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.

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.

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.

Scoping the family history: assessment of Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) in primary care settings--a primer for nurse practitioners.

PURPOSE: To describe and discuss the characteristic features and red flags of Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, that warrants referral for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A focus on the nurse practitioner's (NP) role in familial risk assessment, physical examination, initiation of genetic referrals, and issues related to the genetic counseling process are also discussed. DATA SOURCES: A review and synopsis of professional guidelines, clinical articles, and research studies on Lynch syndrome and the genetics of inherited cancer syndromes associated with colorectal cancer. Online resources from the American Gastroenterological Association, American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Cancer Institute, the National Cancer Institute-Physician Data Query, the National Coalition of Health Professional Education in Genetics, the National Human Genome Research Institute, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, International Society of Nurses in Genetics, and the Oncology Nursing Society. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 5% of all colon cancers are because of a germ line mutation predisposing individuals and their family members to colorectal and other cancers. Although the efficacy of screening modalities is established, healthcare providers often fail to identify those at greatest risk for disease. The extended family history is the first step in recognition of individuals "suspect" for hereditary colon cancers such as Lynch syndrome. Early-age onset of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers, an autosomal-dominant pattern, multiple primary tumors in an individual or multiple family members with Lynch syndrome-associated cancers, characteristic pathological features of colon cancer, or a known germ line Lynch syndrome mutation in a family member are "red flags" that will aid NPs in identifying individuals who may benefit from GCRA. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSE PRACTITIONER PRACTICE: The importance of enhanced surveillance for early diagnosis and prevention of disease is a critical part of primary care. Thus, it is imperative that NPs obtain a minimum of a three-generation pedigree, recognize hereditary cancer patterns, and provide referral counseling for consideration of genetic testing of individuals suspect for Lynch syndrome.

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.

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.

Limited family structure and BRCA gene mutation status in single cases of breast cancer.

CONTEXT: An autosomal dominant pattern of hereditary breast cancer may be masked by small family size or transmission through males given sex-limited expression. OBJECTIVE: To determine if BRCA gene mutations are more prevalent among single cases of early onset breast cancer in families with limited vs adequate family structure than would be predicted by currently available probability models. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1543 women seen at US high-risk clinics for genetic cancer risk assessment and BRCA gene testing were enrolled in a prospective registry study between April 1997 and February 2007. Three hundred six of these women had breast cancer before age 50 years and no first- or second-degree relatives with breast or ovarian cancers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was whether family structure, assessed from multigenerational pedigrees, predicts BRCA gene mutation status. Limited family structure was defined as fewer than 2 first- or second-degree female relatives surviving beyond age 45 years in either lineage. Family structure effect and mutation probability by the Couch, Myriad, and BRCAPRO models were assessed with stepwise multiple logistic regression. Model sensitivity and specificity were determined and receiver operating characteristic curves were generated. RESULTS: Family structure was limited in 153 cases (50%). BRCA gene mutations were detected in 13.7% of participants with limited vs 5.2% with adequate family structure. Family structure was a significant predictor of mutation status (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-6.73; P = .02). Although none of the models performed well, receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that modification of BRCAPRO output by a corrective probability index accounting for family structure was the most accurate BRCA gene mutation status predictor (area under the curve, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.81; P<.001) for single cases of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Family structure can affect the accuracy of mutation probability models. Genetic testing guidelines may need to be more inclusive for single cases of breast cancer when the family structure is limited and probability models need to be recreated using limited family history as an actual variable.

Unexpected CDH1 Mutations Identified on Multigene Panels Pose Clinical Management Challenges.

PURPOSE: Mutations in the CDH1 gene confer up to an 80% lifetime risk of diffuse gastric cancer and up to a 60% lifetime risk of lobular breast cancer. Testing for CDH1 mutations is recommended for individuals who meet the International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) guidelines. However, the interpretation of unexpected CDH1 mutations identified in patients who do not meet IGCLC criteria or do not have phenotypes suggestive of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is clinically challenging. This study aims to describe phenotypes of CDH1 mutation carriers identified through multigene panel testing (MGPT) and to offer informed recommendations for medical management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional prevalence study included all patients who underwent MGPT between March 2012 and September 2014 from a commercial laboratory (n = 26,936) and an academic medical center cancer genetics clinic (n = 318) to estimate CDH1 mutation prevalence and associated clinical phenotypes. CDH1 mutation carriers were classified as IGCLC positive (met criteria), IGCLC partial phenotype, and IGCLC negative. RESULTS: In the laboratory cohort, 16 (0.06%) of 26,936 patients were identified as having a pathogenic CDH1 mutation. In the clinic cohort, four (1.26%) of 318 had a pathogenic CDH1 mutation. Overall, 65% of mutation carriers did not meet the revised testing criteria published in 2015. All three CDH1 mutation carriers who had risk-reducing gastrectomy had pathologic evidence of diffuse gastric cancer despite not having met IGCLC criteria. CONCLUSION: The majority of CDH1 mutations identified on MGPT are unexpected and found in individuals who do not fit the accepted diagnostic testing criteria. These test results alter the medical management of CDH1-positive patients and families and provide opportunities for early detection and risk reduction.

Assessing breast cancer risk and BRCA1/2 carrier probability.

By identifying individuals with an increased risk of breast cancer, health professionals can offer prevention strategies tailored to individual risk levels. Such strategies may include early initiation of cancer screening, more frequent screening, targeted therapeutic or behavioral interventions, or prophylactic surgery. In order to achieve clinical benefits with this approach, however, risk assessment strategies and effective prevention measures must be available. In this article we review current knowledge about cancer risk assessment for unaffected women and probability models for identifying individuals who are carriers of a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2, the two genes most commonly implicated in hereditary breast cancer. We review BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in various ethnic populations and how this information factors into risk assessment. Additionally, we summarize the current guidelines for when to make a referral to genetic services for risk assessment and evaluation.

Increased yield of actionable mutations using multi-gene panels to assess hereditary cancer susceptibility in an ethnically diverse clinical cohort.

This study aims to assess multi-gene panel testing in an ethnically diverse clinical cancer genetics practice. We conducted a retrospective study of individuals with a personal or family history of cancer undergoing clinically indicated multi-gene panel tests of 6-110 genes, from six commercial laboratories. The 475 patients in the study included 228 Hispanics (47.6%), 166 non-Hispanic Whites (35.4%), 55 Asians (11.6%), 19 Blacks (4.0%), and seven others (1.5%). Panel testing found that 15.6% (74/475) of patients carried deleterious mutations for a total of 79 mutations identified. This included 7.4% (35/475) of patients who had a mutation identified that would not have been tested with a gene-by-gene approach. The identification of a panel-added mutation impacted clinical management for most of cases (69%, 24/35), and genetic testing was recommended for the first degree relatives of nearly all of them (91%, 32/35). Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) were identified in a higher proportion of tests performed in ethnic minorities. Multi-gene panel testing increases the yield of mutations detected and adds to the capability of providing individualized cancer risk assessment. VUSs represent an interpretive challenge due to less data available outside of White, non-Hispanic populations. Further studies are necessary to expand understanding of the implementation and utilization of panels across broad clinical settings and patient populations.

Evolving perspectives on genetic discrimination in health insurance among health care providers.

Previous studies have documented that concerns about genetic discrimination (GD) may influence access to and participation in medically necessary care. We sought to characterize how GD issues influence current cancer genetics professional (CGP) practice, determine if their attitudes regarding GD have changed over time, and compare their knowledge and attitudes regarding laws prohibiting GD to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians. Members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Special Interest Group were invited to complete a 39 item online survey, adapted from previously published instruments. The resulting data were compared to a survey of CGPs published in 2000 and to a contemporary cohort of non-genetics clinicians (n = 1,181). There were 153 qualified respondents. Compared to the historical CGP cohort (n = 163), a significantly greater proportion said they would bill insurance for the cost of genetic testing for themselves (P < 0.0001). Most CGPs (94%) considered the risk of GD to be low to theoretical, concordant with 64% who expressed confidence in existing federal laws prohibiting GD. The mean knowledge score of CGPs regarding GD protective laws was significantly greater than that of non-genetics clinicians (P < 0.001). As barometers of change, CGPs show a migration in opinion over the past 8 years, with decreased fear of GD and greater knowledge of laws prohibiting GD compared to non-genetics clinicians. Better knowledge of GD and protective legislation, may facilitate non-genetics clinician utilization of genetics and personalized medicine.

Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations.

PURPOSE: A clinical testing cohort was used to gain a broader understanding of the spectrum of tumors associated with germline p53 mutations to aid clinicians in identifying high-risk families. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Full sequencing of the coding exons (2 to 11) and associated splice junctions of the p53 gene was performed on 525 consecutive patients whose blood samples were submitted for diagnostic testing. Clinical features of p53 germline carriers in this cohort were characterized, clinical referral schemes based on reported p53-associated family phenotypes were evaluated, and practical mutation prevalence tables were generated. RESULTS: Mutations were identified in 91 (17%) of 525 patients submitted for testing. All families with a p53 mutation had at least one family member with a sarcoma, breast, brain, or adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC). Every individual with a choroid plexus tumor (eight of eight) and 14 of 21 individuals with a childhood ACC had a mutation regardless of family history. Based on reported personal and family history, 95% of patients (71 of 75) with a mutation met either classic Li Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) or Chompret criteria. A simplified prevalence table provides a concise summary of individual and family characteristics associated with p53 mutations. CONCLUSION: This is, to our knowledge, the largest single report of diagnostic testing for germline p53 mutations, yielding practical mutation prevalence tables and suggesting clinical utility of classic LFS and Chompret criteria for identifying a subset of cancer-prone families with p53 germline mutations, with important implications for diagnosis and management.

Colorectal cancer surveillance behaviors among members of typical and attenuated FAP families.

OBJECTIVES: Although enhanced colorectal surveillance is recommended for members of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) families, little is known about individual-level adherence behavior. This study examined factors associated with recent use of colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance among FAP patients and their at-risk relatives. METHODS: This cross-sectional study conducted a computer-assisted telephone survey among 150 members of 71 extended families with classic (FAP) or attenuated adenomatous polyposis (AFAP). Participants were enrolled in a university-based hereditary CRC registry or were first-degree relatives of enrollees. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Surveillance behavior varied by disease status. Fifty-four percent of 71 participants with a personal history of FAP and 42% of 79 at-risk relatives reported recent use of CRC surveillance recommendations. In multiple logistic regression analysis, lack of patient recall of provider recommendation for an endoscopic examination of the colon (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.8-13.1), lack of health insurance or no reimbursement for CRC surveillance (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.5), and/or the belief that their relative risk of CRC is not increased (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-7.1) were independently associated with not having had a recent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the known benefits of CRC surveillance, a substantial proportion of FAP family members did not have a recent colonoscopy or endoscopy. Interventions targeted at both clinicians and patients are needed to improve surveillance behavior. These data are also important in designing decision support tools to assist clinicians in identifying and managing high-risk patients.

Assessing the predictive accuracy of hMLH1 and hMSH2 mutation probability models.

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is characterized by a susceptibility to colorectal and extra-colonic cancers. Several guidelines exist for the identification of families suspected of having HNPCC, however these guidelines lack adequate sensitivity and specificity. In an attempt to improve accuracy for the detection of individuals with HNPCC, the Wijnen pre-test probability model (1998) and Myriad Genetics Laboratory prevalence table (2004) were developed. Here we evaluate the Wijnen model and Myriad table at predicting the presence of a mutation in individuals undergoing genetic testing for HNPCC. Forty-nine patients who had undergone genetic testing for germline mutations in hMLH1 and/or hMSH2 were part of our analysis. Our results revealed that the revised Bethesda guidelines performed with the highest sensitivity for germline mutations (94.4%), however the specificity was low (12.9%). Using a 10.0% mutation probability threshold, the Wijnen model and Myriad table had sensitivities of 55.6 and 60.0%, respectively and specificities of 54.8 and 23.8%, respectively. The Wijnen model and Myriad table were poor predictors of mutation prevalence, which is shown by the areas underneath their corresponding receiver operator characteristic curves (0.616 and 0.400, respectively). The results of this study demonsrate that neither the Wijnen model nor the Myriad table are sensitive or specific enough to be used as the only indication when to offer genetic testing for HNPCC.

If we build it ... will they come?--establishing a cancer genetics services clinic for an underserved predominantly Latina cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cancer genetic counseling and testing is a standard of care option for appropriate families and can identify individuals at increased risk prior to diagnosis, when prevention or detection strategies are most effective. Despite documented efficacy of cancer risk reduction in high-risk individuals, underserved and minority individuals have a disproportionate cancer burden and limited access to genetic counseling. METHODS: A needs assessment survey documented gaps in knowledge and interest in prevention. Satellite clinics were established at two indigent healthcare systems. Cancer genetics CME lectures were conducted and referral guidelines disseminated to clinicians who referred patients for counseling. RESULTS: An increase in clinician knowledge was demonstrated post-CME and reflected by quality referrals. Eighty-eight percent of patients kept their appointments. In the predominantly Latina(6) (n=77) clinic population, 71.4% were affected with cancer, and 17 mutation positive families were identified. Preliminary data shows a positive impact on patients' motivation and behavior. The majority has expressed satisfaction and reduction in anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability of cancer genetics services in this population, suggesting the potential to reduce cancer morbidity in underserved, high-risk families.

Clinical germline genetic testing for melanoma.

Clinical genetic testing for mutations in CDKN2A (cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A), a melanoma susceptibility gene, is now available. The International Melanoma Genetics Consortium advocates that genetic testing for CDKN2A should be done only as part of a research protocol. Experience with genetic testing for other cancer-susceptibility genes indicates that CDKN2A testing has enormous potential for the prevention and detection of a deadly disease. However, clinicians need to understand the benefits and shortcomings of clinical CDKN2A testing so that it can be used advantageously. Here, we examine whether CDKN2A meets the recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for cancer-susceptibility genetic testing. Although genetic testing for hereditary melanoma should, whenever possible, occur within research protocols, it might be successfully done outside of research protocols if attention is paid to selection, education, and counselling needs of patients; valid test interpretation; and the changing of medical management in appropriate individuals.