Epilepsy in neurofibromatosis type 1: Prevalence, phenotype, and genotype in adults.

PURPOSE: Studies have shown an increased risk of epilepsy in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). However, most reports focus on the pediatric population. In this study, we describe the trajectory of patients with NF1 and epilepsy beyond childhood. METHODS: Patients with NF1 ≥18 years-old consecutively seen at a multidisciplinary neurofibromatosis clinic during a four-year period were prospectively enrolled and offered routine EEG, MRI, and genetic testing. The lifelong and point prevalence of epilepsy in patients with NF1 were calculated. Demographic, genetic, radiological, and clinical features found to be statistically associated with having received a diagnosis of epilepsy were incorporated into a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Among 113 patients with NF1 included in this study (median age at study inclusion: 33 years), the lifelong prevalence of epilepsy was 11% (CI95%=6-18%) and point prevalence 7% (CI95%= 3-13%). Most patients (73%) were diagnosed with epilepsy before the age of 18 and achieved seizure-freedom by adulthood. At study inclusion, three-quarters of patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy had been seizure-free for more than one year and a third had resolved epilepsy. A routine EEG with epileptiform discharges had a sensitivity of 25% (CI95%=3-65) and specificity of 99% (CI95%=93-100) for identifying adult patients with NF1 and unresolved epilepsy. A history of epilepsy was associated with having a low-grade glioma (OR: 38.2; CI95%=2.2-674.7; p<0.01), learning disability (OR: 5.7; CI95%=1.0-31.5; p<0.05), and no plexiform neurofibroma (OR: 0.05; CI95%=0.0-0.8; p=0.04). No single mutation type was associated with the development of epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NF1, although resolution of epilepsy over time was observed in many cases, the prevalence of epilepsy was higher among adults with NF1 than that reported in the general population. Epileptogenesis in NF1 likely requires the combination of multiple genetic and environmental factors and suggests involvement of a network that spreads beyond the borders of a well-defined parenchymal lesion.

Next generation of free? Points to consider when navigating sponsored genetic testing.

Genetics has been integrated into patient care across many subspecialties. However, genetic and genomic testing (GT) remain expensive with disparities in access both within Canada and internationally. It is, therefore, not surprising that sponsored GT has emerged as one alternative. Sponsored GT, for the purpose of this document, refers to clinical-grade GT partially or fully subsidised by industry. In return, industry sponsors-usually pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies-may have access to patients' genetic data, practitioner information, DNA and/or other information. The availability of sponsored GT options in the Canadian healthcare landscape has appeared to simplify patient and practitioner access to GT, but the potential ethical and legal considerations, as well as the nuances of a publicly funded healthcare system, must also be considered. This document offers preliminary guidance for Canadian healthcare practitioners encountering sponsored GT in practice. Further research and dialogue is urgently needed to explore this issue to provide fulsome considerations that one must be aware of when availing such options.

LZTR1 molecular genetic overlap with clinical implications for Noonan syndrome and schwannomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Noonan syndrome (NS) is a genetic disorder characterized by developmental delays, typical facial gestalt and cardiovascular defects. LZTR1 variants have been recently described in patients with NS and schwannomatosis, but the association, inheritance pattern and management strategy has not been fully elucidated. Here, we review the contribution of LZTR1 in NS and describe a patient with a novel, likely pathogenic variant in LZTR1. CASE PRESENTATION: A female patient was diagnosed with clinical NS at 8 months of age. She presented in adulthood when a brain and spine MRI identified plexiform neurofibromas; however, she did not meet the clinical criteria for Neurofibromatosis type 1. No pathogenic variants were identified through molecular genetic analysis of NF1, SPRED1 and a multigene NS panel. Whole exome sequencing at age 23 identified a novel de novo likely pathogenic heterozygous variant in the LZTR1 gene denoted as c.743G>A (p.Gly248Glu). Serial MRIs have shown stable imaging findings and the patient is being followed clinically by cardiology, neurology and medical genetics. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a novel mutation in the LZTR1 gene, not previously reported in association with NS. This report provides additional evidence to support for the assessment of schwannomatosis in patients with LZTR1-NS and may have overlap with Neurofibromatosis type 1.

An appraisal of genetic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility.

Most criteria for genetic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility require a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer, in particular cases with metastatic disease are selected. Advances in the field are expected to improve outcomes through tailored treatments for men with advanced prostate cancer with germline pathogenic variants, although these are not currently offered in the curative setting. A better understanding of the value of genetic testing for prostate cancer susceptibility in screening, for early detection and prevention is necessary. We review and summarize the literature describing germline pathogenic variants in genes associated with increased prostate cancer risk and aggressivity. Important questions include: what is our ability to screen for and prevent prostate cancer in a man with a germline pathogenic variant and how does knowledge of a germline pathogenic variant influence treatment of men with nonmetastatic disease, with hormone-resistant disease and with metastatic disease? The frequency of germline pathogenic variants in prostate cancer is well described, according to personal and family history of cancer and by stage and grade of disease. The role of these genes in aggressive prostate cancer is also discussed. It is timely to consider whether or not genetic testing should be offered to all men with prostate cancer. The goals of testing are to facilitate screening for early cancers in unaffected high-risk men and to prevent advanced disease in men with cancer.

Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients. PURPOSE: The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication. RESULTS: Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings. CONCLUSION: The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.

Stay at home: implementation and impact of virtualising cancer genetic services during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada's largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.

The evolving role of germline genetic testing and management in prostate cancer: Report from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre international retreat.

Prostate cancer is a significant cause of cancer mortality. It has been well-established that certain germline pathogenic variants confer both an increased risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer and dying of prostate cancer.1 There are exciting developments in both the availability of genetic testing and opportunities for improved treatment of patients.On August 19, 2020, the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Ontario, hosted a virtual retreat, bringing together international experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical genetics, and translational research, as well as a patient representative. We are pleased to provide this manuscript as a review of those proceedings for Canadian clinicians.We highlighted several needs for future research and policy action based on this meeting:Increased access to funding for germline testing for the common genetic disorders associated with increased risk of prostate cancer.More research into identifying genetic factors influencing risk stratification, treatment response, and outcomes of prostate cancer within Canadian populations at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer.Added awareness about genetic risk factors among the Canadian public.Development of patient-specific and reported outcomes research in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.Creation of multidisciplinary clinics that specialize in tailored care for patients at increased genetic risk of prostate cancer.

A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Consent for Genetic Testing Using an Oncologist- or Genetic Counselor-Mediated Model of Care.

This study compares knowledge, experience and understanding of genetic testing, and psychological outcomes among breast and ovarian cancer patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing via genetic counselor-mediated (GMT) or oncologist-mediated (OMT) testing models. A pragmatic, prospective survey of breast and ovarian cancer patients pursuing genetic testing between January 2017 and August 2019 was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada. A total of 120 (80 GMT; 40 OMT) individuals completed a survey administered one week following consent to genetic testing. Compared to OMT, the GMT cohort had higher median knowledge (8 vs. 9; p = 0.025) and experience/understanding scores (8.5 vs. 10; p < 0.001) at the time of genetic testing. Significant differences were noted in the potential psychological concerns experienced, with individuals in the GMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the hereditary predisposition domain of the Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer tool (55% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.005), and individuals in the OMT cohort more likely to screen positive in the general emotions domain (65.0% vs. 38.8%; p = 0.007). The results of this study suggest that OMT can be implemented to streamline genetic testing; however, post-test genetic counseling should remain available to all individuals undergoing genetic testing, to ensure any psychologic concerns are addressed and that individuals have a clear understanding of relevant implications and limitations of their test results.

Co-occurrence of breast cancer and neuroendocrine tumours: New genetic insights beyond Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: Age-standardized incidence of female breast cancer is 145.1 per 100000/year and 5.86 per 100000/year for neuroendocrine tumours (NET) in Canada. Evidence is scarce about gene variants that may predispose patients to develop both neoplasms. The objective of this study was to identify germline gene variants associated with this combination of tumours. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: A retrospective chart review (2007-2018) in a tertiary NET referral centre was completed. A series of 9 female patients with concurrent breast cancer and NET is presented. All patients underwent a 37 gene hereditary cancer next-generation sequencing panel. RESULTS: Mean age was 61.4 years (35-85) at breast cancer diagnosis and 63.4 years (51-89) at NET diagnosis. Four patients had a pancreatic, three had a small bowel and two had a lung NET. Two patients were known cases of MEN1, and one patient was found to harbour a pathogenic variant in MEN1 and a variant of unknown significance (VUS) in ATM. A second patient was found to harbour a pathogenic variant in APC. A third patient was found to carry a pathogenic variant in PALB2 as well as a VUS in FANCM, MLH1 and STK11. Another patient was found to harbour a VUS in MSH2. One patient was found to carry a pathogenic variant in NTHL1. CONCLUSION: The first cases of a PALB2, an APC and a NTHL1 pathogenic variants in patients with both breast cancer and NET were presented. NGS testing should be considered in specific patients with this combination of neoplasms, as certain germline variants beyond MEN1, have important implications for cancer surveillance.

Prenatal and preconception genetic counseling for consanguinity: Consanguineous couples' expectations, experiences, and perspectives.

Consanguinity, the union between two individuals who are related as second cousins or closer, is a long-standing and respected tradition in many communities. Although there are social and economic benefits of consanguineous unions, offspring are at increased risk of having an inherited genetic condition or congenital anomaly. Genetic counseling services for consanguinity are available to couples at many centers. However, little is known about patient expectations of and experiences with genetic counseling for this indication, or their perspectives on genetic screening relevant to family planning, such as expanded carrier screening (ECS). This exploratory qualitative study involved interviews with 13 individuals who had recently received preconception or prenatal genetic counseling for consanguinity at a single center. We sought to gain insight into their expectations for the genetic counseling session, experiences discussing family history and reproductive risks with the genetic counselor, and views on ECS. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an interpretive descriptive approach. Data analysis revealed three main themes: (a) anticipation balances apprehension before the appointment; (b) genetic counseling reduces anxiety and empowers; and (c) the need for wider information dissemination about consanguinity-related risks and genetic services. Our findings support the personal utility of genetic counseling for consanguinity and demonstrate the need for increased visibility and access to genetics information, counseling, and testing relevant to this patient population.

NF1 Patients Receiving Breast Cancer Screening: Insights from The Ontario High Risk Breast Screening Program.

Neurofibromatosis Type I (NF1) is caused by variants in neurofibromin (NF1). NF1 predisposes to a variety of benign and malignant tumor types, including breast cancer. Women with NF1 <50 years of age possess an up to five-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with the general population. Impaired emotional functioning is reported as a comorbidity that may influence the participation of NF1 patients in regular clinical surveillance despite their increased risk of breast and other cancers. Despite emphasis on breast cancer surveillance in women with NF1, the uptake and feasibility of high-risk screening programs in this population remains unclear. A retrospective chart review between 2014-2018 of female NF1 patients seen at the Elizabeth Raab Neurofibromatosis Clinic (ERNC) in Ontario was conducted to examine the uptake of high-risk breast cancer screening, radiologic findings, and breast cancer characteristics. 61 women with pathogenic variants in NF1 enrolled in the high-risk Ontario breast screening program (HR-OBSP); 95% completed at least one high-risk breast screening modality, and four were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Our findings support the integration of a formal breast screening programs in clinical management of NF1 patients.