Genetic assessment of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in the Harris Health System: A five-year, single-center experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10587-10587
Author(s):  
Nicole Higashiyama ◽  
Shaun Bulsara ◽  
Susan G. Hilsenbeck ◽  
Tiffaney Tran ◽  
Ria Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Health System ◽  
Ashkenazi Jewish ◽  
Deleterious Mutations ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Risk Reducing ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Hispanic White

10587 Background: Identifying patients with hereditary breast cancer is critical since lifetime breast cancer risk is as high as 85% for those with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and preventive interventions can reduce that risk. However, genetic assessments and counseling are often underutilized among racial/ethnic minority populations. Reducing this genetic testing gap is important since hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndromes occur among racial/ethnic minorities at least as frequently as non-Ashkenazi Jewish, non-Hispanic White populations. More information on variants in these populations is also needed to better define their genetic susceptibility. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients evaluated for genetic testing for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer by a genetic counselor between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2014 in Harris Health System which is a large, county health system composed mostly of underserved and minority patients. Data from 2015-2019 is currently being extracted and we are reporting the first 5 years of data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient data. Results: 659 patients underwent genetic counseling (10.5% non-Hispanic White, 24.4% Black, 56.9% Hispanic, 5.9% Asian, and 2.3% other). Five patients had Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. The majority of patients completed testing (87.4%) with 72.7% receiving financial assistance. Among those who did not complete testing, only 12.0% declined, while 66.3% did not meet guideline-based criteria or were recommended to have an affected relative tested. Multigene panel testing was not available until April 2014, so most underwent BRCA sequencing (75.0%) and/or a BRCA large rearrangement test (61.0%). 36.1% received multigene panel testing, 4.6% single site analysis, and 4.4% p53 sequencing. Deleterious mutations occurred in 98 (14.9%) patients: BRCA1 (n = 60), BRCA2 (n = 25), PALB2 (n = 7), ATM (n = 3), and other (n = 3). The distribution of races/ethnicities among those with deleterious mutations was similar to the overall population (7.1% non-Hispanic White, 18.4% Black, 69.4% Hispanic, 3.1% Asian, and 2.0% other). 80.6% of those with deleterious mutations had breast cancer. High rates of bilateral mastectomies were performed in patients with deleterious mutations: BRCA1 60%, BRCA2 55%, PALB2 57.1%, and ATM 33%. Risk-reducing salpingectomy or salpingo-oophorectomy was performed in 56.7% BRCA1, 60% BRCA2, 28.5% PALB2, and 33.3% other mutation carriers. Conclusions: We demonstrate that with the support of financial assistance programs, most patients who receive genetic counseling will accept genetic testing in a socioeconomically underserved, racially/ethnically diverse population. Identification of high-risk patients in these groups is critical since pathogenic variants in this population were common and more than half underwent risk-reducing procedures.

Trends in germline genetic testing and results into survivorship for women diagnosed with breast cancer or ovarian cancer, 2013 to 2017.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 273-273
Author(s):  
Steven J. Katz ◽  
Monica Morrow ◽  
Allison W. Kurian
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Number Of Genes ◽  
Racial Ethnic

273 Background: Genetic testing is increasingly central to breast and ovarian cancer prevention and treatment. Yet, little is known about trends and disparities in receipt of testing and test results after diagnosis. Methods: We linked all female patients with breast or ovarian cancer diagnosed from 2013-2017 in Georgia and California and reported to SEER registries to genetic testing results from four laboratories (Ambry Genetics, GeneDx, Invitae, Myriad Genetics). We combined test results from all labs with SEER data. We classified a test as a multigene panel (MGP) if it included other genes in addition to BRCA1/2. We grouped pathogenic variants (PVs) by level of evidence that supported clinical testing: BRCA1/2; other genes associated with well-established syndromes (syndromic genes); genes whose cancer association is less certain (emerging genes); and any other tested genes (other genes). We categorized patients with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) in any gene but no PVs as VUS-only. We examined trends in receipt of testing and test results overall and by race/ethnic groups. Results: One quarter (25.5%) of 198,001 breast cancer patients, and 34.5% of 15,461 ovarian cancer patients had genetic tests. Test rates increased by only 2% annually; while the number of genes tested per patient increased by 28%. The mean number of genes tested rose from 10 to 35 during the study period. In early 2013, 18.3% of testers had a PV or VUS result, which increased to 37.2% in late 2017. The upward trend was largely due to increase in VUS-only findings. The proportion of tested breast cancer patients with any PV increased from 9.1% to 9.9%: PVs in BRCA1/2 decreased from 7.5% to 5.0% (p<.001), while PV yield for the two other clinical categories (syndromic and emerging genes) increased from 1.6% to 4.9% (p<.001). PVs in any of the other 61 genes were very rare (<1%). By contrast, the VUS rate in breast cancer patients increased markedly from 9.6% in 2013 to 26.2% in 2017. The VUS rate was higher in racial/ethnic minorities (41.0% Asian, 36.5%% Black, 28.0% Latinas versus 25.6% non-Hispanic Whites diagnosed in 2017; p<.001). We observed similar findings for patients with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: A large gap persists in testing ovarian cancer patients (35% versus 100% recommended). Testing more genes per patient was associated with a substantial racial/ethnic gap in VUS with little difference in yield on clinically relevant PVs. Testing a limited subset of genes may optimize yield-to-noise of genetic testing, particularly for racial/ethnic minorities.

Time Trends in Receipt of Germline Genetic Testing and Results for Women Diagnosed With Breast Cancer or Ovarian Cancer, 2012-2019

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.20.02785
Author(s):  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
Paul Abrahamse ◽  
Irina Bondarenko ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Hispanic White ◽  
Cancer Risk Reduction ◽  
Gene Category

PURPOSE Genetic testing is important for breast and ovarian cancer risk reduction and treatment, yet little is known about its evolving use. METHODS SEER records of women of age ≥ 20 years diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer from 2013 to 2017 in California or Georgia were linked to the results of clinical germline testing through 2019. We measured testing trends, rates of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and pathogenic variants (PVs). RESULTS One quarter (25.2%) of 187,535 patients with breast cancer and one third (34.3%) of 14,689 patients with ovarian cancer were tested; annually, testing increased by 2%, whereas the number of genes tested increased by 28%. The prevalence of test results by gene category for breast cancer cases in 2017 were BRCA1/2 , PVs 5.2%, and VUS 0.8%; breast cancer–associated genes or ovarian cancer–associated genes ( ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53), PVs 3.7%, and VUS 12.0%; other actionable genes ( APC, BMPR1A, MEN1, MUTYH, NF2, RB1, RET, SDHAF2, SDHB, SDHC, SDHD, SMAD4, TSC1, TSC2, and VHL) PVs 0.6%, and VUS 0.5%; and other genes, PVs 0.3%, and VUS 2.6%. For ovarian cancer cases in 2017, the prevalence of test results were BRCA1/2, PVs 11.0%, and VUS 0.9%; breast or ovarian genes, PVs 4.0%, and VUS 12.6%; other actionable genes, PVs 0.7%, and VUS 0.4%; and other genes, PVs 0.3%, and VUS 0.6%. VUS rates doubled over time (2013 diagnoses: 11.2%; 2017 diagnoses: 26.8%), particularly for racial or ethnic minorities (47.8% Asian and 46.0% Black, v 24.6% non-Hispanic White patients; P < .001). CONCLUSION A testing gap persists for patients with ovarian cancer (34.3% tested v nearly all recommended), whereas adding more genes widened a racial or ethnic gap in VUS results. Most PVs were in 20 breast cancer–associated genes or ovarian cancer–associated genes; testing other genes yielded mostly VUS. Quality improvement should focus on testing indicated patients rather than adding more genes.

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 A competing risks model with binary time varying covariates for estimation of breast cancer risks in BRCA1 families

2021 ◽  
pp. 096228022110089
Author(s):  
Yun-Hee Choi ◽  
Hae Jung ◽  
Saundra Buys ◽  
Mary Daly ◽  
Esther M John ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Competing Risks ◽  
Brca1 Mutation ◽  
Prophylactic Surgery ◽  
Time Varying ◽  
Cancer Risks ◽  
Competing Risks Model ◽  
Time Varying Covariates ◽  
Risk Reducing

Mammographic screening and prophylactic surgery such as risk-reducing salpingo oophorectomy can potentially reduce breast cancer risks among mutation carriers of BRCA families. The evaluation of these interventions is usually complicated by the fact that their effects on breast cancer may change over time and by the presence of competing risks. We introduce a correlated competing risks model to model breast and ovarian cancer risks within BRCA1 families that accounts for time-varying covariates. Different parametric forms for the effects of time-varying covariates are proposed for more flexibility and a correlated gamma frailty model is specified to account for the correlated competing events.We also introduce a new ascertainment correction approach that accounts for the selection of families through probands affected with either breast or ovarian cancer, or unaffected. Our simulation studies demonstrate the good performances of our proposed approach in terms of bias and precision of the estimators of model parameters and cause-specific penetrances over different levels of familial correlations. We applied our new approach to 498 BRCA1 mutation carrier families recruited through the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Our results demonstrate the importance of the functional form of the time-varying covariate effect when assessing the role of risk-reducing salpingo oophorectomy on breast cancer. In particular, under the best fitting time-varying covariate model, the overall effect of risk-reducing salpingo oophorectomy on breast cancer risk was statistically significant in women with BRCA1 mutation.

Identification and management of familial breast cancer in Austria

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian F. Singer ◽  
Yen Y. Tan ◽  
Christine Rappaport
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Familial Breast Cancer ◽  
Prophylactic Surgery ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Counseling And Testing ◽  
Legal Implications

AbstractAimThe aim of this study is to review the legal implications, the technology, the indications and the management of women with a familial background of breast and/or ovarian cancer.MethodsWe have reviewed the literature and national Austrian guidelines to describe the uptake of genetic counseling and the management options offered in Austria.ResultsGenetic testing for theConclusionWhile readily available country-wide counseling has led to an increase in counseling and testing, Austrian legislation mandates “non-directional counseling” resulting in a comparatively low uptake of prophylactic surgery.

scholarly journals Predictors of risk-reducing surgery intentions following genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Kathleen Ladd ◽  
Beth N Peshkin ◽  
Leigha Senter ◽  
Shari Baldinger ◽  
Claudine Isaacs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prophylactic Surgery ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Risk ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Affective Factors ◽  
Risk Reducing

Abstract Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) are increasingly used to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk following BRCA1/BRCA2 testing. However, little is known about how genetic counseling influences decisions about these surgeries. Although previous studies have examined intentions prior to counseling, few have examined RRM and RRSO intentions in the critical window between genetic counseling and test result disclosure. Previous research has indicated that intentions at this time point predict subsequent uptake of surgery, suggesting that much decision-making has taken place prior to result disclosure. This period may be a critical time to better understand the drivers of prophylactic surgery intentions. The aim of this study was to examine predictors of RRM and RRSO intentions. We hypothesized that variables from the Health Belief Model would predict intentions, and we also examined the role of affective factors. Participants were 187 women, age 21–75, who received genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We utilized multiple logistic regression to identify independent predictors of intentions. 49.2% and 61.3% of participants reported intentions for RRM and RRSO, respectively. Variables associated with RRM intentions include: newly diagnosed with breast cancer (OR = 3.63, 95% CI = 1.20–11.04), perceived breast cancer risk (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17–1.81), perceived pros (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.38–2.32) and cons of RRM (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.65–0.996), and decision conflict (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66–0.98). Variables associated with RRSO intentions include: proband status (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09–0.89), perceived pros (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.11–1.63) and cons of RRSO (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.59–0.89), and ambiguity aversion (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65–0.95). These data provide support for the role of genetic counseling in fostering informed decisions about risk management, and suggest that the role of uncertainty should be explored further.

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.

Trends in breast cancer survival by race-ethnicity in Florida.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18556-e18556
Author(s):  
Robert Brooks Hines ◽  
Asal Johnson ◽  
Eunkyung Lee ◽  
Stephanie Erickson ◽  
Saleh M.M. Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Cancer Death ◽  
Cancer Outcomes ◽  
Subdistribution Hazard ◽  
Breast Cancer Death ◽  
Breast Cancer Outcomes ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Hispanic White

e18556 Background: Considerable efforts to improve disparities in breast cancer outcomes for underserved women have occurred over the past 3 decades. This study was conducted to evaluate trends in survival, by race-ethnicity, for women diagnosed with breast cancer in Florida over a 26-year period to assess potential improvement in racial-ethnic disparities. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in Florida between 1990-2015. Data were obtained from the Florida Cancer Data System. Women in the study were categorized according to race (white/black) and Hispanic ethnicity (yes/no) as non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB), Hispanic white (HW), and Hispanic black (HB). Cumulative incidence estimates of 5- and 10-year breast cancer death with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained by race-ethnicity, according to diagnosis year. Subdistribution hazard models were used to obtain subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) for the relative rate of breast cancer death accounting for competing causes. Results: Compared to NHW women, minority women were more likely to be younger, be uninsured or have Medicaid as health insurance, live in high poverty neighborhoods, have more advanced disease at diagnosis, have high grade tumors, have hormone receptor negative tumors, and receive chemotherapy as treatment. Minority women were less likely to receive surgery. Over the course of the study, breast cancer mortality decreased for all racial-ethnic groups, and racial-ethnic minorities had greater absolute and relative improvement in breast cancer survival for nearly all metrics compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. However, for the most recent time period (2010-2015), black women still experienced significant survival disparities with non-Hispanic black (NHB) women having twice the rate of 5-year (sHR = 2.04: 95% CI; 1.91-2.19) and 10-year (sHR = 2.02: 95% CI; 1.89-2.16) breast cancer death. Conclusions: Despite efforts to improve disparities in breast cancer outcomes for underserved women in Florida, additional targeted approaches are needed to reduce the poorer survival in black (especially NHB) women. Our next step is to conduct a mediation analysis of the most important factors driving racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes for women in Florida.

Benefits and Costs of Screening Ashkenazi Jewish Women for BRCA1 and BRCA2

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 494-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor R. Grann ◽  
William Whang ◽  
Judith S. Jacobson ◽  
Daniel F. Heitjan ◽  
Karen H. Antman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Genetic Screening ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Ashkenazi Jewish ◽  
Jewish Women ◽  
Probability Interval

PURPOSE: To determine the survival benefit and cost-effectiveness of screening Ashkenazi Jewish women for three specific BRCA1/2 gene mutations. METHODS: We used a Markov model and Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the survival benefit and cost-effectiveness of screening for three specific mutations in a population in which their prevalence is 2.5% and the associated cancer risks are 56% for breast cancer and 16% for ovarian cancer. We assumed that the sensitivity and specificity of the test were 98% and 99%, respectively, that bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy would reduce ovarian cancer risk by 45%, and that bilateral prophylactic mastectomy would reduce breast cancer risk by 90%. We used Medicare payment data for treatment costs and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data for cancer survival. RESULTS: Our model suggests that genetic screening of this population could prolong average nondiscounted survival by 38 days (95% probability interval, 22 to 57 days) for combined surgery, 33 days (95% probability interval, 18 to 43 days) for mastectomy, 11 days (95% probability interval, 4 to 25 days) for oophorectomy, and 6 days (95% probability interval, 3 to 8 days) for surveillance. The respective cost-effectiveness ratios per life-year saved, with a discount rate of 3%, are $20,717, $29,970, $72,780, and $134,273. CONCLUSION: In this Ashkenazi Jewish population, with a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations, genetic screening may significantly increase average survival and, depending on costs and screening/treatment strategies, may be cost-effective by the standards of accepted cancer screening tests. According to our model, screening is cost-effective only if all women who test positive undergo prophylactic surgery. These estimates require confirmation through prospective observational studies and clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document