Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose: As genetic counseling and testing become more fully integrated into clinical care, alternative delivery models are increasingly prominent. This study examines predictors of genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer among high-risk women in a randomized trial of in-person versus telephone-based genetic counseling. Methods: Methods include multivariable logistic regression and interaction analyses. Results: Of the 669 participants, 600 completed counseling and 523 received test results. As previously reported, participants randomized to telephone counseling were significantly less likely to be tested. In intention-to-treat analyses, completion of counseling and testing was associated with: race/ethnicity (odds ratio (OR) = 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20–3.20), perceived stress (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81–0.98), knowledge (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.02–1.23), and randomization group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.01–2.16). Further, race/ethnicity moderated the association between randomization group and testing; minority women receiving telephone counseling were least likely to complete testing. Conclusion: Evidence for logistical and communication-based explanations for this interaction is presented. The overall increased access made possible with telephone genetic counseling should be considered in light of the possibility that this may also lead to lower rates of testing among high-risk minority women. Additional care should be taken to assess and address potential barriers when services are delivered by telephone. Genet Med 17 6, 467–475.

Purpose With the increasing demand for BRCA genetic testing, most existing prediction models were developed using data from individuals of European descent. This study aimed to identify clinicopathological factors of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome and develop the first Japanese-specific prediction model for BRCA pathogenic variant carriers in Japan. Methods We utilized data from 3072 Japanese patients with breast cancer aggregated by the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer registry. Prediction models were developed using 70% of the overall dataset and validated using the remaining 30%. Factors associated with the BRCA pathogenic variant status were identified using logistic univariate analysis, and significant factors were further analyzed using logistic multivariate analysis to develop prediction models for BRCA1/2 ( BRCA 1 and/or BRCA2 ), BRCA1 , and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Results BRCA1 showed associations with aggressive clinicopathological factors such as triple-negative breast cancer and nuclear grade 3. Moreover, the prediction model showed a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.879. By contrast, BRCA2 exhibited fewer characteristic associated factors, and the AUC of the model was 0.669. Common factors shared by BRCA1/2 , BRCA1 , and BRCA2 were the age at diagnosis of breast cancer and the youngest age of relatives with breast cancer. Consistent with previous research, early-onset breast cancer appeared to be strongly associated with HBOC. Conclusion We successfully developed prediction models for BRCA1/2 , BRCA1 , and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. By accurately stratifying patients’ risk and guiding targeted screening and preventative interventions, these models will contribute to improved management and outcomes of HBOC.

Integration of gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) requires a careful evaluation of the risk associated with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PVs) detected in each gene. Here we analyzed 34 genes in 5131 suspected HBOC index cases by next-generation sequencing. Using the Exome Aggregation Consortium data sets plus 571 individuals from the French Exome Project, we simulated the probability that an individual from the Exome Aggregation Consortium carries a PV and compared it to the estimated frequency within the HBOC population. Odds ratio conferred by PVs within BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, ATM, BRIP1, CHEK2, and MSH6 were estimated at 13.22 [10.01–17.22], 8.61 [6.78–10.82], 8.22 [4.91–13.05], 4.54 [2.55–7.48], 5.23 [1.46–13.17], 3.20 [2.14–4.53], 2.49 [1.42–3.97], 1.67 [1.18–2.27], and 2.50 [1.12–4.67], respectively. PVs within RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 were associated with ovarian cancer family history (OR = 11.36 [5.78–19.59], 12.44 [2.94–33.30] and 3.82 [1.66–7.11]). PALB2 PVs were associated with bilateral breast cancer (OR = 16.17 [5.48–34.10]) and BARD1 PVs with triple-negative breast cancer (OR = 11.27 [3.37–25.01]). Burden tests performed in both patients and the French Exome Project population confirmed the association of PVs of BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and RAD51C with HBOC. Our results validate the integration of PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D in the diagnosis of HBOC and suggest that the other genes are involved in an oligogenic determinism.

The hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) registration system of Japan was established by the Japanese HBOC Consortium. The first trial was registered in 2015 in four institutions to which some registration committee members belonged. We analyzed the information of 830 Japanese pedigrees, who underwent BRCA1/2 genetic testing, including mutation carriers with BRCA1 (N = 127) and BRCA2 (N = 115), and their families. The mutation-positive rate was 19.7%. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 6.5% of all individuals subjected to genetic testing for BRCA1/2. Compared to the United States, Japan had a higher mutation-positive rate in most categories, except for the groups with male breast cancer. Among the intrinsic subtypes of BRCA1-associated breast cancers, 75.8% were triple-negative. The incidence rate of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was 0.99%/year. Among 240 mutation carriers, 26 and 62 patients underwent risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), respectively; the respective frequencies of occult cancer were 7.1 and 3.2%. Metachronous breast cancer after RRM or peritoneal cancer after RRSO was not observed during the follow-up period. The nationwide registration system began last year and the system enables follow-up analysis in Japan.

Hereditary gynecological cancers are caused by several inherited genes. Tumors that arise in the female reproductive system, such as ovaries and the uterus, overlap with hereditary cancers. Several hereditary cancer-related genes are important because they might lead to therapeutic targets. Treatment of hereditary cancers should be updated in line with the advent of various new methods of evaluation. Next-generation sequencing has led to rapid, economical genetic analyses that have prompted a concomitant and significant paradigm shift with respect to hereditary cancers. Molecular tumor profiling is an epochal method for determining therapeutic targets. Clinical treatment strategies are now being designed based on biomarkers based on tumor profiling. Furthermore, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines significantly changed the genetic testing process in 2020 to initially consider multi-gene panel (MGP) evaluation. Here, we reviewed the molecular features and clinical management of hereditary gynecological malignancies, such as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), and Lynch, Li–Fraumeni, Cowden, and Peutz–Jeghers syndromes. We also reviewed cancer-susceptible genes revealed by MGP tests.

The prevalence of germ line mutations in non‐BRCA1/2 genes associated with hereditary breast cancer (BC) is low, and the role of some of these genes in BC predisposition and pathogenesis is conflicting. In this study, 5589 consecutive BC index patients negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations and 2189 female controls were screened for germ line mutations in eight cancer predisposition genes (ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53). All patients met the inclusion criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for germ line testing. The highest mutation prevalence was observed in the CHEK2 gene (2.5%), followed by ATM (1.5%) and PALB2 (1.2%). The mutation prevalence in each of the remaining genes was 0.3% or lower. Using Exome Aggregation Consortium control data, we confirm significant associations of heterozygous germ line mutations with BC for ATM (OR: 3.63, 95%CI: 2.67–4.94), CDH1 (OR: 17.04, 95%CI: 3.54–82), CHEK2 (OR: 2.93, 95%CI: 2.29–3.75), PALB2 (OR: 9.53, 95%CI: 6.25–14.51), and TP53 (OR: 7.30, 95%CI: 1.22–43.68). NBN germ line mutations were not significantly associated with BC risk (OR:1.39, 95%CI: 0.73–2.64). Due to their low mutation prevalence, the RAD51C and RAD51D genes require further investigation. Compared with control datasets, predicted damaging rare missense variants were significantly more prevalent in CHEK2 and TP53 in BC index patients. Compared with the overall sample, only TP53 mutation carriers show a significantly younger age at first BC diagnosis. We demonstrate a significant association of deleterious variants in the CHEK2, PALB2, and TP53 genes with bilateral BC. Both, ATM and CHEK2, were negatively associated with triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) and estrogen receptor (ER)‐negative tumor phenotypes. A particularly high CHEK2 mutation prevalence (5.2%) was observed in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐positive tumors. In this case‐control study of well‐characterized breast cancer patients, we confirm ATM, CHEK2, PALB2, CDH1, and TP53 as BC risk genes, no association was observed for NBN. We demonstrate a significant association of deleterious variants in the CHEK2, PALB2, and TP53 genes with bilateral BC and both, ATM and CHEK2, were negatively associated with TNBC and (ER)‐negative tumor phenotypes. Our study confirmed the benefit of multi‐gene testing for risk assessment in BC families while clinical phenotypes associated with non‐BRCA1/2 gene mutations remain to be determined.

Following the identification in a proband of a germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) or a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation in Lynch syndrome (LS) he or she will be asked to inform at-risk family members about the option for presymptomatic DNA testing. However, in clinical practice multiple factors may complicate the process of information sharing. We critically evaluated studies on the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in both syndromes. A search of relevant MeSH terms and key words in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO yielded 795 articles published between 2001 and 2017. Thirty of these publications included outcome measures relevant for the current study. Based on information provided by the proband (15 studies) the uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing ranged from 15 to 57% in HBOC, while one study in LS kindreds reported an uptake of 70%. Based on information provided by genetics centres (the remaining 15 studies) the uptake ranged from 21 to 44% in HBOC and from 41 to 94% in LS. However, when genetics centres contacted relatives directly a substantial number of additional family members could be tested. Proband-mediated provision of information to at-risk relatives is a standard procedure in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. However, the resulting uptake of presymptomatic testing is disappointing—an issue that is now urgent due to the increased use of genetic testing in clinical oncology. We propose that additional strategies should be introduced including the geneticist directly contacting relatives. The outcomes of these strategies should be carefully monitored and evaluated.

In spite the close association of the triple-negative breast cancer immunophenotype with hereditary breast cancers and the BRCA1 pathway, there is a lack of population studies that determine the frequency of BRCA1 mutations among triple-negative breast cancer patients. To address this, we have screened a large sample of 403 women diagnosed with triple-negative invasive breast cancer, independently of their age or family history, for germline BRCA1 mutations. Median age at diagnosis was 50 years (range 20–83). The overall prevalence of triple-negative cases among the initial patient group with invasive breast cancer was 8 %. BRCA1 was screened by direct DNA sequencing in all patients, including all exons where a mutation was previously found in the Greek population (exons 5, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24–77 % of the BRCA1 coding region), including diagnostic PCRs to detect the three Greek founder large genomic rearrangements. Sixty-five deleterious BRCA1 mutations were identified among the 403 triple-negative breast cancer patients (16 %). Median age of onset for mutation carriers was 39 years. Among a total of 106 women with early-onset triple-negative breast cancer (<40 years), 38 (36 %) had a BRCA1 mutation, while 27 % of women with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed before 50 years (56/208) had a BRCA1 mutation. A mutation was found in 48 % (50/105) of the triple-negative breast cancer patients with family history of breast or ovarian cancer. It is noteworthy, however, that of the 65 carriers, 15 (23 %) had no reported family history of related cancers. All but one of the carriers had grade III tumors (98 %). These results indicate that women with early-onset triple-negative breast cancer, and ideally all triple-negative breast cancer patients, are candidates for BRCA1 genetic testing even in the absence of a family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

PurposeHereditary breast and ovarian cancer has long been established to affect a considerable number of patients and their families. By identifying those at risk ideally before they have been diagnosed with breast and/or ovarian cancer, access to preventive measures, intensified screening and special therapeutic options can be obtained, and thus, prognosis can be altered beneficially. Therefore, a standardized screening and counseling process has been established in Germany under the aegis of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC). As one of these specialized clinics, the HBOC-Center at Charité offers genetic counseling as well as genetic analysis based on the GC-HBOC standards. This analysis aims first at depicting this process from screening through counseling to genetic analysis as well as the patient collective and second at correlating the results of genetic analysis performed. Thus, real-world data from an HBOC-Center with a substantial patient collective and a high frequency of pathogenic variants in various genes shall be presented.MethodsThe data of 2531 people having been counseled at the HBOC-Center at Charité in 2016 and 2017 were analyzed in terms of patient and family history as well as pathogenic variants detected during genetic analysis with the TruRisk® gene panel when genetic analysis was conducted. This standardized analysis is compiled and regularly adjusted by the GC-HBOC. The following genes were included at time of research: BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, NBN, and TP53.ResultsGenetic analysis was conducted in 59.8% of all cases meeting the criteria for genetic analysis and 286 pathogenic variants were detected among 278 (30.3%) counselees tested using the TruRisk® gene panel. These were primarily found in the genes BRCA1 (44.8%) and BRCA2 (28.3%) but also in CHEK2 (12.2%), ATM (5.6%) and PALB2 (3.5%). The highest prevalence of pathogenic variants was seen among the families with both ovarian and breast cancer (50.5%), followed by families with ovarian cancer only (43.2%) and families with breast cancer only (35.6%)—these differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001). Considering breast cancer subtypes, the highest rate of pathogenic variants was detected among patients with triple-negative breast cancer (40.7%) and among patients who had had been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer before the age of 40 (53.4%)—both observations proved to be statistically significant (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001).ConclusionGenetic counseling and analysis provide the foundation in the prevention and therapy of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The rate of pathogenic variants detected is associated with family history as well as breast cancer subtype and age at diagnosis, and can reach considerable dimensions. Therefore, a standardized process of identification, genetic counseling and genetic analysis deems mandatory.