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 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.

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

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 One in three highly selected Greek patients with breast cancer carries a loss-of-function variant in a cancer susceptibility gene

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florentia Fostira ◽  
Irene Kostantopoulou ◽  
Paraskevi Apostolou ◽  
Myrto S Papamentzelopoulou ◽  
Christos Papadimitriou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility ◽  
Susceptibility Gene ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Clinical Changes

BackgroundGene panel testing has become the norm for assessing breast cancer (BC) susceptibility, but actual cancer risks conferred by genes included in panels are not established. Contrarily, deciphering the missing hereditability on BC, through identification of novel candidates, remains a challenge. We aimed to investigate the mutation prevalence and spectra in a highly selected cohort of Greek patients with BC, questioning an extensive number of genes, implicated in cancer predisposition and DNA repair, while calculating gene-specific BC risks that can ultimately lead to important associations.MethodsTo further discern BC susceptibility, a comprehensive 94-cancer gene panel was implemented in a cohort of 1382 Greek patients with BC, highly selected for strong family history and/or very young age (<35 years) at diagnosis, followed by BC risk calculation, based on a case–control analysis.ResultsHerein, 31.5% of patients tested carried pathogenic variants (PVs) in 28 known, suspected or candidate BC predisposition genes. In total, 24.8% of the patients carried BRCA1/2 loss-of-function variants. An additional 6.7% carried PVs in additional genes, the vast majority of which can be offered meaningful clinical changes. Significant association to BC predisposition was observed for ATM, PALB2, TP53, RAD51C and CHEK2 PVs. Primarily, compared with controls, RAD51C PVs and CHEK2 damaging missense variants were associated with high (ORs 6.19 (Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC)) and 12.6 (Fabulous Ladies Over Seventy (FLOSSIES)), p<0.01) and moderate BC risk (ORs 3.79 (ExAC) and 5.9 (FLOSSIES), p<0.01), respectively.ConclusionStudying a large and unique cohort of highly selected patients with BC, deriving from a population with founder effects, provides important insight on distinct associations, pivotal for patient management.

Detection of Inherited Mutations in Brazilian Breast Cancer Patients Using Multi-Gene panel Testing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Santa Cruz Guindalini ◽  
Danilo Vilela Viana ◽  
João Paulo Fumio Whitaker Kitajima ◽  
Vinícius Marques Rocha ◽  
Rossana Verónica Mendoza López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility Genes ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Predisposition Genes

Abstract Genetic diversity of germline variants in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, is unexplored in miscegenated people, such as Latin American populations. We evaluated 1,662 Brazilian BC patients, who underwent hereditary multi-gene panel testing (20–38 cancer susceptibility genes), to determine the spectrum and prevalence of (likely) pathogenic variants (P/LP) and variants of uncertain significance (VUS). In total, 161 (9.7%) participants carried germline P/LP variants in BRCA1/2 and 162 (9.7%) in other cancer predisposition genes. Overall, 341 distinctive P/LP variants were identified in 22 genes, including BRCA1(28%), BRCA2(19%), TP53(11%), MUTYH heterozygous (10%), ATM(9%), CHEK2(6%), and PALB2(5%). The Brazilian variant TP53 R337H (c.1010G > A, p.Arg337His), detected in 1.6% of BC patients and 0.09% of reference controls (RC), was strongly associated with odds of disease (OR = 17.67; 95%CI:9.21–34.76; p < 0.001). Heterozygous MUTYH c.1187G > A and MUTYH c.536A > G, detected in 0.78% (0.90% RC) and 0.48% (0.40% RC) of the patients, respectively, were not associated with the odds of BC, the former with OR = 0.87 (95%CI:0.49–1.53; p = 0.63) and the latter with OR = 1.20 (95%CI:0.58–2.49; p = 0.63). Besides, 766 individuals (46.1%) had 1 or more VUS. Concluding, the use of multi-gene panel testing doubled the identification of mutation carriers in Brazilian BC patients. Special attention should be given to TP53 mutations.

scholarly journals Population-based estimates of breast cancer risk for carriers of pathogenic variants identified by gene-panel testing

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa C. Southey ◽  
James G. Dowty ◽  
Moeen Riaz ◽  
Jason A. Steen ◽  
Anne-Laure Renault ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Breast Cancer Predisposition ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

AbstractPopulation-based estimates of breast cancer risk for carriers of pathogenic variants identified by gene-panel testing are urgently required. Most prior research has been based on women selected for high-risk features and more data is needed to make inference about breast cancer risk for women unselected for family history, an important consideration of population screening. We tested 1464 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 862 age-matched controls participating in the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS), and 6549 healthy, older Australian women enroled in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study for rare germline variants using a 24-gene-panel. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using unconditional logistic regression adjusted for age and other potential confounders. We identified pathogenic variants in 11.1% of the ABCFS cases, 3.7% of the ABCFS controls and 2.2% of the ASPREE (control) participants. The estimated breast cancer OR [95% confidence interval] was 5.3 [2.1–16.2] for BRCA1, 4.0 [1.9–9.1] for BRCA2, 3.4 [1.4–8.4] for ATM and 4.3 [1.0–17.0] for PALB2. Our findings provide a population-based perspective to gene-panel testing for breast cancer predisposition and opportunities to improve predictors for identifying women who carry pathogenic variants in breast cancer predisposition genes.

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 Multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer - is it ready to be used?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreea Catana ◽  
Adina Patricia Apostu ◽  
Razvan-Geo Antemie
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Hereditary Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Variants Of Uncertain Significance ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Brca Genes ◽  
Prophylactic Measures ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
High Level

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies and the leading cause of death among women worldwide. About 20% of breast cancers are hereditary. Approximately 30% of the mutations have remained negative after testing BRCA1/2 even in families with a Mendelian inheritance pattern for breast cancer. Additional non-BRCA genes have been identified as predisposing for breast cancer. Multi gene panel testing tries to cover and explain the BRCA negative inherited breast cancer, improving efficiency, speed and costs of the breast cancer screening. We identified 23 studies reporting results from individuals who have undergone multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer and noticed a prevalence of 1-12% of non-BRCA genes, but also a high level of variants of uncertain significance. A result with a high level of variants of uncertain significance is likely to be more costly than bring benefits, as well as increase the anxiety for patients. Regarding further development of multi gene panel testing, more research is required to establish both the optimal care of patients with cancer (specific treatments like PARP inhibitors) and the management of unaffected individuals (chemoprevention and/or prophylactic surgeries). Early detection in these patients as well as prophylactic measures will significantly increase the chance of survival. Therefore, multi gene panel testing is not yet ready to be used outside clear guidelines. In conclusion, studies on additional cohorts will be needed to better define the real prevalence, penetrance and the variants of these genes, as well as to describe clear evidence-based guidelines for these patients. 

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document