Prospective Study of Cancer Genetic Variants: Variation in Rate of Reclassification by Ancestry

Variant classification changes over time in the clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory setting

BACKGROUND

Variant classification in the setting of germline genetic testing is necessary for patients and their families to receive proper care. Variants are classified as pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign (LB) and benign (B) using the standards and guidelines recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology, with modifications for specific genes. As the literature continues to rapidly expand, and evidence continues to accumulate, prior classifications can be updated accordingly. In this study, we aim to characterise variant reclassifications in Ontario.

METHODS

DNA samples from patients seen at hereditary cancer clinics in Ontario from January 2012 to April 2022 were submitted for testing. Patients met provincial eligibility criteria for testing for hereditary cancer syndromes or polycystic kidney disease. Reclassification events were determined to be within their broader category of significance (B to LB or vice versa, or P to LP or vice versa) or outside of their broader category as significance (ie, significant reclassifications from B/LB or VUS or P/LP, from P/LP to VUS or B/LB, or from VUS to any other category).

RESULTS

Of the 8075 unique variants included in this study, 23.7% (1912) of variants were reassessed, and 7.2% (578) of variants were reclassified. Of these, 351 (60.7%) variants were reclassified outside of their broader category of significance. Overall, the final classification was significantly different for 336 (58.1%) variants. Importantly, most reclassified variants were downgraded to a more benign classification (n=245; 72.9%). Of note, most reclassified VUS was downgraded to B/LB (n=233; 84.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood for reclassification of variants on reassessment is high. Most reclassified variants were downgraded to a more benign classification. Our findings highlight the importance of periodic variant reassessment to ensure timely and appropriate care for patients and their families.

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Defining and Reducing Variant Classification Disparities

Background

Multiplexed Assays of Variant Effects (MAVEs) can test all possible single variants in a gene of interest. The resulting saturation-style data may help resolve variant classification disparities between populations, especially for variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Methods

We analyzed clinical significance classifications in 213,663 individuals of European-like genetic ancestry versus 206,975 individuals of non-European-like genetic ancestry from All of Us and the Genome Aggregation Database. Then, we incorporated clinically calibrated MAVE data into the Clinical Genome Resource's Variant Curation Expert Panel rules to automate VUS reclassification for BRCA1, TP53, and PTEN .

Results

Using two orthogonal statistical approaches, we show a higher prevalence ( p ≤5.95e-06) of VUS in individuals of non-European-like genetic ancestry across all medical specialties assessed in all three databases. Further, in the non-European-like genetic ancestry group, higher rates of Benign or Likely Benign and variants with no clinical designation ( p ≤2.5e-05) were found across many medical specialties, whereas Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic assignments were higher in individuals of European-like genetic ancestry ( p ≤2.5e-05). Using MAVE data, we reclassified VUS in individuals of non-European-like genetic ancestry at a significantly higher rate in comparison to reclassified VUS from European-like genetic ancestry ( p =9.1e-03) effectively compensating for the VUS disparity. Further, essential code analysis showed equitable impact of MAVE evidence codes but inequitable impact of allele frequency ( p =7.47e-06) and computational predictor ( p =6.92e-05) evidence codes for individuals of non-European-like genetic ancestry.

Conclusions

Generation of saturation-style MAVE data should be a priority to reduce VUS disparities and produce equitable training data for future computational predictors.

Variant reclassification and clinical implications

Genomic technologies have transformed clinical genetic testing, underlining the importance of accurate molecular genetic diagnoses. Variant classification, ranging from benign to pathogenic, is fundamental to these tests. However, variant reclassification, the process of reassigning the pathogenicity of variants over time, poses challenges to diagnostic legitimacy. This review explores the medical and scientific literature available on variant reclassification, focusing on its clinical implications.Variant reclassification is driven by accruing evidence from diverse sources, leading to variant reclassification frequency ranging from 3.6% to 58.8%. Recent studies have shown that significant changes can occur when reviewing variant classifications within 1 year after initial classification, illustrating the importance of early, accurate variant assignation for clinical care.Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are particularly problematic. They lack clear categorisation but have influenced patient treatment despite recommendations against it. Addressing VUS reclassification is essential to enhance the credibility of genetic testing and the clinical impact. Factors affecting reclassification include standardised guidelines, clinical phenotype-genotype correlations through deep phenotyping and ancestry studies, large-scale databases and bioinformatics tools. As genomic databases grow and knowledge advances, reclassification rates are expected to change, reducing discordance in future classifications.Variant reclassification affects patient diagnosis, precision therapy and family screening. The exact patient impact is yet unknown. Understanding influencing factors and adopting standardised guidelines are vital for precise molecular genetic diagnoses, ensuring optimal patient care and minimising clinical risk.

Genomic disparity impacts variant classification of cancer susceptibility genes in Turkish breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Turkish genome is underrepresented in large genomic databases. This study aims to evaluate the effect of allele frequency in the Turkish population in determining the clinical utility of germline findings in breast cancer, including invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L), and ductal carcinoma (DC).

METHODS

Two clinic-based cohorts from the Umraniye Research and Training Hospital (URTH) were used in this study: a cohort consisting of 132 women with breast cancer and a non-cancer cohort consisting of 492 participants. The evaluation of the germline landscape was performed by analysis of 27 cancer genes. The frequency and type of variants in the breast cancer cohort were compared to those in the non-cancer cohort to investigate the effect of population genetics. The variant allele frequencies in Turkish Variome and gnomAD were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

The genetic analysis identified 121 variants in the breast cancer cohort (actionable = 32, VUS = 89) and 223 variants in the non-cancer cohort (actionable = 25, VUS = 188). The occurrence of 21 variants in both suggested a possible genetic population effect. Evaluation of allele frequency of 121 variants from the breast cancer cohort showed 22% had a significantly higher value in Turkish Variome compared to gnomAD (p < 0.0001, 95% CI) with a mean difference of 60 times (ranging from 1.37-354.4). After adjusting for variant allele frequency using the ancestry-appropriate database, 6.7% (5/75) of VUS was reclassified to likely benign.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study of population genetic effects in breast cancer subtypes in Turkish women. Our findings underscore the need for a large genomic database representing Turkish population-specific variants. It further highlights the significance of the ancestry-appropriate population database for accurate variant assessment in clinical settings.

Germline and somatic testing for ovarian Cancer: An SGO clinical practice statement

Germline and somatic genetic testing have become critical components of care for people with ovarian cancer. The identification of germline and somatic pathogenic variants as well as homologous recombination deficiency can contribute to the prediction of treatment response, prognostic outcome, and suitability for targeted agents (e.g. poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors). Furthermore, identifying germline pathogenic variants can prompt cascade genetic testing for at-risk relatives. Despite the clinical benefits and consensus recommendations from several organizations calling for universal genetic testing in ovarian cancer, only about one third of patients complete germline or somatic genetic testing. The members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee have composed this statement to provide an overview of germline and somatic genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, focusing on available testing modalities and options for care delivery.

Practices and Views of US Oncologists and Genetic Counselors Regarding Patient Recontact After Variant Reclassification: Results of a Nationwide Survey

PURPOSE

Over a 5-year or 10-year period, between 6% and 15% of germline cancer genetic variants undergo reclassification. Up-to-date interpretation can clarify a variant's clinical significance and guide patient management. As the frequency of reclassifications increase, the issue of whether, how, when, and which providers should recontact patients with information about reclassification becomes important. However, the field lacks research evidence and definitive guidance from professional organizations about how providers should recontact patients. We compared the perspectives of US oncologists and cancer genetic counselors (GCs) to describe their practices and views regarding recontact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey using themes identified from semistructured interviews with oncologists and GCs and administered it in a national sample of oncologists and GCs between July and September 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 634 respondents completed the survey including 349 oncologists and 285 GCs. On frequency of recontacting patients with reclassified results, 40% of GCs reported recontacting often compared with 12.5% of oncologists. Neither group reported recording patient preference for recontact on electronic medical record (EMR). Both groups agreed that all reclassified variants, even those that do not affect clinical management, should be returned to patients. They also reported that recontact via EMR messages, mailed letters, and phone calls from GC assistants were more suitable for downgrades. By contrast, face-to-face meetings and phone calls were preferred for upgrades. Remarkably, oncologists were more likely to endorse face-to-face return of results and were more likely to endorse return through a nongenetics provider compared to GCs.

CONCLUSION

These data on current recontact practices and opinions provide a foundation for developing guidelines with explicit recommendations on patient recontact that can help maximize clinical effect while considering provider preferences for recontact within resource-constrained genomic practice settings.

Practical considerations for reinterpretation of individual genetic variants

With the growing use of genetic testing in medicine, the question of when genetic findings should be reinterpreted in light of new data has become inescapable. The generation of population and disease-specific data, development of computational tools, and new understandings of the relationship of specific genes to disorders can all trigger changes in variant classification that may have important implications for patients and the clinicians caring for them. This is a particular concern for patients from groups underrepresented in current reference datasets, since they have higher rates of uncertain findings. Here we identify the challenges to implementing a systematic approach to variant reinterpretation and propose solutions. In particular, we address (a) the infrastructure needed to support implementation of systematic variant reinterpretation, (b) the issues around obtaining consent from patients for reinterpretation, (c) the process for triggering reinterpretation, (d) pathways for the flow of reinterpreted data, (e) considerations for how to cover the costs of reinterpretation, and (f) practical issues related to implementation of processes and policies that address these issues, including the importance of a fixed duration during which there is an expectation that variants will be reinterpreted.

Cases in Precision Medicine: Is There an Obligation to Return Reinterpreted Genetic Results to Former Patients?

Interpretation of many genetic test results can change over time as new data accumulate. Hence, physicians who order genetic tests may subsequently receive revised reports with important implications for patients' medical treatment-even for patients who are no longer in their care. Several of the ethical principles underlying medical practice suggest an obligation to reach out to former patients with this information. Discharging that obligation can be accomplished, at a minimum, by attempting to contact the former patient with their last known contact information.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

BACKGROUND

Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have an unknown impact on health but can be clarified through reclassification. There is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, and racial/ethnic differences.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of persons with and without a personal history of cancer carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer predisposition genes seen at four cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019.

RESULTS

In 2715 individuals included in the study, 3261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported; 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications and rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). Compared to their prevalence in the overall sample, reclassification rates for Black individuals were higher (13.6% vs. 19.0%), whereas the rates for Asian individuals were lower (6.3% vs. 3.5%) and rates for White and Hispanic individuals were proportional. Two-year prevalence of VUS reclassification remained steady between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals' clinical managements.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this large multisite study suggest that VUS reclassification alters clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for implementing practices and solutions for efficiently returning reinterpreted genetic test results.

How should we address the inevitable harms from non-negligent variant reclassification in predictive genetic testing?

The process of interpreting genetic variants, in which experts use all available evidence to determine whether an identified variant is associated with a current or future disease, is both scientific and nevertheless subjective. In this paper, we summarize the existing evidence that any given variant could be reclassified and that such a reclassification could lead to harm. Furthermore, the racial gap in genetic databases could lead to a higher likelihood of harm for non-white patients. We also review recent legal analyses indicating it is unlikely that an individual who sues for restitution would be successful, especially in the absence of evidence of lab negligence. We then propose a compensation program for medical genetic tests to ensure that individuals who experience demonstrable harm due to a variant reclassification can be made whole financially. We conclude by discussing outstanding questions that must be answered for such a program to be feasible.

Rare diseases, common barriers: disparities in pediatric clinical genetics outcomes

BACKGROUND

Identifying a precise genetic diagnosis can improve outcomes for individuals with rare disease, though the resources required to do so may impede access and exacerbate healthcare disparities leading to inequitable care. Our objective was therefore to determine the effect of multiple sociodemographic factors on the yield of the diagnostic evaluation for genetics outpatients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from 2017 to 2019 of outpatient genetics referrals at a pediatric academic tertiary care center. Exposures included: primary language, insurance type, and neighborhood resources (via the Childhood Opportunity Index, COI). The primary outcome was identification of a genetic diagnosis within 2 years of the initial clinic visit.

RESULTS

COI quintile was not significantly associated with the odds of diagnosis but was significantly associated with clinic attendance, with lower neighborhood resources leading to incomplete referrals. Limited English proficiency was associated with a higher odds of diagnosis, though at an older age. Public insurance was associated with increased access to genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower neighborhood resources are negatively associated with clinic attendance. Our findings further suggest delays in care and a referral bias for more severe phenotypes among families with limited English proficiency. Improved access to clinical genetics is needed to improve diagnostic equity.

IMPACT

The resources required to identify a genetic diagnosis may impede access and exacerbate healthcare disparities leading to inequitable care. In an analysis of pediatric outpatient genetics referrals, we observed a significant association between neighborhood resources and clinic attendance but not diagnostic yield for those attending, and a higher diagnostic yield for families with limited English proficiency, suggesting referral bias for more severe phenotypes. Thus, the primary barrier to finding a genetic diagnosis was initiation of care, not the ensuing diagnostic odyssey. Further research efforts should be directed at increasing access to clinical genetics evaluations for children with rare disease.

Characterization of variant reclassification and patient re-contact in a cancer genetics clinic

Expanded genetic testing guidelines for hereditary cancers, increased utilization of large multigene panels, and improved methods for reclassifying variants have led to a greater need to understand how variant reclassification and patient re-contact are managed. This study aimed to describe the process of variant reclassification and subsequent patient re-contact at a comprehensive cancer genetic counseling service in a large metropolitan medical center with several statewide satellite locations. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify reclassified variants between 1/1/1997 and 12/1/2020. In total, 8.4% (211/2503) of variants were reclassified over the 24-year period, which includes multiple cases involving the same unique variant. Several variants underwent more than one reclassification, resulting in 232 total reclassifications among 194 individuals. Nearly all reclassifications were prompted by the laboratory (99.1%; 230/232) rather than the genetics clinic staff. Overall, 10.3% (24/232) of all reclassifications were upgrades, but only 9.1% (21/232) led to a change in management recommendations. The median time for variant reclassification was 1.7 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.8-3.2 years). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to reclassification for White patients (median = 1.6 years; IQR = 0.8-2.8 years) compared to non-White patients (median = 2.0 years; IQR = 0.9-3.7 years; Mann-Whitney U = 4,764.0, p = 0.066). Patient re-contact was attempted for 97.4% (226/232) of variants and was always performed by a genetic counselor, most often through a mailed letter (85.8%, 194/226). Specifically for reclassifications that led to a change in management recommendations, re-contact was always attempted, most often through combined telephone and mailed letter (95.2%; 20/21). Overall, the median time from reclassification to attempted patient re-contact was 13 days (range: 0-589 days). The characterization of this clinic's reclassification and re-contact procedures can serve as an example for other genetics clinics trying to incorporate re-contact into their workflow.

Shariant platform: Enabling evidence sharing across Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories to support variant interpretation

Sharing genomic variant interpretations across laboratories promotes consistency in variant assertions. A landscape analysis of Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories in 2017 identified that, despite the national-accreditation-body recommendations encouraging laboratories to submit genotypic data to clinical databases, fewer than 300 variants had been shared to the ClinVar public database. Consultations with Australian laboratories identified resource constraints limiting routine application of manual processes, consent issues, and differences in interpretation systems as barriers to sharing. This information was used to define key needs and solutions required to enable national sharing of variant interpretations. The Shariant platform, using both the GRCh37 and GRCh38 genome builds, was developed to enable ongoing sharing of variant interpretations and associated evidence between Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories. Where possible, two-way automated sharing was implemented so that disruption to laboratory workflows would be minimized. Terms of use were developed through consultation and currently restrict access to Australian clinical genetic-testing laboratories. Shariant was designed to store and compare structured evidence, to promote and record resolution of inter-laboratory classification discrepancies, and to streamline the submission of variant assertions to ClinVar. As of December 2021, more than 14,000 largely prospectively curated variant records from 11 participating laboratories have been shared. Discrepant classifications have been identified for 11% (28/260) of variants submitted by more than one laboratory. We have demonstrated that co-design with clinical laboratories is vital to developing and implementing a national variant-interpretation sharing effort. This approach has improved inter-laboratory concordance and enabled opportunities to standardize interpretation practices.

Transcriptome analysis provides critical answers to the "variants of uncertain significance" conundrum

While whole-genome and exome sequencing have transformed our collective understanding of genetics' role in disease pathogenesis, there are certain conditions and populations for whom DNA-level data fails to identify the underlying genetic etiology. Specifically, patients of non-White race and non-European ancestry are disproportionately affected by "variants of unknown/uncertain significance" (VUS), limiting the scope of precision medicine for minority patients and perpetuating health disparities. VUS often include deep intronic and splicing variants which are difficult to interpret from DNA data alone. RNA analysis can illuminate the consequences of VUS, thereby allowing for their reclassification as pathogenic versus benign. Here we review the critical role transcriptome analysis plays in clarifying VUS in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Ovarian Cancer Therapy: Homologous Recombination Deficiency as a Predictive Biomarker of Response to PARP Inhibitors

Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have revolutionised the management of patients with high-grade serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer demonstrating significant improvements in progression-free survival. Whilst the greatest benefit is seen with BRCA1/2 mutant cancers, it is clear that the benefit extends beyond this group. This sensitivity is thought to be due to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which is present in up to 50% of the high-grade serous cancers. Several different HRD assays exist, which fall into one of three main categories: homologous recombination repair (HRR)-related gene analysis, genomic “scars” and/or mutational signatures, and real-time HRD functional assessment. We review the emerging data on HRD as a predictive biomarker for PARP inhibitors and discuss the merits and disadvantages of different HRD assays.

Genetic testing in prostate cancer management: Considerations informing primary care

Inherited genetic mutations can significantly increase the risk for prostate cancer (PC), may be associated with aggressive disease and poorer outcomes, and can have hereditary cancer implications for men and their families. Germline genetic testing (hereditary cancer genetic testing) is now strongly recommended for patients with advanced/metastatic PC, particularly given the impact on targeted therapy selection or clinical trial options, with expanded National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and endorsement from multiple professional societies. Furthermore, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend genetic testing for men with PC across the stage and risk spectrum and for unaffected men at high risk for PC based on family history to identify hereditary cancer risk. Primary care is a critical field in which providers evaluate men at an elevated risk for PC, men living with PC, and PC survivors for whom germline testing may be indicated. Therefore, there is a critical need to engage and educate primary care providers regarding the role of genetic testing and the impact of results on PC screening, treatment, and cascade testing for family members of affected men. This review highlights key aspects of genetic testing in PC, the role of clinicians, with a focus on primary care, the importance of obtaining a comprehensive family history, current germline testing guidelines, and the impact on precision PC care. With emerging evidence and guidelines, clinical pathways are needed to facilitate integrated genetic education, testing, and counseling services in appropriately selected patients. There is also a need for providers to understand the field of genetic counseling and how best to collaborate to enhance multidisciplinary patient care.

Impact of Variant Reclassification in Cancer Predisposition Genes on Clinical Care

PURPOSE

Genetic testing has clinical utility in the management of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. However, the increased likelihood of encountering a variant of uncertain significance in individuals of non-European descent such as Asians may be challenging to both clinicians and patients. This study aims to evaluate the impact of variant reclassification in an Asian country with variants of uncertain significance reported in cancer predisposition genes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients seen at the Cancer Genetics Service at the National Cancer Centre Singapore between February 2014 and March 2020 was conducted. The frequency, direction, and time to variant reclassification were evaluated by comparing the reclassified report against the original report.

RESULTS

A total of 1,412 variants of uncertain significance were reported in 49.9% (845 of 1,695) of patients. Over 6 years, 6.7% (94 of 1,412) of variants were reclassified. Most variants of uncertain significance (94.1%, 80 of 85) were downgraded to benign or likely benign variant, with a smaller proportion of variants of uncertain significance (5.9%, 5 of 85) upgraded to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Actionable variants of uncertain significance upgrades and pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant downgrades, which resulted in management changes, happened in 31.0% (39 of 126) of patients. The median and mean time taken for reclassification were 1 and 1.62 year(s), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We propose a clinical guideline to standardize management of patients reported to have variants of uncertain significance. Management should be based on the patient's personal history, family history, and variant interpretation. For clinically relevant or suspicious variants of uncertain significance, follow-up is recommended every 2 years, as actionable reclassifications may happen during this period.

Genetic epidemiology of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated cancer across Latin America

The prevalence and contribution of BRCA1/2 (BRCA) pathogenic variants (PVs) to the cancer burden in Latin America are not well understood. This study aims to address this disparity. BRCA analyses were performed on prospectively enrolled Latin American Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network participants via a combination of methods: a Hispanic Mutation Panel (HISPANEL) on MassARRAY; semiconductor sequencing; and copy number variant (CNV) detection. BRCA PV probability was calculated using BRCAPRO. Among 1,627 participants (95.2% with cancer), we detected 236 (14.5%) BRCA PVs; 160 BRCA1 (31% CNVs); 76 BRCA2 PV frequency varied by country: 26% Brazil, 9% Colombia, 13% Peru, and 17% Mexico. Recurrent PVs (seen ≥3 times), some region-specific, represented 42.8% (101/236) of PVs. There was no ClinVar entry for 14% (17/125) of unique PVs, and 57% (111/196) of unique VUS. The area under the ROC curve for BRCAPRO was 0.76. In summary, we implemented a low-cost BRCA testing strategy and documented a significant burden of non-ClinVar reported BRCA PVs among Latin Americans. There are recurrent, population-specific PVs and CNVs, and we note that the BRCAPRO mutation probability model performs adequately. This study helps address the gap in our understanding of BRCA-associated cancer in Latin America.

Precision medicine for hereditary tumors in gynecologic malignancies

Genomic medicine for gynecologic tumors is characterized by hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS). Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, and the immune checkpoint inhibitor, pembrolizumab, which are drugs that show sensitivity to each hereditary tumor, have begun to spread in clinical practice for gynecologic malignancies. In clinical use, platinum sensitivity is used as a clinical surrogate marker for olaparib sensitivity, and microsatellite instability is used as a biological surrogate marker for pembrolizumab sensitivity. BRCA genetic testing and microsatellite instability test have been used as companion diagnostics before starting olaparib and pembrolizumab treatment, respectively. Homologous recombination deficiency test could be used for companion diagnostic of olaparib combination with bevacizumab in first-line maintenance treatment and niraparib without re-administration of platinum agents in the treatment of recurrence. The approval of the three drugs has been changing the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. Furthermore, preventive medical care has been covered by insurance since April 2020 for breast and/or ovarian cancer patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation in Japan. This review article outlines the current status and future prospects of precision medicine for gynecologic hereditary tumors focusing on HBOC and LS.

Recontacting registry participants with genetic updates through GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry

PURPOSE

Variant classifications and gene-disease relationships may evolve. Professional societies have suggested patients share the responsibility to remain up-to-date on the implications genetic results have on their health, and that novel methods of recontact are needed. GenomeConnect, the ClinGen patient registry, has implemented a process to provide variant classification and gene-disease relationship updates to participants. Here, we report on our experience with this recontacting process.

METHODS

GenomeConnect shares data with ClinVar and Matchmaker Exchange enabling the identification of updates to variant classifications and gene-disease relationships. For any updates identified, the reporting laboratory is contacted, and updates are shared with participants opting to receive them.

RESULTS

Of 1,419 variants shared with ClinVar by GenomeConnect, 49 (3.4%) variant reclassifications were identified and 34 were shared with participants. Of 97 candidate genes submitted to Matchmaker Exchange, 10 (10.3%) gene-disease relationships have been confirmed and 9 were shared with participants. Details available from a subset of participants highlight that updated information is not always shared with the patient by testing laboratories.

CONCLUSION

Patient registries can provide a mechanism for patients and their providers to remain informed about changes to the interpretation and clinical significance of their genetic results, leading to important implications for care.

Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes-Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are a communication process to inform and prepare patients for genetic test results and the related medical management. An increasing number of healthcare providers are active in the delivery of cancer risk assessment and testing, which can have enormous benefits for enhanced patient care. However, genetics professionals remain key in the multidisciplinary care of at-risk patients and their families, given their training in facilitating patients' understanding of the role of genetics in cancer development, the potential psychological, social, and medical implications associated with cancer risk assessment and genetic testing. A collaborative partnership of non-genetics and genetics experts is the ideal approach to address the growing number of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The goal of this practice resource is to provide allied health professionals an understanding of the key components of risk assessment for HBOC as well as the use of risk models and published guidelines for medical management. We also highlight what patient types are appropriate for genetic testing, what are the most appropriate test(s) to consider, and when to refer individuals to a genetics professional. This practice resource is intended to serve as a resource for allied health professionals in determining their approach to delivering comprehensive care for families and individuals facing HBOC. The cancer risk and prevalence figures in this document are based on cisgender women and men; the risks for transgender or non-binary individuals have not been studied and therefore remain poorly understood.

The influence of social determinants of health on the genetic diagnostic odyssey: who remains undiagnosed, why, and to what effect?

Although Mendelian genetic disorders are individually rare, they are collectively more common and contribute disproportionately to pediatric morbidity and mortality. Remarkable advances in the past decade have led to identification of the precise genetic variants responsible for many of these conditions. Confirming the molecular diagnosis through genetic testing allows for individualized treatment plans in addition to ending the diagnostic odyssey, which not only halts further unnecessary testing but may also result in immense psychological benefit, leading to improved quality of life. However, ensuring equitable application of these advances in genomic technology has been challenging. Though prior studies have revealed disparities in testing for genetic predisposition to cancer in adults, little is known about the prevalence and nature of disparities in diagnostic testing in the pediatric rare disease population. While it seems logical that those with impaired access to healthcare would be less likely to receive the genetic testing needed to end their odyssey, few studies have addressed this question directly and the potential impact on health outcomes. This review synthesizes the available evidence regarding disparities in pediatric genetic diagnosis, defining the need for further, prospective studies with the ultimate goal of delivering precision medicine to all who stand to benefit. IMPACT: Social determinants of health are known to contribute to inequality in outcomes, though the impact on pediatric rare disease patients is not fully understood. Diagnostic genetic testing is a powerful tool, though it may not be available to all in need. This article represents the first effort, to our knowledge, to evaluate the existing literature regarding disparities in genetic testing for pediatric rare disease diagnosis and identify gaps in care.

GENETIC DUTIES

Most of our genetic information does not change, yet the results of our genetic tests might. Labs reclassify genetic variants in response to advances in genetic science. As a result, a person who took a test in 2010 could take the same test with the same lab in 2020 and get a different result. However, no legal duty requires labs or physicians to inform patients when a lab reclassifies a variant, even if the reclassification communicates clinically actionable information. This Article considers the need for such duties and their potential challenges. In so doing, it offers much-needed guidance to physicians and labs, who may face liability, and to courts, which will hear these cases.

Gene panel screening for insight towards breast cancer susceptibility in different ethnicities

African American breast cancer genetics is less understood compared to European American breast cancer susceptibility. Despite the many advantages of gene panel screening, studies investigating African American inherited breast cancer risk and comparing variant contributions between ethnicities are infrequent. Thus, 97 breast cancer-affected individuals of African and European descent from the Alabama Hereditary Cancer Cohort were screened using the research-based gene-panel, B.O.P. (Breast, Ovarian, and Prostate cancer). Upon sequencing and bioinformatic processing, rare coding variants in 14 cancer susceptibility genes were categorized according to the American College of Medical Genetics guidelines and compared between ethnicities. Overall, 107 different variants were identified, the majority of which were benign/likely benign. A pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant was detected in 8.6% and 6.5% of African American and European American cases, respectively, which was not statistically significant. However, African Americans were more likely to have at least one variant of uncertain significance (VUS; p-value 0.006); they also had significantly more VUSs in BRCA1/2 compared to European Americans (p-value 0.015). Additionally, 51.4% of African Americans and 32.3% of European Americans harbored multiple rare variants, and African Americans were more likely to have at least one VUS and one benign/likely benign variant (p-value 0.032), as well as multiple benign/likely benign variants (p-value 0.089). Moreover, of the 15 variants detected in multiple breast cancer cases, ATM c.2289T>C (p.F763L), a VUS, along with two likely benign variants, BRCA2 c.2926_2927delinsAT (p.S976I) and RAD51D c.251T>A (p.L84H), were determined to be associated with African American breast cancer risk when compared to ethnic-specific controls. Ultimately, B.O.P. screening provides essential insight towards the variant contributions in clinically relevant cancer susceptibility genes and differences between ethnicities, stressing the need for future research to elucidate inherited breast cancer risk.

Investigation into the origins of an ancient BRCA1 founder mutation identified among Chinese families in Singapore

Identification of ancestry-specific pathogenic variants is imperative for diagnostic, treatment, management and prevention strategies, and to understand penetrance/modifiers on risk. Our study aimed to determine the clinical significance of a recurrent BRCA1 c.442-22_442-13del variant of unknown significance identified among 13 carriers from six Chinese families, all with a significant history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. We further aimed to establish whether this was due to a founder effect and explore its origins. Haplotype analysis, using nine microsatellite markers encompassing 2.5 megabase pairs around the BRCA1 locus, identified a common haploblock specific to the variant carriers, confirming a founder effect. Variant age was estimated to date back 77.9 generations to 69 bc using the Gamma approach. On principal component analysis using single nucleotide polymorphisms merged with 1000 Genomes dataset, variant carriers were observed to overlap predominantly with the southern Han Chinese population. To determine pathogenicity of the variant, we assessed the functional effect on RAD51 foci formation as well as replication fork stability upon induction of DNA damage and observed an impaired DNA repair response associated with the variant. In summary, we identified an ancient Chinese founder mutation dating back 77.9 generations, possibly common among individuals of southern Han Chinese descent. Using evidence from phenotypic/family history studies, segregation analysis and functional characterization, the BRCA1 variant was reclassified from uncertain significance to pathogenic.

Pathogenic and Uncertain Genetic Variants Have Clinical Cardiac Correlates in Diverse Biobank Participants

Background

Genome sequencing coupled with electronic heath record data can uncover medically important genetic variation. Interpretation of rare genetic variation and its role in mediating cardiovascular phenotypes is confounded by variants of uncertain significance.

Methods and Results

We analyzed the whole genome sequence of 900 racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants selected from a single US center. Participants were equally divided among European, African, Hispanic, and mixed races/ethnicities. We evaluated the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics medically actionable list of 59 genes, focusing on the cardiac genes. Variation was interpreted using the most recent reports in ClinVar, a database of medically relevant human variation. We identified 19 individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in cardiac actionable genes (2%) and found evidence of related clinical correlates in the electronic health record. Participants of African ancestry, compared with those of European ancestry, had more variants of uncertain significance in the medically actionable genes including the 30 cardiac actionable genes, even when normalized to total variant count per person. Longitudinal measures of left ventricle size from ≈400 biobank participants (1723 patient‐years) were correlated with genetic findings. The presence of ≥1 uncertain variant in the actionable cardiac genes and a cardiomyopathy diagnosis correlated with increased left ventricular internal diameter in diastole and in systole. In particular, MYBPC3 was identified as a gene with excess variants of uncertain significance.

Conclusions

These data indicate that a subset of uncertain genetic variants may confer risk and should not be considered benign.

Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Genetic testing for cancer risk has expanded rapidly. We examined clinical genetic testing and results among population-based patients with breast and ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The study included all women 20 years of age or older diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2014 and reported to the SEER registries covering the entire state populations. SEER data were linked to results from four laboratories that performed nearly all germline cancer genetic testing. Testing use and results were analyzed at the gene level.

RESULTS

There were 77,085 patients with breast cancer and 6,001 with ovarian cancer. Nearly one quarter of those with breast cancer (24.1%) and one third of those with ovarian cancer (30.9%) had genetic test results. Among patients with ovarian cancer, testing was lower in blacks (21.6%; 95% CI, 18.1% to 25.4%; v whites, 33.8%; 95% CI, 32.3% to 35.3%) and uninsured patients (20.8%; 95% CI, 15.5% to 26.9%; v insured patients, 35.3%; 95% CI, 33.8% to 36.9%). Prevalent pathogenic variants in patients with breast cancer were BRCA1 (3.2%), BRCA2 (3.1%), CHEK 2 (1.6%), PALB2 (1.0%), ATM (0.7%), and NBN (0.4%); in patients with ovarian cancer, prevalent pathogenic variants were BRCA1 (8.7%), BRCA2 (5.8%), CHEK2 (1.4%), BRIP1 (0.9%), MSH2 (0.8%), and ATM (0.6%). Racial/ethnic differences in pathogenic variants included BRCA1 (ovarian cancer: whites, 7.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 8.8%; v Hispanics, 16.1%; 95% CI, 11.8% to 21.2%) and CHEK2 (breast cancer: whites, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%; v blacks, 0.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 0.8%). When tested for all genes that current guidelines designate as associated with their cancer type, 7.8% of patients with breast cancer and 14.5% of patients with ovarian cancer had pathogenic variants.

CONCLUSION

Clinically-tested patients with breast and ovarian cancer in two large, diverse states had 8% to 15% prevalence of actionable pathogenic variants. Substantial testing gaps and disparities among patients with ovarian cancer are targets for improvement.

Germline Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Risk: The Past, Present, and Future

The field of germline genetic testing for breast cancer (BC) risk has evolved substantially in the last decade. The introduction of multigene panel testing (MGPT) led to an urgent need to understand the cancer risk associated with several genes included in the panels. Although the research on understanding the cancer risk associated with mutations in several genes continues, there is also a need to understand the modifying effects of race and ethnicity, family history, and BC pathology on the prevalence of germline mutations and associated BC risk. Furthermore, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to predict BC risk in patients with or without germline mutations in cancer-predisposition genes are now available for clinical use, although data on the clinical utility of PRSs are lacking. In patients with advanced BC associated with BRCA1/2 mutation, olaparib and talazoparib are now approved for treatment. In addition, molecular profiling studies are being used to clarify the BC tumor biology in mutation carriers to identify potential therapeutic options. In this article, we discuss these advances in the field of germline genetic testing and highlight current limitations and implications for clinical care.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Germline Genetic Testing: What the Breast Surgeon Needs to Know

PURPOSE

The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) sought to provide educational guidelines for breast surgeons on how to incorporate genetic information and genomics into their practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive nonsystematic review was performed of selected peer-reviewed literature. The Genetics Working Group of the ASBrS convened to develop guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

Clinical and educational guidelines were prepared to outline the essential knowledge for breast surgeons to perform germline genetic testing and to incorporate the findings into their practice, which have been approved by the ASBrS Board of Directors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Thousands of women in the USA would potentially benefit from genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other breast cancer genes that markedly increase their risk of developing breast cancer. As genetic testing is now becoming more widely available, women should be made aware of these tests and consider testing. Breast surgeons are well positioned to help facilitate this process. The areas where surgeons need to be knowledgeable include: (1) identification of patients for initial breast cancer-related genetic testing, (2) identification of patients who tested negative in the past but now need updated testing, (3) initial cancer genetic testing, (4) retesting of patients who need their genetic testing updated, (5) cancer genetic test interpretation, posttest counseling and management, (6) management of variants of uncertain significance, (7) cascade genetic testing, (8) interpretation of genetic tests other than clinical cancer panels and the counseling and management required, and (9) interpretation of somatic genetic tests and the counseling and management required.

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

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.

The effects of genomic germline variant reclassification on clinical cancer care

The last two decades have provided an astounding amount of novel information about the human genome. Translating germline genomic data into clinically actionable findings is reliant on the annotation and laboratory classification of specific variants. Variant classification helps providers and patients determine if genomic findings can inform clinical management. In germline hereditary cancer predisposition testing, variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are routinely misunderstood. By definition, they cannot be classified by the testing laboratory as either problematic mutations or benign variants. Many VUS undergo category reclassifications over time (from months to years after initial classification) as more information is known about normal human genomic diversity, especially among underrepresented minority populations. When VUS are reclassified, it has been shown that they are often downgraded. Likewise, some variants originally thought to be actionable mutations are downgraded to VUS or benign variants. Rarely but importantly, VUS may be reclassified in a manner that increases their initial clinical significance. Here, we discuss the insights gained from the study of variant reclassification. We provide a case series to highlight the potential impact that variant reclassifications can have on individual and family cancer management, risk counseling, and screening.