24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Underdiagnosis of Hereditary Breast Cancer: Are Genetic Testing Guidelines a Tool or an Obstacle?

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose An estimated 10% of breast and ovarian cancers result from hereditary causes. Current testing guidelines for germ line susceptibility genes in patients with breast carcinoma were developed to identify carriers of BRCA1/2 variants and have evolved in the panel-testing era. We evaluated the capability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to identify patients with breast cancer with pathogenic variants in expanded panel testing. Methods An institutional review board–approved multicenter prospective registry was initiated with 20 community and academic sites experienced in cancer genetic testing and counseling. Eligibility criteria included patients with a previously or newly diagnosed breast cancer who had not undergone either single- or multigene testing. Consecutive patients 18 to 90 years of age were consented and underwent an 80-gene panel test. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant electronic case report forms collected information on patient demographics, diagnoses, phenotypes, and test results. Results More than 1,000 patients were enrolled, and data records for 959 patients were analyzed; 49.95% met NCCN criteria, and 50.05% did not. Overall, 8.65% of patients had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant. Of patients who met NCCN guidelines with test results, 9.39% had a P/LP variant. Of patients who did not meet guidelines, 7.9% had a P/LP variant. The difference in positive results between these groups was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact test P = .4241). Conclusion Our results indicate that nearly half of patients with breast cancer with a P/LP variant with clinically actionable and/or management guidelines in development are missed by current testing guidelines. We recommend that all patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer undergo expanded panel testing.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Inherited Mutations in Women With Ovarian Carcinoma.

          Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are relatively common in women with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma (OC) causing a greatly increased lifetime risk of these cancers, but the frequency and relevance of inherited mutations in other genes is less well characterized.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            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. 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. 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. 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. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Deleterious Germline Mutations in Patients With Apparently Sporadic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

              Purpose Deleterious germline mutations contribute to pancreatic cancer susceptibility and are well documented in families in which multiple members have had pancreatic cancer. Methods To define the prevalence of these germline mutations in patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic cancer, we sequenced 32 genes, including known pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes, in DNA prepared from normal tissue obtained from 854 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, 288 patients with other pancreatic and periampullary neoplasms, and 51 patients with non-neoplastic diseases who underwent pancreatic resection at Johns Hopkins Hospital between 2000 and 2015. Results Thirty-three (3.9%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 5.8%) of 854 patients with pancreatic cancer had a deleterious germline mutation, 31 (3.5%) of which affected known familial pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes: BRCA2 (12 patients), ATM (10 patients), BRCA1 (3 patients), PALB2 (2 patients), MLH1 (2 patients), CDKN2A (1 patient), and TP53 (1 patient). Patients with these germline mutations were younger than those without (mean ± SD, 60.8 ± 10.6 v 65.1 ± 10.5 years; P = .03). Deleterious germline mutations were also found in BUB1B (1) and BUB3 (1). Only three of these 33 patients had reported a family history of pancreatic cancer, and most did not have a cancer family history to suggest an inherited cancer syndrome. Five (1.7%) of 288 patients with other periampullary neoplasms also had a deleterious germline mutation. Conclusion Germline mutations in pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes are commonly identified in patients with pancreatic cancer without a significant family history of cancer. These deleterious pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene mutations, some of which are therapeutically targetable, will be missed if current family history guidelines are the main criteria used to determine the appropriateness of gene testing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                JCO
                American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                December 07 2018
                December 07 2018
                : JCO.18.01631
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dallas Surgical Group–TME/Breast Care Network, Dallas, TX
                [2 ]Nashville Breast–TME/Breast Care Network, Nashville, TN
                [3 ]Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
                [4 ]Good Samaritan Hospital–TME/Breast Care Network, Los Gatos, CA
                [5 ]Advanced Surgical Care of Northern Illinois, Barrington, IL
                [6 ]Roper St Francis Healthcare, Charleston, SC
                [7 ]Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
                [8 ]Linda Ann Smith, MD, Albuquerque, NM
                [9 ]North Valley Breast Clinic, Redding, CA
                [10 ]Center for Advanced Breast Care, Arlington Heights, IL
                [11 ]Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY
                [12 ]Alaska Breast Care Specialists, Anchorage, AK
                [13 ]Dennis R. Holmes, MD, Los Angeles, CA
                [14 ]Comprehensive Breast Care, Troy, MI
                [15 ]Ironwood Cancer and Research Center, Scottsdale, AZ
                [16 ]St Luke’s University Health Network, Easton, PA
                [17 ]Lyons Care Associates, Kahului, HI
                [18 ]Chesapeake Regional Medical Center, Chesapeake, VA
                [19 ]Hoag Hospital, Newport Beach, CA
                [20 ]Breastlink, Laguna Hills, CA
                [21 ]Targeted Medical Education, Allentown, PA
                [22 ]Invitae, San Francisco, CA
                Article
                10.1200/JCO.18.01631
                526375b5-d407-4a78-84e6-56d67689c479
                © 2018
                History
                Product
                Self URI (article page): http://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.18.01631

                Comments

                Comment on this article