scholarly journals Hereditary cancer risk assessment: insights and perspectives for the Next-Generation Sequencing era

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Gomy ◽  
Maria Del Pilar Estevez Diz
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Fecteau ◽  
Kristen J. Vogel ◽  
Kristen Hanson ◽  
Shannon Morrill-Cornelius

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (24) ◽  
pp. 1704-1704
Author(s):  
Renata Colombo Bonadio ◽  
Jéssica Rojas Crespo ◽  
Maria Del Pilar Estevez-Diz

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. E. Bunnell ◽  
C. A. Garby ◽  
E. J. Pearson ◽  
S. A. Walker ◽  
L. E. Panos ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1517-1517
Author(s):  
Sachdev P. Thomas ◽  
Jennifer Marie Suga ◽  
Thach-Giao Truong ◽  
Tilak Kumar Sundaresan ◽  
Minggui Pan ◽  
...  

1517 Background: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) for tumor molecular profiling is used in Oncology to identify ‘actionable alterations’ for clinical trials or on/ off-label therapy. Tumor NGS can also reveal potentially heritable germline mutations. The frequency of such incidental germline mutations has been estimated to be 4-15%. The 2015 ASCO Statement supports communication of medically relevant incidental germline findings from somatic mutation profiling to patients (PTS). The impact of tumor NGS testing on hereditary cancer risk assessment programs in the context of a wider population management strategy is unknown. We sought to evaluate this within our Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) population with ready access to tumor NGS and an ongoing hereditary cancer risk assessment program. Methods: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) is part of a large, integrated health care system. NGS at KPNC is performed in collaboration with STRATA Oncology, a precision oncology partnership. All NGS results are reviewed by a multidisciplinary KPNC Genomic Oncology Committee (GOC)which also includes genetic counselors and pathologists. We examined all NGS reports between November 2017 through December 2019 to determine the types of cancers tested, number with a possible germline mutation and number referred for genetic counseling and testing (GCT). Results: 4,825 PTS with advanced cancer underwent STRATA NGS testing. A total of 207 PTS (4.3%) were identified as potential germline mutation carriers, all 207 were recommended for GCT referral. Of these, 92 (45.0%) separately met 2020 NCCN Criteria for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment (2020NG/FA), prior to tumor NGS; 115 (53.6%) did not and 3 (1.4%) had insufficient information. The cancers most frequently meeting NCCN criteria were pancreatic, breast and colon. Of the 92 PTS who met 2020NG/FA, 60 (65%) underwent GCT and 34 (57%) were confirmed to have a germline mutation. Of the 115 PTS that did not meet 2020NG/FA, 47 (41%) underwent GCT and 19 (40%) were confirmed to have a germline mutation. Overall germline mutations were confirmed in 16.5% of patients who did not meet 2020NG/FA and 37% who did. Conclusions: In our community-based integrated healthcare system, systematic review of next-generation sequencing results by an expert GOC led to more robust identification of germline mutation carriers and navigated them to appropriate GCT. Ongoing work will clarify data on cascade testing. We are currently developing automated workflows for GCT.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarbas Maciel de Oliveira ◽  
Nuria Bengala Zurro ◽  
Antonio Victor Campos Coelho ◽  
Marcel Pinheiro Caraciolo ◽  
Rodrigo Bertollo de Alexandre ◽  
...  

Hereditary cancer risk syndromes are a group of disorders caused by germline variants in a growing number of genes. Most studies on hereditary cancer have been conducted in white populations. Here we report the largest study in Brazilian individuals with multiple, self-reported, ethnicities. We genotyped 1682 individuals from all regions of the country who were referred to genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk with multigene Next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels. Most were women, and had a personal and/or family history of cancer. The majority of cancer cases were breast and ovarian. We identified a total of 321 pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in 305 people (18.1%), corresponding to 166 unique variants. These variants were distributed among 32 genes, and most were detected on BRCA1 and BRCA2 (129 patients, 26.2% and 14.3% of all P/LP hits, respectively). The prevalence of any genes transheterozygosity in our sample was 0.89% (15/1682). The BRCA1/BRCA2 double heterozygosity rate was 0.78% (1/129) for BRCA variants carriers and 0.06% (1/1682) overall. We classified patients according to the NCCN and Brazilian National Health Agency (ANS) genetic testing recommendation criteria. We found that the criteria had false negative rates of 17.3% and 44.2%, meaning that both failed to detect a substantial part of P/LP positive patients. Therefore, our results show that NGS adds to knowledge on the Brazilian spectrum of germline variants associated with cancer risk and indicate that Brazilian testing guidelines should be improved.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1536-1536
Author(s):  
Kathleen R. Blazer ◽  
Carin Espenschied ◽  
Benjamin Weissman ◽  
Sharon Sand ◽  
Jeffrey N. Weitzel

1536 Background: Current standard-of-care practice for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) focuses on single-gene testing for specific hereditary cancer syndromes. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies recently became available for clinical applications. This study explored the perspectives and experiences of community-based clinicians regarding NGS testing for personalized GCRA. Methods: A 27-item survey was developed and administered online to 325 members of an interdisciplinary nationwide clinical cancer genetics community of practice. Results: Of 94 (29%) respondents, 25 (27%) have ordered at least one multi-gene panel and only 2 (2.1%) have ordered a whole exome or genome test from a commercial vendor for GCRA. Concerns about clinical utility, the challenge of interpreting and communicating results, lack of knowledge about and potential costs were most often cited as reasons for not pursuing NGS testing. Respondents were significantly more confident about their ability to interpret and counsel about single gene test results compared with multi-gene panels or whole exome/genome sequencing; and about multi-gene panels over whole exome/genome sequencing (p<.0001 for all comparisons). Conclusions: Findings suggest that while NGS tests are entering the realm of GCRA, multidisciplinary genomics education and clinical support resources are needed to address barriers to utilization and promote successful integration of NGS testing into community-based GCRA practice settings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document