Clinical implications of incorporating genetic and non-genetic risk factors in CanRisk-based breast cancer risk prediction.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) risk prediction models consider cancer family history (FH) and germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in risk genes. It remains elusive to what extent complementation with polygenic risk score (PRS) and non-genetic risk factor (NGRFs) data affects individual intensified breast surveillance (IBS) recommendations according to European guidelines. METHODS: For 425 cancer-free women with cancer FH (mean age 40·6 years, range 21-74), recruited in France, Germany and the Netherlands, germline PV status, NGRFs, and a 306 variant-based PRS (PRS306) were assessed to calculate estimated lifetime risks (eLTR) and estimated 10-year risks (e10YR) using CanRisk. The proportions of women changing country-specific European risk categories for IBS recommendations, i.e. ≥20 % and ≥30 % eLTR, or ≥5 % e10YR were determined. FINDINGS: Of the women with non-informative PV status, including PRS306 and NGRFs changed clinical recommendations for 31·0 %, (57/184, 20 % eLTR), 15·8 % (29/184, 30 % eLTR) and 22·4 % (41/183, 5 % e10YR), respectively whereas of the women tested negative for a PV observed in their family, clinical recommendations changed for 16·7 % (25/150), 1·3 % (2/150) and 9·5 % (14/147). No change was observed for 82 women with PVs in high-risk genes (BRCA1/2, PALB2). Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs identified BRCA1/2 PV carriers benefitting from IBS <30 years, and women tested non-informative/negative for whom IBS may be postponed. INTERPRETATION: For women who tested non-informative/negative, PRS and NGRFs have a considerable impact on IBS recommendations. Combined consideration of eLTRs and e10YRs allows personalizing IBS starting age. FUNDING: Horizon 2020, German Cancer Aid, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Köln Fortune.

Mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylation contribution in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer pedigrees.

PURPOSE: Mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylation (BRCA1meth) increases the risk of early-onset breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer and ovarian cancer. As mosaic BRCA1meth are believed to occur de novo, their role in family breast/ovarian cancer has not been assessed. PATIENTS: Blood-derived DNA from 20 unrelated affected cases from families with aggregation of breast/ovarian cancer, but with no germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2, PALB2 or RAD51C/D, were screened by methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting. CpG analysis was performed by pyrosequencing on blood and buccal swab. Two probands carried a pathogenic variant in a moderate-penetrance gene (ATM and BARD1), and 8 of 18 others (44%) carried BRCA1meth (vs none of the 20 age-matched controls). Involvement of BRCA1 in tumourigenesis in methylated probands was demonstrated in most tested cases by detection of a loss of heterozygosity and a homologous recombination deficiency signature. Among the eight methylated probands, two had relatives with breast cancer with detectable BRCA1meth in blood, including one with high methylation levels in two non-tumour tissues. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of mosaic BRCA1meth in patients with breast/ovarian cancer with affected relatives, as well as this first description of a family aggregation of mosaic BRCA1meth, shows how this de novo event can contribute to hereditary breast/ovarian cancer pedigrees.

Male breast cancer: No evidence for mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylation involvement.

Breast cancers (BC) are rare in men and are often caused by constitutional predisposing factors. In women, mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylations (MBPM) are frequent events, detected in 4-8% of healthy subjects. This constitutional epimutation increases risk of early-onset and triple-negative BC. However, the role of MBPM in male BC predisposition has never been assessed. We screened 40 blood samples from men affected by BC, and performed extensive tumour analysis on MBPM-positive patients. We detected two patients carrying MBPM. Surprisingly, tumour analysis revealed that neither of these two male BCs were caused by the constitutional BRCA1 epimutations carried by the patients.

Hereditary cancer predispositions: Comparison of multigene panel sequencing on fresh-frozen breast/ovarian tumor versus blood.

In breast or ovarian cancer (BC/OC) patients with evocative personal and/or family history, multigene panel sequencing is performed on blood to diagnose hereditary predispositions. Additionally, BRCA1/BRCA2 testing can be performed on tumor sample for therapeutic purpose. The accuracy of multigene panel tumor analysis on BC/OC to detect predisposing germline pathogenic variants (gPV) has not been precisely assessed. By comparing sequencing data from blood and fresh-frozen tumor we show that tumor genomic instability causes pitfalls to consider when performing tumor testing to detect gPV. Even if loss of heterozygosity increases germline signal in most cases, somatic copy number variants (CNV) can mask germline CNV and collapse point gPV variant allele frequency (VAF). Moreover, VAF does not allow an accurate distinction between germline and somatic pathogenic variants.

Association and performance of polygenic risk scores for breast cancer among French women presenting or not a familial predisposition to the disease.

BACKGROUND: Three partially overlapping breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) comprising 77, 179 and 313 SNPs have been proposed for European-ancestry women by the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) for improving risk prediction in the general population. However, the effect of these SNPs may vary from one country to another and within a country because of other factors. OBJECTIVE: To assess their associated risk and predictive performance in French women from (1) the CECILE population-based case-control study, (2) BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) pathogenic variant (PV) carriers from the GEMO study, and (3) familial breast cancer cases with no BRCA1/2 PV and unrelated controls from the GENESIS study. RESULTS: All three PRS were associated with breast cancer in all studies, with odds ratios per standard deviation varying from 1.7 to 2.0 in CECILE and GENESIS, and hazard ratios varying from 1.1 to 1.4 in GEMO. The predictive performance of PRS313 in CECILE was similar to that reported in BCAC but lower than that in GENESIS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.67 and 0.75, respectively). PRS were less performant in BRCA2 and BRCA1 PV carriers (AUC = 0.58 and 0.54 respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results are in line with previous validation studies in the general population and in BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Additionally, we showed that PRS may be of clinical utility for women with a strong family history of breast cancer and no BRCA1/2 PV, and for those carrying a predicted PV in a moderate-risk gene like ATM, CHEK2 or PALB2.

Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on RAD51C, RAD51D, BARD1 updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence.

BACKGROUND: BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) for breast cancer and the epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer (EOC) models included in the CanRisk tool (www.canrisk.org) provide future cancer risks based on pathogenic variants in cancer-susceptibility genes, polygenic risk scores, breast density, questionnaire-based risk factors and family history. Here, we extend the models to include the effects of pathogenic variants in recently established breast cancer and EOC susceptibility genes, up-to-date age-specific pathology distributions and continuous risk factors. METHODS: BOADICEA was extended to further incorporate the associations of pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D with breast cancer risk. The EOC model was extended to include the association of PALB2 pathogenic variants with EOC risk. Age-specific distributions of oestrogen-receptor-negative and triple-negative breast cancer status for pathogenic variant carriers in these genes and CHEK2 and ATM were also incorporated. A novel method to include continuous risk factors was developed, exemplified by including adult height as continuous. RESULTS: BARD1, RAD51C and RAD51D explain 0.31% of the breast cancer polygenic variance. When incorporated into the multifactorial model, 34%-44% of these carriers would be reclassified to the near-population and 15%-22% to the high-risk categories based on the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Under the EOC multifactorial model, 62%, 35% and 3% of PALB2 carriers have lifetime EOC risks of <5%, 5%-10% and >10%, respectively. Including height as continuous, increased the breast cancer relative risk variance from 0.002 to 0.010. CONCLUSIONS: These extensions will allow for better personalised risks for BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2 pathogenic variant carriers and more informed choices on screening, prevention, risk factor modification or other risk-reducing options.

Genetic clinicians' confidence in BOADICEA comprehensive breast cancer risk estimates and counselees' psychosocial outcomes: A prospective study.

Counseling for familial breast cancer focuses on communicating the gene test result (GENE) to counselees, but risk prediction models have become more complex by including non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) and polygenic risk scores (PRS). We examined genetic clinicians' confidence in counseling and counselees' psychosocial outcomes, using the BOADICEA risk prediction tool with different categories of risk factors as input. A prospective observational study in Dutch, French and German genetic clinics was performed including 22 clinicians, and 406 of 460 (88.3%) eligible cancer-unaffected women at high breast cancer risk assessed at pre-test and 350 (76.1%) at post-test. We performed multilevel analyses accounting for the clinician, and counselees' characteristics. Overall, risk estimates category by GENE versus GENE+ NGRF, or GENE+NGRF+PRS differed in 11% and 25% of counselees, respectively. In multilevel analyses, clinicians felt less confident in counseling when the full model provided lower breast cancer risks than GENE (i.e., in 8% of cases). Older counselees expressed higher breast cancer risk perception and worries about the hereditary predisposition when the full model provided higher breast cancer risks than GENE only. Genetic clinicians appear confident with breast cancer risk comprehensive models, which seem only to affect perceptions of older counselees.

Assessment of psychosocial difficulties by genetic clinicians and distress in women at high risk of breast cancer: a prospective study.

We examined how often genetic clinicians correctly identify psychosocial difficulties in women at high breast cancer risk and explored effects of this assessment and the genetic test result on counselees' distress. A prospective observational study of counselee-clinician dyads was performed in three French, German and Spanish genetic clinics, involving 709 counselees (participation rate, 83.4%) and 31 clinicians (participation rate, 100%). Counselee-clinician agreement in perceived psychosocial difficulties was measured after the pre-test genetic consultation. Multivariate mixed linear models accounting for clinicians were tested. Predicted distress levels were assessed after the pre- (T1) and post-test result disclosure consultations (T2). Depending on the difficulty domain, clinicians adequately assessed the presence or absence of difficulties in 51% ("familial issues") to 59% ("emotions") of counselees. When counselees' and clinicians' perceptions disagreed, difficulties were generally underestimated by clinicians. Counselees' distress levels remained stable from T1 to T2, irrespective of clinicians' appraisal adequacy, and the genetic test result disclosure. Psychological referral need were found in 20-42% of counselees, more frequently observed for difficulties in the "emotions" domain. Our findings suggest that the genetic test result is a suboptimal indicator for psychological referral. Instead, clinicians should focus on emotions expressed by counselees to appraise their needs for psychological support.

Cancer Risks Associated With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants.

PURPOSE: To provide precise age-specific risk estimates of cancers other than female breast and ovarian cancers associated with pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for effective cancer risk management. METHODS: We used data from 3,184 BRCA1 and 2,157 BRCA2 families in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 to estimate age-specific relative (RR) and absolute risks for 22 first primary cancer types adjusting for family ascertainment. RESULTS: BRCA1 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 4.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 16.96), pancreatic (RR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.68), and stomach (RR = 2.17; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.77) cancers. Associations with colorectal and gallbladder cancers were also suggested. BRCA2 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 44.0; 95% CI, 21.3 to 90.9), stomach (RR = 3.69; 95% CI, 2.40 to 5.67), pancreatic (RR = 3.34; 95% CI, 2.21 to 5.06), and prostate (RR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.63 to 3.03) cancers. The stomach cancer RR was higher for females than males (6.89 v 2.76; P = .04). The absolute risks to age 80 years ranged from 0.4% for male breast cancer to approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer for BRCA1 carriers and from approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer to 27% for prostate cancer for BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSION: In addition to female breast and ovarian cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are associated with increased risks of male breast, pancreatic, stomach, and prostate (only BRCA2 PVs) cancers, but not with the risks of other previously suggested cancers. The estimated age-specific risks will refine cancer risk management in men and women with BRCA1/2 PVs.

Novel germline MET pathogenic variants in French patients with papillary renal cell carcinomas type I.

Hereditary papillary renal cell carcinoma (HPRC) is a rare inherited renal cancer syndrome characterized by bilateral and multifocal papillary type 1 renal tumors (PRCC1). Activating germline pathogenic variants of the MET gene were identified in HPRC families. We reviewed the medical and molecular records of a large French series of 158 patients screened for MET oncogenic variants. MET pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants rate was 12.4% with 40.6% among patients with familial PRCC1 and 5% among patients with sporadic PRCC1. The phenotype in cases with MET pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants was characteristic: PRCC1 tumors were mainly bilateral (84.3%) and multifocal (87.5%). Histologically, six out of seven patients with MET pathogenic variant harbored biphasic squamoid alveolar PRCC. Genetic screening identified one novel pathogenic variant MET c.3389T>C, p.(Leu1130Ser) and three novel likely pathogenic variants: MET c.3257A>T, p.(His1086Leu); MET c.3305T>C, p.(Ile1102Thr) and MET c.3373T>G, p.(Cys1125Gly). Functional assay confirmed their oncogenic effect as they induced an abnormal focus formation. The genotype-phenotype correlation between MET pathogenic variants and PRCC1 presentation should encourage to widen the screening, especially toward nonfamilial PRCC1. This precise phenotype also constitutes a strong argument for the classification of novel missense variants within the tyrosine kinase domain when functional assays are not accessible.

Information needs on breast cancer genetic and non-genetic risk factors in relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant.

OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive breast cancer (BC) risk models integrating effects of genetic (GRF) and non-genetic risk factors (NGRF) may refine BC prevention recommendations. We explored the perceived information received on BC risk factors, and related characteristics, in female relatives of women with a BRCA1/2 or PALB2 pathogenic variant, undergoing BC risk assessment using the CanRisk© prediction tool. METHODS: Of 200 consecutive cancer-free women approached after the initial genetic consultation, 161 (80.5%) filled in questionnaires on their perception of information received and wished further information on BC risk factors (e.g., being a carrier of a moderate risk altered gene, personal genetic profile, lifestyles). Multilevel multivariate linear models were performed accounting for the clinician who met the counselee and exploring the effect of counselees' socio-demographic, familial and psychological characteristics on the perceived extent of information received. RESULTS: Perceived no/little information received and wish for further information were more frequent for NGRF (>50%) than for GRF, especially high-risk genes (<20%). Perceived amount of information received and desire for further information were inversely correlated (p=<0.0001). Higher education level related to lower perceived levels of information received on GRF. Younger counselees' age (ß = 0.13, p = 0.02) and less frequent engagement coping (e.g., inclination to solicit information) (ß = 0.24, p = 0.02) related to lower perceived information received about NGRF. Other assessed counselees' features were not found to be associated to GRF and NGRF information perception. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of counselees' perceived lack of information on BC risk factors indicates a need to enhance evidence-based information on BC NGRF especially.

National recommendations of the French Genetics and Cancer Group - Unicancer on the modalities of multi-genes panel analyses in hereditary predispositions to tumors of the digestive tract.

In case of suspected hereditary predisposition to digestive cancers, next-generation sequencing can analyze simultaneously several genes associated with an increased risk of developing these tumors. Thus, "Gastro Intestinal" (GI) gene panels are commonly used in French molecular genetic laboratories. Lack of international recommendations led to disparities in the composition of these panels and in the management of patients. To harmonize practices, the Genetics and Cancer Group (GGC)-Unicancer set up a working group who carried out a review of the literature for 31 genes of interest in this context and established a list of genes for which the estimated risks associated with pathogenic variant seemed sufficiently reliable and high for clinical use. Pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes have been excluded. This expertise defined a panel of 14 genes of confirmed clinical interest and relevant for genetic counseling: APC, BMPR1A, CDH1, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, PMS2, POLD1, POLE, PTEN, SMAD4 and STK11. The reasons for the exclusion of the others 23 genes have been discussed. The paucity of estimates of the associated tumor risks led to the exclusion of genes, in particular CTNNA1, MSH3 and NTHL1, despite their implication in the molecular pathways involved in the pathophysiology of GI cancers. A regular update of the literature is planned to up-grade this panel of genes in case of new data on candidate genes. Genetic and epidemiological studies and international collaborations are needed to better estimate the risks associated with the pathogenic variants of these genes either selected or not in the current panel.

MUTYH-associated polyposis: Review and update of the French recommendations established in 2012 under the auspices of the National Cancer institute (INCa).

MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) was first described in 2002. It is an autosomal recessive condition associated with germline pathogenic variants of both MUTYH alleles. In 2011, a group of French experts reviewed the available data on this syndrome and established recommendations concerning the indications and strategies for molecular analysis of the MUTYH gene in index cases and their relatives, as well as the clinical management of affected individuals under the auspices of the French Institut National du Cancer (INCa). Some of these recommendations have become obsolete as a result of recent progress, especially those concerning the molecular strategy for MUTYH testing, as this gene has recently been included in a consensus panel of 14 colorectal cancer predisposition genes, justifying revision of the previous report. We report here the revised version of this work, which successively considers the phenotype and tumor risks associated with this genotype, differential diagnoses, criteria and strategy for molecular genetic testing and recommendations for the management of affected individuals. We also discuss the phenotype and tumor risks associated with monoallelic pathogenic variants of MUTYH.

[MUTYH-associated polyposis: Review and update of the French recommendations established in 2012 under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute (INCa)]. / La polypose associée à MUTYH : synthèse et actualisation des recommandations françaises établies en 2012 sous l'égide de l'Institut national du cancer (INCa).

MUTYH-associated polyposis (MUTYH-associated polyposis, MAP) is an autosomal recessive inheritance disorder related to bi-allelic constitutional pathogenic variants of the MUTYH gene which was first described in 2002. In 2011, a group of French experts composed of clinicians and biologists, performed a summary of the available data on this condition and drew up recommendations concerning the indications and the modalities of molecular analysis of the MUTYH gene in index cases and their relatives, as well as the management of affected individuals. In view of recent developments, some recommendations have become obsolete, in particular with regard to the molecular analysis strategy since MUTYH gene has been recently included in a consensus panel of 14 genes predisposing to colorectal cancer. This led us to revise all the points of the previous expertise. We report here the revised version of this work which successively considers the phenotype and the tumor risks associated with this genotype, the differential diagnoses, the indication criteria and the strategy of the molecular analysis and the recommendations for the management of affected individuals. We also discuss the phenotype and the tumor risks associated with mono-allelic pathogenic variants of MUTYH gene.

Direct-to-consumer misleading information on cancer risks calls for an urgent clarification of health genetic testing performed by commercial companies.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) commercial companies offer genetic tests that are presented as allowing individuals the opportunity to increase their capacities to be in charge of their own healthcare managements. DTC companies deny performing medical tests, yet they provide data based on sequencing multigene panel or whole exome. This contradiction allows these companies to escape the requirements of a regulated medical practice that guarantees the quality of the tests, as well as the information and support for tested individuals. Herein, we illustrate the lack of such requirements by analysing the bad experience of a young man who dealt with DTC health genetic testing companies. There is an emergency for DTC testing to be either deprived of any medically relevant information, or carried out in a legally regulated medical framework.

The "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" questionnaire in women attending breast cancer genetic clinics: Psychometric validation across French-, German- and Spanish-language versions.

BACKGROUND: We performed a comprehensive assessment of the psychometrics of the "Psychosocial Aspects in Hereditary Cancer" (PAHC) questionnaire in French, German and Spanish. METHODS: Women consecutively approached in Cancer Genetic Clinics completed the PAHC, distress and satisfaction questionnaires at pre-testing (T1) and after test result disclosure (T2). In addition to standard psychometric attributes, we assessed the PAHC ability to respond to change (i.e. improvement or deterioration from T1 to T2) in perceived difficulties and computed minimal important differences (MID) in PAHC scores as compared with self-reported needs for additional counselling. RESULTS: Of 738 eligible counselees, 214 (90%) in France (Paris), 301 (92%) in Germany (Cologne) and 133 (77%) in Spain (Barcelona) completed the PAHC. A six-factor revised PAHC model yielded acceptable CFA goodness-of-fit indexes and good all scales internal consistencies. PAHC scales demonstrated expected conceptual differences with distress and satisfaction with counselling. Different levels of psychosocial difficulties were evidenced between counselees' subgroups and over time (p-values < .05). MID estimates ranged from 8 to 15 for improvement and 9 to 21 for deterioration. CONCLUSION: The PAHC French, German and Spanish versions are reliable and valid for evaluating the psychosocial difficulties of women at high BC risk attending genetic clinics.

Cancer Risks Associated With Germline PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: An International Study of 524 Families.

PURPOSE: To estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized. METHODS: We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes. RESULTS: We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10-76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10-3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10-3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10-2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age (P for trend = 2.0 × 10-3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies (P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer. CONCLUSION: These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.

How to facilitate psychosocial adjustment in women tested for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility? Insights from network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly complex genetics counseling requires guidance to facilitate counselees' psychosocial adjustment. We explored networks of inter-relationships among coping strategies and specific psychosocial difficulties in women tested for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Of 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) completed questionnaires addressing coping strategies (Brief-COPE) and psychosocial difficulties (PAHC) after the initial genetic consultation (T1), and 460 (61%) of them again after the test result (T2). We applied network analysis comparing partial correlations among these questionnaire scales, according to the type of genetic test - single gene-targeted or multigene panel, test result and, before and after testing. RESULTS: Overall, 98 (21.3%), 259 (56.3%), 59 (12.8%) and 44 (9.6%) women received a pathogenic variant, uninformative negative (panel testing), variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or true negative (targeted testing) result, respectively. In most networks, connections were strongest between avoidance and general negative emotions. Cognitive restructuring was inter-related to lower psychosocial difficulties. Avoidance and familial/social relationship difficulties were strongly related in women receiving a pathogenic variant. Stronger inter-relationships were also noticed between avoidance and worries about personal cancer and concerns about hereditary predisposition in women receiving a VUS result. Differences in the prominence of inter-relationships were observed by type of testing and assessment time. CONCLUSIONS: Network analysis may be fruitful to highlight prominent inter-relationships among coping strategies and psychosocial difficulties, in women tested for HBOC susceptibility, offering guidance for counseling.

Psychosocial problems in women attending French, German and Spanish genetics clinics before and after targeted or multigene testing results: an observational prospective study.

OBJECTIVES AND SETTING: Advances in multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility has increased the complexity of counselling, requiring particular attention to counselees' psychosocial needs. Changes in psychosocial problems before and after genetic testing were prospectively compared between genetic test results in women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility in French, German and Spanish clinics. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: Among 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) were assessed after the initial genetic consultation (T1), including 510 (68%) affected with breast cancer, of which 460 (61%) were assessed again after receiving the test result (T2), using questionnaires addressing genetic-specific psychosocial problems (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC)-six scales). Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected. RESULTS: Seventy-nine (17.2%), 19 (4.1%), 259 (56.3%), 44 (9.6%) and 59 (12.8%) women received a BRCA1/2, another high/moderate-risk pathogenic variant (PV), negative uninformative, true negative (TN) or variant of uncertain significance result (VUS), respectively. On multiple regression analyses, compared with women receiving another result, those with a VUS decreased more in psychosocial problems related to hereditary predisposition (eg, coping with the test result) (ß=-0.11, p<0.05) and familial/social issues (eg, risk communication) (ß=-0.13, p<0.05), almost independently from their problems before testing. Women with a PV presented no change in hereditary predisposition problems and, so as women with a TN result, a non-significant increase in familial/social issues. Other PAHC scales (ie, emotions, familial cancer, personal cancer and children-related issues) were not affected by genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: In women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic risk in European genetics clinics, psychosocial problems were mostly unaffected by genetic testing. Apart from women receiving a VUS result, those with another test result presented unchanged needs in counselling in particular about hereditary predisposition and familial/social issues.