Comparing Cancer Risk Management between Females with Truncating CHEK2 1100delC versus Missense CHEK2 I157T Variants.

Breast cancer (BC) risks imparted by CHEK2 c.1100delC ("1100delC") germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (GPV) are 20-30%, compared to CHEK2 c.470T>C ("I157T") GPV with <20%, leading to different breast screening recommendations through MRI. We compared cancer risk management (CRM) across these two GPVs. Study participants were adult females with an 1100delC or I157T GPV drawn from the Inherited Cancer Registry (ICARE) across the United States. Cancer history, clinical characteristics, and CRM were compared using chi-squared tests, t-tests, and logistic regression. Of 150 CHEK2 carriers, 40.7% had BC, with a mean age of 50. Comparing 1100delC and I157T GPVs, there were no differences in rates of (1) breast MRI among those with (65.2% versus 55.6% of 23 and 9; p = 0.612) and without (44.0% versus 44.8% of 50 and 29; p = 0.943) BC; (2) risk-reducing mastectomy among those with (50% versus 38.9% of 46 and 15; p = 0.501) and without (13.8% versus 6.5% of 58 and 31; p = 0.296) BC; and (3) risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among those with (24.2% versus 22.2% of 45 and 18; p = 0.852) and without (17.5% versus 16.7% of 57 and 30; p = 0.918) BC. The results suggest over-screening with breast MRI among CHEK2 I157T GPV carriers and possible overuse of risk-reducing surgeries among CHEK2 carriers.

Case-Case Genome-Wide Analyses Identify Subtype-Informative Variants That Confer Risk for Breast Cancer.

Breast cancer includes several subtypes with distinct characteristic biological, pathologic, and clinical features. Elucidating subtype-specific genetic etiology could provide insights into the heterogeneity of breast cancer to facilitate the development of improved prevention and treatment approaches. In this study, we conducted pairwise case-case comparisons among five breast cancer subtypes by applying a case-case genome-wide association study (CC-GWAS) approach to summary statistics data of the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. The approach identified 13 statistically significant loci and eight suggestive loci, the majority of which were identified from comparisons between triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and luminal A breast cancer. Associations of lead variants in 12 loci remained statistically significant after accounting for previously reported breast cancer susceptibility variants, among which, two were genome-wide significant. Fine mapping implicated putative functional/causal variants and risk genes at several loci, e.g., 3q26.31/TNFSF10, 8q22.3/NACAP1/GRHL2, and 8q23.3/LINC00536/TRPS1, for TNBC as compared with luminal cancer. Functional investigation further identified rs16867605 at 8q22.3 as a SNP that modulates the enhancer activity of GRHL2. Subtype-informative polygenic risk scores (PRS) were derived, and patients with a high subtype-informative PRS had an up to two-fold increased risk of being diagnosed with TNBC instead of luminal cancers. The CC-GWAS PRS remained statistically significant after adjusting for TNBC PRS derived from traditional case-control GWAS in The Cancer Genome Atlas and the African Ancestry Breast Cancer Genetic Consortium. The CC-GWAS PRS was also associated with overall survival and disease-specific survival among patients with breast cancer. Overall, these findings have advanced our understanding of the genetic etiology of breast cancer subtypes, particularly for TNBC. Significance: The discovery of subtype-informative genetic risk variants for breast cancer advances our understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity of breast cancer, which could accelerate the identification of targets and personalized strategies for prevention and treatment.

Incidence of Peritoneal Cancer Following Oophorectomy among BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the incidence of primary peritoneal cancer following preventive bilateral oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: A total of 6,310 women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation who underwent a preventive bilateral oophorectomy were followed for a mean of 7.8 years from oophorectomy. The 20-year cumulative incidence of peritoneal cancer post-oophorectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A left-truncated Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) associated with the age at oophorectomy, year of oophorectomy, and family history of ovarian cancer as well as hormonal and reproductive risk factors. RESULTS: Fifty-five women developed primary peritoneal cancer (n = 45 in BRCA1, 8 in BRCA2, and 2 in women with a mutation in both genes). Their mean age at oophorectomy was 48.9 years. The annual risk of peritoneal cancer was 0.14% for women with a BRCA1 mutation and was 0.06% for women with a BRCA2 mutation. The 20-year cumulative risk of peritoneal cancer from the date of oophorectomy was 2.7% for BRCA1 carriers and was 0.9% for BRCA2 mutation carriers. There were no peritoneal cancers in BRCA1 carriers who had the operation before age 35 or in BRCA2 carriers who had the operation before age 45. CONCLUSIONS: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, the annual risk of peritoneal cancer for 20 years post-oophorectomy is 0.14% per year. The risk is lower for BRCA2 carriers (0.06% per year).

The Development and Evaluation of Novel Patient Educational Material for a Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) Result in Hereditary Cancer Genes.

A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) is a difference in the DNA sequence with uncertain consequences for gene function. A VUS in a hereditary cancer gene should not change medical care, yet some patients undergo medical procedures based on their VUS result, highlighting the unmet educational needs among patients and healthcare providers. To address this need, we developed, evaluated, and refined novel educational materials to explain that while VUS results do not change medical care, it remains important to share any personal or family history of cancer with family members given that their personal and family medical history can guide their cancer risk management. We began by reviewing the prior literature and transcripts from interviews with six individuals with a VUS result to identify content and design considerations to incorporate into educational materials. We then gathered feedback to improve materials via a focus group of multidisciplinary experts and multiple rounds of semi-structured interviews with individuals with a VUS result. Themes for how to improve content, visuals, and usefulness were used to refine the materials. In the final round of interviews with an additional 10 individuals with a VUS result, materials were described as relatable, useful, factual, and easy to navigate, and also increased their understanding of cancer gene VUS results.

Validation of a clinical breast cancer risk assessment tool combining a polygenic score for all ancestries with traditional risk factors.

PURPOSE: We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort. METHODS: This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs. RESULTS: Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC. CONCLUSION: CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention.

Genome-wide association analyses of breast cancer in women of African ancestry identify new susceptibility loci and improve risk prediction.

We performed genome-wide association studies of breast cancer including 18,034 cases and 22,104 controls of African ancestry. Genetic variants at 12 loci were associated with breast cancer risk (P < 5 × 10-8), including associations of a low-frequency missense variant rs61751053 in ARHGEF38 with overall breast cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.48) and a common variant rs76664032 at chromosome 2q14.2 with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (OR = 1.30). Approximately 15.4% of cases with TNBC carried six risk alleles in three genome-wide association study-identified TNBC risk variants, with an OR of 4.21 (95% confidence interval = 2.66-7.03) compared with those carrying fewer than two risk alleles. A polygenic risk score (PRS) showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.60 for the prediction of breast cancer risk, which outperformed PRS derived using data from females of European ancestry. Our study markedly increases the population diversity in genetic studies for breast cancer and demonstrates the utility of PRS for risk prediction in females of African ancestry.

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer. METHODS: An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing. RESULTS: Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Using genome and transcriptome data from African-ancestry female participants to identify putative breast cancer susceptibility genes.

African-ancestry (AA) participants are underrepresented in genetics research. Here, we conducted a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) in AA female participants to identify putative breast cancer susceptibility genes. We built genetic models to predict levels of gene expression, exon junction, and 3' UTR alternative polyadenylation using genomic and transcriptomic data generated in normal breast tissues from 150 AA participants and then used these models to perform association analyses using genomic data from 18,034 cases and 22,104 controls. At Bonferroni-corrected P < 0.05, we identified six genes associated with breast cancer risk, including four genes not previously reported (CTD-3080P12.3, EN1, LINC01956 and NUP210L). Most of these genes showed a stronger association with risk of estrogen-receptor (ER) negative or triple-negative than ER-positive breast cancer. We also replicated the associations with 29 genes reported in previous TWAS at P < 0.05 (one-sided), providing further support for an association of these genes with breast cancer risk. Our study sheds new light on the genetic basis of breast cancer and highlights the value of conducting research in AA populations.

The risk of skin cancer in women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: It has not been clearly established if skin cancer or melanoma are manifestations of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carrier status. Estimating the risk of skin cancer is an important step towards developing screening recommendations. METHODS: We report the findings of a prospective cohort study of 6,207 women from North America who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Women were followed from the date of baseline questionnaire to the diagnosis of skin cancer, to age 80 years, death from any cause, or the date of last follow-up. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of eight years, 3.7% of women with a BRCA1 mutation (133 of 3,623) and 3.8% of women with a BRCA2 mutation (99 of 2,584) reported a diagnosis of skin cancer (including both keratinocyte carcinomas and melanoma). The cumulative risk of all types of skin cancer from age 20 to 80 years was 14.1% for BRCA1 carriers and 10.7% for BRCA2 carriers. The cumulative risk of melanoma was 2.5% for BRCA1 carriers and 2.3% for BRCA2 carriers, compared to 1.5% for women in the general population in the United States. The strongest risk factor for skin cancer was a prior diagnosis of skin cancer. CONCLUSION: The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer in women who carry a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is similar to that of non-carrier women. The risk of melanoma appears to be slightly elevated. We suggest that a referral to a dermatologist or primary care provider for BRCA mutation carriers for annual skin examination and counselling regarding limiting UV exposure, the use of sunscreen and recognizing the early signs of melanoma might be warranted, but further studies are necessary.

MRI Surveillance and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance is offered to women with a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene who face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer. Surveillance with MRI is effective in downstaging breast cancers, but the association of MRI surveillance with mortality risk has not been well defined. Objective: To compare breast cancer mortality rates in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation who entered an MRI surveillance program with those who did not. Design, Setting, and Participants: Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation were identified from 59 participating centers in 11 countries. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire between 1995 and 2015 and a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years to document screening histories, incident cancers, and vital status. Women who had breast cancer, a screening MRI examination, or bilateral mastectomy prior to enrollment were excluded. Participants were followed up from age 30 years (or the date of the baseline questionnaire, whichever was later) until age 75 years, the last follow-up, or death from breast cancer. Data were analyzed from January 1 to July 31, 2023. Exposures: Entrance into an MRI surveillance program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for breast cancer mortality associated with MRI surveillance compared with no MRI surveillance using a time-dependent analysis. Results: A total of 2488 women (mean [range] age at study entry 41.2 [30-69] years), with a sequence variation in the BRCA1 (n = 2004) or BRCA2 (n = 484) genes were included in the analysis. Of these participants, 1756 (70.6%) had at least 1 screening MRI examination and 732 women (29.4%) did not. After a mean follow-up of 9.2 years, 344 women (13.8%) developed breast cancer and 35 women (1.4%) died of breast cancer. The age-adjusted HRs for breast cancer mortality associated with entering an MRI surveillance program were 0.20 (95% CI, 0.10-0.43; P < .001) for women with BRCA1 sequence variations and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.10-17.25; P = .93) for women with BRCA2 sequence variations. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that among women with a BRCA1 sequence variation, MRI surveillance was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality compared with no MRI surveillance. Further studies of women with BRCA2 sequence variations are needed to ascertain these women obtain the same benefits associated with MRI surveillance.

Bilateral Oophorectomy and All-Cause Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.

Importance: Preventive bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is offered to women at high risk of ovarian cancer who carry a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2; however, the association of oophorectomy with all-cause mortality has not been clearly defined. Objective: To evaluate the association between bilateral oophorectomy and all-cause mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this international, longitudinal cohort study of women with BRCA sequence variations, information on bilateral oophorectomy was obtained via biennial questionnaire. Participants were women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, no prior history of cancer, and at least 1 follow-up questionnaire completed. Women were followed up from age 35 to 75 years for incident cancers and deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all-cause mortality associated with a bilateral oophorectomy (time dependent). Data analysis was performed from January 1 to June 1, 2023. Exposures: Self-reported bilateral oophorectomy (with or without salpingectomy). Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, breast cancer-specific mortality, and ovarian cancer-specific mortality. Results: There were 4332 women (mean age, 42.6 years) enrolled in the cohort, of whom 2932 (67.8%) chose to undergo a preventive oophorectomy at a mean (range) age of 45.4 (23.0-77.0) years. After a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, 851 women had developed cancer and 228 had died; 57 died of ovarian or fallopian tube cancer, 58 died of breast cancer, 16 died of peritoneal cancer, and 97 died of other causes. The age-adjusted HR for all-cause mortality associated with oophorectomy was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001). The age-adjusted HR was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.20-0.38; P < .001) and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.22-0.90; P = .03) for women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence variations, respectively. For women with BRCA1 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years was 25%, compared to 62% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. For women with BRCA2 sequence variations, the estimated cumulative all-cause mortality to age 75 years was 14% for women who had an oophorectomy at age 35 years compared to 28% for women who did not have an oophorectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 sequence variation, oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality.

Risk-reducing mastectomy and breast cancer mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant: an international analysis.

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is offered to women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, however, there are limited data on the impact on breast cancer mortality. METHODS: Participants were identified from a registry of women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. We used a pseudo-randomised trial design and matched one woman with a RRM to one woman without a RRM on year of birth, gene, and country. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dying of breast cancer in the follow-up period. RESULTS: There were 1654 women included; 827 assigned to the RRM arm and 827 assigned to the control arm. After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, there were 20 incident breast cancers (including 15 occult cancers) and two breast cancer deaths in the RRM arm, and 100 incident breast cancers and 7 breast cancer deaths in the control arm (HR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.05-1.35; p = 0.11). The probability of dying of breast cancer within 15 years after RRM was 0.95%. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant, RRM reduces the risk of breast cancer, and the probability of dying of breast cancer is low.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic, Version 2.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Piloting a Spanish-Language Web-Based Tool for Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing.

The delivery of hereditary cancer pre-test education among Spanish-language patients is impeded by the dearth of Spanish-speaking genetic counselors. To address this gap, we evaluated a web-based genetic education tool delivered in Spanish to provide information typically discussed during an initial genetic counseling session. Spanish-speaking patients with a personal or family history of cancer were recruited at two centers in Puerto Rico and through social media. A total of 41 participants completed a survey before and after viewing the tool to measure knowledge, attitudes, and decisional empowerment. A subset of 10 participants completed a virtual semi-structured interview to assess the usability and appropriateness of the tool. Paired t-tests were calculated to evaluate changes in knowledge and attitudes. A McNemar test assessed for decisional empowerment. Interview transcripts were translated from Spanish to English and inductively coded and analyzed. Results revealed significant increases in knowledge (p < 0.001), while attitudes about genetic testing did not change (p = 0.77). The proportion of individuals who felt fully informed and empowered to decide about whether to undergo genetic testing increased from 15% to 51% (p < 0.001). Qualitative data indicated that participants found the tool easy to use with informative and valuable content. Our findings suggest this Spanish-language tool is a user-friendly and scalable solution to help inform and empower many individuals to decide about cancer genetic testing, recognizing that others may still benefit from genetic counseling prior to testing.

Theory-based behavior change intervention to increase uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant: The PREVENT randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a theory-based behavioral intervention delivered by genetic counselors on the uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) at 12 and 24 months by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) compared to women who received usual care. METHODS: In this two-arm, multi-site randomized controlled trial participants were randomized to receive a theoretically-guided behavioral telephone intervention or usual care. Outcome data were collected at 12 and 24 months. Participants in the usual care arm were offered the intervention after 12 months. RESULTS: Data on 107 participants were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the proportion of women who had a RRSO by 1 year (28.6%- intervention; 22.9%- usual care (p = 0.54)). At 1 year, women who received the intervention had significantly lower mean decisional conflict (pinteraction <0.001) and a higher mean knowledge score at one-year compared to usual care (pinteraction <0.001). At 2 years, 53.9% of participants in the intervention arm had RRSO compared to 32.6% in usual care (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A theory-based behavioral intervention delivered by genetic counselors to women with a BRCA PV who chose not to have the recommended RRSO was effective at reducing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV.

Tamoxifen and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

PURPOSE: Chemoprevention with a selective estrogen receptor modulator (tamoxifen or raloxifene) is a non-surgical option offered to high-risk women to reduce the risk of breast cancer. The evidence for tamoxifen benefit is based on trials conducted among predominantly postmenopausal women from the general population and on studies of contralateral breast cancer in women with a pathogenic variant (mutation hereafter) in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Tamoxifen has not been assessed as a primary prevention agent in women with an inherited BRCA mutation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective analysis of tamoxifen chemoprevention and the risk of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Data on tamoxifen (and raloxifene) use was collected by questionnaire and updated biennially. Information on incident cancers was collected by self-report and was confirmed by medical record review. In a matched analysis, we estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for developing a first primary breast cancer associated with tamoxifen or raloxifene use, using Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: There were 4578 unaffected women in the cohort, of whom 137 reported tamoxifen use (3%), 83 reported raloxifene use (2%) and 12 used both drugs (0.3%). Women who used tamoxifen or raloxifene were matched 1:3 with women who used neither drug on year of birth, country of residence, year of study entry and gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2). We generated 202 matched pairs. After a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, there were 22 incident breast cancers diagnosed among tamoxifen/raloxifene users (10.9% of users) and 71 cases diagnosed among non-users (14.3% of non-users; HR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.40-1.03; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Chemoprevention may be an effective risk-reduction option for BRCA mutation carriers, but further studies with longer follow-up are necessary.

Factors that differentiate cancer risk management decisions among females with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM.

PURPOSE: Following disclosure of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in hereditary cancer genes, patients face cancer risk management decisions. Through this mixed-methods study, we investigated cancer risk management decisions among females with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM to understand why some patients follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, whereas others do not. METHODS: Survey and interview data were cross-analyzed using a 3-stage approach. Identified factors were used to conduct coincidence analysis and differentiate between combinations of factors that result in following or not following guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 13 participants who underwent guideline inconsistent prophylactic surgery, 12 fit 1 of 3 unique patterns: (1) cancer-related anxiety in the absence of trust in care, (2) provider recommending surgery inconsistent with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, or (3) surgery occurring before genetic testing. Two unique patterns were found among 18 of 20 participants who followed guidelines: (1) anxiety along with trust in care or (2) lack of anxiety and no prophylactic surgery before testing. CONCLUSION: Health care provider recommendations and trust in care may influence whether individuals receive care that is congruent with risk levels conferred by specific genes. Interventions are needed to improve provider knowledge, patient trust in non-surgical care, and patient anxiety.

Management of individuals with germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CHEK2: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

PURPOSE: Although the role of CHEK2 germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition is well known, resources for managing CHEK2 heterozygotes in clinical practice are limited. METHODS: An international workgroup developed guidance on clinical management of CHEK2 heterozygotes informed by peer-reviewed publications from PubMed. RESULTS: Although CHEK2 is considered a moderate penetrance gene, cancer risks may be considered as a continuous variable, which are influenced by family history and other modifiers. Consequently, early cancer detection and prevention for CHEK2 heterozygotes should be guided by personalized risk estimates. Such estimates may result in both downgrading lifetime breast cancer risks to those similar to the general population or upgrading lifetime risk to a level at which CHEK2 heterozygotes are offered high-risk breast surveillance according to country-specific guidelines. Risk-reducing mastectomy should be guided by personalized risk estimates and shared decision making. Colorectal and prostate cancer surveillance should be considered based on assessment of family history. For CHEK2 heterozygotes who develop cancer, no specific targeted medical treatment is recommended at this time. CONCLUSION: Systematic prospective data collection is needed to establish the spectrum of CHEK2-associated cancer risks and to determine yet-unanswered questions, such as the outcomes of surveillance, response to cancer treatment, and survival after cancer diagnosis.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer.

Objective: Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI). Methods: We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews. Results: Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results. Conclusion: The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases. Innovation: Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.