Genetic testing for cancer predisposition – an ongoing debate

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-122
Author(s):  
T Wildsmith
2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hansjakob Müller ◽  
RA Eeles ◽  
Tom Wildsmith ◽  
Tony McGleenan ◽  
Susan Friedman

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leann A Lovejoy ◽  
Clesson E Turner ◽  
Craig D Shriver ◽  
Rachel E Ellsworth

Abstract Background The majority of active duty service women (ADS) are young, have access to healthcare, and meet fitness standards set by the U.S. military, suggesting that ADS represent a healthy population at low risk of cancer. Breast cancer is, however, the most common cancer in ADS and may have a significant effect on troop readiness with lengthy absence during treatment and inability to return to duty after the treatment. The identification of unaffected ADS who carry germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes (“previvors”) would provide the opportunity to prevent or detect cancer at an early stage, thus minimizing effects on troop readiness. In this study, we determined (1) how many high-risk ADS without cancer pursued genetic testing, (2) how many previvors employed risk-reducing strategies, and (3) the number of undiagnosed previvors within an ADS population. Methods The Clinical Breast Care Project (protocol WRNMMC IRB #20704) database of the Murtha Cancer Center/Walter Reed National Military Medical Center was queried to identify all ADS with no current or previous history of cancer. Classification as high genetic risk was calculated using National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2019 guidelines for genetic testing for breast, ovary, colon, and gastric cancer. The history of clinical genetic testing and risk-reducing strategies was extracted from the database. Genomic DNA from ADS with blood specimens available for research purposes were subjected to next-generation sequencing technologies using a cancer predisposition gene panel. Results Of the 336 cancer-free ADS enrolled in the Clinical Breast Care Project, 77 had a family history that met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing for BRCA1/2 and 2 had a family history of colon cancer meeting the criteria for genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Of the 28 (35%) high-risk women who underwent clinical genetic testing, 11 had pathogenic mutations in the breast cancer genes BRCA1 (n = 5), BRCA2 (n = 5), or CHEK2 (n = 1). Five of the six ADS who had a relative with a known pathogenic mutation were carriers of the tested mutation. All of the women who had pathogenic mutations detected through clinical genetic testing underwent prophylactic double mastectomy, and three also had risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Two (6%) of the 33 high-risk ADS tested only in the research setting had a family history of breast/ovarian cancer and carried pathogenic mutations: one carried a BRCA2 mutation, whereas the other carried a mutation in the colon cancer predisposition gene PMS2. No mutations were detected in the 177 low-risk women tested in the research setting. Discussion Within this unaffected cohort of ADS, 23% were classified as high risk. Although all of the previvors engaged in risk-reduction strategies, only one-third of the high-risk women sought genetic testing. These data suggest that detailed family histories of cancer should be collected in ADS and genetic testing should be encouraged in those at high risk. The identification of previvors and concomitant use of risk-reduction strategies may improve health in the ADS and optimize military readiness by decreasing cancer incidence.


1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 2157-2169 ◽  

PURPOSE The rapid growth in the use of genetic testing for heritable cancers and other diseases has led to the establishment of many committees to assess the status and future implications of such testing. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a statement on genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in May 1996. In that statement, ASCO recognized the need for a major initiative to develop courses and other educational materials for ASCO members and other health care professionals that were pertinent to cancer genetics and the role of cancer predisposition testing in clinical oncology. These curriculum guidelines represent an effort to promote formal instruction on the assessment and management of familial cancer risks in training programs and continuing education courses. DESIGN AND RESULTS An Ad hoc Task Force was created from the ASCO membership and other professional organizations. Goals of ASCO's cancer genetics education initiative, curriculum guidelines, and plans for implementation of the curriculum have been developed. To gain understanding and competency in cancer genetics and cancer predisposition testing, the curriculum emphasizes formal instruction in: (1) basic concepts and principles of genetics; (2) an understanding of the role of genetics in the etiology, diagnosis, and management of different malignancies; (3) an understanding of the ethical, legal, and social issues that surround predisposition testing; and (4) long-term management plans for individuals at high risk for cancer. This document is broad in scope and applicable to all types of malignancies. It should be considered as the framework around which cancer genetics education is developed. It is expected that implementation of training activities over the next few years will allow ASCO to fulfill its obligations to the membership. CONCLUSION This curriculum should prove a valuable guide to those who wish further education on cancer genetics and the appropriate use of cancer predisposition testing.


2020 ◽  
pp. 944-954
Author(s):  
Lisa Esterling ◽  
Ranjula Wijayatunge ◽  
Krystal Brown ◽  
Brian Morris ◽  
Elisha Hughes ◽  
...  

PURPOSE Hereditary cancer genetic testing can inform personalized medical management for individuals at increased cancer risk. However, many variants in cancer predisposition genes are individually rare, and traditional tools may be insufficient to evaluate pathogenicity. This analysis presents data on variant classification and reclassification over a 20-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS This is a retrospective analysis of > 1.9 million individuals who received hereditary cancer genetic testing from a single clinical laboratory (March 1997 to December 2017). Variant classification included review of evidence from traditional tools (eg, population frequency databases, literature) and laboratory-developed tools (eg, novel statistical methods, in-house RNA analysis) by a multidisciplinary expert committee. Variants may have been reclassified more than once and with more than one line of evidence. RESULTS In this time period, 62,842 unique variants were observed across 25 cancer predisposition genes, and 2,976 variants were reclassified. Overall, 82.1% of reclassification events were downgrades (eg, variant of uncertain significance [VUS] to benign), and 17.9% were upgrades (eg, VUS to pathogenic). Among reclassified variants, 82.8% were initially classified as VUS, and 47.5% were identified in ≤ 20 individuals (allele frequency ≤ 0.001%). Laboratory-developed tools were used in 72.3% of variant reclassification events, which affected > 600,000 individuals. More than 1.3 million patients were identified as carrying a variant that was reclassified within this 20-year time period. CONCLUSION The variant classification program used by the laboratory evaluated here enabled the reclassification of variants that were individually rare. Laboratory-developed tools were a key component of this program and were used in the majority of reclassifications. This demonstrates the importance of using robust and novel tools to reclassify rare variants to appropriately inform personalized medical management.


1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 67-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Stoppa-Lyonnet ◽  
M. Caligo ◽  
D. Eccles ◽  
D. G. R. Evans ◽  
N. E. Haites ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document