Genetic risk assessment in breast and gynecologic malignancies- what's to know in 2024?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hereditary cancer risk assessment and counseling have become integral in oncology care, especially in breast and gynecologic malignancies where genetic test results impact management. However, a large number of patients who could benefit from genetic testing are not getting tested. As such, genetic risk assessment and counseling methods have had to evolve to meet the needs of this expanding patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: "Mainstreaming" genetic testing is an initiative to incorporate genetic testing into routine cancer care in lieu of the traditional genetic counseling model to improve uptake of testing while minimizing expansion of genetic counselor and clinic resources. These models have performed well in various institutions demonstrating an improvement in clinical efficacy. However, missed opportunities from the preventive care standpoint, a core value of cancer genetics risk assessment, have become apparent. The focus of these models is on the patient's cancer diagnosis and comprehensive/familial genetic risk assessment is not often completed. SUMMARY: Identifying patients at an increased risk of cancer, even in the absence of a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, is important in tailoring screening and preventive measures. As we look to the future, we need to critically approach mainstreaming and determine how to reincorporate comprehensive genetic risk assessment into our models.

Cultural, demographic, and other non-demographic factors associated with cancer genetic counseling patients' appointment accompaniment preferences in the United States.

Although the presence of companion(s) in a genetic counseling session can positively influence session dynamics, research has found that some patients prefer to attend their appointments alone. To date, no studies have examined patient accompaniment preferences across different cultural groups in the context of genetic counseling. This quantitative study aimed to identify factors associated with individual preferences in accompaniment at cancer genetic counseling appointments in a sample (N = 130) of Hispanic/Latine (n = 29) and non-Hispanic/Latine White (n = 101) participants at a large academic medical institution. Variables examined included demographics, horizontal and vertical collectivism, and Hispanic and American acculturation. A link to an online questionnaire was emailed to patients who met four criteria: (1) identified as either Hispanic/Latine or non-Hispanic/Latine White; (2) had attended a cancer genetic counseling appointment at UCLA Health to discuss genetic testing options between October 2020 and December 2022; (3) were at least 18 years of age at the time of their appointment; and (4) indicated they were comfortable reading in Spanish or English; responses were anonymous. Logistic regression analyses identified four significant variables in the model associated with accompaniment preferences: individuals with at least one parent born outside of the US, those who attended their appointment in-person, and those with a higher horizontal collectivism score were less likely to want to attend their cancer genetic counseling appointment alone, while the converse was true among those with a higher American acculturation score. These findings highlight cultural and demographic factors that are associated with patient accompaniment preferences unrelated to ethnicity, indicating genetic counselors should not make assumptions regarding accompaniment preferences based solely on cultural or racial/ethnic background. Genetic counselors should incorporate this understanding when assessing patients' accompaniment preferences.

Should all patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer syndromes be offered a multigene panel?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to demonstrate why multigene panel testing (MGPT) is the superior testing option for individuals undergoing hereditary cancer genetic testing. We will outline the clinical benefits and possible limitations of MGPT for individuals at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of MGPT increases the identification of individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes. Recent studies continue to prove that MGPT is a superior option to single gene/or syndrome testing. MGPT is a cost-effective testing approach for those meeting criteria for genetic testing. Individuals interested in MGPT should understand the benefits and limitations of this approach, including an increase in variant identification and possible incidental findings. MGPT also increases the number of individuals who would benefit from cascade testing. SUMMARY: MGPT should be considered as the standard approach to hereditary cancer genetic testing as opposed to single gene or single syndrome testing. MGPT identifies a larger proportion of individuals with a hereditary cancer syndrome and leads to better management and improved uptake of cascade testing.

Experience Gained from the Development and Execution of a Multidisciplinary Multi-syndrome Hereditary Colon Cancer Family Conference.

Genetic healthcare professionals provide genetic cancer risk assessment and follow-up care for patients facing hereditary cancers. To meet the needs of those affected by hereditary colorectal cancer, City of Hope and the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation collaborated to develop a "Family Day" conference. We describe the development of our conference based upon the Hereditary Colon Cancer Foundation's "Family Day" program model, with refinements completed using the Participatory Action Research theoretical framework, which incorporated input from conference participants and researchers. Thirty-one participants attended the conference, representing patients with, or families, friends, and caregivers of those with, multiple colorectal cancer predisposition syndromes, including Lynch, familial adenomatous polyposis, and juvenile polyposis. Participants who completed the feedback surveys (n = 22) were highly satisfied with the presentation content, ranking the keynote lecture on family communication the highest of the conference events. Participants also provided feedback regarding how to improve future conferences. In conclusion, we share our experience and provide guidance for developing a successful hereditary colon cancer predisposition patient and family conference.

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.

The spectrum of genetic variants in hereditary pancreatic cancer includes Fanconi anemia genes.

Approximately 5-10% of all pancreatic cancer patients carry a predisposing mutation in a known susceptibility gene. Since >90% of patients present with late stage disease, it is crucial to identify high risk individuals who may be amenable to early detection or other prevention. To explore the spectrum of hereditary pancreatic cancer susceptibility, we evaluated germline DNA from pancreatic cancer participants (n = 53) from a large hereditary cancer registry. For those without a known predisposition mutation gene (n = 49), germline next generation sequencing was completed using targeted capture for 706 candidate genes. We identified 16 of 53 participants (30%) with a pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variant that may be related to their hereditary pancreatic cancer predisposition; seven had mutations in genes associated with well-known cancer syndromes (13%) [ATM (2), BRCA2 (3), MSH2 (1), MSH6 (1)]. Many had mutations in Fanconi anemia complex genes [BRCA2 (3 participants), FANCF, FANCM]. Eight participants had rare protein truncating variants of uncertain significance with no other P or LP variants. Earlier age of pancreatic cancer diagnosis (57.5 vs 64.8 years) was indicative of possessing a P or LP variant, as was cancer family history (p values <0.0001). Our multigene panel approach for identifying known cancer predisposing genetic susceptibility in those at risk for hereditary pancreatic cancer may have direct applicability to clinical practice in cases with mutations in actionable genes. Future pancreatic cancer predisposition studies should include evaluation of the Fanconi anemia genes.

Prospective Study of Cancer Genetic Variants: Variation in Rate of Reclassification by Ancestry.

Background: In germline genetic testing, variants from understudied ancestries have been disproportionately classified as being of uncertain significance. We hypothesized that the rate of variant reclassification likewise differs by ancestry. Methods: Nonbenign variants in actionable genes were collected from consenting subjects undergoing genetic testing at two Southern California sites from September 1996 through December 2016. Variant reclassifications were recorded as they were received, until February 2017 or reclassification to benign. Excluding duplicate variants (same ancestry, laboratory, classification), generalized linear models for the hereditary breast cancer genes (BRCA1/2) and other variants investigated whether rate of reclassification differed for seven categories of ancestry compared with non-Hispanic European. Models took into account laboratory, year, gene, sex, and current classification (handled as a time-dependent covariate) and were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing. Results: Among 1483 nonbenign variants, 693 (46.7%) involved BRCA1/2. Overall, 268 (18.1%) variants were reclassified at least once. Few (9.7%) reclassified variants underwent a net upgrade in pathogenicity. For BRCA1/2 variants, reclassification rates varied by ancestry and increased over time, more steeply for ancestries with lower initial rates (African, Ashkenazi, Chinese) than for ancestries whose initial rates were high (Middle Eastern) or similar to non-Hispanic European (non-Chinese Asian, Native American, Hispanic). In contrast, reclassification rates of non-BRCA1/2 variants did not vary over time but were elevated for most minority ancestries except non-Chinese Asian and Native American. Conclusions: For nonbenign variants in cancer-related genes, the rates at which reclassifications are issued vary by ancestry in ways that differ between BRCA1/2 and other genes.

Genetic Gastric Cancer Susceptibility in the International Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network.

Few susceptibility genes for gastric cancer have been identified. We sought to identify germline susceptibility genes from participants with gastric cancer from an international hereditary cancer research network. Adults with gastric cancer of any histology, and with a germline DNA sample (n = 51), were retrospectively selected. For those without previously identified germline mutations (n = 43), sequencing was performed for 706 candidate genes. Twenty pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified among 18 participants. Eight of the 18 participants had previous positive clinical testing, including six with CDH1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and two with pathogenic MSH2 and TP53 variants. Of the remaining 10, six were in BRCA1 DNA damage response pathway genes (ATM, ATR, BRCA2, BRIP1, FANCC, TP53), other variants were identified in CTNNA1, FLCN, SBDS, and GNAS. Participants identified with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were younger at gastric cancer diagnosis than those without, 39.1 versus 48.0 years, and over 50% had a close family member with gastric cancer (p-values < 0.0001). In conclusion, many participants were identified with mutations in clinically-actionable genes. Age of onset and family history of gastric cancer were mutation status predictors. Our findings support multigene panels in identifying gastric cancer predisposition.

Corrigendum: Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.

[This corrects the article on p. 208 in vol. 5, PMID: 26484312.].

Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings.

BACKGROUND: Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians. METHODS: Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.

Clinical Application of Multigene Panels: Challenges of Next-Generation Counseling and Cancer Risk Management.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panels can be a cost- and time-effective alternative to sequentially testing multiple genes, especially with a mixed family cancer phenotype. However, moving beyond our single-gene testing paradigm has unveiled many new challenges to the clinician. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with some of the challenges, as well as potential opportunities, of expanded hereditary cancer panel testing. METHODS: We include results from 348 commercial multigene panel tests ordered from January 1, 2014, through October 1, 2014, by clinicians associated with the City of Hope's Clinical Cancer Genetics Community of Practice. We also discuss specific challenging cases that arose during this period involving abnormalities in the genes: CDH1, TP53, PMS2, PALB2, CHEK2, NBN, and RAD51C. RESULTS: If historically high risk genes only were included in the panels (BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH6, PMS2, TP53, APC, CDH1), the results would have been positive only 6.2% of the time, instead of 17%. Results returned with variants of uncertain significance (VUS) 42% of the time. CONCLUSION: These figures and cases stress the importance of adequate pre-test counseling in anticipation of higher percentages of positive, VUS, unexpected, and ambiguous test results. Test result ambiguity can be limited by the use of phenotype-specific panels; if found, multiple resources (the literature, reference laboratory, colleagues, national experts, and research efforts) can be accessed to better clarify counseling and management for the patient and family. For pathogenic variants in low and moderate risk genes, empiric risk modeling based on the patient's personal and family history of cancer may supersede gene-specific risk. Commercial laboratory and patient contributions to public databases and research efforts will be needed to better classify variants and reduce clinical ambiguity of multigene panels.