Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Legacy Genetic Testing Results for Cancer Susceptibility: How Common are Conflicting Classifications in a Large Variant Dataset from Multiple Practices?

PURPOSE: The classification of germline variants may differ between labs and change over time. We apply a variant harmonization tool, Ask2Me VarHarmonizer, to map variants to ClinVar and identify discordant variant classifications in a large multipractice variant dataset. METHODS: A total of 7496 variants sequenced between 1996 and 2019 were collected from 11 clinical practices. Variants were mapped to ClinVar, and lab-reported and ClinVar variant classifications were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Of the 4798 unique variants identified, 3699 (77%) were mappable to ClinVar. Among mappable variants, variants of unknown significance (VUS) accounted for 74% of lab-reported classifications and 60% of ClinVar classifications. Lab-reported and ClinVar discordances were present in 783 unique variants (21.2% of all mappable variants); 121 variants (2.5% of all unique variants) had within-practice lab-reported discordances; and 56 variants (1.2% of all unique variants) had lab-reported discordances across practices. The unmappable variants were associated with a higher proportion of lab-reported pathogenic classifications (50% vs. 21%, p < 0.0001) and a lower proportion of lab-reported VUS classifications (46% vs. 74%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that discordant variant classification occurs frequently, which may lead to inappropriate recommendations for prophylactic treatments or clinical management.

Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?

PURPOSE: An estimated 10% of breast and ovarian cancers result from hereditary causes. Current testing guidelines for germ line susceptibility genes in patients with breast carcinoma were developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/ 2 variants and have evolved in the panel-testing era. We evaluated the capability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to identify patients with breast cancer with pathogenic variants in expanded panel testing. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved multicenter prospective registry was initiated with 20 community and academic sites experienced in cancer genetic testing and counseling. Eligibility criteria included patients with a previously or newly diagnosed breast cancer who had not undergone either single- or multigene testing. Consecutive patients 18 to 90 years of age were consented and underwent an 80-gene panel test. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant electronic case report forms collected information on patient demographics, diagnoses, phenotypes, and test results. RESULTS: More than 1,000 patients were enrolled, and data records for 959 patients were analyzed; 49.95% met NCCN criteria, and 50.05% did not. Overall, 8.65% of patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. Of patients who met NCCN guidelines with test results, 9.39% had a P/LP variant. Of patients who did not meet guidelines, 7.9% had a P/LP variant. The difference in positive results between these groups was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test P = .4241). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that nearly half of patients with breast cancer with a P/LP variant with clinically actionable and/or management guidelines in development are missed by current testing guidelines. We recommend that all patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergo expanded panel testing.