Cardiovascular genetics: the role of genetic testing in diagnosis and management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2020-316798
Author(s):  
Monica Ahluwalia ◽  
Carolyn Y Ho
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Family Management ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

Genetic testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a valuable tool to manage patients and their families. Genetic testing can help inform diagnosis and differentiate HCM from other disorders that also result in increased left ventricular wall thickness, thereby directly impacting treatment. Moreover, genetic testing can definitively identify at-risk relatives and focus family management. Pathogenic variants in sarcomere and sarcomere-related genes have been implicated in causing HCM, and targeted gene panel testing is recommended for patients once a clinical diagnosis has been established. If a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant is identified in a patient with HCM, predictive genetic testing is recommended for their at-risk relatives to determine who is at risk and to guide longitudinal screening and risk stratification. However, there are important challenges and considerations to implementing genetic testing in clinical practice. Genetic testing results can have psychological and other implications for patients and their families, emphasising the importance of genetic counselling before and after genetic testing. Determining the clinical relevance of genetic testing results is also complex and requires expertise in understanding of human genetic variation and clinical manifestations of the disease. In this review, we discuss the genetics of HCM and how to integrate genetic testing in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Extended gene panel testing in lobular breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke M. van Veen ◽  
D. Gareth Evans ◽  
Elaine F. Harkness ◽  
Helen J. Byers ◽  
Jamie M. Ellingford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Lobular Breast Cancer ◽  
Germline Variants ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Increased Risk

AbstractPurpose: Lobular breast cancer (LBC) accounts for ~ 15% of breast cancer. Here, we studied the frequency of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in an extended panel of genes in women affected with LBC. Methods: 302 women with LBC and 1567 without breast cancer were tested for BRCA1/2 PGVs. A subset of 134 LBC affected women who tested negative for BRCA1/2 PGVs underwent extended screening, including: ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51D, and TP53.Results: 35 PGVs were identified in the group with LBC, of which 22 were in BRCA1/2. Ten actionable PGVs were identified in additional genes (ATM(4), CDH1(1), CHEK2(1), PALB2(2) and TP53(2)). Overall, PGVs in three genes conferred a significant increased risk for LBC. Odds ratios (ORs) were: BRCA1: OR = 13.17 (95%CI 2.83–66.38; P = 0.0017), BRCA2: OR = 10.33 (95%CI 4.58–23.95; P < 0.0001); and ATM: OR = 8.01 (95%CI 2.52–29.92; P = 0.0053). We did not detect an increased risk of LBC for PALB2, CDH1 or CHEK2. Conclusion: The overall PGV detection rate was 11.59%, with similar rates of BRCA1/2 (7.28%) PGVs as for other actionable PGVs (7.46%), indicating a benefit for extended panel genetic testing in LBC. We also report a previously unrecognised association of pathogenic variants in ATM with LBC.

Benefits and safety of multigene panel testing in patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Nimmi S. Kapoor ◽  
Lisa D. Curcio ◽  
Carlee A. Blakemore ◽  
Amy K. Bremner ◽  
Rachel E. McFarland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Hereditary Breast Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Patients At Risk

16 Background: Recently introduced multi-gene panel testing including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (BRCA1/2) for hereditary cancer risk has raised concerns with the ability to detect all deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations compared to older methods of sequentially testing BRCA1/2 separately. The purpose of this study is to evaluate rates of pathogenic BRCA1/2mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between previous restricted algorithms of genetic testing and newer approaches of multi-gene testing. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from 966 patients who underwent genetic testing at one of three sites from a single institution. Test results were compared between patients who underwent BRCA1/2testing only (limited group, n = 629) to those who underwent multi-gene testing with 5-43 cancer-related genes (panel group, n = 337). Results: Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 37 patients, with equivalent rates between limited and panel groups (4.0% vs 3.6%, respectively, p = 0.86). Thirty-nine patients had a BRCA1/2 VUS, with similar rates between limited and panel groups (4.5% vs 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.49). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in detection of either BRCA1/2 mutations or VUS between both groups. Of patients undergoing panel testing, an additional 3.9% (n = 13) had non-BRCA pathogenic mutations and 13.4% (n = 45) had non-BRCA VUSs. Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the most common non-BRCA mutations identified. Conclusions: Multi-gene panel testing detects pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations at equivalent rates as limited testing and increases the diagnostic yield. Panel testing increases the VUS rate, mainly due to non-BRCA genes. Patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer can safely benefit from upfront, more efficient, multi-gene panel testing.

scholarly journals Australia and New Zealand renal gene panel testing in routine clinical practice of 542 families

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hope A. Tanudisastro ◽  
Katherine Holman ◽  
Gladys Ho ◽  
Elizabeth Farnsworth ◽  
Katrina Fisk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Causative Variant ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Panels ◽  
Clear Information

AbstractGenetic testing in nephrology clinical practice has moved rapidly from a rare specialized test to routine practice both in pediatric and adult nephrology. However, clear information pertaining to the likely outcome of testing is still missing. Here we describe the experience of the accredited Australia and New Zealand Renal Gene Panels clinical service, reporting on sequencing for 552 individuals from 542 families with suspected kidney disease in Australia and New Zealand. An increasing number of referrals have been processed since service inception with an overall diagnostic rate of 35%. The likelihood of identifying a causative variant varies according to both age at referral and gene panel. Although results from high throughput genetic testing have been primarily for diagnostic purposes, they will increasingly play an important role in directing treatment, genetic counseling, and family planning.

Multi-gene hereditary cancer testing among men with breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1532-1532
Author(s):  
Krystal Brown ◽  
Gregory Sampang Calip ◽  
Ryan Bernhisel ◽  
Brent Evans ◽  
Eric Thomas Rosenthal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Family History ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Age At Diagnosis ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Personal Diagnosis

1532 Background: All men with a personal diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) are candidates for BRCA1/2 genetic testing, as pathogenic variants (PVs) in these genes have a known association with BC risk in both men and women. As additional genes with known BC risk in women are now routinely included in multi-gene panel testing, we evaluated the outcomes of multi-gene panel testing in a large cohort of men with BC. Methods: This analysis includes the results of commercial genetic testing for 1,358 men with BC usinga multi-gene pan-cancer panel between September 2013 and January 2017. Clinical information was obtained from provider-completed test request forms. Age at diagnosis, personal, and family history were compared for men with PVs in BRCA1/2 versus non- BRCA1/2 genes. Results: Overall, 207 (15.2%) men with BC were found to carry a PV, where 147 (10.8%) men had a PV in BRCA1/2 ( BRCA1, 0.7%; BRCA2, 10.2%) and 60 (4.4%) men had a PV in a non- BRCA1/2 gene ( CHEK2, 2.0%; ATM, 1.0%; PALB2, 1.0%; BARD1, 0.2%; NBN, 0.2%; MSH6, 0.1%; BRIP1, 0.1%; CDH1, 0.1%; CDKN2A, 0.1%; MLH1, 0.1%, TP53, 0.1%). There were no substantial differences in the median age-at-diagnosis for men without a PV (65) compared to those with a BRCA1/2 PV (66) or a non- BRCA1/2 PV (63). Prostate cancer was the most common additional malignancy among all men with BC (9.0%), with a similar incidence among men with a BRCA1/2 PV (9.2%) and a non- BRCA1/2 PV (8.3%). In addition, 1.4% of men with a BRCA1/2 PV and 3.3% of men with a non- BRCA1/2 PV had a second BC. A family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer was present in 44.4% of the testing cohort, 66.7% of men with a BRCA1/2 PV, and 48.3% of men with a non- BRCA1/2 PV. This is consistent with the relative penetrance of BRCA1/2 and other genes included here. There were no other substantial differences in family history among BRCA1/2 PV carriers versus non- BRCA1/2 PV carriers. Conclusions: Close to a third of all PVs identified here in men with BC were in a gene other than BRCA1/2. There were no obvious differences in the clinical presentation of men with a BRCA1/2 PV compared to men with a PV in another gene or no PV at all. Collectively, this suggests that multi-gene panel testing is appropriate for all men with BC, regardless of other personal or family history.

scholarly journals Clinical challenges in interpreting multiple pathogenic mutations in single patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christa Slaught ◽  
Elizabeth G. Berry ◽  
Lindsay Bacik ◽  
Alison H. Skalet ◽  
George Anadiotis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Pathogenic Mutations ◽  
Therapeutic Decisions ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

Abstract Background In the past two decades, genetic testing for cancer risk assessment has entered mainstream clinical practice due to the availability of low-cost panels of multiple cancer-associated genes. However, the clinical value of multiple-gene panels for cancer susceptibility is not well established, especially in cases where panel testing identifies more than one pathogenic variant. The risk for specific malignancies as a result of a mutated gene is complex and likely influenced by superimposed modifier variants and/or environmental effects. Recent data suggests that the combination of multiple pathogenic variants may be fewer than reported by chance, suggesting that some mutation combinations may be detrimental. Management of patients with “incidentally” discovered mutations can be particularly challenging, especially when established guidelines call for radical procedures (e.g. total gastrectomy in CDH1) in patients and families without a classic clinical history concerning for that cancer predisposition syndrome. Case presentation We present two cases, one of an individual and one of a family, with multiple pathogenic mutations detected by multi-gene panel testing to highlight challenges practitioners face in counseling patients about pathogenic variants and determining preventive and therapeutic interventions. Conclusions Ongoing investigation is needed to improve our understanding of inherited susceptibility to disease in general and cancer predisposition syndromes, as this information has the potential to lead to the development of more precise and patient-specific counseling and surveillance strategies. The real-world adoption of new or improved technologies into clinical practice frequently requires medical decision-making in the absence of established understanding of gene-gene interactions. In the meantime, practitioners must be prepared to apply a rationale based on currently available knowledge to clinical decision-making. Current practice is evolving to rely heavily on clinical concordance with personal and family history in making specific therapeutic decisions.

scholarly journals 167P Role of the multi-gene panel testing for detection of pathogenic variants in patients with hereditary bilateral breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S432-S433
Author(s):  
C. Filorizzo ◽  
D. Fanale ◽  
L. Incorvaia ◽  
N. Barraco ◽  
M. Bono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Bilateral Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

scholarly journals Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hikmat Abdel-Razeq
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Healthy Women ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Risk Reducing ◽  
Current Guidelines ◽  
Missed Opportunity

Since the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes 3 decades ago, genetic testing and genetic counseling have become an integral part of routine clinical practice. The risk of breast cancer among carriers of germline pathogenic variants, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, is well established. Risk-reducing interventions, including bilateral mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies are both effective and have become more acceptable. Many researchers and professional societies view current guidelines as restrictive and may miss many at-risk women, and are calling to expand testing to include all patients with breast cancer, regardless of their personal or family history of cancer, while others are calling for wider adoption to even include all healthy women at age 30 or older. This review will address expanding testing in two directions; horizontally to include more patients, and even healthy women, and vertically to include more genes using next-generation sequencing-based multi-gene panel testing.

scholarly journals Germline variants and phenotypic spectrum in a Canadian cohort of individuals with diffuse gastric cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Aronson ◽  
C. Swallow ◽  
A. Govindarajan ◽  
K. Semotiuk ◽  
Z. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Diffuse Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cancer Syndrome ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Inherited Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

Background CDH1 pathogenic variants (PV) cause the majority of inherited diffuse-gastric cancer (DGC), but have low detection rates and vary geographically. This study examines hereditary causes of DGC in patients from Ontario, Canada. Methods Eligible DGC cases at the Zane Cohen Centre (ZCC) underwent multi-gene panel or CDH1 single-site testing if they met 2015 International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) criteria, isolated DGC <50 or family history suggestive of an inherited cancer syndrome. A secondary aim was to review all CDH1 families at the ZCC to assess cancer penetrance. Results 85 DGC patients underwent CDH1 (n=43) or multi-gene panel testing (n=42), and 15 (17.6%) PV or likely PV were identified.  CDH1 detection rate was 9.4% (n=8/85), and 11% (n=7/65) using IGCLC criteria.  No CDH1 PV identified in isolated DGC <40, but one PV identified in isolated DGC<50.  Multi-gene panel from 42 individuals identified 9 PV (21.4%) including CDH1, STK11, ATM, BRCA2, MLH1 and MSH2.  Review of 81 CDH1 carriers revealed that 10% had DGC (median age:48, range:38-59), 41% were unaffected (median age:53, range:26-89).  Three families had lobular-breast cancer (LBC) only.  Non-DGC/LBC malignancies included colorectal, gynecological, kidney/bladder, prostate, testicular and ductal breast. Conclusions Low detection rate of CDH1 in Ontario DGC patients.  No CDH1 PV found in isolated DGC <40, but identified in isolated DGC<50. Multi-gene panels are recommended for all DGC under age 50, and those meeting the IGCLC criteria, given overlapping phenotype with other hereditary conditions. HDGC phenotype is evolving with a spectrum of non-DGC/LBC cancers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document