Cancer genetic testing panels for inherited cancer susceptibility: the clinical experience of a large adult genetics practice

Eleven Years of Oncogenetic Consultations in a Swiss Center: Patient and Testing Characteristics

Introduction

Oncogenetic counseling has been provided at the University Hospital of Bern since 2004. Since the public announcement by Ms. Angelina Jolie in 2013 that she had undergone bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, other oncogenetic centers have reported an increase in consultations. We conducted a retrospective review of the oncogenetic consultations at our center to evaluate the presence and the consequences of a potential "Angelina Jolie effect" and to characterize this patient population over a decade.

Methods

All initial oncogenetic consultations between 2005 and 2015 were collected, using electronic records. Demographics, cancer type, testing, and mutation results, as well as consultation rates, were recorded. The yearly trends were analyzed using Joinpoint regression analysis (JPA).

Results

In total, 823 patient cases were included, mostly women (84%), half of them with a positive personal cancer history. A hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) risk was the main reason for consultation (72%). Moreover, 22% of patients had a previously detected familial mutation. Two-thirds underwent testing, which yielded a positive test result in 31% of the cases. According to JPA, the consultation rate increased throughout the decade, with a significant upward trend from 2013. Rates of testing and positive results remained stable over time. Most patients (86%) fulfilled the referral criteria of published guidelines.

Discussion

At our center, we found retrospectively a disproportionate growth in the referral rate for HBOC cases compared to other oncological cases after the year 2013, but overall, no change in testing rates was detected.

Federated Analysis for Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing: A Technical and Legal Primer

Continued advances in precision medicine rely on the widespread sharing of data that relate human genetic variation to disease. However, data sharing is severely limited by legal, regulatory, and ethical restrictions that safeguard patient privacy. Federated analysis addresses this problem by transferring the code to the data-providing the technical and legal capability to analyze the data within their secure home environment rather than transferring the data to another institution for analysis. This allows researchers to gain new insights from data that cannot be moved, while respecting patient privacy and the data stewards' legal obligations. Because federated analysis is a technical solution to the legal challenges inherent in data sharing, the technology and policy implications must be evaluated together. Here, we summarize the technical approaches to federated analysis and provide a legal analysis of their policy implications.

Motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Single-gene testing is associated with psycho-social challenges for cancer patients. Genomic testing may amplify these. The aim of this study was to understand patients' motivations and barriers to pursue cancer genomic testing, to enable healthcare providers to support their patients throughout the testing process and interpretation of test results.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for original peer reviewed research articles published between January 2001 and September 2018 addressing motivation for genomic cancer testing. QualSyst was used to assess quality.

RESULTS

182 studies were identified and 17 were included for review. Studies were heterogenous. Both somatic and germline testing were included, and 14 studies used hypothetical scenarios. 3249 participants were analyzed, aged 18 to 94. Most were female and white. The most common diagnoses were breast, ovarian, lung and colorectal cancer. Interest in testing was high. Motivations included ability to predict cancer risk, inform disease management, benefit families, and understand cancer. Barriers included concerns about cost, privacy/confidentiality, clinical utility, and psychological harm.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns, consumers are interested in cancer genomic testing if it can provide actionable results for themselves and their families.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providers must manage understanding and expectations of testing and translate genetic information into health-promoting behaviours.

Ovarian cancer risk assessment in the era of next-generation sequencing

Ovarian cancer is one of the cancers most influenced by hereditary factors. Testing for hereditary susceptibility genes is recommended for every woman with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are responsible for a substantial fraction of hereditary ovarian cancer. However, alterations in other genes, such as BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and mismatch repair genes, also enhance ovarian cancer risk. Other genes may also participate in ovarian carcinogenesis, but their role as ovarian cancer susceptibility genes still needs to be clarified. With several genes involved, the complexity of genetic testing increases. In this context, next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows testing for multiple genes simultaneously, with rapid turn-around time. However, the incorporation of this technology into clinical practice faces some challenges. In this review, we will discuss the ovarian cancer risk assessment in the era of NGS.

A Novel Germline c.1267T>A MEN1 Mutation in MEN1 Family—from Phenotype to Gene and Back

Primary hyperparathyroidism is a relatively common endocrine disorder, which may be hereditary. This report describes clinical, biochemical, radiographic, and genetic findings, the latter obtained using next generation sequencing (NGS), in three consanguineous patients. Gene panels in NGS consisted of 5 or 70 genes, including MEN1 and RET. The first patient suffered from recurrent primary hyperparathyroidism. Primary hyperparathyroidism and pituitary microadenomas were afterwards diagnosed in two of her daughters. No clinical nor radiological features of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors were found. All three family members were heterozygous for MEN1 NM_130799: c.1267T>A transversion, which is predicted to result in substitution of tryptophan with arginine in position 423. Additionally, the first patient was also a carrier of RET NM_020975: c.1946C>T missense mutation, which was not present in two other family members. We describe a family with a novel heterozygous mutation (NM_130799: c.1267T>A) in MEN1 gene and postulate that it leads to MEN1 syndrome. The study underlies the importance of genetic testing in primary hyperparathyroidism in personalizing patients’ care.

Clinical Validity of Next-Generation Sequencing Multi-Gene Panel Testing for Detecting Pathogenic Variants in Patients With Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer Syndrome

Background

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is caused by pathogenic variants in BRCA and other cancer-related genes. We analyzed variants in BRCA gene and other cancer-related genes in HBOC patients to evaluate the clinical validity of next-generation sequencing (NGS) multi-gene panel testing.

Methods

The BRCA1/2 NGS testing was conducted for 262 HBOC patients. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and direct Sanger sequencing were performed for confirmation. Multi-gene panel testing was conducted for 120 patients who did not possess BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants but met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria.

Results

Pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 were detected in 30 HBOC patients (11.5%). Additionally, four out of the 120 patients possessed pathogenic variants by multi-gene panel testing (3.3%): MSH2 (c.256G>T, p.Glu86*), PMS2 (c.1687C>T, p.Arg563*), CHEK2 (c.546C>A, p.Tyr182*), and PALB2 (c.3351-1G>C). All the four patients had a family history of cancer.

Conclusions

Multi-gene panel testing could be a significant screening tool for HBOC patients, especially for those with a family history of cancer.

Patients' willingness to reconsider cancer genetic testing after initially declining: Mention it again

Patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes sometimes decline clinically appropriate genetic testing. The purpose of the current study was to understand what preferences, concerns, and desires informed their refusal as well as their current level of interest in being tested. We interviewed patients who had been seen in a hereditary cancer clinic at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and had declined genetic testing. In all, 21 in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Although patients provided many reasons for declining testing, they most often cited their psychosocial state at the time of the initial invitation to participate in genetic testing as their reason for refusal. The majority (67%) said that they either would or had changed their mind about testing if/when their clinicians 'mentioned it again'. Patients at risk for hereditary cancer who refuse testing at the time of genetic counseling may later change their mind. In particular, if a patient declines testing around the time of a major medical diagnosis or intervention, clinicians who are providing ongoing care may want to raise the topic afresh after the patient has had time to recover from initial distress related to diagnosis or treatment. Strategies to prompt clinicians to have these conversations are suggested.

Uptake, Results, and Outcomes of Germline Multiple-Gene Sequencing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Importance

Low-cost sequencing of multiple genes is increasingly available for cancer risk assessment. Little is known about uptake or outcomes of multiple-gene sequencing after breast cancer diagnosis in community practice.

Objective

To examine the effect of multiple-gene sequencing on the experience and treatment outcomes for patients with breast cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this population-based retrospective cohort study, patients with breast cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2015 and accrued from SEER registries across Georgia and in Los Angeles, California, were surveyed (n = 5080, response rate = 70%). Responses were merged with SEER data and results of clinical genetic tests, either BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) sequencing only or including additional other genes (multiple-gene sequencing), provided by 4 laboratories.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Type of testing (multiple-gene sequencing vs BRCA1/2-only sequencing), test results (negative, variant of unknown significance, or pathogenic variant), patient experiences with testing (timing of testing, who discussed results), and treatment (strength of patient consideration of, and surgeon recommendation for, prophylactic mastectomy), and prophylactic mastectomy receipt. We defined a patient subgroup with higher pretest risk of carrying a pathogenic variant according to practice guidelines.

Results

Among 5026 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [10.7] years), 1316 (26.2%) were linked to genetic results from any laboratory. Multiple-gene sequencing increasingly replaced BRCA1/2-only testing over time: in 2013, the rate of multiple-gene sequencing was 25.6% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 74.4%; in 2015 the rate of multiple-gene sequencing was 66.5% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 33.5%. Multiple-gene sequencing was more often ordered by genetic counselors (multiple-gene sequencing, 25.5% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 15.3%) and delayed until after surgery (multiple-gene sequencing, 32.5% and BRCA1/2-only testing, 19.9%). Multiple-gene sequencing substantially increased rate of detection of any pathogenic variant (multiple-gene sequencing: higher-risk patients, 12%; average-risk patients, 4.2% and BRCA1/2-only testing: higher-risk patients, 7.8%; average-risk patients, 2.2%) and variants of uncertain significance, especially in minorities (multiple-gene sequencing: white patients, 23.7%; black patients, 44.5%; and Asian patients, 50.9% and BRCA1/2-only testing: white patients, 2.2%; black patients, 5.6%; and Asian patients, 0%). Multiple-gene sequencing was not associated with an increase in the rate of prophylactic mastectomy use, which was highest with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 (BRCA1/2, 79.0%; other pathogenic variant, 37.6%; variant of uncertain significance, 30.2%; negative, 35.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

Multiple-gene sequencing rapidly replaced BRCA1/2-only testing for patients with breast cancer in the community and enabled 2-fold higher detection of clinically relevant pathogenic variants without an associated increase in prophylactic mastectomy. However, important targets for improvement in the clinical utility of multiple-gene sequencing include postsurgical delay and racial/ethnic disparity in variants of uncertain significance.

Germline susceptibility variants impact clinical outcome and therapeutic strategies for stage III colorectal cancer

Although somatic mutations are the main cause of cancer, underlying germline alterations may affect cancer outcome. There is little information on comprehensive analysis of germline genome sequencing for cancer healthcare strategy. Here we studied the implication of germline cancer-associated variants on cancer counselling and therapeutic strategies by germline whole genome and tumor targeted sequencing. Fifty-five gynecological and 104 colorectal cancer (CRC) patients were enrolled. We identified 22 germline pathogenic variants in 16 cancer-associated genes. Most of them are involved in DNA repair signaling, including MLH1, BRCA1/2, MUTYH, ATM, PMS2, MSH6, BAP1, and FANCA. About 6% of cancer patients presented the secondary findings of germline variants with non-oncogenic impact, mainly on the cardiovascular system which should be carefully monitored during chemotherapy. CRC patients carrying germline susceptibility variants had better disease-free survival than those without variants. Importantly, in the CRC model, the underlying germline alterations mold the tumor somatic alteration landscape. NOTCH1 mutation was the most common somatic mutation in recurrent CRC, implying a potential therapeutic target in adjuvant setting. In conclusion, both tumor genome and germline sequence data have to be analyzed to have a more complete picture of the overall genetic foundation of cancer.

Horizon Scan Of Clinical Laboratories Offering Pharmacogenetic Testing

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing involves the analysis of genes known to affect response to medications. The field has been projected as a leading application of personalized or precision medicine, but the use of PGx tests has been stymied, in part, by the lack of clinical evidence of utility and reported low provider awareness. Another factor is the availability of testing. The range and types of PGx tests available have not been assessed to date. In the period September 2017-January 2018 we analyzed the numbers and types of PGx tests offered by clinical testing laboratories in the US. Of the 111 such labs that we identified, we confirmed that 76 offered PGx testing services. Of these, 31 offered only tests for single genes; 30 offered only tests for multiple genes; and 15 offered both types of tests. Collectively, 45 laboratories offered 114 multigene panel tests covering 295 genes. The majority of these tests did not have any clinical guidelines. PGx tests vary in type and makeup, which presents challenges in appropriate test evaluation and selection for providers, insurers, health systems, and patients alike.

Clinical genetic testing outcome with multi-gene panel in Asian patients with multiple primary cancers

Background

Developing multiple cancers is an indicator of underlying hereditary cancer predisposition, but there is a paucity of data regarding the clinical genetic testing outcomes of these patients.

Methods

We compared cancer index patients with ≥2 primary malignancies versus 1 primary cancer who underwent clinical evaluation and testing with multi-gene panels comprising up to 49 genes from 1998-2016.

Results

Among 1191 cancer index patients, 80.6%, 17.2%, and 2.2% respectively had 1, 2, and ≥3 primary malignancies. For patients with 2 primary cancers (n=205), the most common cancer pairs were bilateral breast (37.5%), breast-ovary (11.7%), endometrium-ovary (9.2%), colon-endometrium (3.9%) and colon-colon (3.4%). 42.3% patients underwent gene testing including 110/231 (47.6%) with multiple malignancies. Pathogenic variants were found more frequently in younger patients, in those with a family history of cancer related to the suspected syndrome, and a trend towards significance in those with multiple primary cancers (35.5% vs. 25.6%, p = 0.09). In patients with multiple cancers, pathogenic variants were most commonly identified in BRCA1 (38.5%), BRCA2 (17.9%), and the mismatch repair genes (20.5%), while 23.1% of pathogenic mutations were in other moderate- to high-penetrance cancer predisposition genes including APC, ATM, MUTYH, PALB2, RAD50 and TP53.

Conclusion

Patients with multiple cancers were more likely to carry pathogenic mutations than those with single cancer. About three-quarters of deleterious mutations in patients with multiple primary cancers were in BRCA1/2 and the mismatch repair genes, but multi-gene panel testing facilitated the detection of mutations in another 6 genes and is warranted in this high-risk population.

Inherited Cancer in the Age of Next-Generation Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has led to the ability to test for multiple cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously without significantly increasing cost or turnaround time. With growing usage of multigene testing for inherited cancer, ongoing education for nurses and other health-care providers about hereditary cancer screening is imperative to ensure appropriate testing candidate identification, test selection, and posttest management. The purpose of this review article is to (1) provide an overview of how NGS works to detect germline mutations, (2) summarize the benefits and limitations of multigene panel testing, (3) describe risk categories of cancer susceptibility genes, and (4) highlight the counseling considerations for patients pursuing multigene testing.

Breast and Ovarian Cancer Penetrance Estimates Derived From Germline Multiple-Gene Sequencing Results in Women

Purpose

Multiple-gene, next-generation sequencing panels are increasingly used to assess hereditary cancer risks of patients with diverse personal and family cancer histories. The magnitude of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with many clinically tested genes, and independent of family cancer history, remains to be quantified.

Methods

We queried a commercial laboratory database of 95,561 women tested clinically for hereditary cancer risk with a 25-gene ( APC, ATM, BARD1, BMPR1A, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CDK4, CHEK2, MLH2, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, P14ARF, P16, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, SMAD4, STK11, and TP53) next-generation sequencing panel. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for family history were used to examine the association between pathogenic mutations and breast or ovarian cancer. As a confirmatory approach, a matched case-control analysis was conducted, defining cases as patients with breast or ovarian cancer and controls as women without cancer.

Results

One or more pathogenic mutations were detected in 6,775 (7%) of 95,561 women. Eight genes ( ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53) were associated with breast cancer, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from two-fold ( ATM: OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.46 to 2.07) to six-fold ( BRCA1: OR, 5.91; 95% CI, 5.25 to 6.67). Eleven genes ( ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, STK11, RAD51C, and RAD51D) were associated with ovarian cancer, with OR ranging from two-fold ( ATM: OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.40) to 40-fold ( STK11: OR, 41.9; 95% CI, 5.55 to 315). Multivariable models and matched case-control analyses yielded similar results.

Conclusion

Among nearly 100,000 clinically tested women, 7% carried a pathogenic mutation in one or more cancer-associated genes. Associated breast and ovarian cancer risks ranged from two- to 40-fold after controlling for family history. These results may inform cancer risk counseling.

The Changing Landscape of Genetic Testing for Inherited Breast Cancer Predisposition

OPINION STATEMENT

The advent of multiple-gene germline panel testing has led to significant advances in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. These include guideline-specific cancer risk management recommendations for patients and their families, such as screening with breast magnetic resonance imaging and risk-reducing surgeries, which have the potential to reduce substantially the morbidity and mortality associated with a hereditary cancer predisposition. However, controversy remains about the clinical validity and actionability of genetic testing in a broader patient population. We discuss events leading to the wider availability of commercialized multiple-gene germline panel testing, the recent data that support using this powerful tool to improve cancer risk assessment and reduction strategies, and remaining challenges to clinical optimization of this new genetic technology.

Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in a rural Familial Cancer Program

This study explores our Familial Cancer Program's experience implementing multi-gene panel testing in a largely rural patient population. We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing panel testing between May 2011 and August 2015. Our goal was to evaluate factors that might be predictors of identifying variants (pathogenic or uncertain significance) and to assess clinical management changes due to testing. We utilized a structured family history tool to determine the significance of patient's family histories with respect to identification of genetic variants. A total of 227 patients underwent panel testing at our center and 67 patients (29.5 %) had variants identified, with 8 (3.5 %) having multiple variants. Overall, 44 patients (19.4 %) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) and 28 patients (12.3 %) had a pathogenic variant detected, with 10 (4.4 %) having pathogenic variants in highly penetrant genes. We found no statistical difference in patient familial and personal cancer history, age, rural status, Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, insurance coverage and prior single-gene testing among those with pathogenic, VUS and negative panel testing results. There were no predictors of pathogenic variants on regression analysis. Panel testing changed cancer screening and management guidelines from that expected based on family history alone in 13.2 % of patients. Ultimately, cancer panel testing does yield critical information not identified by traditional single gene testing but maximal utility through a broad range of personal and family histories requires improved interpretation of variants.

Evaluation of laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility is a rapidly evolving field and partly a result of next-generation sequencing (NGS) allowing analysis of multiple cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously. This qualitative study explored laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of clinical laboratories offering hereditary cancer panels via NGS. Several themes emerged from the responses pertaining to hereditary cancer panel development, the importance of communication of panel properties with patients, variant reporting policies, and the future of hereditary cancer gene testing. Clinical utility was discussed as primary consideration during panel development. In addition, while participants indicated gene and syndrome overlap prompted panel development in general, laboratories differed in their opinions of whether phenotypic overlap warrants offering pan-cancer panels only versus cancer specific panels. Participants stressed the importance of patients understanding implications of panel testing, including what is tested for and limitations of testing. While all laboratories discussed the limitations of a variant of uncertain significance result, they differed significantly in their reporting methods. This study provides healthcare providers information on the laboratory approach to panel testing, highlighting both commonalities and differences in laboratory approaches, and may allow providers to make more informed decisions when ordering hereditary cancer panels.

Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change

The impacts of the Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Supreme Court decision regarding patenting DNA segments and multi-gene testing on cancer genetic counseling practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess genetic counselors' perceptions of how their genetic testing-related practices for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) changed after these events. One-hundred fifty-two genetic counselors from the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group completed an anonymous, online, mixed-methods survey in November 2013. The survey presented four hypothetical patients and asked about changes in testing practice. Across the vignettes, a majority of participants reported specific changes in testing decisions following Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad and availability of multi-gene testing. Ninety-three percent of participants reported changing the types of first- and second-line tests they order for HBOC; the degree of change varied geographically. Qualitative analysis indicated that some counselors have altered the counseling session content, trading depth of information for breadth and spending more time counseling about uncertainty. This study shows that cancer genetic counselors are adapting quickly to genetic testing changes, but with wide variability. Findings suggest future research to elucidate clinicians' and patients' preferences for guidance on the clinical implementation of next-generation sequencing.

Multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer predisposition in unsolved high-risk breast and ovarian cancer patients

Purpose

Many women with an elevated risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer have previously tested negative for pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Among them, a subset has hereditary susceptibility to cancer and requires further testing. We sought to identify specific groups who remain at high risk and evaluate whether they should be offered multi-gene panel testing.

Methods

We tested 300 women on a multi-gene panel who were previously enrolled in a long-term study at UCSF. As part of their long-term care, all previously tested negative for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 either by limited or comprehensive sequencing. Additionally, they met one of the following criteria: (i) personal history of bilateral breast cancer, (ii) personal history of breast cancer and a first or second degree relative with ovarian cancer, and (iii) personal history of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal carcinoma.

Results

Across the three groups, 26 women (9%) had a total of 28 pathogenic mutations associated with hereditary cancer susceptibility, and 23 women (8%) had mutations in genes other than BRCA1 and BRCA2. Ashkenazi Jewish and Hispanic women had elevated pathogenic mutation rates. In addition, two women harbored pathogenic mutations in more than one hereditary predisposition gene.

Conclusions

Among women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer who have previously tested negative for pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, we identified three groups of women who should be considered for subsequent multi-gene panel testing. The identification of women with multiple pathogenic mutations has important implications for family testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4181-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors Associated with Interest in Gene-Panel Testing and Risk Communication Preferences in Women from BRCA1/2 Negative Families

Scientific advances have allowed the development of multiplex gene-panels to assess many genes simultaneously in women who have tested negative for BRCA1/2. We examined correlates of interest in testing for genes that confer modest and moderate breast cancer risk and risk communication preferences for women from BRCA negative families. Female first-degree relatives of breast cancer patients who tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations (N = 149) completed a survey assessing multiplex genetic testing interest and risk communication preferences. Interest in testing was high (70 %) and even higher if results could guide risk-reducing behavior changes such as taking medications (79 %). Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources including: primary care physicians (83 %), genetic counselors (78 %), printed materials (71 %) and the web (60 %). Factors that were independently associated with testing interest were: perceived lifetime risk of developing cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.67: 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.65) and high cancer worry (OR = 3.12: CI 1.28-7.60). Findings suggest that women from BRCA1/2 negative families are a unique population and may be primed for behavior change. Findings also provide guidance for clinicians who can help develop genomic risk communications, promote informed decision making and customize behavioral interventions.

Familial colorectal cancer: Patient assessment, surveillance and surgical management

Germline mutations account for 5-10% of colorectal cancer. Most mutations are autosomal dominant with high penetrance and affected patients benefit greatly from appropriate treatment. This review presents the current knowledge regarding familial colorectal cancer and provides practical information based on international guidelines and the best available evidence regarding patient assessment, surveillance and surgical management. Surgeons are often the first point of contact and frequently, the main provider of care for families with cancer syndromes or patients with familial cancer. Patients with a polyposis phenotype should undergo appropriate genetic testing. In non-polyposis patients with a cancer diagnosis, tumor testing for Lynch syndrome can guide the use of genetic testing. In patients without a personal history of cancer or polyposis, a carefully obtained family history with testing of available tumor tissue or of a living relative affected by colorectal cancer informs the need for genetic testing. Surveillance and surgical management should be planned following thorough assessment of familial cancer risk. Evidence exists to provide guidance as to the surveillance strategies required, the specific indications of genetic testing and the appropriate timing of operative intervention. A carefully obtained family history with selective genetic testing should inform surveillance and surgical management in patients who have a genetic predisposition for the development of colorectal cancer.

Technological advances in precision medicine and drug development

New technologies are rapidly becoming available to expand the arsenal of tools accessible for precision medicine and to support the development of new therapeutics. Advances in liquid biopsies, which analyze cells, DNA, RNA, proteins, or vesicles isolated from the blood, have gained particular interest for their uses in acquiring information reflecting the biology of tumors and metastatic tissues. Through advancements in DNA sequencing that have merged unprecedented accuracy with affordable cost, personalized treatments based on genetic variations are becoming a real possibility. Extraordinary progress has been achieved in the development of biological therapies aimed to even further advance personalized treatments. We provide a summary of current and future applications of blood based liquid biopsies and how new technologies are utilized for the development of biological therapeutic treatments. We discuss current and future sequencing methods with an emphasis on how technological advances will support the progress in the field of precision medicine.

Increased yield of actionable mutations using multi-gene panels to assess hereditary cancer susceptibility in an ethnically diverse clinical cohort

This study aims to assess multi-gene panel testing in an ethnically diverse clinical cancer genetics practice. We conducted a retrospective study of individuals with a personal or family history of cancer undergoing clinically indicated multi-gene panel tests of 6-110 genes, from six commercial laboratories. The 475 patients in the study included 228 Hispanics (47.6%), 166 non-Hispanic Whites (35.4%), 55 Asians (11.6%), 19 Blacks (4.0%), and seven others (1.5%). Panel testing found that 15.6% (74/475) of patients carried deleterious mutations for a total of 79 mutations identified. This included 7.4% (35/475) of patients who had a mutation identified that would not have been tested with a gene-by-gene approach. The identification of a panel-added mutation impacted clinical management for most of cases (69%, 24/35), and genetic testing was recommended for the first degree relatives of nearly all of them (91%, 32/35). Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) were identified in a higher proportion of tests performed in ethnic minorities. Multi-gene panel testing increases the yield of mutations detected and adds to the capability of providing individualized cancer risk assessment. VUSs represent an interpretive challenge due to less data available outside of White, non-Hispanic populations. Further studies are necessary to expand understanding of the implementation and utilization of panels across broad clinical settings and patient populations.

Refining Breast Cancer Risk Stratification: Additional Genes, Additional Information

Recent advances in genomic technology have enabled far more rapid, less expensive sequencing of multiple genes than was possible only a few years ago. Advances in bioinformatics also facilitate the interpretation of large amounts of genomic data. New strategies for cancer genetic risk assessment include multiplex sequencing panels of 5 to more than 100 genes (in which rare mutations are often associated with at least two times the average risk of developing breast cancer) and panels of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), combinations of which are generally associated with more modest cancer risks (more than twofold). Although these new multiple-gene panel tests are used in oncology practice, questions remain about the clinical validity and the clinical utility of their results. To translate this increasingly complex genetic information for clinical use, cancer risk prediction tools are under development that consider the joint effects of all susceptibility genes, together with other established breast cancer risk factors. Risk-adapted screening and prevention protocols are underway, with ongoing refinement as genetic knowledge grows. Priority areas for future research include the clinical validity and clinical utility of emerging genetic tests; the accuracy of developing cancer risk prediction models; and the long-term outcomes of risk-adapted screening and prevention protocols, in terms of patients' experiences and survival.

Next-Generation Testing for Cancer Risk: Perceptions, Experiences, and Needs Among Early Adopters in Community Healthcare Settings

BACKGROUND

Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are driving a shift from single-gene to multigene panel testing for clinical genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). This study explored perceptions, experiences, and challenges with NGS testing for GCRA among U.S. community-based clinicians.

METHODS

Surveys delivered at initial and 8-month time points, and 12-month tracking of cases presented in a multidisciplinary web-based case conference series, were conducted with GCRA providers who participated in a 235-member nationwide community of practice.

RESULTS

The proportion of respondents ordering panel tests rose from 29% at initial survey (27/94) to 44% (46/107) within 8 months. Respondents reported significantly less confidence about interpreting and counseling about NGS compared with single-gene test results (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). The most cited reasons for not ordering NGS tests included concerns about clinical utility, interpreting and communicating results, and lack of knowledge/skills. Multigene panels were used in 204/668 cases presented during 2013, yielding 37 (18%) deleterious (7% in low/moderate-penetrance genes), 88 (43%) with ≥1 variant of uncertain significance, 77 (38%) uninformative negative, and 2 (1%) inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns about utility and ability to interpret/counsel about NGS results, a rapidly increasing uptake of NGS testing among community clinicians was documented. Challenges identified in case discussions point to the need for ongoing education, practice-based support, and opportunities to partner in research that contributes to characterization of lesser known genes.