BRCA mutation testing for ovarian cancer in the context of available targeted therapy: Survey and consensus of Hong Kong specialists

Mutation Spectrum Comparison between Benign Breast Lesion Cohort, Unselected Cancer Cohort and High-Risk Breast Cancer Cohort

Mutation study for high-risk breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has been extensively studied in patients of different ethnicities. Here we compared the germline mutation rate and mutation spectrum of patients (n = 4341) with benign breast diseases or breast cancers, with and without other risk factors. Three cohorts of Chinese patients were recruited. The first cohort, high-risk cohort (HR, n = 3935) included high-risk breast cancer patients fulfilling high-risk HBOC criteria and who are recruited at our genetics clinic. The second cohort, unselected cancer cohort (CC, n = 307) was from general recruitment of patients with breast cancer at breast surgery clinics. The third cohort, benign breast lesion cohort (NC, n = 99) comprised 99 patients with benign breast diseases such as fibroadenoma, fibroadenomatoid hyperplasia, and intraductal papilloma. Thirty HBOC related genes were sequenced on the above-mentioned patient cohorts. The germline mutation rates of HR, CC, and NC cohort were 11.9%, 6.5%, and 8.1%, respectively. In the CC cohort, 29.3% (90/307) of patients fulfilled the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk genetic test criteria 2022 v.2. The mutation rate for this group of patients was 11.1%, similar to that of the HR cohort, while the mutation rate for those not fulfilling testing criteria was 4.6%, like that of the NC cohort. High penetrance genes (BRCA1/2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53) mutations were only found in the HR (10.6%) and CC (3.3%) cohorts but were not found in the NC cohort. ATM, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D mutations were identified in all cohorts. RAD51C and RAD51D mutations showed conflicting penetrance. An unexpectedly high mutation rate of total 2% was found in the NC cohort but it was only 0.3% and 0.5% in the HR cohort and CC cohort, respectively. Our results show a clinical need to enhance genetic testing of unselected breast cancer patients to identify the high-risk patients.

Genetic Testing and Its Clinical Application in Prostate Cancer Management: Consensus Statements from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology

Background

In recent years, indications for genetic testing in prostate cancer (PC) have expanded from patients with a family history of prostate and/or related cancers to those with advanced castration-resistant disease, and even to early PC patients for determination of the appropriateness of active surveillance. The current consensus aims to provide guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian PC patients on who and what to test for in selected populations.

Methods

A joint consensus panel from the Hong Kong Urological Association and Hong Kong Society of Uro-Oncology was convened over a series of 5 physical and virtual meetings. A background literature search on genetic testing in PC was performed in PubMed, ClinicalKey, EBSCOHost, Ovid and ProQuest, and three working subgroups were formed to review and present the relevant evidence. Meeting agendas adopted a modified Delphi approach to ensure that discussions proceed in a structured, iterative and balanced manner, which was followed by an anonymous voting on candidate statements. Of 5 available answer options, a consensus statement was accepted if ≥ 75% of the panelists chose “Accept Completely” (Option A) or “Accept with Some Reservation” (Option B).

Results

The consensus was structured into three parts: indications for testing, testing methods, and therapeutic implications. A list of 35 candidate statements were developed, of which 31 were accepted. The statements addressed questions on the application of PC genetic testing data and guidelines to Asian patients, including patient selection for germline testing, selection of gene panel and tissue sample, provision of genetic counseling, and use of novel systemic treatments in metastatic castration-resistant PC patients.

Conclusion

This consensus provides guidance to urologists, oncologists and pathologists working with Asian patients on indications for genetic testing, testing methods and technical considerations, and associated therapeutic implications.

Awareness of genetic counseling and genetic testing for hereditary gynecologic cancers among Korean healthcare providers: A survey

We conducted a survey to evaluate the awareness of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary gynecologic cancers among Korean healthcare providers. We performed an on-the-spot survey using 29 questions on respondents' basic information, awareness of pre/post-test genetic counseling, genetic information management, and related social issues. We surveyed healthcare providers who attended the 2019 Hereditary Gynecologic Cancer Symposium organized by the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Of the 108 attendees, 85 (78.7%) participated in the survey. Among them, 45% (37/83) and 40% (33/83) did not have a separate clinic and had a dedicated team for genetic counseling in their institutions, respectively. Most respondents (60/76, 79%) recommended genetic testing for all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Many respondents simultaneously (20/85, 24%) or sequentially (45/85, 53%) tested for both pathogenic somatic and germline variants, whereas a few respondents (2/85, 2%) checked for only pathogenic somatic variants using tissue samples. Only 20% (17/85) of the respondents recommended genetic testing for all women with endometrial cancer; meanwhile, 68% (58/86) offered the test based on the results of the screening test or family history. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was recommended to unaffected women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants by 69.4% of the respondents (59/85). Most respondents (73/85, 85.9%) needed a manual on bioethics law; a few required a clinical update of hereditary cancer (73/85, 85.9%). The awareness of genetic counseling and testing and the pattern of clinical practice for hereditary gynecologic cancers differ among institutions and regions in Korea. A discussion on these issues and the development of an integrated manual for healthcare providers are required.