported in CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MUTYH, RAD51C, or TP53. Only 10 of 28 (36%) patients with a VUS with a clinically significant conflict had a documented discussion by a provider about the conflict. Discrepant counseling strategies were used for different patients with the same variant. Among patients with a CDKN2A variant or a monoallelic MUTYH variant, providers were significantly more likely to make recommendations based on the laboratory-reported classification. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the frequency of variant interpretation discrepancies and importance of clinician awareness. Guidance is needed on managing patients with discrepant variants to support accurate risk assessment.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

Understanding variants of uncertain significance in the era of multigene panels: Through the eyes of the patient.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are often disclosed to patients despite ambiguous association with disease risk and lack of clinical actionability. It is important to understand how patients understand a VUS result, but few studies have assessed this. Our qualitative study explored patient recall, reaction to, and interpretation of a VUS in the context of multigene panels. We conducted 11 semi-structured phone interviews with adults who had a VUS identified on multigene panel testing in a hereditary oncology clinic, with questions focusing on the VUS result, personal and family history, and motivations for and expectations of genetic testing. Transcripts were coded iteratively, using both deductive and inductive codes. Overall, participants usually recalled that they had a VUS, despite variation in the vocabulary used. Participants responded both emotionally and intellectually to receiving information about having a VUS, which was often a result of their expectations and motivations prior to testing. Overall, participants understood the lack of clinical significance of a VUS, yet often interpreted the etiologic significance of a VUS within the context of the personal and family history. Our study provides insight into a process by which patients translate uncertain genetic testing results into a construct that fits within their current belief framework and which may be facilitated by a genetic counselor.

Racial/ethnic differences in multiple-gene sequencing results for hereditary cancer risk.

PurposeWe examined racial/ethnic differences in the usage and results of germ-line multiple-gene sequencing (MGS) panels to evaluate hereditary cancer risk.MethodsWe collected genetic testing results and clinical information from 1,483 patients who underwent MGS at Stanford University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015.ResultsAsians and Hispanics presented for MGS at younger ages than whites (48 and 47 vs. 55; P = 5E-16 and 5E-14). Across all panels, the rate of pathogenic variants (15%) did not differ significantly between racial groups. Rates by gene did differ: in particular, a higher percentage of whites than nonwhites carried pathogenic CHEK2 variants (3.8% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.002). The rate of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result was higher in nonwhites than whites (36% vs. 27%; P = 2E-4). The probability of a VUS increased with increasing number of genes tested; this effect was more pronounced for nonwhites than for whites (1.1% absolute difference in VUS rates testing BRCA1/2 vs. 8% testing 13 genes vs. 14% testing 28 genes), worsening the disparity.ConclusionIn this diverse cohort undergoing MGS testing, pathogenic variant rates were similar between racial/ethnic groups. By contrast, VUS results were more frequent among nonwhites, with potential significance for the impact of MGS testing by race/ethnicity.

Parent decision-making around the genetic testing of children for germline TP53 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a rare genetic cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline TP53 mutations. Up to 20% of mutation carriers develop cancer during childhood. The benefits of TP53 mutation testing of children are a matter of debate and knowledge of parent decision-making around such testing is limited. The current study examined how parents make decisions regarding TP53 testing for their children. METHODS: Families offered and those pursuing TP53 testing for their children were identified across the study sites. Qualitative interviews with 46 parents (39 families) were analyzed to describe decision-making styles and perceived advantages and disadvantages of testing. RESULTS: TP53 mutation testing uptake was high (92%). Three decision-making styles emerged. Automatic decisions (44% of decisions) involved little thought and identified immediate benefit(s) in testing (100% pursued testing). Considered decisions (49%) weighed the risks and benefits but were made easily (77% pursued testing). Deliberated decisions (6%) were difficult and focused on psychosocial concerns (25% pursued testing). Perceived advantages of testing included promoting child health, satisfying a "need to know," understanding why cancer(s) occurred, suggesting family member risk, and benefiting research. Disadvantages included psychosocial risks and privacy/discrimination/insurance issues. CONCLUSIONS: Although empirical evidence regarding the benefits and risks of TP53 testing during childhood are lacking, the majority of parents in the current study decided easily in favor of testing and perceived a range of advantages. The authors conclude that in the context of a clinical diagnosis of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, parents should continue to be offered TP53 testing for their children, counseled regarding potential risks and benefits, and supported in their decision-making process.

Somatic tumor mutations in moderate risk cancer genes: Targets for germline confirmatory testing.

BACKGROUND: Recent changes in oncology practice guidelines indicate that mutations in cancer susceptibility genes identified on tumor genomic profiling (TGP) should prompt confirmatory germline testing. Our study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with TGP-identified mutations in moderate risk breast and ovarian cancer genes who previously would not have been considered for germline testing. METHODS: From January 2013 to September 2020, 7468 adult Stanford Health Care patients underwent TGP on solid tumor samples and 166 had TGP-identified mutations in moderate risk breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes (ATM, BRIP1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C and RAD51D). Retrospective chart reviews were performed on 160 patients. Cases were analyzed to determine eligibility for germline testing using established NCCN criteria, and somatic and germline results were compared where both were available. RESULTS: Nearly half (45.3% [73/160]) of patients would not have been eligible for germline testing if not for a TGP-identified mutation in a moderate risk breast or ovarian cancer gene. Of the 64 cases that underwent germline testing, about half (51.5% [33/64]) had results that confirmed germline origin of the TGP finding. High rates of germline confirmation were found in PALB2 (100% [5/5]), ATM (40% [14/35]), CHEK2 (61.5% [8/13]), and BRIP1 (57.1% [4/7]). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the presence of TGP-identified mutations in moderate risk breast and ovarian cancer genes increases eligibility for germline testing beyond those that would be eligible based largely on personal and family history criteria alone. Additionally, results of germline testing in these newly eligible cases supports that this expanded eligibility captures individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes that would not have otherwise been identified.

Somatic tumor testing implications for Lynch syndrome germline genetic testing.

Clinicians involved in cancer treatment often utilize somatic tumor sequencing to help tailor chemotherapy and immunotherapy. However, somatic tumor sequencing can also identify patients at risk for germline pathogenic variants causing cancer predisposition syndromes like Lynch syndrome. The extent to which clinicians realize this implication of tumor sequencing is currently unclear. We performed a retrospective chart review of Stanford Health Care patients who had somatic variant(s) in the Lynch syndrome genes or microsatellite instability identified on tumor sequencing to determine the proportion of patients who were referred to genetics. Among 6,556 patients who had tumor testing, 90 (1.37%) had findings compatible with Lynch syndrome. Of the 62 patients who had not already seen genetics, 47/62 (75.8%) were not referred to genetics for germline testing. Additionally, 26/47 (55.3%) of these individuals had a tumor type within the Lynch syndrome spectrum. Of the 10 patients who did elect germline testing after tumor sequencing, 3/10 were positive for Lynch syndrome. Our study highlights the need for specific guidelines to inform clinician referral practices on germline follow-up of somatic tumor testing and demonstrates the importance of continued research on the relationship between somatic tumor variants and germline variants to inform such guidelines.

Germline Testing for Patients With BRCA1/2 Mutations on Somatic Tumor Testing.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends germline testing for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations identified by somatic tumor sequencing. The aim of this study was to explore whether patients at Stanford with somatic BRCA1/2 mutations were recommended germline testing in accordance with NCCN guidelines. METHODS: We retrospectively collected all Stanford patients with BRCA1/2 mutations found by tumor sequencing. Medical records were reviewed for each patient to identify those recommended germline testing. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit associating baseline characteristics with whether or not a recommendation was made. RESULTS: Of 164 participants, 51 (31.1%) had no recommendation for germline testing. Of the 97 available germline-testing results, 54 (55.7%) were positive for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations. After adjusting for possible confounders, patients with genitourinary cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.00 to 0.03; P = .003), lung cancer (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.21; P < .001), sarcoma (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.14; P < .001), skin cancer (OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.03; P = .002), or "other" diagnoses (OR = 0.01, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.16; P < .001) were statistically significantly less likely to be recommended germline testing compared with patients with breast or gynecological cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the importance of provider education outside of the oncologic specialties typically associated with BRCA-related cancers and continued exploration of referrals to genetics for germline testing on the basis of somatic findings.

Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk.

PURPOSE: Multiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics-University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute-who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate). RESULTS: Of 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83% v 41%; P < .001) to encourage their relatives to be tested. CONCLUSION: In a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.

Identification of a novel p53 in-frame deletion in a Li-Fraumeni-like family.

We describe a 2-year-old female with a completely resected cerebral pilocytic astrocytoma who subsequently developed B-progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Her father and paternal uncle were previously diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme. Sequence analysis of the patient's p53 gene revealed a novel germline three base-pair deletion (339_341delCTT) in exon 4, resulting in removal of an evolutionarily conserved phenylalanine amino acid residue at codon 113. The same mutation was found in the patient's two clinically unaffected siblings. The in-frame deletion we describe has not previously been reported and adds to our understanding of the biologic effects of p53 gene mutation in Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS).

Patient communication of cancer genetic test results in a diverse population.

Research on the communication of genetic test results has focused predominately on non-Hispanic White (NHW) mutation-positive families with high-risk hereditary cancer conditions. Little is known about this process for racially and ethnically diverse individuals or for those with mutations in moderate risk genes. The communication behaviors of study participants who carry a gene mutation were analyzed 3 months after disclosure of genetic test results. Participants were queried about communication of their results, as part of a prospective study of multi-gene panel genetic testing. The responses of particpants who tested positive were analyzed by race/ethnicity and by level of cancer risk (high vs. moderate). Of the 216 mutation-positive study participants, 136 (63%) responded. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 46% NHW, 41% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 2% Black. The majority (99.0%, n = 135) had shared their results with someone and 96% had told a family member (n = 130). Hispanic respondents were less likely to have told a healthcare provider about their results than NHW (29% vs. 68%, p < .0001). Asian respondents were less likely than NHW to encourage family members to undergo testing (OR = 0.1, p = .03); but Asian family members were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 8.0, p = .03). There were no differences in communication between those with a mutation in a high- or moderate-risk gene. Three months post genetic testing, communication of results was very high; 30% reported a family member underwent genetic testing. Further studies are needed to better understand the communication process in individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds.

Identification of an intronic single nucleotide polymorphism leading to allele dropout during validation of a CDH1 sequencing assay: implications for designing polymerase chain reaction-based assays.

PURPOSE: The CDH1 gene encodes the cell adhesion protein E-cadherin, and CDH1 germline mutations are associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Identification of individuals at high risk of developing diffuse gastric cancer affords the opportunity for endoscopic screening or elective prophylactic gastrectomy. We set out to develop a CDH1 sequencing assay for clinical use. METHODS: All exons of the CDH1 gene were amplified and sequenced with published and modified primers. RESULTS: While validating the assay, we encountered a case in which a single nucleotide polymorphism located in intron 15 led to allele dropout and therefore to a false-negative result. The polymorphism leading to allele dropout was located within a primer-binding sequence, five bases away from the 3' end of the primer. A frameshift mutation in exon 15 was detected by an alternative primer that binds away from the polymorphic site. A search of the University of California Santa Cruz single nucleotide polymorphism database revealed other polymorphisms located within primer-binding sites. A total of 12 primers in nine primer sets were modified to minimize allele dropout risk. CONCLUSION: The approach of designing primers to avoid known single nucleotide polymorphisms can be generalized to the design of any polymerase chain reaction-based assay and should be employed whenever possible.

Ductal lavage of fluid-yielding and non-fluid-yielding ducts in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and other women at high inherited breast cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE: Nipple fluid production and atypical breast duct cells in women at high risk of breast cancer have been associated with further increased risk. Most publications on ductal lavage for cell collection report cannulating fluid-yielding ducts only. We report lavage of fluid-yielding and non-fluid-yielding ducts in women at high inherited breast cancer risk. METHODS: A pilot breast cancer screening study including ductal lavage was conducted in 75 women at high inherited risk, 56 (74.7%) of whom had BRCA1/2 mutations. Ductal lavage was attempted in any duct identifiable with a catheter. RESULTS: Ducts were successfully catheterized in 60 of 75 patients (80%). Successfully catheterized patients were younger (median age 41 versus 53 years, P = 0.0003) and more often premenopausal (51.7% versus 20%, P = 0.041). Thirty-one successfully catheterized patients [51.6%, 95% confidence interval (39.4-63.9%)] had non-fluid-yielding ducts only. Seventeen patients [28.3% (18.5-40.9%)] had atypical cells. Twelve of seventeen [70.6% (46.8-87.2%)] samples with atypia were from non-fluid-yielding ducts. Patients with non-fluid-yielding ducts (versus fluid-yielding ducts) were more likely to have had prior cancer (48.4% versus 17.2%, P = 0.014) or chemotherapy (45.2% versus 17.2%, P = 0.027); this was also true in patients with atypia from non-fluid-yielding ducts. CONCLUSION: Successfully lavaged women were younger and more often premenopausal. Atypical cells can be found in non-fluid-yielding ducts in patients at high inherited breast cancer risk. Non-fluid-yielding ducts, and atypia from non-fluid-yielding ducts, are more common in patients with prior cancer and chemotherapy. Larger studies are needed to identify risk factors and prognostic significance associated with atypia and non-fluid-yielding ducts in high-risk populations, and define their role as biomarkers.

The MLH1 c.-27C>A and c.85G>T variants are linked to dominantly inherited MLH1 epimutation and are borne on a European ancestral haplotype.

Germline mutations of the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2, and deletions affecting the EPCAM gene adjacent to MSH2, underlie Lynch syndrome by predisposing to early-onset colorectal, endometrial and other cancers. An alternative but rare cause of Lynch syndrome is constitutional epimutation of MLH1, whereby promoter methylation and transcriptional silencing of one allele occurs throughout normal tissues. A dominantly transmitted constitutional MLH1 epimutation has been linked to an MLH1 haplotype bearing two single-nucleotide variants, NM_000249.2: c.-27C>A and c.85G>T, in a Caucasian family with Lynch syndrome from Western Australia. Subsequently, a second seemingly unrelated Caucasian Australian case with the same MLH1 haplotype and concomitant epimutation was reported. We now describe three additional, ostensibly unrelated, cancer-affected families of European heritage with this MLH1 haplotype in association with constitutional epimutation, bringing the number of index cases reported to five. Array-based genotyping in four of these families revealed shared haplotypes between individual families that extended across ≤2.6-≤6.4 megabase regions of chromosome 3p, indicating common ancestry. A minimal ≤2.6 megabase founder haplotype common to all four families was identified, which encompassed MLH1 and additional flanking genes and segregated with the MLH1 epimutation in each family. Our findings indicate that the MLH1 c.-27C>A and c.85G>T variants are borne on a European ancestral haplotype and provide conclusive evidence for its pathogenicity via a mechanism of epigenetic silencing of MLH1 within normal tissues. Additional descendants bearing this founder haplotype may exist who are also at high risk of developing Lynch syndrome-related cancers.

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer due to a previously undescribed CDH1 splice site mutation.

Our patient was a 52-year-old man who was diagnosed with signet ring cell gastric adenocarcinoma. An extensive family history of gastric cancer raised suspicion for hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Sequencing of the patient's CDH1 gene revealed a novel point mutation in a strictly conserved splice site within intron 6, c.833-2 A > G. This mutation was predicted to result in loss of function due to defective RNA splicing. To characterize the pathogenic mechanism of this mutation, we amplified the patient's CDH1 gene products by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Primers flanking the region of the mutation detected 3 distinct transcripts. In addition to the wild-type product, a larger product consistent with activation of a cryptic splice site within intron 6 and a smaller product shown to result from exon 7 skipping were detected. In summary, we have identified a novel CDH1 mutation in a large hereditary diffuse gastric cancer kindred and identified its pathogenic mechanism.

Performance of BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models in Asian Americans.

PURPOSE: There are established differences in breast cancer epidemiology between Asian and white individuals, but little is known about hereditary breast cancer in Asian populations. Although increasing numbers of Asian individuals are clinically tested for BRCA1/2 mutations, it is not known whether computer models that predict mutations work accurately in Asian individuals. We compared the performance in Asian and white individuals of two widely used BRCA1/2 mutation prediction models, BRCAPRO and Myriad II. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated BRCAPRO and Myriad II in 200 Asian individuals and a matched control group of 200 white individuals who were tested for BRCA1/2 mutations at four cancer genetics clinics, by comparing numbers of observed versus predicted mutation carriers and by evaluating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each model. RESULTS: BRCAPRO and Myriad II accurately predicted the number of white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (25 observed v 24 predicted by BRCAPRO; 25 predicted by Myriad II, P > or = .69), but underpredicted Asian carriers by two-fold (49 observed v 25 predicted by BRCAPRO; 26 predicted by Myriad II; P < or = 3 x 10(-7)). For BRCAPRO, this racial difference reflects substantial underprediction of Asian BRCA2 mutation carriers (26 observed v 4 predicted; P = 1 x 10(-30)); for Myriad II, separate mutation predictions were not available. For both models, AUCs were nonsignificantly lower in Asian than white individuals, suggesting less accurate discrimination between Asian carriers and noncarriers. CONCLUSION: Both BRCAPRO and Myriad II underestimated the proportion of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and discriminated carriers from noncarriers less well, in Asian compared with white individuals.