Validation of the BOADICEA model in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers.

BACKGROUND: No validation has been conducted for the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model specifically in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers to date. Here, we evaluated the performance of BOADICEA in predicting 5-year breast cancer risks in a prospective cohort of BRCA1/2 PV carriers ascertained through clinical genetic centres. METHODS: We evaluated the model calibration and discriminatory ability in the prospective TRANsIBCCS cohort study comprising 1614 BRCA1 and 1365 BRCA2 PV carriers (209 incident cases). Study participants had lifestyle, reproductive, hormonal, anthropometric risk factor information, a polygenic risk score based on 313 SNPs and family history information. RESULTS: The full multifactorial model considering family history together with all other risk factors was well calibrated overall (E/O=1.07, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24) and in quintiles of predicted risk. Discrimination was maximised when all risk factors were considered (Harrell's C-index=0.70, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.74; area under the curve=0.79, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.82). The model performance was similar when evaluated separately in BRCA1 or BRCA2 PV carriers. The full model identified 5.8%, 12.9% and 24.0% of BRCA1/2 PV carriers with 5-year breast cancer risks of <1.65%, <3% and <5%, respectively, risk thresholds commonly used for different management and risk-reduction options. CONCLUSION: BOADICEA may be used to aid personalised cancer risk management and decision-making for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers. It is implemented in the free-access CanRisk tool (https://www.canrisk.org/).

Performance of clinical risk scores and prediction models to identify pathogenic germline variants in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Determining the frequency and distribution of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in Austrian prostate cancer (PCa) patients and to assess the accuracy of different clinical risk scores to correctly predict PGVs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 313 men with advanced PCa. A comprehensive personal and family history was obtained based on predefined questionnaires. Germline DNA sequencing was performed between 2019 and 2021 irrespective of family history, metastatic or castration status or age at diagnosis. Clinical risk scores for hereditary cancer syndromes were evaluated and a PCa-specific score was developed to assess the presence of PGVs. RESULTS: PGV presence was associated with metastasis (p = 0.047) and castration resistance (p = 0.011), but not with personal cancer history or with relatives with any type of cancer. Clinical risk scores (Manchester score, PREMM5 score, Amsterdam II criteria or Johns Hopkins criteria) showed low sensitivities (3.3-20%) for assessing the probability of PGV presence. A score specifically designed for PCa patients stratifying patients into low- or high-risk regarding PGV probability, correctly classified all PGV carriers as high-risk, whereas a third of PCa patients without PGVs was classified as low risk of the presence of PGVs. CONCLUSION: Application of common clinical risk scores based on family history are not suitable to identify PCa patients with high PGV probabilities. A PCa-specific score stratified PCa patients into low- or high-risk of PGV presence with sufficient accuracy, and germline DNA sequencing may be omitted in patients with a low score. Further studies are needed to evaluate the score.

Cancer Spectrum, Family History of Cancer and Overall Survival in Men with Germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations.

BACKGROUND: Men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations are not well studied compared to their female counterparts. This study evaluates the cancer characteristics, family history of cancer, and outcomes of male BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. METHODS: All men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who attended genetic assessment between October 1995 and October 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna were identified. Clinicohistopathological features, family history of cancer, and outcomes were assessed by mutation status. RESULTS: Of the 323 men included, 45 (13.9%) had a primary cancer diagnosis, many of whom were BRCA2 carriers (75.5%). Breast cancer (BC) was the most common cancer (57.8%) followed by prostate cancer (15.6%). Invasive ductal carcinoma and hormone receptor positive tumors were the most common. Among 26 BC-affected patients, 42% did not have any relatives with cancer. Parent of origin was only known in half of the 26 men, with 42% of them inherited through the maternal lineage versus 8% through the paternal. BRCA2 carriers and those with a family history of BC had worse overall survival (20 y vs. 23 y BRCA1 carriers; P = 0.007; 19 y vs. 21 y for those without family history of BC; P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Male BRCA2 carriers were most likely to develop cancer and had worse prognosis. In our dataset, BC was the most common cancer, likely due to referral bias. Not all mutation carriers present with BC or have a family history of cancer to warrant genetic testing.

Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has been shown to decrease with longer duration of oral contraceptive use. Although the effects of using oral contraceptives in the general population are well established (approximately 50% risk reduction in ovarian cancer), the estimated risk reduction in mutation carriers is much less precise because of potential bias and small sample sizes. In addition, only a few studies on oral contraceptive use have examined the associations of duration of use, time since last use, starting age, and calendar year of start with risk of ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate in more detail the associations of various characteristics of oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer, to provide healthcare providers and carriers with better risk estimates. STUDY DESIGN: In this international retrospective study, ovarian cancer risk associations were assessed using oral contraceptives data on 3989 BRCA1 and 2445 BRCA2 mutation carriers. Age-dependent-weighted Cox regression analyses were stratified by study and birth cohort and included breast cancer diagnosis as a covariate. To minimize survival bias, analyses were left truncated at 5 years before baseline questionnaire. Separate analyses were conducted for each aspect of oral contraceptive use and in a multivariate analysis, including all these aspects. In addition, the analysis of duration of oral contraceptive use was stratified by recency of use. RESULTS: Oral contraceptives were less often used by mutation carriers who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (ever use: 58.6% for BRCA1 and 53.5% BRCA2) than by unaffected carriers (ever use: 88.9% for BRCA1 and 80.7% for BRCA2). The median duration of use was 7 years for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who developed ovarian cancer and 9 and 8 years for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with ovarian cancer, respectively. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, univariate analyses have shown that both a longer duration of oral contraceptive use and more recent oral contraceptive use were associated with a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. However, in multivariate analyses, including duration of use, age at first use, and time since last use, duration of oral contraceptive use proved to be the prominent protective factor (compared with <5 years: 5-9 years [hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.12]; >10 years [hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.73]; Ptrend=.008). The inverse association between duration of use and ovarian cancer risk persisted for more than 15 years (duration of ≥10 years; BRCA1 <15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.43]; BRCA1 >15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.59]). Univariate results for BRCA2 mutation carriers were similar but were inconclusive because of limited sample size. CONCLUSION: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, longer duration of oral contraceptive use is associated with a greater reduction in ovarian cancer risk, and the protection is long term.

Patient satisfaction after breast cancer surgery : A prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the impact of curative breast cancer surgery on patient satisfaction concerning cosmetic results and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In this study 61 participants completed questionnaires to evaluate their QoL and patient satisfaction with cosmetic results following breast cancer surgery. Cosmetic outcomes were evaluated by the breast surgeon and an independent breast specialist using the Harris scale and the breast analyzing tool (BAT). RESULTS: Of the participants 71% completed all 4 follow-up visits, 38 (62%) patients received breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and 23 (38%) received a mastectomy. Surgery-associated complications arose in 2.6% of the patients who received BCT and 17.4% of patients who received a mastectomy. No significant differences in QoL between BCT patients and mastectomy patients were observed immediately after surgery, or after 6 and 12 months. Breast asymmetry, measured using the BAT score, and QoL scores were worst immediately after surgery. The surgeon rated the cosmetic results as better compared to the independent breast expert (p = 0.001). Furthermore, patients aged over 60 years old were less satisfied with the cosmetic outcome compared to younger patients at the time of discharge (p = 0.024). Patients who received a mastectomy were less satisfied when the resected volume was higher. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction was lowest immediately after surgery but improved during the following months, despite continued breast asymmetry. For mastectomy patients, a lower resected volume led to a higher satisfaction with cosmetic results. Satisfaction is subjective and cannot be determined from the esthetic satisfaction of the surgeon or using an objective tool measuring breast asymmetry.

Alcohol Consumption, Cigarette Smoking, and Risk of Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Results from The BRCA1 and BRCA2 Cohort Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption have been intensively studied in the general population to assess their effects on the risk of breast cancer, but very few studies have examined these effects in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Given the high breast cancer risk for mutation carriers and the importance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in DNA repair, better evidence on the associations of these lifestyle factors with breast cancer risk is essential. METHODS: Using a large international pooled cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, we conducted retrospective (5,707 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 3,525 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and prospective (2,276 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 1,610 BRCA2 mutation carriers) analyses of alcohol and tobacco consumption using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: For both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, none of the smoking-related variables was associated with breast cancer risk, except smoking for more than 5 years before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) when compared with parous women who never smoked. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, the HR from retrospective analysis (HRR) was 1.19 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.39] and the HR from prospective analysis (HRP) was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.99-1.87). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, smoking for more than 5 years before an FFTP showed an association of a similar magnitude, but the confidence limits were wider (HRR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55 and HRP = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83-2.01). For both carrier groups, alcohol consumption was not associated with breast cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that smoking during the prereproductive years increases breast cancer risk for mutation carriers warrants further investigation. IMPACT: This is the largest prospective study of BRCA mutation carriers to assess these important risk factors.

Association between family history, mutation locations, and prevalence of BRCA1 or 2 mutations in ovarian cancer patients.

We investigated the prevalence of germline BRCA mutations in a population-based cohort of Austrian women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and its association with family history of cancer. We prospectively collected family pedigrees of 443 Austrian ovarian cancer patients who had been tested for the presence of a germline BRCA or 2 mutations and correlated the familial breast and ovarian cancer burden with the prevalence of BRCA mutations and disease onset. The probability of carrying a gBRCA mutation in patients without family history of cancer is 14% (95% CI 9%-22%), as opposed to 45% (95% CI 31%-59%) of patients with at least one family member with ovarian cancer, and 47% (95% CI 40%-54%) if other relatives have developed breast cancer. If both breast and ovarian cancer are diagnosed in the family, the probability of carrying a germline BRCA1 or 2 mutations is 60% (95% CI 50%-68%). germline BRCA1 or mutations in families with ovarian cancer only are commonly located in the Ovarian Cancer Cluster Regions when compared to families with both breast and ovarian cancer (P = 0.001, and P = 0.020, respectively). While gBRCA mutation carriers with ovarian cancer do not have a significantly different age at onset than patients with a family history of cancer, gBRCA1 carriers in general have an earlier onset than gBRCA2 carriers (P = 0.002) and patients without a mutation (P = 0.006). The rate of germline BRCA1 or 2 mutations in ovarian cancer patients without a family history or breast or ovarian cancer is low. However, in women with additional family members affected, the prevalence is considerably higher than previously reported.

Improving comprehension of genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clients with a visual tool.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic counseling and testing can be offered to individuals who are at high risk of carrying a breast cancer (BRCA) gene mutation. However, the content of genetic counseling could be difficult to understand due to complex medical information. The aim of this study was to investigate if comprehension can be improved with a new genetic counseling tool (NGCT hereafter; a tool that combines complex medical information with pictures, diagrams and tables) as compared to conventional oral-only genetic counseling (CGC). METHODS: 207 clients attended genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer at the Medical University of Vienna between February 2015 and February 2016. Seventy clients participated in this study and were allocated into two groups: the first 36 participants received conventional (oral only) genetic counseling (CGC) and the following 34 participants received genetic counseling using a new genetic counseling tool (NGCT), which combines complex information with pictures, diagrams and tables. After genetic counseling, all consenting participants were invited to complete a questionnaire with seven questions evaluating their comprehension of the medical information provided. RESULTS: Socio-demographic backgrounds were comparable in both groups. Correct responses were significantly higher in the NGCT group compared to the CGC group (p = 0.012). NGCT also statistically improves correct response of Q1 (p = 0.03) and Q7 (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The NGCT leads to an overall better understanding of the content of a genetic counseling session than CGC alone.

Correction: Diagnostic markers for the detection of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189641.].

Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer Risk: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses From a BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carrier Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the association between oral contraceptive preparation (OCP) use and breast cancer (BC) risk is still unclear. METHODS: Breast camcer risk associations were estimated from OCP data on 6030 BRCA1 and 3809 BRCA2 mutation carriers using age-dependent Cox regression, stratified by study and birth cohort. Prospective, left-truncated retrospective and full-cohort retrospective analyses were performed. RESULTS: For BRCA1 mutation carriers, OCP use was not associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.56), but in the left-truncated and full-cohort retrospective analyses, risks were increased by 26% (95% CI = 6% to 51%) and 39% (95% CI = 23% to 58%), respectively. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, OCP use was associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.97), but retrospective analyses were inconsistent (left-truncated: HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.33; full cohort: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.81). There was evidence of increasing risk with duration of use, especially before the first full-term pregnancy (BRCA1: both retrospective analyses, P < .001 and P = .001, respectively; BRCA2: full retrospective analysis, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective analyses did not show that past use of OCP is associated with an increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers in young middle-aged women (40-50 years). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, a causal association is also not likely at those ages. Findings between retrospective and prospective analyses were inconsistent and could be due to survival bias or a true association for younger women who were underrepresented in the prospective cohort. Given the uncertain safety of long-term OCP use for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, indications other than contraception should be avoided and nonhormonal contraceptive methods should be discussed.

Identification and management of familial breast cancer in Austria.

Aim The aim of this study is to review the legal implications, the technology, the indications and the management of women with a familial background of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Methods We have reviewed the literature and national Austrian guidelines to describe the uptake of genetic counseling and the management options offered in Austria. Results Genetic testing for the BRCA1 and 2 mutations is free and readily available through a nation-wide program. Increased awareness and the availability of screening programs and prophylactic surgery have resulted in a profound increase in genetic counseling and testing in women with a familial background of breast and ovarian cancer in Austria. Conclusion While readily available country-wide counseling has led to an increase in counseling and testing, Austrian legislation mandates "non-directional counseling" resulting in a comparatively low uptake of prophylactic surgery.

Diagnostic markers for the detection of ovarian cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: Screening for ovarian cancer (OC) in women at high risk consists of a combination of carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) and transvaginal ultrasound, despite their low sensitivity and specificity. This could be improved by the combination of several biomarkers, which has been shown in average risk patients but has not been investigated until now in female BRCA mutation carriers. METHODS: Using a multiplex, bead-based, immunoassay system, we analyzed the concentrations of leptin, prolactin, osteopontin, insulin-like growth factor II, macrophage inhibitory factor, CA125 and human epididymis antigen 4 in 26 healthy wild type women, 26 healthy BRCA1 mutation carriers, 28 wildtype OC patients and 26 OC patients with BRCA1 mutation. RESULTS: Using the ROC analysis, we found a high overall sensitivity of 94.3% in differentiating healthy controls from OC patients with comparable results in the wildtype subgroup (sensitivity 92.8%, AUC = 0.988; p = 5.2e-14) as well as in BRCA1 mutation carriers (sensitivity 95.2%, AUC = 0.978; p = 1.7e-15) at an overall specificity of 92.3%. The used algorithm also allowed to identify healthy BRCA1 mutation carriers when compared to healthy wildtype women (sensitivity 88.4%, specificity 80.7%, AUC = 0.895; p = 6e-08), while this was less pronounced in patients with OC (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 67.8%, AUC = 0.724; p = 0.00065). CONCLUSION: We have developed an algorithm, which can differentiate between healthy women and OC patients and have for the first time shown, that such an algorithm can also be used in BRCA mutation carriers. To clarify a suggested benefit to the existing early detection program, large prospective trials with mainly early stage OC cases are warranted.

Family history of cancer predicts endometrial cancer risk independently of Lynch Syndrome: Implications for genetic counselling.

OBJECTIVE: To determine endometrial cancer (EC) risk according to family cancer history, including assessment by degree of relatedness, type of and age at cancer diagnosis of relatives. METHODS: Self-reported family cancer history was available for 1353 EC patients and 628 controls. Logistic regression was used to quantify the association between EC and cancer diagnosis in ≥1 first or second degree relative, and to assess whether level of risk differed by degree of relationship and/or relative's age at diagnosis. Risk was also evaluated for family history of up to three cancers from known familial syndromes (Lynch, Cowden, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) overall, by histological subtype and, for a subset of 678 patients, by EC tumor mismatch repair (MMR) gene expression. RESULTS: Report of EC in ≥1 first- or second-degree relative was associated with significantly increased risk of EC (P=3.8×10-7), independent of lifestyle risk factors. There was a trend in increasing EC risk with closer relatedness and younger age at EC diagnosis in relatives (PTrend=4.43×10-6), and with increasing numbers of Lynch cancers in relatives (PTrend≤0.0001). EC risk associated with family history did not differ by proband tumor MMR status, or histological subtype. Reported EC in first- or second-degree relatives remained associated with EC risk after conservative correction for potential misreported family history (OR 2.0; 95% CI, 1.24-3.37, P=0.004). CONCLUSION: The strongest predictor of EC risk was closer relatedness and younger EC diagnosis age in ≥1 relative. Associations remained significant irrespective of proband MMR status, and after excluding MMR pathogenic variant carriers, indicating that Lynch syndrome genes do not fully explain familial EC risk.

PTEN expression as a predictor for the response to trastuzumab-based therapy in Her-2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Even though trastuzumab is an effective therapy in early stage Her-2+ breast cancer, 40-50% of advanced Her-2+ breast cancer patients develop trastuzumab resistance. A potential resistance mechanism is aberrant downstream signal transmission due to loss of phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN). This study investigated the relationship between the expression of PTEN and trastuzumab response in Her-2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2007, 164 patients with Her-2+ metastatic breast cancer received trastuzumab-based therapy in our institution. We analyzed PTEN status by immunohistochemistry of 115 available tumor tissues and analyzed associations with other histopathological parameters, response rate, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with a median follow-up of 60 months. RESULTS: Eighty patients were PTEN positive (69.6%) and 35 patients PTEN negative (30.4%). We found a significant association of the expression of PTEN and p53 (p = 0.041), while there was no association with grading, hormone receptor status, IGFR or MIB. We found significantly more cases with progressive disease under trastuzumab-based therapy in patients with PTEN positive breast cancers (p = 0.018), while there was no significant correlation with PFS or OS. CONCLUSION: In Her-2-positive metastatic breast cancers, PTEN positivity was significantly associated with progressive disease, but not with PFS or OS.

Pathological Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Trastuzumab Is Dependent on HER2/CEP17 Ratio in HER2-Amplified Early Breast Cancer.

Purpose: To evaluate whether pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant trastuzumab is dependent on the level of HER2 amplification.Experimental Design: 114 HER2-overexpressing early breast cancer patients who had received neoadjuvant trastuzumab were included in this study. Absolute HER2 and chromosome 17 centromere (CEP17) were measured by in situ hybridization analysis, and associations were examined between HER2/CEP17 ratio and tumor pCR status (commonly defined by ypT0 ypN0, ypT0/is ypN0, and ypT0/is).Results: In trastuzumab-treated patients, ypT0 ypN0 was achieved in 69.0% of patients with high-level amplification (HER2/CEP17 ratio > 6), but only in 30.4% of tumors with low-level amplification (ratio ≤ 6; P = 0.001). When pCR was defined by ypT0/is ypN0 or ypTis, 75.9% and 82.8% of tumors with high-level amplification had a complete response, whereas only 39.1%, and 38.3% with low-level amplification achieved pCR (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively). Logistic regression revealed that tumors with high-level amplification had a significantly higher probability achieving ypT0 ypN0 (OR, 5.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-13.90; P = 0.002) than tumors with low-level amplification, whereas no other clinicopathologic parameters were predictive of pCR. The association between high-level HER2 amplification and pCR was almost exclusively confined to hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors (ypT0 ypN0: 62.5% vs. 24.0%, P = 0.014; ypT0/is ypN0: 75.0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.005; and ypT0/is: 87.5% vs. 28.0%, P < 0.001), and was largely absent in HR-negative tumors.Conclusions: An HER2/CEP17 ratio of >6 in the pretherapeutic tumor biopsy is associated with a significantly higher pCR rate, particularly in HER2/HR copositive tumors, and can be used as a biomarker to predict response before neoadjuvant trastuzumab is initiated. Clin Cancer Res; 23(14); 3676-83. ©2017 AACR.

Cadherin-11 expression is upregulated in invasive human breast cancer.

Loss of expression of cadherin-11 protein is correlated with a loss of epithelial phenotype and a gain in tumor cell proliferation and invasion. It has been hypothesized that cadherin-11 may be a molecular marker for a more aggressive subtype of breast cancer. The present study examined the expression of the mesenchymal gene/protein cadherin-11 in malignant, benign and healthy breast cancer samples. A paraffin-embedded tissue microarray of both malignant and benign/healthy breast tumor was used. Clinicopathological parameters, including age, grading, tumor size, hormone receptors and HER2 receptors status were obtained from patient medical records. Expression of cadherin-11 was analyzed using the monoclonal mouse anti cadherin-11 IgG2B clone. Total RNA was extracted from each breast cancer sample and subjected to semi-quantitative RT-PCR analysis for cadherin-11. Cadherin-11 was detected in 80/82 malignant breast cancer samples and in 33/70 non-malignant tissue samples. Cadherin-11 expression was observed to be predominantly localized to the membrane of tumor cells. When compared to healthy breast tissue biopsies, both cadherin-11 mRNA and protein were demonstrated to be significantly overexpressed in breast carcinoma (P=0.040 and P<0.0001, respectively). Within malignant tumors, however, protein expression was not identified to be associated with other clinicopathological parameters. Our results indicate that cadherin-11 expression is upregulated in malignant human breast cancer.

Tumor mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and DNA MLH1 methylation testing of patients with endometrial cancer diagnosed at age younger than 60 years optimizes triage for population-level germline mismatch repair gene mutation testing.

PURPOSE: Clinicopathologic data from a population-based endometrial cancer cohort, unselected for age or family history, were analyzed to determine the optimal scheme for identification of patients with germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Endometrial cancers from 702 patients recruited into the Australian National Endometrial Cancer Study (ANECS) were tested for MMR protein expression using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and for MLH1 gene promoter methylation in MLH1-deficient cases. MMR mutation testing was performed on germline DNA of patients with MMR-protein deficient tumors. Prediction of germline mutation status was compared for combinations of tumor characteristics, age at diagnosis, and various clinical criteria (Amsterdam, Bethesda, Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ANECS). RESULTS: Tumor MMR-protein deficiency was detected in 170 (24%) of 702 cases. Germline testing of 158 MMR-deficient cases identified 22 truncating mutations (3% of all cases) and four unclassified variants. Tumor MLH1 methylation was detected in 99 (89%) of 111 cases demonstrating MLH1/PMS2 IHC loss; all were germline MLH1 mutation negative. A combination of MMR IHC plus MLH1 methylation testing in women younger than 60 years of age at diagnosis provided the highest positive predictive value for the identification of mutation carriers at 46% versus ≤ 41% for any other criteria considered. CONCLUSION: Population-level identification of patients with MMR mutation-positive endometrial cancer is optimized by stepwise testing for tumor MMR IHC loss in patients younger than 60 years, tumor MLH1 methylation in individuals with MLH1 IHC loss, and germline mutations in patients exhibiting loss of MSH6, MSH2, or PMS2 or loss of MLH1/PMS2 with absence of MLH1 methylation.

Barriers and motivators for referral of patients with suspected lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services: a qualitative study.

This article explores the views of general practitioners and specialists on their referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services. Using a purposive maximum variation sampling strategy, we conducted semi-structured interviews face-to-face with 28 general practitioners and specialists in public or private hospitals and specialist clinics between March and August 2011. General practitioners and specialists were recruited in a major metropolitan area in Australia. Interview transcripts were reviewed by two independent researchers, and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo10 software. The main barriers and motivators identified were: (1) clinician-related (e.g., familiarity with Lynch syndrome and family history knowledge); (2) patient-related (e.g., patients' interests and personal experience with cancer); and (3) organizational-related (e.g., access to services, guidelines and referral pathway). Referral of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome to cancer genetic services is motivated and hindered by a range of individual, interpersonal and organizational factors. In order to improve the care and quality of life of patients and family with suspected Lynch syndrome, further research is needed to develop supportive tools for clinicians.

Knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of lynch syndrome: a survey of clinicians in australia.

This study assessed Australian clinicians' knowledge, attitudes and referral patterns of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome for genetic services. A total of 144 oncologists, surgeons, gynaecologists, general practitioners and gastroenterologists from the Australian Medical Association and Clinical Oncology Society responded to a web-based survey. Most respondents demonstrated suboptimal knowledge of Lynch syndrome. Male general practitioners who have been practicing for ≥10 years were less likely to offer genetic referral than specialists, and many clinicians did not recognize that immunohistochemistry testing is not a germline test. Half of all general practitioners did not actually refer patients in the past 12 months, and 30% of them did not feel that their role is to identify patients for genetic referral. The majority of clinicians considered everyone to be responsible for making the initial referral to genetic services, but a small preference was given to oncologists (15%) and general practitioners (13%). Patient information brochures, continuing genetic education programs and referral guidelines were favoured as support for practice. Targeted education interventions should be considered to improve referral. An online family history assessment tool with built-in decision support would be helpful in triaging high-risk individuals for pathology analysis and/or genetic assessment in general practice.