scholarly journals Insights into Genetic Susceptibility to Melanoma by Gene Panel Testing: Potential Pathogenic Variants in ACD, ATM, BAP1, and POT1

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenza Pastorino ◽  
Virginia Andreotti ◽  
Bruna Dalmasso ◽  
Irene Vanni ◽  
Giulia Ciccarese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rare Variants ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Susceptibility Genes ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Missing Heritability ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Novel Variants ◽  
Uncertain Significance

The contribution of recently established or candidate susceptibility genes to melanoma missing heritability has yet to be determined. Multigene panel testing could increase diagnostic yield and better define the role of candidate genes. We characterized 273 CDKN2A/ARF and CDK4-negative probands through a custom-designed targeted gene panel that included CDKN2A/ARF, CDK4, ACD, BAP1, MITF, POT1, TERF2IP, ATM, and PALB2. Co-segregation, loss of heterozygosity (LOH)/protein expression analysis, and splicing characterization were performed to improve variant classification. We identified 16 (5.9%) pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in established high/medium penetrance cutaneous melanoma susceptibility genes (BAP1, POT1, ACD, MITF, and TERF2IP), including two novel variants in BAP1 and 4 in POT1. We also found four deleterious and five likely deleterious variants in ATM (3.3%). Thus, including potentially deleterious variants in ATM increased the diagnostic yield to about 9%. Inclusion of rare variants of uncertain significance would increase the overall detection yield to 14%. At least 10% of melanoma missing heritability may be explained through panel testing in our population. To our knowledge, this is the highest frequency of putative ATM deleterious variants reported in melanoma families, suggesting a possible role in melanoma susceptibility, which needs further investigation.

scholarly journals Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory E. Idos ◽  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Charité Ricker ◽  
Duveen Sturgeon ◽  
Julie O. Culver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Prophylactic Surgery ◽  
University Of Southern California ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Multicenter Prospective Cohort

Purpose Multiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations. Patients and Methods This multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics—University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute—who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate). Results Of 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83% v 41%; P < .001) to encourage their relatives to be tested. Conclusion In a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.

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

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. 

scholarly journals Diagnostic exome sequencing in non-acquired focal epilepsies highlights a major role of GATOR1 complex genes

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 624-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Krenn ◽  
Matias Wagner ◽  
Christoph Hotzy ◽  
Elisabeth Graf ◽  
Sandrina Weber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exome Sequencing ◽  
Rare Variants ◽  
Focal Epilepsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Molecular Heterogeneity ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Uncertain Significance

BackgroundThe genetic architecture of non-acquired focal epilepsies (NAFEs) becomes increasingly unravelled using genome-wide sequencing datasets. However, it remains to be determined how this emerging knowledge can be translated into a diagnostic setting. To bridge this gap, we assessed the diagnostic outcomes of exome sequencing (ES) in NAFE.Methods112 deeply phenotyped patients with NAFE were included in the study. Diagnostic ES was performed, followed by a screen to detect variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in 15 well-established focal epilepsy genes. Explorative gene prioritisation was used to identify possible novel candidate aetiologies with so far limited evidence for NAFE.ResultsES identified pathogenic or likely pathogenic (ie, diagnostic) variants in 13/112 patients (12%) in the genes DEPDC5, NPRL3, GABRG2, SCN1A, PCDH19 and STX1B. Two pathogenic variants were microdeletions involving NPRL3 and PCDH19. Nine of the 13 diagnostic variants (69%) were found in genes of the GATOR1 complex, a potentially druggable target involved in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling pathway. In addition, 17 VUSs in focal epilepsy genes and 6 rare variants in candidate genes (MTOR, KCNA2, RBFOX1 and SCN3A) were detected. Five patients with reported variants had double hits in different genes, suggesting a possible (oligogenic) role of multiple rare variants.ConclusionThis study underscores the molecular heterogeneity of NAFE with GATOR1 complex genes representing the by far most relevant genetic aetiology known to date. Although the diagnostic yield is lower compared with severe early-onset epilepsies, the high rate of VUSs and candidate variants suggests a further increase in future years.

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.

scholarly journals Detection of Germline Mutations in a Cohort of 139 Patients with Bilateral Breast Cancer by Multi-Gene Panel Testing: Impact of Pathogenic Variants in Other Genes beyond BRCA1/2

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Fanale ◽  
Lorena Incorvaia ◽  
Clarissa Filorizzo ◽  
Marco Bono ◽  
Alessia Fiorino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility ◽  
Bilateral Breast Cancer ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Susceptibility Genes ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Cancer Susceptibility Genes ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Increased Risk

Patients with unilateral breast cancer (UBC) have an increased risk of developing bilateral breast cancer (BBC). The annual risk of contralateral BC is about 0.5%, but increases by up to 3% in BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant (PV) carriers. Our study was aimed to evaluate whether all BBC patients should be offered multi-gene panel testing, regardless their cancer family history and age at diagnosis. We retrospectively collected all clinical information of 139 BBC patients genetically tested for germline PVs in different cancer susceptibility genes by NGS-based multi-gene panel testing. Our investigation revealed that 52 (37.4%) out of 139 BBC patients harbored germline PVs in high- and intermediate-penetrance breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes including BRCA1, BRCA2, PTEN, PALB2, CHEK2, ATM, RAD51C. Nineteen out of 53 positively tested patients harbored a PV in a known BC susceptibility gene (no-BRCA). Interestingly, in the absence of an analysis performed via multi-gene panel, a significant proportion (14.4%) of PVs would have been lost. Therefore, offering a NGS-based multi-gene panel testing to all BBC patients may significantly increase the detection rates of germline PVs in other cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2, avoiding underestimation of the number of individuals affected by a hereditary tumor syndrome.

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.

Expanded yield of multiplex panel testing in fully accrued prospective trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1525-1525
Author(s):  
Gregory Idos ◽  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Charite Nicolette Ricker ◽  
Duveen Sturgeon ◽  
Julie Culver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Pathogenic Mutation ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Cancer Risk Assessment ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

1525 Background: Genetic testing is a powerful tool for stratifying cancer risk. Multiplex gene panel (MGP) testing allows simultaneous analysis of multiple high- and moderate- penetrance genes. However, the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of panels remain to be further delineated. Methods: A report of a fully accrued trial (N = 2000) of patients undergoing cancer-risk assessment. Patients were enrolled in a multicenter prospective cohort study where diagnostic yield and off-target mutation detection was evaluated of a 25 gene MGP comprised of APC, ATM, BARD1, BMPR1A, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CDK4, CDKN2A, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, SMAD4, STK11, TP53. Patients were enrolled if they met standard testing guidelines or were predicted to have a ≥2.5% mutation probability by validated models. Differential diagnoses (DDx) were generated after expert clinical genetics assessment, formulating up to 8 inherited cancer syndromes ranked by estimated likelihood. Results: 1998/2000 patients had reported MGP test results. Women constituted 81% of the sample, and 40% were Hispanic; 241 tested positive for at least 1 pathogenic mutation (12.1%) and 689 (34.5%) patients carried at least 1 variant of uncertain significance. The most frequently identified mutations were in BRCA1 (17%, n = 41), BRCA2 (15%, n = 36), APC (8%, n = 19), CHEK2 (7%, n = 17), ATM (7%, n = 16). 39 patients (16%) had at least 1 pathogenic mutation in a mismatch repair (MMR) gene ( MLH1, n = 10; MSH2, n = 10; MSH6, n = 8; PMS2, n = 11). 43 individuals (18%) had MUTYH mutations – 41 were monoallelic. Among 19 patients who had mutations in APC – 16 were APC I1307K. Only 65% (n = 159) of PV results were included in the DDx, with 35% (n = 86) of mutations not clinically suspected. Conclusions: In a diverse cohort, multiplex panel use increased genetic testing yield substantially: 35% carried pathogenic mutations in unsuspected genes, suggesting a significant contribution of expanded multiplex testing to clinical cancer risk assessment. The identification of off-target mutations broadens our understanding of cancer risk and genotype-phenotype correlations. Follow-up is ongoing to assess the clinical utility of multiplex gene panel testing. Clinical trial information: NCT02324062.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document