Current and new frontiers in hereditary cancer surveillance: Opportunities for liquid biopsy.

At least 5% of cancer diagnoses are attributed to a causal pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline genetic variant (hereditary cancer syndrome-HCS). These individuals are burdened with lifelong surveillance monitoring organs for a wide spectrum of cancers. This is associated with substantial uncertainty and anxiety in the time between screening tests and while the individuals are awaiting results. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing has recently shown potential as a non-invasive strategy for monitoring cancer. There is an opportunity for high-yield cancer early detection in HCS. To assess clinical validity of cfDNA in individuals with HCS, representatives from eight genetics centers from across Canada founded the CHARM (cfDNA in Hereditary and High-Risk Malignancies) Consortium in 2017. In this perspective, we discuss operationalization of this consortium and early data emerging from the most common and well-characterized HCSs: hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis type 1. We identify opportunities for the incorporation of cfDNA sequencing into surveillance protocols; these opportunities are backed by examples of earlier cancer detection efficacy in HCSs from the CHARM Consortium. We seek to establish a paradigm shift in early cancer surveillance in individuals with HCSs, away from highly centralized, regimented medical screening visits and toward more accessible, frequent, and proactive care for these high-risk individuals.

The Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Study is a Global Effort to Drive Early Detection: Baseline Imaging Findings in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy with a survival rate of only 12%. Surveillance is recommended for high-risk individuals (HRIs), but it is not widely adopted. To address this unmet clinical need and drive early diagnosis research, we established the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium. METHODS: PRECEDE is a multi-institutional international collaboration that has undertaken an observational prospective cohort study. Individuals (aged 18-90 years) are enrolled into 1 of 7 cohorts based on family history and pathogenic germline variant (PGV) status. From April 1, 2020, to November 21, 2022, a total of 3,402 participants were enrolled in 1 of 7 study cohorts, with 1,759 (51.7%) meeting criteria for the highest-risk cohort (Cohort 1). Cohort 1 HRIs underwent germline testing and pancreas imaging by MRI/MR-cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound. RESULTS: A total of 1,400 participants in Cohort 1 (79.6%) had completed baseline imaging and were subclassified into 3 groups based on familial PC (FPC; n=670), a PGV and FPC (PGV+/FPC+; n=115), and a PGV with a pedigree that does not meet FPC criteria (PGV+/FPC-; n=615). One HRI was diagnosed with stage IIB PC on study entry, and 35.1% of HRIs harbored pancreatic cysts. Increasing age (odds ratio, 1.05; P<.001) and FPC group assignment (odds ratio, 1.57; P<.001; relative to PGV+/FPC-) were independent predictors of harboring a pancreatic cyst. CONCLUSIONS: PRECEDE provides infrastructure support to increase access to clinical surveillance for HRIs worldwide, while aiming to drive early PC detection advancements through longitudinal standardized clinical data, imaging, and biospecimen captures. Increased cyst prevalence in HRIs with FPC suggests that FPC may infer distinct biological processes. To enable the development of PC surveillance approaches better tailored to risk category, we recommend adoption of subclassification of HRIs into FPC, PGV+/FPC+, and PGV+/FPC- risk groups by surveillance protocols.

Optimising clinical care through CDH1-specific germline variant curation: improvement of clinical assertions and updated curation guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Germline pathogenic variants in CDH1 are associated with increased risk of diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer. Risk reduction strategies include consideration of prophylactic surgery, thereby making accurate interpretation of germline CDH1 variants critical for physicians deciding on these procedures. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) CDH1 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) developed specifications for CDH1 variant curation with a goal to resolve variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and with ClinVar conflicting interpretations and continues to update these specifications. METHODS: CDH1 variant classification specifications were modified based on updated genetic testing clinical criteria, new recommendations from ClinGen and expert knowledge from ongoing CDH1 variant curations. The CDH1 VCEP reviewed 273 variants using updated CDH1 specifications and incorporated published and unpublished data provided by diagnostic laboratories. RESULTS: Updated CDH1-specific interpretation guidelines include 11 major modifications since the initial specifications from 2018. Using the refined guidelines, 97% (36 of 37) of variants with ClinVar conflicting interpretations were resolved to benign, likely benign, likely pathogenic or pathogenic, and 35% (15 of 43) of VUS were resolved to benign or likely benign. Overall, 88% (239 of 273) of curated variants had non-VUS classifications. To date, variants classified as pathogenic are either nonsense, frameshift, splicing, or affecting the translation initiation codon, and the only missense variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic have been shown to affect splicing. CONCLUSIONS: The development and evolution of CDH1-specific criteria by the expert panel resulted in decreased uncertain and conflicting interpretations of variants in this clinically actionable gene, which can ultimately lead to more effective clinical management recommendations.

A model for the return and referral of all clinically significant secondary findings of genomic sequencing.

Secondary findings (SFs) identified through genomic sequencing (GS) can offer a wide range of health benefits to patients. Resource and capacity constraints pose a challenge to their clinical management; therefore, clinical workflows are needed to optimise the health benefits of SFs. In this paper, we describe a model we created for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs, beyond medically actionable results, from GS. As part of a randomised controlled trial evaluating the outcomes and costs of disclosing all clinically significant SFs from GS, we consulted genetics and primary care experts to determine a feasible workflow to manage SFs. Consensus was sought to determine appropriate clinical recommendations for each category of SF and which clinician specialist would provide follow-up care. We developed a communication and referral plan for each category of SFs. This involved referrals to specialised clinics, such as an Adult Genetics clinic, for highly penetrant medically actionable findings. Common and non-urgent SFs, such as pharmacogenomics and carrier status results for non-family planning participants, were directed back to the family physician (FP). SF results and recommendations were communicated directly to participants to respect autonomy and to their FPs to support follow-up of SFs. We describe a model for the return and referral of all clinically significant SFs to facilitate the utility of GS and promote the health benefits of SFs. This may serve as a model for others returning GS results transitioning participants from research to clinical settings.

Great expectations: patients' preferences for clinically significant results from genomic sequencing.

We aimed to describe patient preferences for a broad range of secondary findings (SF) from genomic sequencing (GS) and factors driving preferences. We assessed preference data within a trial of the Genomics ADvISER, (SF decision aid) among adult cancer patients. Participants could choose from five categories of SF: (1) medically actionable; (2) polygenic risks; (3) rare diseases; (4) early-onset neurological diseases; and (5) carrier status. We analyzed preferences using descriptive statistics and drivers of preferences using multivariable logistic regression models. The 133 participants were predominantly European (74%) or East Asian or mixed ancestry (13%), female (90%), and aged > 50 years old (60%). The majority chose to receive SF. 97% (129/133) chose actionable findings with 36% (48/133) choosing all 5 categories. Despite the lack of medical actionability, participants were interested in receiving SF of polygenic risks (74%), carrier status (75%), rare diseases (59%), and early-onset neurologic diseases (53%). Older participants were more likely to be interested in receiving results for early-onset neurological diseases, while those exhibiting lower decisional conflict were more likely to select all categories. Our results highlight a disconnect between cancer patient preferences and professional guidelines on SF, such as ACMG's recommendations to only return medically actionable secondary findings. In addition to clinical evidence, future guidelines should incorporate patient preferences.

How do members of the public expect to use variants of uncertain significance in their health care? A population-based survey.

PURPOSE: Genomic sequencing can generate complex results, including variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In general, VUS should not inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the public's expected management of VUS. METHODS: An online, hypothetical survey was conducted among members of the Canadian public preceded by an educational video. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 arms, VUS or pathogenic variant in a colorectal cancer gene, and asked which types of health services they expected to use for this result. Expected health service use was compared between randomization arms, and associations between participants' sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and medical history were explored. RESULTS: Among 1003 respondents (completion rate 60%), more participants expected to use each type of health service for a pathogenic variant than for a VUS. However, a considerable proportion of participants expected to request monitoring (73.4%) and consult health care providers (60.9%) for a VUS. There was evidence to support associations between expectation to use health services for a VUS with family history of genetic disease, family history of cancer, education, and attitudes toward health care and technology. CONCLUSION: Many participants expected to use health services for a VUS in a colorectal cancer predisposition gene, suggesting a potential disconnect between patients' expectations for VUS management and guideline-recommended care.

Development and early-stage evaluation of a patient portal to enhance familial communication about hereditary cancer susceptibility testing: A patient-driven approach.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCSs) can improve health outcomes through cancer risk mitigation strategies. Effective communication between tested individuals and their family members is key to reducing the hereditary cancer burden. Our objective was to develop a patient portal to improve familial communication for patients undergoing HCS genetic testing, followed by an early-phase evaluation. METHODS: The portal was developed following the completion of 25 semistructured interviews with individuals having undergone HCS susceptibility testing at BC Cancer. Following initial development, we recruited patients and healthcare providers to provide critical feedback informing portal refinement. Quantitative feedback was summarized using descriptive statistics, and qualitative feedback was synthesized by two reviewers who engaged in iterative discussion within the research team to prioritize recommendations for integration. RESULTS: The patient portal includes four key components consisting of (a) targeted educational information about hereditary cancer and HBOC syndrome associated risks and testing process overview, (b) a general frequently asked questions 'FAQ' page informed by the qualitative interviews, patient partner feedback, and consultation with the HCP, (c) guidance to support familial communication including a video developed with a patient partner describing their lived experience navigating the communication process and (d) a series of lay summaries of genetic test findings to support information transfer among family members. Thirteen healthcare providers and seven patients participated in user testing. Domains within which participant recommendations were provided included presentation, educational content and process clarification. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation demonstrates the value of continual integration of patient and provider preferences through the development of tools endeavouring to assist with complex genomics-informed decision-making. Our work aims to broaden the population-wide impact of HCS testing programs by improving communication processes between probands and their potentially affected family members. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work involved a patient partner who was actively engaged in all aspects of the research investigation including protocol development, review and editing of all study documentation (including that of the previously published qualitative investigation), interpretation of results, as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript. Patient partners and healthcare professionals were recruited as research participants to provide critical feedback on the patient portal.

A comprehensive genomic reporting structure for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing (GS) can reveal secondary findings (SFs), findings unrelated to the reason for testing, that can be overwhelming to both patients and providers. An effective approach for communicating all clinically significant primary and secondary GS results is needed to effectively manage this large volume of results. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant primary and SF results. A genomic test report with accompanying patient and provider letters were developed in three phases: review of current clinical reporting practices, consulting with genetic and non-genetics experts, and iterative refinement through circulation to key stakeholders. The genomic test report and consultation letters present a myriad of clinically relevant GS results in distinct, tabulated sections, including primary (cancer) and secondary findings, with in-depth details of each finding generated from exome sequencing. They provide detailed variant and disease information, personal and familial risk assessments, clinical management details, and additional resources to help support providers and patients with implementing healthcare recommendations related to their GS results. The report and consultation letters represent a comprehensive approach to communicate all clinically significant SFs to patients and providers, facilitating clinical management of GS results.

"Game Changer": Health Professionals' Views on the Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Management.

BACKGROUND: We explored health professionals' views on the utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative interpretive description study was conducted, using semi-structured interviews with professionals across Canada. Thematic analysis employing constant comparison was used for analysis. 2 investigators coded each transcript. Differences were reconciled through discussion and the codebook was modified as new codes and themes emerged from the data. RESULTS: Thirty-five professionals participated and included genetic counselors (n = 12), geneticists (n = 9), oncologists (n = 4), family doctors (n = 3), lab directors and scientists (n = 3), a health-system decision maker, a surgeon, a pathologist, and a nurse. Professionals described ctDNA as "transformative" and a "game-changer". However, they were divided on its use in HCS management, with some being optimistic (optimists) while others were hesitant (pessimists). Differences were driven by views on 3 factors: (1) clinical utility, (2) ctDNA's role in cancer screening, and (3) ctDNA's invasiveness. Optimists anticipated ctDNA testing would have clinical utility for HCS patients, its role would be akin to a diagnostic test and would be less invasive than standard screening (eg imaging). Pessimistic participants felt ctDNA testing would add limited utility; it would effectively be another screening test in the pathway, likely triggering additional investigations downstream, thereby increasing invasiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Providers anticipated ctDNA testing will transform early cancer detection for HCS families. However, the contrasting positions on ctDNA's role in the care pathway raise potential practice variations, highlighting a need to develop evidence to support clinical implementation and guidelines to standardize adoption.

Large-scale group genetic counseling: Evaluation of a novel service delivery model in a Canadian hereditary cancer clinic.

Increasing demand for genetic services has led to the development of streamlined genetic counseling (GC) models. We piloted large-scale group pre-test GC with up to 50 patients per group and compared this to a traditional one-on-one approach. Patients referred to the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Hereditary Cancer Program were eligible if they had: (a) family history meeting our program's referral criteria; (b) no relevant personal history of cancer; (c) no prior genetic testing in the family; and (d) no living testable relative in BC. Patient-reported outcome measures included: (a) Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS) prior to pre-test GC (T1) and at 4 weeks post-test GC (T2); (b) Satisfaction Survey after pre-test GC; and (c) the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) for patients undergoing testing (4 weeks after post-test GC). In total, 391 patients underwent GC, 184 by group and 207 by one-on-one appointments. Between May 2018 and May 2019, 6 pre-test group sessions were conducted (median number of patients per group = 28; range 15-48). 8% of patients (n = 32) declined large group GC due to personal preference for one-on-one GC. There were no statistically significant differences in MICRA and GCOS survey results when comparing the pre-test large group versus traditional pre-test one-on-one models (based on 3 MICRA subscales: p = 0.063, p = 0.612, p = 0.842; and GCOS p = 0.169). Overall, the large group pre-test counseling approach was more time-efficient with 15-48 patient group sessions conducted over a mean duration of 80 min as compared to 42 min per patient with the traditional one-on-one GC model. Large-scale group GC was feasible and acceptable to patients and represents a novel streamlined model for GC to enable timely access to cancer genetic services.

Beyond medically actionable results: an analytical pipeline for decreasing the burden of returning all clinically significant secondary findings.

Genomic sequencing advances have increased the potential to identify secondary findings (SFs). Current guidelines recommend the analysis of 59 medically actionable genes; however, patient preferences indicate interest in learning a broader group of SFs. We aimed to develop an analytical pipeline for the efficient analysis and return of all clinically significant SFs. We developed a pipeline consisting of comprehensive gene lists for five categories of SFs and filtration parameters for prioritization of variants in each category. We applied the pipeline to 42 exomes to assess feasibility and efficiency. Comprehensive lists of clinically significant SF genes were curated for each category: (1) 90 medically actionable genes and 28 pharmacogenomic variants; (2) 17 common disease risk variants; (3) 3166 Mendelian disease genes, (4) 7 early onset neurodegenerative disorder genes; (5) 688 carrier status results. Analysis of 42 exomes using our pipeline resulted in a significant decrease (> 98%) in variants compared to the raw analysis (13,036.56 ± 59.72 raw variants/exome vs 161.32 ± 7.68 filtered variants/exome), and aided in time and costs savings for the overall analysis process. Our pipeline represents a critical step in overcoming the analytic challenge associated with returning all clinically relevant SFs to allow for its routine implementation in clinical practice.

Patient and public preferences for being recontacted with updated genomic results: a mixed methods study.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are frequently reclassified but recontacting patients with updated results poses significant resource challenges. We aimed to characterize public and patient preferences for being recontacted with updated results. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was administered to representative samples of the Canadian public and cancer patients. DCE attributes were uncertainty, cost, recontact modality, choice of results, and actionability. DCE data were analyzed using a mixed logit model and by calculating willingness to pay (WTP) for types of recontact. Qualitative interviews exploring recontact preferences were analyzed thematically. DCE response rate was 60% (n = 1003, 50% cancer patient participants). 31 participants were interviewed (11 cancer patients). Interviews revealed that participants expected to be recontacted. Quantitatively, preferences for how to be recontacted varied based on certainty of results. For certain results, WTP was highest for being recontacted by a doctor with updates ($1075, 95% CI: $845, $1305) and for contacting a doctor to request updates ($1038, 95% CI: $820, $1256). For VUS results, WTP was highest for an online database ($1735, 95% CI: $1224, $2247) and for contacting a doctor ($1705, 95% CI: $1102, $2307). Qualitative data revealed that preferences for provider-mediated recontact were influenced by trust in healthcare providers. Preferences for a database were influenced by lack of trust in providers and desire for control. Patients and public participants support an online database (e.g. patient portal) to recontact for VUS, improving feasibility, and provider-mediated recontact for certain results, consistent with usual care.

The role of digital tools in the delivery of genomic medicine: enhancing patient-centered care.

PURPOSE: Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling. METHODS: We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis. RESULTS: In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

Health-care practitioners' preferences for the return of secondary findings from next-generation sequencing: a discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: Health-care practitioners' (HCPs) preferences for returning secondary findings (SFs) will influence guideline compliance, shared decision-making, and patient health outcomes. This study aimed to estimate HCPs' preferences and willingness to support the return (WTSR) of SFs in Canada. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment estimated HCPs' preferences for the following attributes: disease risk, clinical utility, health consequences, prior experience, and patient preference. We analyzed responses with an error component mixed logit model and predicted WTSR using scenario analyses. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty participants of 583 completed the questionnaire (completion rate: 42.9%). WTSR was significantly influenced by patient preference and SF outcome characteristics. HCPs' WTSR was 78% (95% confidence interval: 74-81%) when returning SFs with available medical treatment, high penetrance, severe health consequences, and patient's preference for return. Genetics professionals had a higher WTSR than HCPs of other types when returning SFs with clinical utility and patient preference to know. HCPs >55 years of age were more likely to return SFs compared with younger HCPs. CONCLUSION: This study identified factors that influence WTSR of SFs and indicates that HCPs make tradeoffs between patient preference and other outcome characteristics. The results can inform clinical scenarios and models aiming to understand shared decision-making, patient and family opportunity to benefit, and cost-effectiveness.

Improved structural variant interpretation for hereditary cancer susceptibility using long-read sequencing.

PURPOSE: Structural variants (SVs) may be an underestimated cause of hereditary cancer syndromes given the current limitations of short-read next-generation sequencing. Here we investigated the utility of long-read sequencing in resolving germline SVs in cancer susceptibility genes detected through short-read genome sequencing. METHODS: Known or suspected deleterious germline SVs were identified using Illumina genome sequencing across a cohort of 669 advanced cancer patients with paired tumor genome and transcriptome sequencing. Candidate SVs were subsequently assessed by Oxford Nanopore long-read sequencing. RESULTS: Nanopore sequencing confirmed eight simple pathogenic or likely pathogenic SVs, resolving three additional variants whose impact could not be fully elucidated through short-read sequencing. A recurrent sequencing artifact on chromosome 16p13 and one complex rearrangement on chromosome 5q35 were subsequently classified as likely benign, obviating the need for further clinical assessment. Variant configuration was further resolved in one case with a complex pathogenic rearrangement affecting TSC2. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that long-read sequencing can improve the validation, resolution, and classification of germline SVs. This has important implications for return of results, cascade carrier testing, cancer screening, and prophylactic interventions.

Effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER decision aid for the selection of secondary findings from genomic sequencing: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER (www.genomicsadviser.com) decision aid (DA) for selection of secondary findings (SF), compared with genetic counseling alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate whether the Genomics ADvISER is superior to genetic counseling when hypothetically selecting SF. Participants were randomized to use the DA followed by discussion with a genetic counselor, or to genetic counseling alone. Surveys were administered at baseline and post-intervention. Primary outcome was decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes were knowledge, preparation for, and satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, and length of counseling session. RESULTS: Participants (n = 133) were predominantly White/European (74%), female (90%), and ≥50 years old (60%). Decisional conflict (mean difference 0.05; P = 0.60), preparation for decision-making (0.17; P = 0.95), satisfaction with decision (-2.18; P = 0.06), anxiety (0.72; P = 0.56), and knowledge of sequencing limitations (0.14; P = 0.70) did not significantly differ between groups. However, intervention participants had significantly higher knowledge of SF (0.39; P < 0.001) and sequencing benefits (0.97; P = 0.01), and significantly shorter counseling time (24.40 minutes less; P < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The Genomics ADvISER did not decrease decisional conflict but reduced counseling time and improved knowledge. This decision aid could serve as an educational tool, reducing in-clinic time and potentially health care costs.

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication.

BACKGROUND: Multi-gene panel testing is replacing single-gene testing for patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. The detection of a hereditary cancer syndrome allows tested individuals to initiate enhanced primary and secondary prevention efforts-where available-with a view to reduce disease burden. Current policy prevents testing programmes from communicating genetic test results with potentially affected family members, yet it is well documented that tested individuals face multiple challenges in initiating such discussions with relatives. OBJECTIVE: In response to this challenge, we sought patient recommendations about how to improve genetic risk communication to enhance interfamilial discussions about primary and secondary disease prevention. DESIGN: We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with individuals who received genetic testing through British Columbia's Hereditary Cancer Program between 2017 and 2018. Interviews were professionally transcribed and analysed using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Participants described difficulty engaging in conversations with relatives who were resistant to receiving genetic risk information, when communicating with younger relatives and where participants reported strained familial relationships. Participants recommended that testing facilities provide a summary of results and implications and that resources be made available to prepare patients for challenging discussions with family members. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates that individuals undergoing genetic testing for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes would benefit from additional supportive resources alongside genetic counselling. Providing this on-going support will enhance the accurate and transparent communication of risk to facilitate the uptake of cascade testing and enhanced prevention strategies.

Evaluation of ACMG-Guideline-Based Variant Classification of Cancer Susceptibility and Non-Cancer-Associated Genes in Families Affected by Breast Cancer.

Sequencing tests assaying panels of genes or whole exomes are widely available for cancer risk evaluation. However, methods for classification of variants resulting from this testing are not well studied. We evaluated the ability of a variant-classification methodology based on American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines to define the rate of mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in 180 medically relevant genes, including all ACMG-designated reportable cancer and non-cancer-associated genes, in individuals who met guidelines for hereditary cancer risk evaluation. We performed whole-exome sequencing in 404 individuals in 253 families and classified 1,640 variants. Potentially clinically actionable (likely pathogenic [LP] or pathogenic [P]) versus nonactionable (VUS, likely benign, or benign) calls were 95% concordant with locus-specific databases and Clinvar. LP or P mutations were identified in 12 of 25 breast cancer susceptibility genes in 26 families without identified BRCA1/2 mutations (11%). Evaluation of 84 additional genes associated with autosomal-dominant cancer susceptibility identified LP or P mutations in only two additional families (0.8%). However, individuals from 10 of 253 families (3.9%) had incidental LP or P mutations in 32 non-cancer-associated genes, and 9% of individuals were monoallelic carriers of a rare LP or P mutation in 39 genes associated with autosomal-recessive cancer susceptibility. Furthermore, 95% of individuals had at least one VUS. In summary, these data support the clinical utility of ACMG variant-classification guidelines. Additionally, evaluation of extended panels of cancer-associated genes in breast/ovarian cancer families leads to only an incremental clinical benefit but substantially increases the complexity of the results.

Evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA-associated gynaecologic malignancies: a Canadian multisociety roadmap.

The landscape of genetic testing in ovarian cancer patients has changed dramatically in recent years. The therapeutic benefits of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in treatment of BRCA1/2-related ovarian cancers has resulted in an increased demand and urgency for genetic testing results, while technological developments have led to widespread use of multi-gene cancer panels and development of tumour testing protocols. Traditional genetic counselling models are no longer sustainable and must evolve to match the rapid evolution of genetic testing technologies and developments in personalized medicine. Recently, representatives from oncology, clinical genetics, molecular genetics, pathology, and patient advocacy came together to create a national multi-disciplinary Canadian consortium. By aligning stakeholder interests, the BRCA Testing to Treatment (BRCA TtoT) Community of Practice aims to develop a national strategy for tumour and germline BRCA1/2 testing and genetic counselling in women with ovarian cancer. This article serves to provide an overview of the recent evolution of genetic assessment for BRCA1/2-associated gynecologic malignancies and outline a Canadian roadmap to facilitate change, improve genetic testing rates, and ultimately improve outcomes for hereditary ovarian cancer patients and their families.

Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant curation guidelines for the analysis of germline CDH1 sequence variants.

The variant curation guidelines published in 2015 by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) provided the genetics community with a framework to assess variant pathogenicity; however, these rules are not gene specific. Germline pathogenic variants in the CDH1 gene cause hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer, a clinically challenging cancer predisposition syndrome that often requires a multidisciplinary team of experts to be properly managed. Given this challenge, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Hereditary Cancer Domain prioritized the development of the CDH1 variant curation expert panel (VCEP) to develop and implement rules for CDH1 variant classifications. Here, we describe the CDH1 specifications of the ACMG/AMP guidelines, which were developed and validated after a systematic evaluation of variants obtained from a cohort of clinical laboratory data encompassing ∼827,000 CDH1 sequenced alleles. Comparing previously reported germline variants that were classified using the 2015 ACMG/AMP guidelines to the CDH1 VCEP recommendations resulted in reduced variants of uncertain significance and facilitated resolution of variants with conflicted assertions in ClinVar. The ClinGen CDH1 VCEP recommends the use of these CDH1-specific guidelines for the assessment and classification of variants identified in this clinically actionable gene.