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.

Cascade Genetic Testing of Relatives for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of an Online Initiative.

In cascade testing, genetic testing for an identified familial pathogenic variant extends to disease-free relatives to allow genetically targeted disease prevention. We evaluated the results of an online initiative in which carriers of 1 of 30 cancer-associated genes, or their first-degree relatives, could offer low-cost testing to at-risk first-degree relatives. In the first year, 1101 applicants invited 2280 first-degree relatives to undergo genetic testing. Of invited relatives, 47.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.5 to 49.6%) underwent genetic testing, and 12.0% (95% CI = 9.2 to 14.8%) who tested positive continued the cascade by inviting additional relatives to test. Of tested relatives, 4.9% (95% CI = 3.8 to 6.1%) had a pathogenic variant in a different gene from the known familial one, and 16.8% (95% CI = 14.7 to 18.8%) had a variant of uncertain significance. These results suggest that an online, low-cost program is an effective approach to implementing cascade testing, and that up to 5% of the general population may carry a pathogenic variant in 1 of 30 cancer-associated genes.

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.

Pathogenic Variants in Less Familiar Cancer Susceptibility Genes: What Happens After Genetic Testing?

PURPOSE: As genetic testing expands, patients are increasingly found to carry pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes that are less familiar to most clinicians, specifically genes other than those causing hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome (BRCA1 and BRCA2) and Lynch syndrome. Little is known about the subsequent behaviors of such patients in terms of managing cancer risks and informing relatives. METHODS: All adult patients who were counseled and tested at the Stanford Cancer Genetics Clinic from January 2013 to July 2015 and had a pathogenic variant in a non-BRCA1/2, non-Lynch syndrome gene were invited to participate in a telephone interview about adherence to risk-reducing recommendations, genetic testing by relatives, and new cancer incidence. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (40%) of 142 eligible patients were successfully contacted, and all 57 patients participated; median follow-up was 677 days (range, 247 to 1,401 days). Most patients (82%; 95% CI, 70% to 90%) recalled that a risk-reducing intervention (screening, medication, or surgery) was recommended, and most patients (85%; 95% CI, 72% to 93%) adhered to the recommendation. Nearly all patients (91%; 95% CI, 81% to 97%) shared results with relatives, and most patients (78%; 95% CI, 64% to 88%) reported that a relative was subsequently tested. During the follow-up period, 9% of patients (95% CI, 3% to 19%) developed second cancers, and in 14% of patients (95% CI, 7% to 26%), a first-degree relative developed cancer, some of which were detected by recommended screening. CONCLUSION: Patients with a pathogenic variant in a less familiar cancer susceptibility gene report high adherence to risk-reducing interventions. Furthermore, in the 57 carriers and subsequently tested relatives with two years of follow-up, a total of three cancers (one in a proband and two in relatives) were detected through interventions recommended on the basis of the pathogenic variant. These results suggest a potential benefit of genetic counseling and testing for pathogenic variants in less familiar genes.

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.

Next-generation sequencing for hereditary breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize advances in next-generation sequencing and their application to breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: Next-generation sequencing panels of 6-112 cancer-associated genes are increasingly used in patient care. Studies report a 4-16% prevalence of mutations other than BRCA1/2 among patients who meet evidence-based practice guidelines for BRCA1/2 testing, with a high rate (15-88%) of uninterpretable variants of uncertain significance. Despite uncertainty about results interpretation and communication, there is early evidence of a benefit from multiple-gene sequencing panels for appropriately selected patients. SUMMARY: Multiple-gene sequencing panels appear highly promising for the assessment of breast and gynecologic cancer risk, and they may usefully be administered in the context of cancer genetics expertise and/or clinical research protocols.

Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS: Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.

Breast cancer risk factors differ between Asian and white women with BRCA1/2 mutations.

The prevalence and penetrance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations may differ between Asians and whites. We investigated BRCA1/2 mutations and cancer risk factors in a clinic-based sample. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were enrolled from cancer genetics clinics in Hong Kong and California according to standardized entry criteria. We compared BRCA mutation position, cancer history, hormonal and reproductive exposures. We analyzed DNA samples for single-nucleotide polymorphisms reported to modify breast cancer risk. We performed logistic regression to identify independent predictors of breast cancer. Fifty Asian women and forty-nine white American women were enrolled. BRCA1 mutations were more common among whites (67 vs. 42 %, p = 0.02), and BRCA2 mutations among Asians (58 vs. 37 %, p = 0.04). More Asians had breast cancer (76 vs. 53 %, p = 0.03); more whites had relatives with breast cancer (86 vs. 50 %, p = 0.0003). More whites than Asians had breastfed (71 vs. 42 %, p = 0.005), had high BMI (median 24.3 vs. 21.2, p = 0.04), consumed alcohol (2 drinks/week vs. 0, p < 0.001), and had oophorectomy (61 vs. 34 %, p = 0.01). Asians had a higher frequency of risk-associated alleles in MAP3K1 (88 vs. 59 %, p = 0.005) and TOX3/TNRC9 (88 vs. 55 %, p = 0.0002). On logistic regression, MAP3K1 was associated with increased breast cancer risk for BRCA2, but not BRCA1 mutation carriers; breast density was associated with increased risk among Asians but not whites. We found significant differences in breast cancer risk factors between Asian and white BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Further investigation of racial differences in BRCA1/2 mutation epidemiology could inform targeted cancer risk-reduction strategies.

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.

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.

Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Intensive screening is an alternative to prophylactic mastectomy in women at high risk for developing breast carcinoma. The current article reports preliminary results from a screening protocol using high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ductal lavage (DL), clinical breast examination, and mammography to identify early malignancy and high-risk lesions in women at increased genetic risk of breast carcinoma. METHODS: Women with inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or women with a >10% risk of developing breast carcinoma at 10 years, as estimated by the Claus model, were eligible. Patients were accrued from September 2001 to May 2003. Enrolled patients underwent biannual clinical breast examinations and annual mammography, breast MRI, and DL. RESULTS: Forty-one women underwent an initial screen. Fifteen of 41 enrolled women (36.6%) either had undergone previous bilateral oophorectomy and/or were on tamoxifen at the time of the initial screen. One patient who was a BRCA1 carrier had high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) that was screen detected by MRI but that was missed on mammography. High-risk lesions that were screen detected by MRI in three women included radial scars and atypical lobular hyperplasia. DL detected seven women with cellular atypia, including one woman who had a normal MRI and mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI identified high-grade DCIS and high-risk lesions that were missed by mammography. DL detected cytologic atypia in a high-risk cohort. A larger screening trial is needed to determine which subgroups of high-risk women will benefit and whether the identification of malignant and high-risk lesions at an early stage will impact breast carcinoma incidence and mortality.