Advances in the diagnosis of hereditary kidney cancer: Initial results of a multigene panel test.

BACKGROUND: Panel testing has been recently introduced to evaluate hereditary cancer; however, limited information is available regarding its use in kidney cancer. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed test results and clinical data from patients who underwent targeted multigene panel testing of up to 19 genes associated with hereditary kidney cancer from 2013 to 2016. The frequency of positive (mutation/variant likely pathogenic), inconclusive (variant of unknown significance), and negative results was evaluated. A logistic regression analysis evaluated predictive factors for a positive test. RESULTS: Patients (n = 1235) had a median age at diagnosis of 46 years, which was significantly younger than the US population of individuals with kidney cancer (P < .0001). Overall, 6.1%, 75.5%, and 18.4% of individuals had positive, negative, and inconclusive results, respectively. The most commonly altered genes included folliculin (FLCN) and fumarate hydratase (FH), which were altered in 1.8% and 1.3% of patients, respectively. Tuberous Sclerosis Complex 2 (TSC2), mesenchymal epithelial transition factor proto-oncogene (MET), and PMS1 homolog 2 (PMS2) had the highest rates of variants of unknown significance, which were identified in 2.7%, 2.2%, and 1.7% of patients, respectively. Early age of onset was the only factor that was identified as predictive of a positive test on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 0.975; P = .0052) and may be the only identifying characteristic of low-penetrant syndromes, such as those associated with MITF (melanogenesis-associated transcription factor) mutations, which do not have singular histology or a family history of kidney cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Panel tests may be particularly useful for patients who lack distinguishing clinical characteristics of known hereditary kidney cancer syndromes. The current results support the use of early age of onset for genetic counseling and/or testing. Cancer 2017;123:4363-71. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Erratum to: Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now.

Erratum to: J Genet Counsel DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9625-z . In the "Funding" section, the company HRA was incorrectly referred to as HSR. The full name of the company is "HRA­ Healthcare Research & Analytics."

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: the third case series.

After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.

"Would you test your children without their consent?" and other sticky dilemmas in the field of cancer genetic testing.

Cancer genetic testing is surrounded by myriad ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications which are being revisited as testing expands into an everyday practice and into more complicated areas like whole exome and direct-to-consumer testing. We chose to survey cancer genetic counselors and physicians from a wide range of non-genetics specialties to determine what they would do if faced with the complex decisions associated with cancer genetic testing, how their views compare, and how they align with current guidelines and data. Genetic counselors were significantly more likely than non-genetics physicians to bill their insurance for testing (94.9 vs. 86.8 %; p = 0.001) and purchase life insurance before testing (86.6 vs. 68.6 %; p = 0.000) and were less likely to use an alias (3.2 vs. 13.2 %; p = 0.000) or order testing on their own DNA (15.3 vs. 24.2 %; p = 0.004). They were also less likely to test their minor children (0.9 vs. 33.1 %; p = 0.000) or test their children without their knowledge and consent/assent (1.4 vs.11.5 %; p = 0.000). The results of our study indicate that there is wide variation regarding what clinicians predict they would do in the areas of ethical, legal and psychosocial issues in cancer genetic testing. Cancer genetic counselors' choices are more aligned with professional guidelines, likely due to their experience in the field and awareness of current guidelines. These data are a starting point for a broader discussion of who should offer cancer genetic counseling and testing to patients, particularly as the complexity of the available testing options and associated issues increase with whole exome sequencing.

Changes in specialists' perspectives on cancer genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination: then and now.

We surveyed cancer genetics specialists in 1998 to learn what they would do if at 50% risk to carry a BRCA or Lynch syndrome mutation. We chose to repeat our study 14 years later, to examine how perspectives have changed with the extensive data now available. In July 2012 we surveyed the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Cancer Special Interest Group via an internet based survey. We found statistically significant increases in the percentage of specialists who: would undergo BRCA testing (p = 0.0006), opt for prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (p =0.0001), opt for prophylactic removal of their uterus and ovaries for Lynch syndrome (p =0.0057 and P = 0.0090, respectively), and bill testing to insurance (p >0.0001). There were also statistically significant decreases in the percentage of participants who would have their colon removed for Lynch syndrome (p = 0.0002) and use an alias when pursuing testing (p > 0.0001). Over the past 14 years there has been a major change in perspective amongst cancer genetic specialists regarding genetic testing, prophylactic surgery and insurance discrimination.

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: medical, ethical, legal, and financial implications.

Cancer genetic counseling and testing are now integral services in progressive cancer care. There has been much debate over whether these services should be delivered by providers with specialized training in genetics or by all clinicians. Adverse outcomes resulting from cancer genetic counseling and testing performed by clinicians without specialization in genetics have been reported, but formal documentation is sparse. In this review, we present a series of national cases illustrating major patterns of errors in cancer genetic counseling and testing and the resulting impact on medical liability, health care costs, and the patients and their families.

Errors in delivery of cancer genetics services: implications for practice.

UNLABELLED: Advances in genetics have prompted recommendations that all healthcare providers perform genetic counseling and testing. Some experts are concerned about potential negative outcomes from cancer genetic testing performed without genetic counseling by certified genetics professionals. We report a national series of cases illustrating negative outcomes of cancer genetic testing performed without counseling by a qualified provider. Three major patterns emerged from analysis of these cases: 1) Wrong genetic test ordered, 2) Genetic test results misinterpreted, and 3) Inadequate genetic counseling. Negative outcomes included unnecessary prophylactic surgeries, unnecessary testing, psychosocial distress, and false reassurance resulting in inappropriate medical management. CONCLUSION: With the complexities of cancer genetic counseling and testing, it may be unrealistic to expect all clinicians to provide these services. A more realistic approach is better provider education and a framework in which healthcare providers identify patients who would benefit from a referral to a certified genetic counselor or experienced cancer genetics professional.

A clinician's guide to hereditary colon cancer.

Approximately 10% of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer are at risk for a hereditary form of the disease. At-risk patients can be offered genetic counseling and testing to determine whether they carry a detectable mutation for such a syndrome. If so, this information provides the clinician with valuable data about the patient's risk for other cancers, and what further surveillance and risk reduction options should be incorporated into the management plan. Mutation identification within a family also makes it possible for other family members to learn if they are at risk for the same syndrome. There are many hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes, and the clinician must know what essential information should be elicited from a family history and which patients should be referred for genetic counseling and testing.

The DCC protein -- neural development and the malignant process.

The deleted in colorectal cancer (DCC) gene encodes a neural cell adhesion family molecule that was originally identified as a candidate tumor suppressor target of 18q allelic loss in colorectal cancer. However, the importance of the DCC protein has been most clearly demonstrated in neural development. Mutational and subsequent biochemical studies in C. elegans, Drosophila and vertebrates have shown that DCC functions in the guided migration of cells and cell processes in response to stimuli from netrins, a family of secreted laminin-like proteins. It appears that DCC may act in this signal transduction pathway as a netrin receptor or a component of the receptor complex, though a definitive receptor:ligand relationship has not yet been demonstrated. It is also clear that DCC can affect migrations in a netrin-independent manner, implying the existence of other DCC ligands. Though the loss of DCCexpression appears to be a later event in several malignancies and is associated with disease dissemination, it has not been adequately demonstrated that DCC is the tumor suppressor gene targeted by 18q allelic loss. However, DCC expression does have potential clinical utility as it stratifies an important group of colorectal cancer patients into good and poor prognosis subgroups.