Significance of BRCA genetic testing for preoperative breast cancer patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Brca Genetic Testing

Adherence to NCCN Guidelines for Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer Patients: Who Are We Missing?

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Jaime Alberty-Oller ◽  
Sarah Weltz ◽  
Antonio Santos ◽  
Kereeti Pisapati ◽  
Meng Ru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Nccn Guidelines

Interest in genetic testing among first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients

1995 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caryn Lerman ◽  
Janet Seay ◽  
Andrew Balshem ◽  
Janet Audrain
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
First Degree Relatives ◽  
Interest In Genetic Testing

Genetic Testing in Ultra-Young Breast Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Analysis of Breast Cancer Patients ≤ 35 Years at Diagnosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. E43-E44
Author(s):  
L.A. Modlin ◽  
C. Billena ◽  
M. Wilgucki ◽  
L.Z. Braunstein ◽  
O. Cahlon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Young Breast Cancer

Barriers to genetic testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Do surgeons limit testing?

2017 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Hafertepen ◽  
Alyssa Pastorino ◽  
Nichole Morman ◽  
Jennifer Snow ◽  
Deepa Halaharvi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients

Genetic testing decisions of breast cancer patients: Results from the iCanCare study.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1541-1541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reshma Jagsi ◽  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Kent A. Griffith ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients

Disparities in pretest genetic counseling among a population-based sample of young breast cancer patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1579-1579
Author(s):  
Sonya Reid-Lawrence ◽  
Tuya Pal ◽  
Ingrid A. Mayer ◽  
Xiao-Ou Shu ◽  
Ann Tezak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Counseling ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hereditary Cancer ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Racial Groups ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Young Breast Cancer

1579 Background: Per national practice guidelines, pre-test genetic counseling (GC) through a board-certified or credentialed genetics health professional (GHP) is recommended when testing for hereditary cancer. We sought to compare differences in rates of pre-test GC among young breast cancer (BC) patients tested with or without GHP involvement across three racial groups (Black, Hispanic and non-Hispanic white (NHW)). Methods: A population-based sample of Black, Hispanic and NHW women diagnosed with invasive BC ≤ age 50 from 2009 to 2012 were recruited through the Florida State Cancer Registry. Participants were asked to complete a baseline questionnaire and release medical records for verification of clinical information and genetic testing. We compared the rates of pre-test GC across racial groups in women tested with or without GHP involvement using Analysis of Variance. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was also conducted to adjust for potential confounders. Results: Of 1618 participants, 828 had genetic testing based on medical records and/or self-reported on their questionnaire. There were 170 (20.5%) with GHP involvement (either through consultation and/or test ordering) and the remaining 658 women (79.5%) had no documentation of GHP involvement. Among patients tested without GHP involvement, rates of pre-test GC were significantly lower among Black women (34.8%) compared to Hispanics (80%) and NHW (78.7%) (p < 0.001). In contrast, among those with GHP involvement, rates of pre-test GC were similar among Black (89.7%), Hispanic (81.1%) and NHW (84.6%) (p = 0.89). Conclusions: Our results suggest that among young breast cancer patients tested for hereditary cancer without GHP involvement, Blacks were significantly less likely to receive pre-test GC, compared to the other two groups. In contrast, rates of pre-test GC among those with GHP involvement were similar across all groups. These results suggest a disparity in receipt of pre-test GC (which is standard of care per national guidelines) among Blacks tested without GHP involvement. These findings are concerning given the need to offer guideline-adherent care to all patients receiving hereditary cancer testing.

Diagnostic yield and clinical utility of germline genetic testing following somatic testing in breast cancer patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1092-1092
Author(s):  
Stephen E Lincoln ◽  
Kingshuk Das ◽  
Nhu Ngo ◽  
Sarah M. Nielsen ◽  
Scott T. Michalski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Breast Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Tumor Sequencing ◽  
Germline Testing

1092 Background: Germline genetic testing is recommended for breast cancer patients with specific presentations or family histories. Separately, tumor DNA sequencing is increasingly used to inform therapy, most often in patients with advanced disease. Recent NCCN and ESMO guidelines recommend germline testing following somatic testing, under specific circumstances and for specific genes. We examined the utility of germline findings in patients referred for both test modalities. Methods: We reviewed somatic and germline mutations in a consecutive series of patients who: (a) had a current or previous breast cancer diagnosis, (b) were referred for germline testing, and (c) previously received tumor sequencing. Diverse reasons for germline testing included: a tumor finding of potential germline origin, treatment or surgical planning, personal or family history, and patient concern. Results: 227 patients met study criteria of whom 88 (39%) harbored a pathogenic germline variant (PGV) in a high or moderate risk cancer predisposition gene. Mutations in certain genes were most likely to be of germline origin, and most PGVs were potentially actionable (Table). 13% of PGVs were not reported by tumor tests as either germline or somatic findings, usually a result of tumor test limitations. Of note, 27 of the patients with PGVs (31%) had these variants uncovered only after presenting with a second, possibly preventable, malignancy. Conclusions: Germline testing following tumor sequencing often yielded findings that may impact care. Indeed, the 39% PGV rate we observed suggests that such testing may be underutilized. We observed actionable PGVs missed by somatic tests, PGVs uncovered in patients’ second malignancies, and PGVs not within germline reflex testing criteria. These results reinforce the utility of germline testing separate from somatic testing in appropriate patients. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document