Influence of genetic discrimination perceptions and knowledge on cancer genetics referral practice among clinicians.

PURPOSE: To describe nongenetics clinicians' perceptions and knowledge of cancer genetics and laws prohibiting genetic discrimination, attitudes toward the use of cancer genetic testing, and referral practices. METHODS: Invitations to participate were sent to a random stratified sample of California Medical Association members and to all members of California Association of Nurse Practitioners and California Latino Medical Association. Responders in active practice were eligible and completed a 47-item survey. RESULTS: There were 1181 qualified participants (62% physicians). Although 96% viewed genetic testing as beneficial for their patients, 75% believed fear of genetic discrimination would cause patients to decline testing. More than 60% were not aware of federal or California laws prohibiting health insurance discrimination--concern about genetic discrimination was selected as a reason for nonreferral by 11%. A positive attitude toward genetic testing was the strongest predictor of referral (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 2.24-5.63], P < 0.001) in stepwise logistic regression analyses. The higher the belief in genetic discrimination, the less likely a participant was to refer (odds ratio: 0.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.518-0.991], P < 0.05), whereas more knowledge of genetic discrimination law was associated with comfort recommending (odds ratio: 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.25], P < 0.001) and actual referral (odds ratio: 3.55 [95% confidence interval: 2.24-5.63], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Concerns about genetic discrimination and knowledge deficits may be barriers to cancer genetics referrals. Clinician education may help promote access to cancer screening and prevention.

Evidence for common ancestral origin of a recurring BRCA1 genomic rearrangement identified in high-risk Hispanic families.

BACKGROUND: Large rearrangements account for 8% to 15% of deleterious BRCA mutations, although none have been characterized previously in individuals of Mexican ancestry. METHODS: DNA from 106 Hispanic patients without an identifiable BRCA mutation by exonic sequence analysis was subjected to multiplexed quantitative differential PCR. One case of Native American and African American ancestry was identified via multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Long-range PCR was used to confirm deletion events and to clone and sequence genomic breakpoints. Splicing patterns were derived by sequencing cDNA from reverse transcription-PCR of lymphoblastoid cell line RNA. Haplotype analysis was conducted for recurrent mutations. RESULTS: The same deletion of BRCA1 exons 9 through 12 was identified in five unrelated families. Long-range PCR and sequencing indicated a deletion event of 14.7 kb. A 3-primer PCR assay was designed based on the deletion breakpoints, identified within an AluSp element in intron 8 and an AluSx element in intron 12. Haplotype analysis confirmed common ancestry. Analysis of cDNA showed direct splicing of exons 8 to 13, resulting in a frameshift mutation and predicted truncation of the BRCA1 protein. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and characterized a novel large BRCA1 deletion in five unrelated families-four of Mexican ancestry and one of African and Native American ancestry, suggesting the possibility of founder effect of Amerindian or Mestizo origin. This BRCA1 rearrangement was detected in 3.8% (4 of 106) of BRCA sequence-negative Hispanic families. An assay for this mutation should be considered for sequence-negative high-risk Hispanic patients.

Limited family structure and BRCA gene mutation status in single cases of breast cancer.

CONTEXT: An autosomal dominant pattern of hereditary breast cancer may be masked by small family size or transmission through males given sex-limited expression. OBJECTIVE: To determine if BRCA gene mutations are more prevalent among single cases of early onset breast cancer in families with limited vs adequate family structure than would be predicted by currently available probability models. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1543 women seen at US high-risk clinics for genetic cancer risk assessment and BRCA gene testing were enrolled in a prospective registry study between April 1997 and February 2007. Three hundred six of these women had breast cancer before age 50 years and no first- or second-degree relatives with breast or ovarian cancers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was whether family structure, assessed from multigenerational pedigrees, predicts BRCA gene mutation status. Limited family structure was defined as fewer than 2 first- or second-degree female relatives surviving beyond age 45 years in either lineage. Family structure effect and mutation probability by the Couch, Myriad, and BRCAPRO models were assessed with stepwise multiple logistic regression. Model sensitivity and specificity were determined and receiver operating characteristic curves were generated. RESULTS: Family structure was limited in 153 cases (50%). BRCA gene mutations were detected in 13.7% of participants with limited vs 5.2% with adequate family structure. Family structure was a significant predictor of mutation status (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-6.73; P = .02). Although none of the models performed well, receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that modification of BRCAPRO output by a corrective probability index accounting for family structure was the most accurate BRCA gene mutation status predictor (area under the curve, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.81; P<.001) for single cases of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Family structure can affect the accuracy of mutation probability models. Genetic testing guidelines may need to be more inclusive for single cases of breast cancer when the family structure is limited and probability models need to be recreated using limited family history as an actual variable.