Genetic risk assessment for hereditary RCC: Report from the consensus panel meeting.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 615-615
Author(s):  
Michael Daneshvar ◽  
Neil Mendhiratta ◽  
Ramaprasad Srinivasan ◽  
Eric Jonasch ◽  
Mark Wayne Ball ◽  
...  

615 Background: While many genes are now known to be associated with hereditary kidney cancer syndromes, there is a paucity of guidelines or uniform consensus on genetic testing for these patients. An expert panel was organized to assess who, what, when and how patients should be evaluated and what testing should be initiated. Methods: A national, multidisciplinary, panel of experts in urology, medical oncology, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors and patient advocates with background and knowledge in hereditary syndromic kidney cancer convened in person in September 2019. A renal cell carcinoma (RCC) genetic risk assessment questionnaire consisting of 52 questions was compiled prior to the meeting using modified Delphi methodology. The questions were then discussed and reviewed with uniform consensus defined as a minimum of 85% agreement in accordance with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Results: The panel consisted of twenty-six attendees represented by urologists (43%), medical oncologist (23%), genetic counselors (13%), clinical geneticists (7%), and patient advocates (3%). The questionnaire consisted of fifty-five statements focusing on who, what, when and how genetic testing should be performed in a patient suspected of hereditary RCC syndrome. A >85% agreement was reached on 30/52 statements with 18/25 (72%) achieving consensus addressing “who”, 2/6 (33%) achieving consensus in “what’ category, 2/7 (29%) in ‘when’ and 4/6 (67%) on how. The questions with least consensus were found in the “what/when?” category with only 4/13 questions with minimum 85% agreement. Specific areas of debate included an age cutoff for prompting a genetic risk assessment as well as need for familial testing in patients with variants of unknown significance. Conclusions: Despite experience of the panel in management of hereditary RCC, the consensus was reached only on 66% of genetic testing. While many issues will need to be discussed further, those statements with consensus may be used to guide physicians and patients on who, what, when and how genetic RCC risk assessment should be performed.

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 1315-1326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Lerner-Ellis ◽  
Sam Khalouei ◽  
Victoria Sopik ◽  
Steven A Narod

Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gennady Bratslavsky ◽  
Neil Mendhiratta ◽  
Michael Daneshvar ◽  
James Brugarolas ◽  
Mark W. Ball ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-103
Author(s):  
Daniela Alosi ◽  
Marie Bisgaard ◽  
Sophie Hemmingsen ◽  
Lotte Krogh ◽  
Hanne Mikkelsen ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Phelps ◽  
P. Bennett ◽  
H. Jones ◽  
K. Hood ◽  
K. Brain ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10600-10600
Author(s):  
Amanda Gammon ◽  
Ambreen Khan ◽  
Joanne M. Jeter

10600 Background: Multiple models estimate a person’s chance of harboring a pathogenic variant increasing cancer risk. Some pathogenic variants are more common in individuals from specific ancestries, such as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder variants in Ashkenazi Jews. Yet data remains limited on the larger variant spectrum seen among people of different ancestral backgrounds and whether or not the pathogenic variant frequency differs in many populations. Due to this, it is important that genetic risk assessment models be validated in a diverse cohort including Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC). Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify published development and validation studies for the following genetic risk assessment models: BRCAPRO, MMRPRO, CanRisk/BOADICEA, Tyrer-Cuzick, and PREMM. Validation studies that only evaluated the cancer risk prediction capabilities of the models (and not the genetic variant risk prediction) were excluded. The following participant information was abstracted from each study: total number of participants, gender, race, and ethnicity. Authors were contacted to obtain missing information (if available). Results: 12 development and 12 validation studies of the genetic risk assessment models BRCAPRO, MMRPRO, CanRisk/BOADICEA, Tyrer-Cuzick, and PREMM were abstracted. Of the validation studies, five were internal validation studies conducted by the model developers, and seven were external validation studies. Four external validation studies compared multiple models. 75% (18/24) of papers did not include reporting of participant race or ethnicity information in their published reports. External validation studies (4/7, 57%) more often reported participant race/ethnicity than development (0/12, 0%) or internal validation (2/5, 40%) studies. The external validation studies for BRCAPRO reporting race/ethnicity information involved cohorts that ranged from 50-51% non-Ashkenazi Jewish white, 28% African American, 1% Asian, 2-49% Hispanic, and 19-42% Ashkenazi Jewish. The external validation studies for MMRPRO and PREMM reporting race/ethnicity information involved cohort that ranged from 0-82% white, 4-100% Asian, 7% Black, and 7% Hispanic. Conclusions: Increased reporting of participant ancestry and ethnicity is needed in the development and validation studies of genetic risk assessment models. BRCAPRO’s validation cohorts have included a higher percentage of Hispanic and Black/African American participants, while MMRPRO and PREMM have been validated in a higher percentage of Asian participants. As debate continues about the utility of currently used racial categories in genetics research, it will be important to determine how best to report on participant diversity. These findings highlight the continued need for genetics researchers to engage BIPOC and identify ways to diversify their participant cohorts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document