A case of simultaneous breast cancer and ovarian cancer based on a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome.

We experienced a relatively rare case of synchronous breast and ovarian cancer in a patient with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). Here, we report the usefulness of laparoscopic examination to determine the subsequent treatment strategy in cases of suspected concurrent multiple carcinomas. Our patient was diagnosed with breast cancer following detection of a right breast mass. She was diagnosed with HBOC as she was found to be harboring a germline pathogenic variant of breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1). Preoperative images suggested the presence of neoplastic masses in the abdominal cavity, and the possibility of metastatic peritoneal dissemination of breast cancer or concurrent overlapping of gynecological malignancies was considered. We decided to employ laparoscopic examination, and if simultaneous overlapping of cancers was suspected, we planned to further evaluate whether primary debulking surgery (PDS) for gynecological cancer was possible or not. Laparoscopy revealed the presence of ovarian cancer with neoplastic lesions on the bilateral ovaries and disseminations in the pelvic and abdominal cavities. The total predictive index was 0; therefore, PDS was considered feasible. We performed a total mastectomy, followed by laparotomy, and optimal surgery was achieved. The final diagnosis was simultaneous stage IIB invasive ductal breast carcinoma and stage IIIC high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. In this case of suspected concurrent multiple carcinomas, laparoscopy was beneficial for decision-making regarding subsequent surgical treatment. We believe that the use of laparoscopy will enable simultaneous surgery for breast cancer and ovarian cancer to become one of the treatment strategies in the future.

Extended genetic analysis and tumor characteristics in over 4600 women with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genetic screening for pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer predisposition genes can affect treatment strategies, risk prediction and preventive measures for patients and families. For decades, hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has been attributed to PVs in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and more recently other rare alleles have been firmly established as associated with a high or moderate increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Here, we assess the genetic variation and tumor characteristics in a large cohort of women with suspected HBOC in a clinical oncogenetic setting. METHODS: Women with suspected HBOC referred from all oncogenetic clinics in Sweden over a six-year inclusion period were screened for PVs in 13 clinically relevant genes. The genetic outcome was compared with tumor characteristics and other clinical data collected from national cancer registries and hospital records. RESULTS: In 4622 women with breast and/or ovarian cancer the overall diagnostic yield (the proportion of women carrying at least one PV) was 16.6%. BRCA1/2 PVs were found in 8.9% of women (BRCA1 5.95% and BRCA2 2.94%) and PVs in the other breast and ovarian cancer predisposition genes in 8.2%: ATM (1.58%), BARD1 (0.45%), BRIP1 (0.43%), CDH1 (0.11%), CHEK2 (3.46%), PALB2 (0.84%), PTEN (0.02%), RAD51C (0.54%), RAD51D (0.15%), STK11 (0) and TP53 (0.56%). Thus, inclusion of the 11 genes in addition to BRCA1/2 increased diagnostic yield by 7.7%. The yield was, as expected, significantly higher in certain subgroups such as younger patients, medullary breast cancer, higher Nottingham Histologic Grade, ER-negative breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer and high grade serous ovarian cancer. Age and tumor subtype distributions differed substantially depending on genetic finding. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to understanding the clinical and genetic landscape of breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Extending clinical genetic screening from BRCA1 and BRCA2 to 13 established cancer predisposition genes almost doubles the diagnostic yield, which has implications for genetic counseling and clinical guidelines. The very low yield in the syndrome genes CDH1, PTEN and STK11 questions the usefulness of including these genes on routine gene panels.

Interdisciplinary risk counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: real-world data from a specialized center.

PURPOSE: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer has long been established to affect a considerable number of patients and their families. By identifying those at risk ideally before they have been diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, access to preventive measures, intensified screening and special therapeutic options can be obtained, and thus, prognosis can be altered beneficially. Therefore, a standardized screening and counseling process has been established in Germany under the aegis of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). As one of these specialized clinics, the HBOC-Center at Charité offers genetic counseling as well as genetic analysis based on the GC-HBOC standards. This analysis aims first at depicting this process from screening through counseling to genetic analysis as well as the patient collective and second at correlating the results of genetic analysis performed. Thus, real-world data from an HBOC-Center with a substantial patient collective and a high frequency of pathogenic variants in various genes shall be presented. METHODS: The data of 2531 people having been counseled at the HBOC-Center at Charité in 2016 and 2017 were analyzed in terms of patient and family history as well as pathogenic variants detected during genetic analysis with the TruRisk® gene panel when genetic analysis was conducted. This standardized analysis is compiled and regularly adjusted by the GC-HBOC. The following genes were included at time of research: BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, NBN, and TP53. RESULTS: Genetic analysis was conducted in 59.8% of all cases meeting the criteria for genetic analysis and 286 pathogenic variants were detected among 278 (30.3%) counselees tested using the TruRisk® gene panel. These were primarily found in the genes BRCA1 (44.8%) and BRCA2 (28.3%) but also in CHEK2 (12.2%), ATM (5.6%) and PALB2 (3.5%). The highest prevalence of pathogenic variants was seen among the families with both ovarian and breast cancer (50.5%), followed by families with ovarian cancer only (43.2%) and families with breast cancer only (35.6%)-these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001). Considering breast cancer subtypes, the highest rate of pathogenic variants was detected among patients with triple-negative breast cancer (40.7%) and among patients who had had been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer before the age of 40 (53.4%)-both observations proved to be statistically significant (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Genetic counseling and analysis provide the foundation in the prevention and therapy of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The rate of pathogenic variants detected is associated with family history as well as breast cancer subtype and age at diagnosis, and can reach considerable dimensions. Therefore, a standardized process of identification, genetic counseling and genetic analysis deems mandatory.

Barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing: how can we improve the uptake of testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome?

Cascade testing for familial cancer syndromes has historically been difficult to execute. As part of a facilitated cascade testing pathway, we evaluated barriers to completion of cascade testing. Our previously published study evaluated a facilitated cascade testing pathway whereby a genetics team facilitated at-risk relative (ARR) cascade testing through telephone genetic counseling and mailed saliva kit testing. This follow-up study evaluated barriers to completion of cascade genetic testing through six-month follow-up telephone interviews. Probands identified 114 ARRs, of whom 97 were successfully contacted by telephone. Among those contacted, 83 (86%) reported interest in genetic testing and 14 (14%) declined. Among those reporting interest in testing, 71% (69/83) completed testing. Follow-up telephone interviews revealed that 14 ARRs did not complete testing despite reporting interest for the following reasons: concern about genetic discrimination, fear of a positive result and belief that the pathogenic variant was not relevant to his/her health. Five ARRs reported that they remained interested in testing and the telephone call prompted completion of testing. Even when facilitated by a medical team with prioritization of relative convenience, significant barriers to cascade testing ARRs for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome persist due to concern about genetic discrimination, cost, and fear of positive test results.

Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To promote the identification of women carrying BRCA1/2 variants, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians screen asymptomatic women for an increased risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 variant risk. Objective: To examine the effects of patient and clinician decision support about BRCA1/2 genetic testing compared with standard education alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This clustered randomized clinical trial was conducted at an academic medical center including 67 clinicians (unit of randomization) and 187 patients. Patient eligibility criteria included women aged 21 to 75 years with no history of breast or ovarian cancer, no prior genetic counseling or testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and meeting family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. Interventions: RealRisks decision aid for patients and the Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Tool decision support for clinicians. Patients scheduled a visit with their clinician within 6 months of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was genetic counseling uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were genetic testing uptake at 6 and 24 months, decision-making measures (perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, genetic testing knowledge, decision conflict) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 month, postclinic visit, and 6 months. Results: From December 2018 to February 2020, 187 evaluable patients (101 in the intervention group, 86 in the control group) were enrolled (mean [SD] age: 40.7 [13.2] years; 88 Hispanic patients [46.6%]; 15 non-Hispanic Black patients [8.1%]; 72 non-Hispanic White patients [38.9%]; 35 patients [18.9%] with high school education or less) and 164 (87.8%) completed the trial. There was no significant difference in genetic counseling uptake at 6 months between the intervention group (20 patients [19.8%]) and control group (10 patients [11.6%]; difference, 8.2 percentage points; OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 0.82-4.30]; P = .14). Genetic testing uptake within 6 months was also statistically nonsignificant (13 patients [12.9%] in the intervention group vs 7 patients [8.1%] in the control group; P = .31). At 24 months, genetic testing uptake was 31 patients (30.7%) in intervention vs 18 patients (20.9%) in control (P = .14). Comparing decision-making measures between groups at baseline to 6 months, there were significant decreases in perceived breast cancer risk and in breast cancer worry (standard mean differences = -0.48 and -0.40, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial did not find a significant increase in genetic counseling uptake among patients who received patient and clinician decision support vs those who received standard education, although more than one-third of the ethnically diverse women enrolled in the intervention underwent genetic counseling. These findings suggest that the main advantage for these high-risk women is the ability to opt for screening and preventive services to decrease their cancer risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402.

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: An Updated Primer for OB/GYNs.

This article provides an update on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) associated with pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1/2. While many new genes have been identified and are included in testing panels, HBOC will serve as the primary example to illustrate the main concepts involved in genetic testing and management for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer We provide practical information regarding collecting a family history, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing and result interpretation, BRCA-associated cancer prognosis and treatment, screening recommendations, and prevention strategies. We also introduce implications of more recently identified cancer genes, polygenic risk scores (PRSs), and tumor genomic profiling. Evidence-based management strategies have been shown to reduce cancer incidence and improve survival in HBOC and other high penetrance syndromes. Obstetricians and gynecologists familiar with these concepts can identify and improve the quality of care for women and families impacted by hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer.

BRCA1/2 variants of unknown significance in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome: Looking for the hidden meaning.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is caused by germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. These genes are very large and their mutations are heterogeneous and scattered throughout the coding sequence. In addition to the above-mentioned mutations, variants of uncertain/unknown significance (VUSs) have been identified in BRCA genes, which make more difficult the clinical management of the patient and risk assessment. In the last decades, several laboratories have developed different databases that contain more than 2000 variants for the two genes and integrated strategies which include multifactorial prediction models based on direct and indirect genetic evidence, to classify the VUSs and attribute them a clinical significance associated with a deleterious, high/low or neutral risk. This review provides a comprehensive overview of literature studies concerning the VUSs, in order to assess their impact on the population and provide new insight useful for the appropriate patient management in clinical practice.

Increased incidence of pathogenic variants in ATM in the context of testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition.

Pathogenic Variants (PV) in major cancer predisposition genes are only identified in approximately 10% of patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) leads to the characterization of incidental variants in genes other than those known to be associated with HBOC syndrome. The aim of this study was to determine if such incidental PV were specific to a phenotype. The detection rates of HBOC-associated and incidental PV in 1812 patients who underwent genetic testing were compared with rates in control groups FLOSSIES and ExAC. The rates of incidental PV in the PALB2, ATM and CHEK2 genes were significantly increased in the HBOC group compared to controls with, respective odds ratios of 15.2 (95% CI = 5.6-47.6), 9.6 (95% CI = 4.8-19.6) and 2.7 (95% CI = 1.3-5.5). Unsupervised Hierarchical Clustering on Principle Components characterized 3 clusters: by HBOC (P = 0.01); by ExAC and FLOSSIES (P = 0.01 and 0.02 respectively); and by HBOC, ExAC and FLOSSIES (P = 0.01, 0.04 and 0.04 respectively). Interestingly, PALB2 and ATM were grouped in the same statistical cluster defined by the HBOC group, whereas CHEK2 was in a different cluster. We identified co-occurrences of PV in ATM and BRCA genes and confirmed the Manchester Scoring System as a reliable PV predictor tool for BRCA genes but not for ATM or PALB2. This study demonstrates that ATM PV, and to a lesser extent CHEK2 PV, are associated with HBOC syndrome. The co-occurrence of ATM PV with BRCA PV suggests that such ATM variants are not sufficient alone to induce cancer, supporting a multigenism hypothesis.

Factors influencing genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome in a large US health care system.

Investigate whether disparities and other factors influence referral to genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) in a large health care system. Examination of clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic factors from electronic health records associated with genetic referral and testing within 12 months after a new cancer diagnosed between August 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018. For patients meeting institutional criteria for HBOC testing, 60.6% were referred for genetic counseling, 88% of whom underwent germline testing; at least one pathogenic variant was found in 15.3%. Referral rates for patients with breast (69%) or ovarian cancer (65.7%) were much higher than for metastatic prostate (11.1%, p < 0.0001) or pancreatic cancer (22.3%, p < 0.0001); referral criteria were implemented more recently for the latter two cancers. Younger age, family history, and chemotherapy were associated with referral. Higher Elixhauser comorbidity score and prior cancer were associated with non-referral. No other factors were associated with genetic referral for all eligible cancers combined, although differences were seen in specific cancers. Race was a significant factor only for breast cancer, with fewer Asians than Whites referred. Health disparities in referral to genetics for HBOC cancers are mitigated in a comprehensive integrated health care system.

Increasing referral of at-risk women for genetic counseling and BRCA testing using a screening tool in a community breast imaging center.

BACKGROUND: Genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) remain suboptimal. The authors evaluated the feasibility of using a screening tool at a breast imaging center to increase HBOC assessment referrals. METHODS: A brief questionnaire based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network HBOC genetic counseling referral guidelines was developed and added to the standard intake forms of patients undergoing mammography at a community breast imaging center from 2012 through 2015. Patients who met the criteria in the guidelines were referred for genetic counseling. RESULTS: A total of 34,851 patients were screened during the study period, and 1246 (4%) patients were found to be eligible for referral; 245 of these patients made a genetic counseling appointment, and 142 patients received genetic counseling. Forty patients (28%) had a personal history of breast cancer but were not previously tested. Following counseling, 105 patients were tested for BRCA1/2. Eight patients (8%) tested positive for a pathogenic mutation and nine (9%) had a variant of unknown significance. Although they tested negative, many patients met the criteria to add breast magnetic resonance imaging to their screening due to greater than 20% lifetime breast cancer risk based on their family cancer history. This study led to improved clinical risk management in 67% of the patients who underwent genetic counseling. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that large-scale screening of patients for HBOC syndromes at time of breast imaging is practical and highly feasible. The screening tool identified women with actionable BRCA1/2 mutations and mutation-negative but high-risk women, leading to significant changes in their risk management; these women would otherwise have been missed. LAY SUMMARY: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) caused by pathogenic mutations in breast cancer genes (BRCA1/BRCA2) increase an individual's lifetime risk of getting HBOC. Identifying these high-risk individuals and using proven preventive clinical risk management strategies can significantly reduce their lifetime risk of HBOC. Using an innovative family cancer history questionnaire, 34,000 women were screened at a community breast imaging center, and genetic counseling and testing were provided to eligible women from the screening. Several women at high risk for HBOC were identified and this led to positive clinical risk management changes. These women would have been missed if not for intervention.

The Importance of Extended Analysis Using Current Molecular Genetic Methods Based on the Example of a Cohort of 228 Patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome.

In about 20-30% of all women with breast cancer, an increased number of cases of breast cancer can be observed in their family history. However, currently, only 5-10% of all breast cancer cases can be attributed to a pathogenic gene alteration. Molecular genetic diagnostics underwent enormous development within the last 10 years. Next-generation sequencing approaches allow increasingly extensive analyses resulting in the identification of additional candidate genes. In the present work, the germline molecular diagnostic analysis of a cohort of 228 patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) was evaluated. The 27 pathogenic gene variants initially detected are listed, and their distribution in the high-risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is presented in this study. In ten high-risk patients, in whom, to date, no pathogenic variant could be detected, an extended genetic analysis of previously not considered risk genes was performed. Three variants of uncertain significance and one pathogenic variant could be described. This proves the importance of extended analysis using current molecular genetic methods.

Surgical Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer.

The identification that breast cancer is hereditary was first described in the nineteenth century. With the identification of the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes in the mid-1990s and the introduction of genetic testing, significant advancements have been made in tailoring surveillance, guiding decisions on medical or surgical risk reduction and cancer treatments for genetic variant carriers. This review discusses various medical and surgical management options for hereditary breast cancers.

Framing Effects on Decision-Making for Diagnostic Genetic Testing: Results from a Randomized Trial.

Genetic testing is increasingly part of routine clinical care. However, testing decisions may be characterized by regret as findings also implicate blood relatives. It is not known if genetic testing decisions are affected by the way information is presented (i.e., framing effects). We employed a randomized factorial design to examine framing effects on hypothetical genetic testing scenarios (common, life-threatening disease and rare, life-altering disease). Participants (n = 1012) received one of six decision frames: choice, default (n = 2; opt-in, opt-out), or enhanced choice (n = 3, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior). We compared testing decision, satisfaction, regret, and decision cognitions across decision frames and between scenarios. Participants randomized to 'choice' were least likely to opt for genetic testing compared with default and enhanced choice frames (78% vs. 83-91%, p < 0.05). Neither satisfaction nor regret differed across frames. Perceived autonomy (behavioral control) predicted satisfaction (B = 0.085, p < 0.001) while lack of control predicted regret (B = 0.346, p < 0.001). Opting for genetic testing did not differ between disease scenarios (p = 0.23). Results suggest framing can nudge individuals towards opting for genetic testing. These findings have important implications for individual self-determination in the genomic era. Similarities between scenarios with disparate disease trajectories point to possible modular approaches for web-based decisional support.

Imprecise Medicine: BRCA2 Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS), the Challenges and Benefits to Integrate a Functional Assay Workflow with Clinical Decision Rules.

Pathological mutations in homology-directed repair (HDR) genes impact both future cancer risk and therapeutic options for patients. HDR is a high-fidelity DNA repair pathway for resolving DNA double-strand breaks throughout the genome. BRCA2 is an essential protein that mediates the loading of RAD51 onto resected DNA breaks, a key step in HDR. Germline mutations in BRCA2 are associated with an increased risk for breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. Clinical findings of germline or somatic BRCA2 mutations in tumors suggest treatment with platinum agents or PARP inhibitors. However, when genetic analysis reveals a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in the BRCA2 gene, precision medicine-based decisions become complex. VUS are genetic changes with unknown pathological impact. Current statistics indicate that between 10-20% of BRCA sequencing results are VUS, and of these, more than 50% are missense mutations. Functional assays to determine the pathological outcome of VUS are urgently needed to provide clinical guidance regarding cancer risk and treatment options. In this review, we provide a brief overview of BRCA2 functions in HDR, describe how BRCA2 VUS are currently assessed in the clinic, and how genetic and biochemical functional assays could be integrated into the clinical decision process. We suggest a multi-step workflow composed of robust and accurate functional assays to correctly evaluate the potential pathogenic or benign nature of BRCA2 VUS. Success in this precision medicine endeavor will offer actionable information to patients and their physicians.

Identification of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a sample of 1000 Slovenian women: a comparison of guidelines.

BACKGROUND: An important number of breast and ovarian cancer cases is due to a strong genetic predisposition. The main tool for identifying individuals at risk is recognizing a suggestive family history of cancer. We present a prospective study on applying three selected clinical guidelines to a cohort of 1000 Slovenian women to determine the prevalence of at-risk women according to each of the guidelines and analyze the differences amongst the guidelines. METHODS: Personal and family history of cancer was collected for 1000 Slovenian women. Guidelines by three organizations: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American College of Medical Genetics in cooperation with National Society of Genetic Counselors (ACMG/NSGC), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) were applied to the cohort. The number of women identified, the characteristics of the high-risk population, and the agreement between the guidelines were explored. RESULTS: NCCN guidelines identify 13.2% of women, ACMG/NSGC guidelines identify 7.1% of women, and SGO guidelines identify 7.0% of women from the Slovenian population, while 6.2% of women are identified by all three guidelines as having high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13.7% of women from the Slovenian population as being at an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer based on their personal and family history of cancer using all of the guidelines. There are important differences between the guidelines. NCCN guidelines are the most inclusive, identifying nearly twice the amount of women as high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer as compared to the AGMG/NSCG and SGO guidelines in the Slovenian population.

Clinical Contribution of Next-Generation Sequencing Multigene Panel Testing for BRCA Negative High-Risk Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women and thought to be hereditary in 10% of patients. Recent next-generation sequencing studies have increased the detection of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in genes other than BRCA1/2 in patients with breast cancer. This study evaluated pathogenic variants, likely pathogenic variants, and variants of unknown significance in 18 hereditary cancer susceptibility genes in patients with BRCA1/2-negative breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 188 high-risk BRCA1/2-negative patients with breast cancer tested with a multigene cancer panel using next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: Among 188 proband cases, 18 variants in 21 patients (11.1%) were classified as P/LP in PALB2 (n = 6), CHEK2 (n = 5), MUTYH (n = 4), ATM (n = 3), TP53 (n = 2), BRIP1 (n = 1), and MSH2 (n = 1). Three novel P/LP variants were identified. An additional 28 variants were classified as variants of unknown significance and detected in 30 different patients (15.9%). CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest study from Turkey to investigate the mutation spectrum in non-BRCA hereditary breast cancer susceptibility genes. A multigene panel test increased the likelihood of identifying a molecular diagnosis in patients with BRCA 1/2-negative breast cancer at risk for a hereditary breast cancer syndrome. More studies are needed to enable the clinical interpretation of these P/LP variants in hereditary patients with breast cancer.

Next Generation Sequencing-Based Germline Panel Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancers in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic germline mutations in BRCA1/2 constitute the majority of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancers worldwide. Incidence and mortality rate of breast and ovarian cancers in Pakistani women is high. Thus, to establish the diagnosis for targeted therapy in Pakistan, we conducted Next-generation sequencing-based germline testing for the detection of BRCA1/2 oncogenic variants associated with breast and ovarian cancer subtype. METHODS: Peripheral blood of 24 women, diagnosed with breast and epithelial ovarian cancers, was taken from the recruited cases with the consent of performing germline genetic testing. DNA was isolated from the peripheral blood and subjected to indexed BRCA Panel libraries. Targeted NGS was performed for all coding regions and splicing sites of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes using AmpliSeq for Illumina BRCA Panel and Illumina MiSeq sequencer (placed at AFIP). Analysis of the sequencing results has been done by using Illumina bioinformatics tools. RESULTS: We detected 421 variants having a quality score of 100 in all cases under study. The list of identified variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes was narrowed down after filtering out those which did not pass q30 and those with a minor allele frequency (MAF) > 0.05 based on gnomAD browser. To classify these variants, clinical significance was predicted using external curated databases. As a result, we interpreted (n = 4) 16.7% pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and (n = 6) 25% variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in both genes. Descriptive statistics depicted that the age and BMI of BRCA positive cases are less than BRCA negative cases. CONCLUSION: Our findings exhibit an initial report for the NGS based cancer genetic testing in Pakistan.  This will enable us to pursue screening and diagnosis of hereditary BRCA mutation utilizing the latest state-of-the-art technique locally available in Pakistan ultimately resulting in targeted cancer therapy.

Bayesian predictive model to assess BRCA2 mutational status according to clinical history: Early onset, metastatic phenotype or family history of breast/ovary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Mutations of the BRCA2 gene are the most frequent alterations found in germline DNA from men with prostate cancer (PrCa), but clinical parameters that could better orientate for BRCA2 mutation screening need to be established. METHODS: Germline DNA from 325 PrCa patients (median age at diagnosis: 57 years old) was screened for BRCA2 mutation. The mutation frequency was compared between three subgroups: patients with an age at diagnosis at 55 years old and under (Group I); a personal or family history of breast, uterine or ovarian cancer (Group II); or a metastatic disease (Group III). Frequency of BRCA2 mutations was established for each combination of phenotypes, and compared between patients meeting or not the criteria for each subgroup using Fisher's exact test. Mutual information, direct effect, elasticity and contribution to the mutational status of each phenotype, taking into account overlap between subgroups, were also estimated using Bayesian algorithms. RESULTS: The proportion of BRCA2 mutation was 5.9% in Group I, 10.9% in Group II and 6.9% in Group III. The frequency of BRCA2 mutation was significantly higher among patients of Group II (p = .006), and reached 15.6% among patients of this group who presented a metastatic disease. Mutual information, direct effect, elasticity and contribution to the mutational status were the highest for phenotype II. Fifteen (71.4%) of the 21 BRCA2 mutation carriers had an aggressive form of the disease. Four (19%) of them died from PrCa after a median follow-up duration of 64.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that a higher frequency of BRCA2 mutation carriers is observed, not only among PrCa patients with young onset or a metastatic disease, but also with a personal or a familial history of breast cancer.

Genetic counselors' perspectives on population-based screening for BRCA-related hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome.

Early identification of those with BRCA-related Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome has the potential for early cancer detection and/or prevention; as such, these conditions are considered Tier 1 genetic conditions by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Given the decreasing cost of genetic testing, population-based screening (PBS) for such conditions may be the next step toward cancer prevention. This study aimed to understand genetic counselors' perspectives toward offering PBS for the Tier 1 conditions BRCA-related HBOC and Lynch syndrome. An online survey was distributed to 3,609 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. A total of 367 individuals participated in the study. Fifty percent of respondents felt that PBS for inherited cancer should not be offered; 93.3% felt that the current healthcare system is unprepared for implementation of PBS. However, most respondents agreed that PBS should be implemented within the next 10 years. Attitudes toward offering PBS were associated with respondents' work setting, cancer specialization, and perceived preparedness (p's < 0.05). The most commonly reported barriers to the implementation of PBS were shortage of genetic professionals and lack of infrastructure. Data in this study provide evidence that infrastructural barriers and educational gaps of non-genetic professionals would need to be addressed before successful integration of PBS into the healthcare system.

Examining the uptake of predictive BRCA testing in the UK; findings and implications.

Predictive BRCA testing is offered to asymptomatic individuals to predict future risk where a variant has been identified in a relative. It is uncertain whether all eligible relatives access testing, and whether this is related to health care inequalities. Our aim was to analyse trends and inequalities in uptake of testing, and identify predictors of testing and time-to-receipt of testing. A database from April 2010 to March 2017 was collated. Multivariate analysis explored individual associations with testing. Predictor variables included gender, BRCA test type, cancer history, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and education status. To evaluate factors associated with time-to-testing, a Cox proportional-hazards (CP) model was used. Of 779 tests undertaken, 336 (43.1%) were identified with a BRCA variant. A total of 537 (68.9%) were female and in 83.4% (387/464) of probands, predictive testing was received by relatives. Analysis identified inequalities since decreased testing was found when the proband was unaffected by cancer (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.33). Median time-to-testing was 390 days (range, 0-7090 days) and the CP model also identified inequalities in the hazard ratio (HR) for testing for people aged >40 was higher than for aged <40 (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.67) and BRCA2 testing was higher than for BRCA1 testing (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.64). Reduced testing was found when probands were unaffected by cancer and time-to-testing was found to vary by age and BRCA1/2 test. Given limited study sample size, further research is recommended to examine inequalities in predictive BRCA testing.