The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing.

Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.

Alcohol and tobacco lower the age of presentation in sporadic pancreatic cancer in a dose-dependent manner: a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the association between tobacco and alcohol dose and type and the age of onset of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PancCa). METHODS: Prospective data from the Pancreatic Cancer Collaborative Registry were used to examine the association between age of onset and variables of interest including: gender, race, birth country, educational status, family history of PancCa, diabetes status, and tobacco and alcohol use. Statistical analysis included logistic and linear regression, Cox proportional hazard regression, and time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: The median age to diagnosis for PancCa was 66.3 years (95% confidence intervals (CIs), 64.5-68.0). Males were more likely than females to be smokers (77% vs. 69%, P=0.0002) and heavy alcohol and beer consumers (19% vs. 6%, 34% vs. 19%, P<0.0001). In univariate analysis for effects on PancCa presentation age, the following were significant: gender, alcohol and tobacco use (amount, status and type), family history of PancCa, and body mass index. Both alcohol and tobacco had dose-dependent effects. In multivariate analysis, alcohol status and dose were independently associated with increased risk for earlier PancCa onset with greatest risk occurring in heavy drinkers (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04-2.54). Smoking status had the highest risk for earlier onset pancreatic cancer with a HR of 2.69 (95% CI, 1.97-3.68) for active smokers and independent effects for dose (P=0.019). The deleterious effects for alcohol and tobacco appear to resolve after 10 years of abstinence. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol and tobacco use are associated with a dose-related increased risk for earlier age of onset of PancCa. Although beer drinkers develop pancreatic cancer at an earlier age than nondrinkers, alcohol type did not have a significant effect after controlling for alcohol dose.

Family physicians' awareness and knowledge of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA).

Historically, physicians have expressed concern about their patients' risk of genetic discrimination, which has acted as a barrier to uptake of genetic services. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is intended to protect patients against employer and health insurance discrimination. Physicians' awareness and knowledge of GINA has yet to be evaluated. In 2009, we mailed surveys to 1500 randomly selected members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Questions measured physicians' current knowledge of GINA and their level of concern for genetic discrimination. In total, 401 physicians completed the survey (response rate 26.9%). Approximately half (54.5%) of physicians had no awareness of GINA. Of physicians who reported basic knowledge of GINA, the majority were aware of the protections offered for group health insurance (92.7%), private health insurance (82.9%), and employment (70.7%). Fewer physicians were aware of GINA's limitations regarding life insurance (53.7%) and long-term care insurance (58.8%). Physicians demonstrated highest levels of concern for health insurance, life insurance, and long-term care insurance discrimination, with less concern for employer and family/social discrimination. Level of concern for the risk of genetic discrimination did not correlate significantly with awareness of GINA. Approximately 17 months after GINA was signed into federal law, physicians' knowledge remained limited regarding the existence of this legislation and relevant details. Physicians who are aware of GINA continue to have significant concerns regarding the risk of genetic discrimination. This study reveals the need to further educate physicians about the existence of GINA and the protections offered.

Using a family history intervention to improve cancer risk perception in a black community.

Few studies examine the use of family history to influence risk perceptions in the African American population. This study examined the influence of a family health history (FHH) intervention on risk perceptions for breast (BRCA), colon (CRC), and prostate cancers (PRCA) among African Americans in Pittsburgh, PA. Participants (n = 665) completed pre- and post-surveys and FHHs. We compared their objective and perceived risks, classified as average, moderate, or high, and examined the accuracy of risk perceptions before and after the FHH intervention. The majority of participants had accurate risk perceptions post-FHH. Of those participants who were inaccurate pre-FHH, 43.3%, 43.8%, and 34.5% for BRCA, CRC, and PRCA, respectively, adopted accurate risk perceptions post-FHH intervention. The intervention was successful in a community setting. It has the potential to lead to healthy behavior modifications because participants adopted accurate risk perceptions. We identified a substantial number of at-risk individuals who could benefit from targeted prevention strategies, thus decreasing racial/ethnic cancer disparities.

The use of family health histories to address health disparities in an African American community.

African Americans continue to suffer from health disparities. The Center for Minority Health (CMH) within the University of Pittsburgh has the mission to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities. CMH has designed and implemented the Family Health History (FHH) Initiative. The FHH Initiative places genetic-counseling graduate students in the African American community to provide risk assessments and emphasize the importance of family history as it pertains to disease prevention. The FHH Initiative also allows participants to enroll into the Minority Research Recruitment Database (MRRD). This enables CMH to alert individuals to available research participation opportunities. In the first year of this program, 225 African Americans completed their family health histories. More than 60% of individuals enrolled in the MRRD. The authors report their initial successes and challenges of an initiative that incorporates awareness of family history information, proper screening guidelines, behavior-modification recommendations, and support for participation in clinical research.

Urologists' Current Practices in Screening and Treating Men With a Family History of Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess urologists' knowledge and utilization of family history to determine prostate cancer (PC) screening and treatment recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaires that explored urologists' knowledge, frequency, and utilization of family history information for screening and treatment recommendations for PC were prospectively collected. Data were summarized and compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 87 responses were collected, for a response rate of 60% (87 of 145). The majority of urologists reported that they always collect family history when discussing risk (95%) or screening (87%), and recommended earlier screening for men with family history of PC in comparison with men with no family history. Although only 57% reported always collecting family history when discussing treatment, the majority of respondents reported that a positive family history influenced their treatment recommendations. Eight percent of urologists would recommend prostatectomy for men diagnosed with low-grade, low-risk PC and no family history of PC vs 52% who would recommend the same course of treatment when the patient had at least 1 first-degree relative who died of the disease. Conversely, 91% of urologists would recommend active surveillance for men with low-grade, low-risk PC and no family history vs 47% for those with at least 1 first-degree relative who died of the disease. CONCLUSION: The majority of urologists collect information on family history of PC. Despite the lack of literature to support that patients with familial PC require more aggressive treatment, urologists were more likely to recommend definitive therapies.

Susceptibility to breast cancer: hereditary syndromes and low penetrance genes.

Several genes are associated with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer. Most notably these include BRCA1 and BRCA2; however, other less common gene mutations which confer elevated breast cancer risk are associated with Cowden syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, ataxia-telangiectasia heterozygosity and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. In this article we highlight the genetic epidemiology, gene function, genotype-phenotype correlations, cancer risks and clinicopathologic findings for the cancer susceptibility genes related to these syndromes. We also examine genes, such as CHEK2, which confer a lower penetrance for breast cancer in comparison to these highly penetrant genes.

Cancer genetic testing panels for inherited cancer susceptibility: the clinical experience of a large adult genetics practice.

Next-generation sequencing genetic testing panels for cancer susceptibility (cancer panels) have recently become clinically available. At present, clinical utility is unknown and there are no set criteria or guidelines established for whom to offer such testing. Although it may be a cost-effective method to test multiple cancer susceptibility genes concurrently, the rate of finding variants of unknown significance (VUS) may be high and testing may yield mutations in genes with no established management recommendations. We describe our Center's experience over a 14-month period (April 2012-June 2013) for patient interest and uptake in cancer panel testing and whether there were predictors of pursuing testing or identifying mutations. Using a clinical ranking system, patients' family histories were ranked from 0 to 3 (low likelihood to high likelihood for underlying genetic susceptibility). The clinical ranking system was assessed to determine its predictability of finding mutations. Of the 689 patients who met inclusion criteria, the option of pursuing a cancer panel was discussed with 357 patients; 63 (17.6 %) patients pursued testing. Those who pursued testing were more likely to be older, male, affected with cancer, affected with multiple primary cancers, and had a higher clinical rank than non-pursuers. There were no significant predictors of finding a mutation on panel testing. Of the 61 patients who have received results, there was a 6.6 % mutation rate and 19.7 % VUS rate. The yield of cancer panels in clinical practice is low and the strength of family history alone may not predict likelihood of finding a mutation.

10 rare tumors that warrant a genetics referral.

The number of described cancer susceptibility syndromes continues to grow, as does our knowledge on how to manage these syndromes with the aim of early detection and cancer prevention. Oncologists now have greater responsibility to recognize patterns of cancer that warrant referral for a genetics consultation. While some patterns of common cancers are easy to recognize as related to hereditary cancer syndromes, there are a number of rare tumors that are highly associated with cancer syndromes yet are often overlooked given their infrequency. We present a review of ten rare tumors that are strongly associated with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes: adrenocortical carcinoma, carcinoid tumors, diffuse gastric cancer, fallopian tube/primary peritoneal cancer, leiomyosarcoma, medullary thyroid cancer, paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma, renal cell carcinoma of chromophobe, hybrid oncocytoic, or oncocytoma histology, sebaceous carcinoma, and sex cord tumors with annular tubules. This review will serve as a guide for oncologists to assist in the recognition of rare tumors that warrant referral for a genetic consultation.

Accuracy of the BRCAPRO model among women with bilateral breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The likelihood of identifying a BRCA mutation was often calculated using the BRCAPRO model. A previous study suggested that this model may overestimate the chance of detecting a BRCA mutation among women diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer. Studies also suggested that few patients with bilateral breast cancer whose age at first diagnosis is >40 years were mutation carriers. The objectives of this study were to determine the accuracy of the BRCAPRO model among women with bilateral breast cancer and to determine whether their mutation status was dependent on their age at first diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed. Women who were diagnosed with bilateral or unilateral breast cancer and who had undergone comprehensive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1997 and 2006 were included in the study. RESULTS: For individuals with pre-test carrier probabilities >31%, the proportion of positive tests was significantly lower than predicted by the BRCAPRO model (P < .05). In addition, the carrier rate of BRCA mutations was significantly higher (P = .002, Fisher exact test) in women with bilateral breast cancer whose age at first diagnosis was 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: The BRCAPRO model was overestimating the relative contribution bilateral breast cancer had on the likelihood of detecting a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Bilateral breast cancer did not appear to be a good indicator of mutation status, particularly for women whose age at first diagnosis is >40 years.

High prevalence of preinvasive lesions adjacent to BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers.

Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase a woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer by 43% to 84%. It was originally postulated that BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers develop more rapidly than sporadic cancers and may lack preinvasive lesions. More recent studies have found preinvasive lesions in prophylactic mastectomy specimens from mutation carriers; however, there is little information on the presence of preinvasive lesions in tissue adjacent to breast cancers. Our aim is to investigate the role of preinvasive lesions in BRCA-associated breast carcinogenesis. We retrospectively compared BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers and sporadic breast cancers for the prevalence of preinvasive lesions [ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), lobular carcinoma in situ, and atypical lobular hyperplasia] in tissue adjacent to invasive breast cancers. Pathology was reviewed for 73 BRCA1/2-associated tumors from patients with breast cancer. We selected 146 patients with mutation-negative breast cancer as age-matched controls. Among the BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers, 59% had at least one associated preinvasive lesion compared with 75% of controls. Preinvasive lesions were more prevalent in BRCA2 mutation carriers than in BRCA1 mutation carriers (70% versus 52%, respectively). The most common preinvasive lesion in both groups was DCIS; 56% of BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers and 71% of the sporadic breast cancers had adjacent intraductal disease, respectively. Preinvasive lesions, most notably DCIS, are common in BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers. These findings suggest that BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers progress through the same intermediate steps as sporadic breast cancers, and that DCIS should be considered as a part of the BRCA1/2 tumor spectrum.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in Hispanic patients: mutation prevalence and evaluation of the BRCAPRO risk assessment model.

PURPOSE: The BRCAPRO model, used to predict a family's likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, was designed using mutation frequencies of white and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, and may not be applicable to other populations. BRCAPRO was recently validated in African Americans, although has yet to be examined in Hispanics. This retrospective study reports the mutation frequency and spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a Hispanic population and evaluates the BRCAPRO model in Hispanics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis of mutation frequency and spectrum was performed for Hispanic patients who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing at a single institution. For comparative analysis of the BRCAPRO risk model, Hispanic patients who underwent comprehensive analysis were compared with white controls using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). RESULTS: Fourteen Hispanic individuals who underwent comprehensive analysis were identified to carry a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (17.9%; 95% CI, 10.2% to 28.3%) and seven individuals had a variant of uncertain significance (9.0%; 95% CI, 12.0% to 30.8%). A total of eight different mutations and three variants were observed within the entire Hispanic population. When evaluating the performance of the BRCAPRO model, the AUROC for Hispanics was 0.774 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.90), compared with the AUROC of 0.770 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.89) for whites. CONCLUSION: Deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations occur at considerable frequency within the Hispanic population, many of which have been identified previously in other ethnic populations. The BRCAPRO model appears to perform equally well in Hispanics as in whites.