Recurrent BRCA2 exon 3 deletion in Assyrian families.

We identified six patients from five families with a recurrent mutation: NM_000059.3 (BRCA2) exon 3 deletion. All families self-identified as Assyrian. Assyrians are an ethnoreligious population of ancient Mesopotamia, now mostly living in modern day Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They are historically a socially isolated population with intermarriage within their community, living as a religious and language minority in mostly Muslim countries. The probands of each family presented with a classic BRCA2-associated cancer including early-onset breast cancer, epithelial serous ovarian cancer, male breast cancer and/or high-grade prostate cancer, and family history that was also significant for BRCA2-associated cancer. BRCA2 exon 3 deletion is classified as pathogenic and has been previously described in the literature, but it has not been described as a founder mutation in a particular population. We characterise this recurrent BRCA2 pathogenic variant in five Assyrian families in a single centre cohort.

Germline CDH1 Variants and Lifetime Cancer Risk.

Importance: Approximately 1% to 3% of gastric cancers and 5% of lobular breast cancers are hereditary. Loss of function CDH1 gene variants are the most common gene variants associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. Previously, the lifetime risk of gastric cancer was estimated to be approximately 25% to 83% and for breast cancer it was estimated to be approximately 39% to 55% in individuals with loss of function CDH1 gene variants. Objective: To describe gastric and breast cancer risk estimates for individuals with CDH1 variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, retrospective cohort and modeling study of 213 families from North America with a CDH1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in 1 or more family members conducted between January 2021 and August 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs), defined as risk in variant carriers relative to noncarriers, were estimated for each cancer type and used to calculate cumulative risks and risks per decade of life up to age 80 years. Results: A total of 7323 individuals from 213 families were studied, including 883 with a CDH1 P/LP variant (median proband age, 53 years [IQR, 42-62]; 4% Asian; 4% Hispanic; 85% non-Hispanic White; 50% female). In individuals with a CDH1 P/LP variant, the prevalence of gastric cancer was 13.9% (123/883) and the prevalence of breast cancer among female carriers was 26.3% (144/547). The estimated HR for advanced gastric cancer was 33.5 (95% CI, 9.8-112) at age 30 years and 3.5 (95% CI, 0.4-30.3) at age 70 years. The lifetime cumulative risk of advanced gastric cancer in male and female carriers was 10.3% (95% CI, 6%-23.6%) and 6.5% (95% CI, 3.8%-15.1%), respectively. Gastric cancer risk estimates based on family history indicated that a carrier with 3 affected first-degree relatives had a penetrance of approximately 38% (95% CI, 25%-64%). The HR for breast cancer among female carriers was 5.7 (95% CI, 2.5-13.2) at age 30 years and 3.9 (95% CI, 1.1-13.7) at age 70 years. The lifetime cumulative risk of breast cancer among female carriers was 36.8% (95% CI, 25.7%-62.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among families from North America with germline CDH1 P/LP variants, the cumulative risk of gastric cancer was 7% to 10%, which was lower than previously described, and the cumulative risk of breast cancer among female carriers was 37%, which was similar to prior estimates. These findings inform current management of individuals with germline CDH1 variants.

Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of commercial laboratories issuing conflicting classifications of genetic variants. METHODS: Results from 2000 patients undergoing a multigene hereditary cancer panel by a single laboratory were analyzed. Clinically significant discrepancies between the laboratory-provided test reports and other major commercial laboratories were identified, including differences between pathogenic/likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) classifications, via review of ClinVar archives. For patients carrying a VUS, clinical documentation was assessed for evidence of provider awareness of the conflict. RESULTS: Fifty of 975 (5.1%) patients with non-negative results carried a variant with a clinically significant conflict, 19 with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant reported in APC or MUTYH, and 31 with a VUS reported in CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MUTYH, RAD51C, or TP53. Only 10 of 28 (36%) patients with a VUS with a clinically significant conflict had a documented discussion by a provider about the conflict. Discrepant counseling strategies were used for different patients with the same variant. Among patients with a CDKN2A variant or a monoallelic MUTYH variant, providers were significantly more likely to make recommendations based on the laboratory-reported classification. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the frequency of variant interpretation discrepancies and importance of clinician awareness. Guidance is needed on managing patients with discrepant variants to support accurate risk assessment.

How should we address the inevitable harms from non-negligent variant reclassification in predictive genetic testing?

The process of interpreting genetic variants, in which experts use all available evidence to determine whether an identified variant is associated with a current or future disease, is both scientific and nevertheless subjective. In this paper, we summarize the existing evidence that any given variant could be reclassified and that such a reclassification could lead to harm. Furthermore, the racial gap in genetic databases could lead to a higher likelihood of harm for non-white patients. We also review recent legal analyses indicating it is unlikely that an individual who sues for restitution would be successful, especially in the absence of evidence of lab negligence. We then propose a compensation program for medical genetic tests to ensure that individuals who experience demonstrable harm due to a variant reclassification can be made whole financially. We conclude by discussing outstanding questions that must be answered for such a program to be feasible.

Psychosocial outcomes following germline multigene panel testing in an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the psychological outcomes of germline multigene panel testing, particularly among diverse patients and those with moderate-risk pathogenic variants (PVs). METHODS: Study participants (N = 1264) were counseled and tested with a 25- or 28-gene panel and completed a 3-month postresult survey including the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA). RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years, 80% were female, and 70% had cancer; 45% were non-Hispanic White, 37% were Hispanic, 10% were Asian, 3% were Black, and 5% had another race/ethnicity. Approximately 28% had a high school education or less, and 23% were non-English-speaking. The genetic test results were as follows: 7% had a high-risk PV, 6% had a moderate-risk PV, 35% had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 52% were negative. Most participants (92%) had a total MICRA score ≤ 38, which corresponded to a mean response of "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacting negatively to results. A multivariate analysis found that mean total MICRA scores were significantly higher (more uncertainty/distress) among high- and moderate-risk PV carriers (29.7 and 24.8, respectively) than those with a VUS or negative results (17.4 and 16.1, respectively). Having cancer or less education was associated with a significantly higher total MICRA score; race/ethnicity was not associated with the total MICRA score. High- and moderate-risk PV carriers did not differ significantly from one another in the total MICRA score, uncertainty, distress, or positive experiences. CONCLUSIONS: In a diverse population undergoing genetic counseling and multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, the psychological response corresponded to test results and showed low distress and uncertainty. Further studies are needed to assess patient understanding and subsequent cancer screening among patients from diverse backgrounds. LAY SUMMARY: Multigene panel tests for hereditary cancer have become widespread despite concerns about adverse psychological reactions among carriers of moderate-risk pathogenic variants (mutations) and among carriers of variants of uncertain significance. This large study of an ethnically and economically diverse cohort of patients undergoing panel testing found that 92% "never," "rarely," or only "sometimes" reacted negatively to results. Somewhat higher uncertainty and distress were identified among carriers of high- and moderate-risk pathogenic variants, and lower levels were identified among those with a variant of uncertain significance or a negative result. Although the psychological response corresponded to risk, reactions to testing were favorable, regardless of results.

Racial/ethnic differences in multiple-gene sequencing results for hereditary cancer risk.

PurposeWe examined racial/ethnic differences in the usage and results of germ-line multiple-gene sequencing (MGS) panels to evaluate hereditary cancer risk.MethodsWe collected genetic testing results and clinical information from 1,483 patients who underwent MGS at Stanford University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015.ResultsAsians and Hispanics presented for MGS at younger ages than whites (48 and 47 vs. 55; P = 5E-16 and 5E-14). Across all panels, the rate of pathogenic variants (15%) did not differ significantly between racial groups. Rates by gene did differ: in particular, a higher percentage of whites than nonwhites carried pathogenic CHEK2 variants (3.8% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.002). The rate of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result was higher in nonwhites than whites (36% vs. 27%; P = 2E-4). The probability of a VUS increased with increasing number of genes tested; this effect was more pronounced for nonwhites than for whites (1.1% absolute difference in VUS rates testing BRCA1/2 vs. 8% testing 13 genes vs. 14% testing 28 genes), worsening the disparity.ConclusionIn this diverse cohort undergoing MGS testing, pathogenic variant rates were similar between racial/ethnic groups. By contrast, VUS results were more frequent among nonwhites, with potential significance for the impact of MGS testing by race/ethnicity.

Addressing inherited predisposition for breast cancer in transplant recipients.

Consideration of prophylactic mastectomy surgery following transplantation requires complex medical decision-making, and bias against elective surgery exists because of concern for post-operative complications. Prevention of cancer in transplant recipients is of utmost importance, given the risks of treating malignancy in an immunosuppressed patient. We present a patient case and review of the literature to support a thorough pre-transplantation evaluation of family history and consideration of prophylactic interventions to safeguard the quality of life of transplant recipients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:605-608. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Next-generation sequencing for hereditary breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize advances in next-generation sequencing and their application to breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: Next-generation sequencing panels of 6-112 cancer-associated genes are increasingly used in patient care. Studies report a 4-16% prevalence of mutations other than BRCA1/2 among patients who meet evidence-based practice guidelines for BRCA1/2 testing, with a high rate (15-88%) of uninterpretable variants of uncertain significance. Despite uncertainty about results interpretation and communication, there is early evidence of a benefit from multiple-gene sequencing panels for appropriately selected patients. SUMMARY: Multiple-gene sequencing panels appear highly promising for the assessment of breast and gynecologic cancer risk, and they may usefully be administered in the context of cancer genetics expertise and/or clinical research protocols.

Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing.

IMPORTANCE: Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly applied in clinical medicine and is expected to uncover clinically significant findings regardless of sequencing indication. OBJECTIVES: To examine coverage and concordance of clinically relevant genetic variation provided by WGS technologies; to quantitate inherited disease risk and pharmacogenomic findings in WGS data and resources required for their discovery and interpretation; and to evaluate clinical action prompted by WGS findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An exploratory study of 12 adult participants recruited at Stanford University Medical Center who underwent WGS between November 2011 and March 2012. A multidisciplinary team reviewed all potentially reportable genetic findings. Five physicians proposed initial clinical follow-up based on the genetic findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Genome coverage and sequencing platform concordance in different categories of genetic disease risk, person-hours spent curating candidate disease-risk variants, interpretation agreement between trained curators and disease genetics databases, burden of inherited disease risk and pharmacogenomic findings, and burden and interrater agreement of proposed clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Depending on sequencing platform, 10% to 19% of inherited disease genes were not covered to accepted standards for single nucleotide variant discovery. Genotype concordance was high for previously described single nucleotide genetic variants (99%-100%) but low for small insertion/deletion variants (53%-59%). Curation of 90 to 127 genetic variants in each participant required a median of 54 minutes (range, 5-223 minutes) per genetic variant, resulted in moderate classification agreement between professionals (Gross κ, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40-0.64), and reclassified 69% of genetic variants cataloged as disease causing in mutation databases to variants of uncertain or lesser significance. Two to 6 personal disease-risk findings were discovered in each participant, including 1 frameshift deletion in the BRCA1 gene implicated in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Physician review of sequencing findings prompted consideration of a median of 1 to 3 initial diagnostic tests and referrals per participant, with fair interrater agreement about the suitability of WGS findings for clinical follow-up (Fleiss κ, 0.24; P < 001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory study of 12 volunteer adults, the use of WGS was associated with incomplete coverage of inherited disease genes, low reproducibility of detection of genetic variation with the highest potential clinical effects, and uncertainty about clinically reportable findings. In certain cases, WGS will identify clinically actionable genetic variants warranting early medical intervention. These issues should be considered when determining the role of WGS in clinical medicine.

A prospective study of total gastrectomy for CDH1-positive hereditary diffuse gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) is an autosomal dominant cancer syndrome. Up to 30% of families with HDGC have mutations in the E-cadherin gene, CDH1. The role of prophylactic versus therapeutic gastrectomy for HDGC was studied prospectively. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients with CDH1 mutations and positive family history were studied prospectively, including 13 without and 5 with symptoms. Proportions were compared by Fisher's exact test, and survival by the Breslow modification of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Each patient underwent total gastrectomy (TG), and 17 (94%) were found to have signet ring cell adenocarcinoma. Twelve of 13 asymptomatic patients had T1, N0 cancer, and only 2/12 (16%) had it diagnosed preoperatively despite state-of-the-art screening methods. Each asymptomatic patient did well postoperatively, and no patient has recurred. For five symptomatic patients, each (100%) was found to have signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (P = 0.002 versus asymptomatic) by preoperative endoscopy; three (60%) had lymph node involvement and two (40%) had distant metastases at time of operation. Two-year survival was 100% for asymptomatic and 40% for symptomatic patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The data show that asymptomatic patients with family history of HDGC and CDH1 mutation have high probability of having signet ring cell adenocarcinoma of the stomach that is not able to be diagnosed on endoscopy; when symptoms arise, the diagnosis can be made by endoscopy, but they have metastases and decreased survival. Surveillance endoscopy is of limited value, and prophylactic gastrectomy (PG) is recommended for patients with family history of HDGC and CDH1 mutations.

Prevalence of Lynch syndrome in women with mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the prevalence of Lynch syndrome (LS) in women with primary ovarian cancer with mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-D) by immunohistochemistry (IHC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eight cases of primary ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer between January 2012 and December 2019 were evaluated for MMR-D by IHC. The incidence of LS in this cohort was evaluated. RESULTS: MMR-D by IHC was identified in 16 of 308 (5.2%) (95% CI: 3.2%-8.3%) primary ovarian-related cancers. Most cases with MMR-D were endometrioid (n = 11, 68.7%); (95% CI: 44.2%-86.1%). MSH2/MSH6 protein loss was detected in eight cases (50.0%); (95% CI: 28.0%-72.0%) and MLH1/PMS2 protein loss was detected in four cases (25.0%); (95% CI: 9.7%-50.0%). MSH6 protein loss was detected in two cases (12.5%); (95% CI: 2.2%-37.3%) and PMS2 protein loss was detected in two cases (12.5%); (95% CI: 2.2%-37.3%). All four cases with MLH1/PMS2 protein loss had MLH1 promotor hypermethylation. All 12 women with ovarian cancer suggestive of LS underwent germline testing and 8 (66.6%); (95% CI: 38.8%-86.5%) were confirmed to have LS. CONCLUSIONS: Most ovarian cancers with somatic MMR-D were confirmed to have LS in this cohort. Germline testing for LS in addition to BRCA1/2 for all women with an epithelial ovarian cancer would be efficient and would approach 100% sensitivity for identifying Lynch syndrome. Utilization of a multigene panel should also be considered, given the additional non-Lynch germline mutation identified in this cohort.

Cascade Genetic Testing of Relatives for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of an Online Initiative.

In cascade testing, genetic testing for an identified familial pathogenic variant extends to disease-free relatives to allow genetically targeted disease prevention. We evaluated the results of an online initiative in which carriers of 1 of 30 cancer-associated genes, or their first-degree relatives, could offer low-cost testing to at-risk first-degree relatives. In the first year, 1101 applicants invited 2280 first-degree relatives to undergo genetic testing. Of invited relatives, 47.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.5 to 49.6%) underwent genetic testing, and 12.0% (95% CI = 9.2 to 14.8%) who tested positive continued the cascade by inviting additional relatives to test. Of tested relatives, 4.9% (95% CI = 3.8 to 6.1%) had a pathogenic variant in a different gene from the known familial one, and 16.8% (95% CI = 14.7 to 18.8%) had a variant of uncertain significance. These results suggest that an online, low-cost program is an effective approach to implementing cascade testing, and that up to 5% of the general population may carry a pathogenic variant in 1 of 30 cancer-associated genes.

Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk.

PURPOSE: Multiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics-University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute-who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate). RESULTS: Of 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83% v 41%; P < .001) to encourage their relatives to be tested. CONCLUSION: In a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.

Pathogenic Variants in Less Familiar Cancer Susceptibility Genes: What Happens After Genetic Testing?

PURPOSE: As genetic testing expands, patients are increasingly found to carry pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes that are less familiar to most clinicians, specifically genes other than those causing hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome (BRCA1 and BRCA2) and Lynch syndrome. Little is known about the subsequent behaviors of such patients in terms of managing cancer risks and informing relatives. METHODS: All adult patients who were counseled and tested at the Stanford Cancer Genetics Clinic from January 2013 to July 2015 and had a pathogenic variant in a non-BRCA1/2, non-Lynch syndrome gene were invited to participate in a telephone interview about adherence to risk-reducing recommendations, genetic testing by relatives, and new cancer incidence. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (40%) of 142 eligible patients were successfully contacted, and all 57 patients participated; median follow-up was 677 days (range, 247 to 1,401 days). Most patients (82%; 95% CI, 70% to 90%) recalled that a risk-reducing intervention (screening, medication, or surgery) was recommended, and most patients (85%; 95% CI, 72% to 93%) adhered to the recommendation. Nearly all patients (91%; 95% CI, 81% to 97%) shared results with relatives, and most patients (78%; 95% CI, 64% to 88%) reported that a relative was subsequently tested. During the follow-up period, 9% of patients (95% CI, 3% to 19%) developed second cancers, and in 14% of patients (95% CI, 7% to 26%), a first-degree relative developed cancer, some of which were detected by recommended screening. CONCLUSION: Patients with a pathogenic variant in a less familiar cancer susceptibility gene report high adherence to risk-reducing interventions. Furthermore, in the 57 carriers and subsequently tested relatives with two years of follow-up, a total of three cancers (one in a proband and two in relatives) were detected through interventions recommended on the basis of the pathogenic variant. These results suggest a potential benefit of genetic counseling and testing for pathogenic variants in less familiar genes.

Patient communication of cancer genetic test results in a diverse population.

Research on the communication of genetic test results has focused predominately on non-Hispanic White (NHW) mutation-positive families with high-risk hereditary cancer conditions. Little is known about this process for racially and ethnically diverse individuals or for those with mutations in moderate risk genes. The communication behaviors of study participants who carry a gene mutation were analyzed 3 months after disclosure of genetic test results. Participants were queried about communication of their results, as part of a prospective study of multi-gene panel genetic testing. The responses of particpants who tested positive were analyzed by race/ethnicity and by level of cancer risk (high vs. moderate). Of the 216 mutation-positive study participants, 136 (63%) responded. Self-reported race/ethnicity was 46% NHW, 41% Hispanic, 10% Asian, and 2% Black. The majority (99.0%, n = 135) had shared their results with someone and 96% had told a family member (n = 130). Hispanic respondents were less likely to have told a healthcare provider about their results than NHW (29% vs. 68%, p < .0001). Asian respondents were less likely than NHW to encourage family members to undergo testing (OR = 0.1, p = .03); but Asian family members were more likely to undergo testing (OR = 8.0, p = .03). There were no differences in communication between those with a mutation in a high- or moderate-risk gene. Three months post genetic testing, communication of results was very high; 30% reported a family member underwent genetic testing. Further studies are needed to better understand the communication process in individuals from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds.

A carrier of both MEN1 and BRCA2 mutations: case report and review of the literature.

High-penetrance autosomal dominant cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA2 and MEN1 result in specific patterns of cancers in individuals who inherit germline mutations. Their incidence in the population is relatively low, however, and it is highly unusual to identify individuals with two or more inherited cancer gene mutations. We describe a family with multiple cases of MEN1-associated cancers as well as pancreatic adenocarcinoma, ovarian cancer, and male breast cancer, in which we identified germline mutations in both MEN1 and BRCA2. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a patient with both MEN1 and BRCA2 mutations and with a personal history of hyperparathyroidism and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Unexpected CDH1 Mutations Identified on Multigene Panels Pose Clinical Management Challenges.

PURPOSE: Mutations in the CDH1 gene confer up to an 80% lifetime risk of diffuse gastric cancer and up to a 60% lifetime risk of lobular breast cancer. Testing for CDH1 mutations is recommended for individuals who meet the International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) guidelines. However, the interpretation of unexpected CDH1 mutations identified in patients who do not meet IGCLC criteria or do not have phenotypes suggestive of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is clinically challenging. This study aims to describe phenotypes of CDH1 mutation carriers identified through multigene panel testing (MGPT) and to offer informed recommendations for medical management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional prevalence study included all patients who underwent MGPT between March 2012 and September 2014 from a commercial laboratory (n = 26,936) and an academic medical center cancer genetics clinic (n = 318) to estimate CDH1 mutation prevalence and associated clinical phenotypes. CDH1 mutation carriers were classified as IGCLC positive (met criteria), IGCLC partial phenotype, and IGCLC negative. RESULTS: In the laboratory cohort, 16 (0.06%) of 26,936 patients were identified as having a pathogenic CDH1 mutation. In the clinic cohort, four (1.26%) of 318 had a pathogenic CDH1 mutation. Overall, 65% of mutation carriers did not meet the revised testing criteria published in 2015. All three CDH1 mutation carriers who had risk-reducing gastrectomy had pathologic evidence of diffuse gastric cancer despite not having met IGCLC criteria. CONCLUSION: The majority of CDH1 mutations identified on MGPT are unexpected and found in individuals who do not fit the accepted diagnostic testing criteria. These test results alter the medical management of CDH1-positive patients and families and provide opportunities for early detection and risk reduction.

Ductal lavage of fluid-yielding and non-fluid-yielding ducts in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and other women at high inherited breast cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE: Nipple fluid production and atypical breast duct cells in women at high risk of breast cancer have been associated with further increased risk. Most publications on ductal lavage for cell collection report cannulating fluid-yielding ducts only. We report lavage of fluid-yielding and non-fluid-yielding ducts in women at high inherited breast cancer risk. METHODS: A pilot breast cancer screening study including ductal lavage was conducted in 75 women at high inherited risk, 56 (74.7%) of whom had BRCA1/2 mutations. Ductal lavage was attempted in any duct identifiable with a catheter. RESULTS: Ducts were successfully catheterized in 60 of 75 patients (80%). Successfully catheterized patients were younger (median age 41 versus 53 years, P = 0.0003) and more often premenopausal (51.7% versus 20%, P = 0.041). Thirty-one successfully catheterized patients [51.6%, 95% confidence interval (39.4-63.9%)] had non-fluid-yielding ducts only. Seventeen patients [28.3% (18.5-40.9%)] had atypical cells. Twelve of seventeen [70.6% (46.8-87.2%)] samples with atypia were from non-fluid-yielding ducts. Patients with non-fluid-yielding ducts (versus fluid-yielding ducts) were more likely to have had prior cancer (48.4% versus 17.2%, P = 0.014) or chemotherapy (45.2% versus 17.2%, P = 0.027); this was also true in patients with atypia from non-fluid-yielding ducts. CONCLUSION: Successfully lavaged women were younger and more often premenopausal. Atypical cells can be found in non-fluid-yielding ducts in patients at high inherited breast cancer risk. Non-fluid-yielding ducts, and atypia from non-fluid-yielding ducts, are more common in patients with prior cancer and chemotherapy. Larger studies are needed to identify risk factors and prognostic significance associated with atypia and non-fluid-yielding ducts in high-risk populations, and define their role as biomarkers.

Evaluating the utilization of educational materials in communicating about Lynch syndrome to at-risk relatives.

Facilitating family communication about Lynch syndrome is a public health priority since following appropriate screening guidelines can decrease morbidity and mortality. The aims of this study were to (1) ascertain what educational materials individuals with Lynch syndrome provide to at-risk relatives, and (2) identify relationships between receiving educational materials and pursuing clinical follow-up. Seventy-four participants, recruited from the Stanford Cancer Institute and a support group, completed an online questionnaire; 50 were first to be diagnosed with a Lynch syndrome mutation in their family (probands) and 24 were first or second-degree relatives. Probands reported informing 88 % (184/209) of first-degree relatives and 64 % (161/252) of second-degree relatives of the mutation. Probands shared their genetic counseling note with 53 % of relatives; other resources, including family letters, personal notes, testing laboratory information, online resources, support group information, and genetics referrals, were given to 33 % or fewer relatives. Probands reported that female relatives (p = 0.028) and first-degree relatives (p ≤ 0.001) were more likely to be given materials. Relatives who received an educational material were more likely to follow up with a clinician (74 vs 22 %, p ≤0.001) and attend a genetic counseling appointment (43 vs 16 %, p ≤ 0.001). First-degree relatives who received an educational material were more likely to have undergone genetic testing (51 vs 19 %, p = 0.012) and cancer screening (69 vs 29 %, p = 0.001). Facilitating information transmission in families with Lynch syndrome using educational materials may play a role in informed clinical decision-making and cascade screening of at-risk relatives.

Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment.

PURPOSE: Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample. METHODS: Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants. RESULTS: In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes. CONCLUSION: Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.