Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in a Hospital-Based Series of Women With Breast Cancer

Gender minorities in breast cancer - Clinical trials enrollment disparities: Focus on male, transgender and gender diverse patients

BACKGROUND

The last years have seen unprecedented improvement in breast cancer (BC) survival rates. However, this entirely apply to female BC patients, since gender minorities (male, transgender/gender-diverse) are neglected in BC phase III registration clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of phase III clinical trials of agents with a current positioning within the therapeutic algorithms of BC.

RESULTS

We selected 51 phase III trials. Men enrollment was allowed in 35.3% of trials. In none of the trial inclusion/exclusion criteria referred to transgender/gender-diverse people. A numerical higher rate of enrolled men was observed in the contemporary as compared to historical group. We found a statistically significant association between the drug class and the possibility of including men: 100%, 80%, 50%, 33.3%, 25%, 10% and 9.1% of trials testing ICI/PARP-i, ADCs, PI3K/AKT/mTOR-i, anti-HER2 therapy, CDK4/6-i, ET alone, and CT alone. Overall, 77409 patients were enrolled, including 112 men (0.2%). None of the trial reported transgender/gender-diverse people proportion. Studies investigating PARP-i were significantly associated with the highest rate of enrolled men (1.42%), while the lowest rates were observed for trials of CT (0.13%), ET alone (0.10%), and CDK 4/6-I (0.08%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that gender minorities are severely underrepresented among BC registration trials. We observed a lower rate of men in trials envisaging endocrine manipulation or in less contemporary trials. This work sought to urge the scientific community to increase the awareness level towards the issue of gender minorities and to endorse more inclusive criteria in clinical trials.

Precision Oncology in Breast Cancer Surgery

Outcomes for patients with breast cancer have improved over time due to increased screening and the availability of more effective therapies. It is important to recognize that breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease that requires treatment based on molecular characteristics. Early endpoints such as pathologic complete response correlate with event-free survival, allowing the opportunity to consider de-escalation of certain cancer treatments to avoid overtreatment. This article discusses clinical trials of tailoring treatment (eg, I-SPY2) and screening (eg, WISDOM) to individual patients based on their unique risk features.

Germline mutations of 4567 patients with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer spectrum in Thailand

Multi-gene panel testing has led to the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in many cancer susceptibility genes in patients with breast-ovarian cancer spectrum. However, the clinical and genomic data of Asian populations, including Thai cancer patients, was underrepresented, and the clinical significance of multi-gene panel testing in Thailand remains undetermined. In this study, we collected the clinical and genetic data from 4567 Thai patients with cancer in the hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) spectrum who underwent multi-gene panel testing. Six hundred and ten individuals (13.4%) had germline P/LP variants. Detection rates of germline P/LP variants in breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer were 11.8%, 19.8%, 14.0%, and 7.1%, respectively. Non-BRCA gene mutations accounted for 35% of patients with germline P/LP variants. ATM was the most common non-BRCA gene mutation. Four hundred and thirty-two breast cancer patients with germline P/LP variants (80.4%) met the current NCCN genetic testing criteria. The most common indication was early-onset breast cancer. Ten patients harbored double pathogenic variants in this cohort. Our result showed that a significant proportion of non-BRCA P/LP variants were identified in patients with HBOC-related cancers. These findings support the benefit of multi-gene panel testing for inherited cancer susceptibility among Thai HBOC patients. Some modifications of the testing policy may be appropriate for implementation in diverse populations.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Pivotal Role of Genetic Counselors in the Uptake of Germline Genetic Testing in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer and the Impact of Testing on Surgical Decision Making

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing is increasingly utilized in breast cancer patients; however, testing rates remain low. We aimed to evaluate the rate of genetic testing at a tertiary academic medical center utilizing a multidisciplinary clinic model including genetic counselor.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective chart review was performed on a cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from January 2018 through February 2019. Patients were reviewed for genetic screening eligibility, consultation with a genetic counselor, and test results.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 426 patients. 261 (61.3%) were found to meet National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for genetic testing, of which 178 patient (68.2%) underwent testing and 32 patients (12.3%) declined testing. Of the 165 not eligible for testing, 5 patients were tested. A total of 183 patients underwent testing and 116 (63.4%) had a negative result, 17 (9.3%) were positive for at least one gene mutation and 50 (27.3%) were identified to have a variant of unknown significance (VUS). There was a positive association between those patients who met with a genetic counselor and eligibility for testing (OR 31.1, 95% CI 16.0-60.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing result has become an increasingly important factor when defining optimal surgical treatment for breast cancer patients. Increasing the availability of genetic consultation for breast cancer patients can improve testing rates and patient selection.

A Randomized Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Pre-test Genetic Counseling Using an Artificial Intelligence Automated Chatbot and Traditional In-person Genetic Counseling in Women Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Alternative service delivery models are critically needed to address the increasing demand for genetics services and limited supply of genetics experts available to provide pre-test counseling.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of women with stage 0-III breast cancer not meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for genetic testing. Patients were randomized to pre-test counseling with a Chatbot or a certified genetic counselor (GC). Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge of breast cancer genetics and a survey assessing satisfaction with their decision regarding pre-test counseling.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients were enrolled and 37 were randomized to genetic counseling with an automated Chatbot or a GC; 19 were randomized to Chatbot and 18 to traditional genetic counseling, and 13 (38.2%) had a family member with breast cancer but did not meet NCCN criteria. All patients opted to undergo genetic testing. Testing revealed six pathogenic variants in five patients (13.5%): CHEK2 (n = 2), MSH3 (n = 1), MUTYH (n = 1), and BRCA1 and HOXB13 (n = 1). No patients had a delay in time-to-treatment due to genetic testing turnaround time, nor did any patients undergo additional risk reducing surgery. There was no significant difference in median knowledge score between Chatbot and traditional counseling (11 vs. 12, p = 0.09) or in median patient satisfaction score (30 vs. 30, p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

Satisfaction and comprehension in patients with breast cancer undergoing pre-test genetic counseling using an automated Chatbot is comparable to in-person genetic testing. Utilization of this technology can offer improved access to care and a much-needed alternative for pre-test counseling.

Incorporating Value-Based Decisions in Breast Cancer Treatment Algorithms

Given the excellent prognosis and availability of evidence-based treatment, patients with early-stage breast cancer are at risk of overtreatment. In this review, we summarize key opportunities to incorporate value-based decisions to optimize the delivery of high-value treatment across the breast cancer care continuum.

The Association of PTEN Gene Mutations with the Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in women in western countries. A significant part of malignant cases is caused by genetic mutation. Mutations in the gene phosphatase and tensin homologue deleted on chromosome (PTEN) have been proven in various malignancies. The present study was conducted with the aim of investigating the prevalence of BC due to PTEN gene mutation, as well as estimating the chance of developing BC due to the occurrence of PTEN gene mutation. The present study was conducted using a systematic review method based on PRISMA 2020 statements. The search was done in PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and direct scientific databases. The search was performed using the keywords breast cancer, breast malignancy, PTEN, polymorphism, mutation, variant, and their equivalents. Statistical analysis was performed using the second version of Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. A total of 2138 articles were collected. After removing duplicate articles, checking the title and abstract, and then checking the full text of the documents, finally 64 articles were approved and entered the systematic review process. Analysis of these studies with a sample size of 231,179 showed the prevalence of breast cancer patients with PTEN mutations. The combined results of 64 studies showed that the prevalence of PTEN mutations has a 3.3 (95% CI 2.2-5) in BC patients, and an analysis of 6 studies showed that the odds ratio of developing BC due to PTEN mutation is 3.7 (95% CI 1.1-11.9). The results of this study show that mutation in the PTEN gene increases the chance of developing BC. However, it was found that a small part of patients gets BC due to the occurrence of mutation in this gene.

Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: The 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference against the Background of Current German Treatment Recommendations

This year's 18th St. Gallen (SG) consensus conference on the treatment of early breast cancer (SGBCC: St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference) focused on practice-oriented questions. The individual situation and risk-benefit assessment were discussed in great detail. As in previous years, a German working group of leading breast cancer experts presented the results of the international SGBCC 2023 against the background of German treatment recommendations - especially the updated treatment recommendations of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie e. V. (AGO) - for everyday clinical practice in Germany. The German treatment recommendations of AGO are based on the current evidence. The comparison with the clinical approach in Germany has proven useful, as the SGBCC panel consists of experts from different countries and disciplines. That is why country-specific characteristics can be incorporated into the SGBCC recommendations.

Which Patients Do We Need to Test for BRCA1/2 Mutation? Feasibility of Adjuvant Olaparib Treatment in Early Breast Cancer-Real-World Data from Two Large German Breast Centers

BACKGROUND

Approximately 6% of women with breast cancer carry pathogenic germline variants in predisposition genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Depending on personal and family cancer history, it is therefore recommended to test for hereditary breast cancer. Moreover, as shown by the phase III OlympiA trial, olaparib significantly improves overall survival in patients with HER2 negative (HER2-) early breast cancer who (1) carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation (gBRCA1/2-positive), (2) have received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and (3) are at high clinical risk. The objective of the current analysis was to determine the number of patients with early HER2- breast cancer who are at high clinical risk, according to the inclusion criteria of OlympiA, and to estimate how many of these patients would meet the criteria for hereditary cancer testing in a real-world analysis.

METHODS

All patients included in this retrospective analysis were treated for early breast cancer (eBC) at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University Hospital, Germany, and the Department of Women's Health at Tuebingen University Hospital, Germany, between January 2018 and December 2020. Patients were identified as high risk, in line with the clinicopathological determiners used in the OlympiA trial. The criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer were used to identify patients who qualify for hereditary cancer testing.

RESULTS

Of 2384 eligible patients, 1738 patients (72.9%) showed a hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2- tumor biology, 345 patients (14.5%) displayed HER2+ breast cancer and 301 patients (12.6%) suffered from HR-/HER2- breast cancer (TNBC). Of 2039 HER2- breast cancer patients, 271 patients (13.3%) were at high clinical risk. This cohort encompassed 130 of the 1738 patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer (7.5%) and 141 of 301 patients with TNBC (46.8%). A total of 121 of 271 patients (44.6%) with high clinical risk met the criteria for hereditary cancer testing (34 of 130 (26.2%) HR+/HER2- patients and 87 of 141 (61.7%) patients with TNBC).

CONCLUSION

Approximately one in ten patients with HR+/HER2-, and half of the patients with TNBC, meet the high-risk criteria according to OlympiA. Half of these patients do not meet the criteria for hereditary cancer testing and should therefore be tested for the presence of gBRCA1/2 mutations, irrespective of their own or family cancer history. The overall number of patients with early breast cancer benefiting from olaparib needs to be investigated in future studies.

Adjuvant Olaparib for Germline BRCA Carriers With HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer: Evidence and Controversies

In the OlympiA study, 1 year of adjuvant olaparib significantly extended invasive disease-free survival and overall survival. The benefit was consistent across subgroups, and this regimen is now recommended after chemotherapy for germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCA1/2m) carriers with high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer. However, the integration of olaparib in the landscape of agents currently available in the post(neo)adjuvant setting-ie, pembrolizumab, abemaciclib, and capecitabine-is challenging, as there are no data suggesting how to select, sequence, and/or combine these therapeutic approaches. Furthermore, it is unclear how to best identify additional patients who could benefit from adjuvant olaparib beyond the original OlympiA criteria. Since it is unlikely that new clinical trials will answer these questions, recommendations for clinical practice can be made through indirect evidence. In this article, we review available data that could help guide treatment decisions for gBRCA1/2m carriers with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer.

Effect on Germline Mutation Rate in a High-Risk Chinese Breast Cancer Cohort after Compliance with The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2023 v.1 Testing Criteria

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) testing criteria for the high-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, specifically BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53, have been recently modified in 2023 to 2023 v.1. The following criteria have been changed: (1) from a person diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤45 to ≤50; (2) from aged 45-50 of personal breast diagnosis to any age of diagnosis with multiple breast cancers; and (3) from aged ≥51 of personal breast diagnosis to any age of diagnosis with family history listed in NCCN 2022 v.2.

METHODS

High-risk breast cancer patients (n = 3797) were recruited from the Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry between 2007 and 2022. Patients were grouped according to NCCN testing criteria 2023 v.1 and 2022 v.2. A 30-gene panel for hereditary breast cancer was performed. The mutation rates on high-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes were compared.

RESULTS

About 91.2% of the patients met the 2022 v.2 criteria, while 97.5% of the patients met the 2023 v.1 criteria. An extra 6.4% of the patients were included after the revision of the criteria, and 2.5% of the patients did not meet both testing criteria. The germline BRCA1/2 mutation rates for patients meeting the 2022 v.2 and 2023 v.1 criteria were 10.1% and 9.6%, respectively. The germline mutation rates of all 6 high-penetrance genes in these two groups were 12.2% and 11.6%, respectively. Among the additional 242 patients who were included using the new selection criteria, the mutation rates were 2.1% and 2.5% for BRCA1/2 and all 6 high-penetrance genes, respectively. Patients who did not meet both testing criteria were those with multiple personal cancers, a strong family history of cancers not listed in the NCCN, unclear pathology information, or the patient's voluntary intention to be tested. The mutation rates of BRCA1/2 and the 6 high-penetrance genes in these patients were 5.3% and 6.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study provided a real-world application of the revision of NCCN guidelines and its effect on the germline mutation rate in the Chinese population. Applying the updated criteria for further genetic investigation would increase the positive detection rate, and potentially more patients would benefit. The balance between the resource and outcome requires careful consideration.

The Role of the Surgeon in the Germline Testing of the Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patient

For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, information regarding hereditary predisposition can influence treatment decisions. From a surgical standpoint, patients with known germline mutations may alter decisions of local therapy to reduce the risk of second breast primaries. This information may also be considered in the choice of adjuvant therapies or eligibility for clinical trials. In recent years, the criteria for the consideration of germline testing in patients with breast cancer has expanded. Additionally, studies have shown a similar prevalence of pathogenic mutations in those patients outside of these traditional criteria, prompting calls for genetic testing for all patients with a history of breast cancer. While data confirms the benefit of counseling by certified genetics professionals, the capacity of genetic counselors may no longer meet the needs of these growing numbers of patients. National societies assert that counseling and testing can be performed by providers with training and experience in genetics. Breast surgeons are well positioned to offer this service, as they receive formal genetics training during their fellowship, manage these patients daily in their practices, and are often the first providers to see patients after their cancer diagnosis.

Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: A Comprehensive Review with a Visual Tool

Hereditary cancer syndromes account for nearly 10% of cancers even though they are often underdiagnosed. Finding a pathogenic gene variant could have dramatic implications in terms of pharmacologic treatments, tailored preventive programs, and familiar cascade testing. However, diagnosing a hereditary cancer syndrome could be challenging because of a lack of validated testing criteria or because of their suboptimal performance. In addition, many clinicians are not sufficiently well trained to identify and select patients that could benefit from a genetic test. Herein, we searched the available literature to comprehensively review and categorize hereditary cancer syndromes affecting adults with the aim of helping clinicians in their daily clinical practice through a visual tool.

What is the appropriate genetic testing criteria for breast cancer in the Chinese population?-Analysis of genetic and clinical features from a single cancer center database

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing plays an important role in guiding screening, diagnosis, and precision treatment of breast cancer (BC). However, the appropriate genetic testing criteria remain controversial. The current study aims to facilitate the development of suitable strategies by analyzing the germline mutational profiles and clinicopathological features of large-scale Chinese BC patients.

METHODS

BC patients who had undergone genetic testing at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC) from September 2014 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Different screening criteria were applied and compared in the population cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1035 BC patients were enrolled, 237 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (P/LPV) were identified in 235 patients, including 41 out of 203 (19.6%) patients tested only for BRCA1/2 genes, and 194 out of 832 (23.3%) received 21 genes panel testing. Among the 235 P/LPV carriers, 222 (94.5%) met the NCCN high-risk criteria, and 13 (5.5%) did not. While using Desai's criteria of testing, all females diagnosed with BC by 60 years and NCCN criteria for older patients, 234 (99.6%) met the high-risk standard, and only one did not. The 21 genes panel testing identified 4.9% of non-BRCA P/LPVs and a significantly high rate of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) (33.9%). The most common non-BRCA P/LPVs were PALB2 (11, 1.3%), TP53 (10, 1.2%), PTEN (3, 0.4%), CHEK2 (3, 0.4%), ATM (3, 0.4%), BARD1 (3, 0.4%), and RAD51C (2, 0.2%). Compared with BRCA1/2 P/LPVs, non-BRCA P/LPVs showed a significantly low incidence of NCCN criteria listed family history, second primary cancer, and different molecular subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Desai's criteria might be a more appropriate genetic testing strategy for Chinese BC patients. Panel testing could identify more non-BRCA P/LPVs than BRCA1/2 testing alone. Compared with BRCA1/2 P/LPVs, non-BRCA P/LPVs exhibited different personal and family histories of cancer and molecular subtype distributions. The optimal genetic testing strategy for BC still needs to be investigated with larger continuous population studies.

The association between age at breast cancer diagnosis and prevalence of pathogenic variants

PURPOSE

Young age at breast cancer (BC) diagnosis and family history of BC are strongly associated with high prevalence of pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. There is limited evidence for such associations with moderate/high penetrance BC-risk genes such as ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2.

METHODS

We analyzed multi-gene panel testing results (09/2013-12/2019) for women unaffected by any cancer (N = 371,594) and those affected with BC (N = 130,151) ascertained for suspicion of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test association between PV status and age at BC diagnosis (≤ 45 vs. > 45 years) or family history of BC after controlling for personal/family non-BC histories and self-reported ancestry.

RESULTS

An association between young age (≤ 45 years) at diagnosis and presence of PVs was strong for BRCA1 (OR 3.95, 95% CI 3.64-4.29) and moderate for BRCA2 (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.84-2.14). Modest associations were observed between PVs and young age at diagnosis for ATM (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.37) and CHEK2 (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.47) genes, but not for PALB2 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98-1.27). For women with BC, earliest age of familial BC diagnosis followed a similar pattern. For unaffected women, earliest age of family cancer diagnosis was significantly associated with PV status only for BRCA1 (OR 2.34, 95% CI 2.13-2.56) and BRCA2 (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16-1.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Young age at BC diagnosis is not a strong risk factor for carrying PVs in BC-associated genes ATM, CHEK2, or PALB2.

Molecular characteristics of breast tumors in patients screened for germline predisposition from a population-based observational study

BACKGROUND

Pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in certain genes are linked to higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and can influence preventive surgery decisions and therapy choices. Public health programs offer genetic screening based on criteria designed to assess personal risk and identify individuals more likely to carry PGVs, dividing patients into screened and non-screened groups. How tumor biology and clinicopathological characteristics differ between these groups is understudied and could guide refinement of screening criteria.

METHODS

Six thousand six hundred sixty breast cancer patients diagnosed in South Sweden during 2010-2018 were included with available clinicopathological and RNA sequencing data, 900 (13.5%) of which had genes screened for PGVs through routine clinical screening programs. We compared characteristics of screened patients and tumors to non-screened patients, as well as between screened patients with (n = 124) and without (n = 776) PGVs.

RESULTS

Broadly, breast tumors in screened patients showed features of a more aggressive disease. However, few differences related to tumor biology or patient outcome remained significant after stratification by clinical subgroups or PAM50 subtypes. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the subgroup most enriched for PGVs, showed the most differences between screening subpopulations (e.g., higher tumor proliferation in screened cases). Significant differences in PGV prevalence were found between clinical subgroups/molecular subtypes, e.g., TNBC cases were enriched for BRCA1 PGVs. In general, clinicopathological differences between screened and non-screened patients mimicked those between patients with and without PGVs, e.g., younger age at diagnosis for positive cases. However, differences in tumor biology/microenvironment such as immune cell composition were additionally seen within PGV carriers/non-carriers in ER + /HER2 - cases, but not between screening subpopulations in this subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Characterization of molecular tumor features in patients clinically screened and not screened for PGVs represents a relevant read-out of guideline criteria. The general lack of molecular differences between screened/non-screened patients after stratification by relevant breast cancer subsets questions the ability to improve the identification of screening candidates based on currently used patient and tumor characteristics, pointing us towards universal screening. Nevertheless, while that is not attained, molecular differences identified between PGV carriers/non-carriers suggest the possibility of further refining patient selection within certain patient subsets using RNA-seq through, e.g., gene signatures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network - Breast (SCAN-B) was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT02306096.

Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk Among Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2

PURPOSE

To estimate the risk of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) among women with germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2.

METHODS

The study population included 15,104 prospectively followed women within the CARRIERS study treated with ipsilateral surgery for invasive breast cancer. The risk of CBC was estimated for PV carriers in each gene compared with women without PVs in a multivariate proportional hazard regression analysis accounting for the competing risk of death and adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. The primary analyses focused on the overall cohort and on women from the general population. Secondary analyses examined associations by race/ethnicity, age at primary breast cancer diagnosis, menopausal status, and tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status.

RESULTS

Germline BRCA1, BRCA2, and CHEK2 PV carriers with breast cancer were at significantly elevated risk (hazard ratio > 1.9) of CBC, whereas only the PALB2 PV carriers with ER-negative breast cancer had elevated risks (hazard ratio, 2.9). By contrast, ATM PV carriers did not have significantly increased CBC risks. African American PV carriers had similarly elevated risks of CBC as non-Hispanic White PV carriers. Among premenopausal women, the 10-year cumulative incidence of CBC was estimated to be 33% for BRCA1, 27% for BRCA2, and 13% for CHEK2 PV carriers with breast cancer and 35% for PALB2 PV carriers with ER-negative breast cancer. The 10-year cumulative incidence of CBC among postmenopausal PV carriers was 12% for BRCA1, 9% for BRCA2, and 4% for CHEK2.

CONCLUSION

Women diagnosed with breast cancer and known to carry germline PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 are at substantially increased risk of CBC and may benefit from enhanced surveillance and risk reduction strategies.

Testing for Inherited Susceptibility to Breast Cancer

When BRCA1 and BRCA2 were first identified, the initial models for delivering testing were shaped by concepts of genetic exceptionalism and a lack of data regarding therapeutic implications and the effectiveness of risk reduction. Since then, interventions have been effective, and treatment implications have become clear. The sensitivity of guideline-based testing is incomplete, leading to calls for universal testing. Completely universal testing, however, is not necessary to identify the great majority of BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants. Broader testing (both in terms of eligibility and genes tested) will identify more variants, particularly in moderate penetrance genes, but the clinical implications remain less clear for these variants.

Genetic testing women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: What criteria are the most predictive of a positive test?

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposing genes is important when making breast cancer treatment decisions, but genetic testing is not universal and criteria must be met to qualify for genetic testing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pathogenic variant yield for nine cancer predisposition genes by testing criteria, singly and in combination.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with breast cancer between June 2013 and May 2018 were recruited from four centers in Toronto, Canada. Participants completed a demographics and family history questionnaire and clinical characteristics were collected from medical charts. Genetic testing was done for BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, RAD51D, RECQL, and TP53. Pathogenic variant frequencies were calculated according to five criteria (age ≤ 50, triple-negative breast cancer, family history, bilateral breast cancer, or Jewish ethnicity).

RESULTS

Of the 1006 women studied, 100 women (9.9%) were found to have a pathogenic variant in one of the nine genes tested. The highest prevalence of pathogenic variants was found in women with triple-negative breast cancer (23%). Of the 100 pathogenic variants detected, 78 were detected in women diagnosed at age 50 or less. A total of 96% of the mutations were identified with three criteria (age of diagnosis, family history, and triple-negative status).

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing criteria for women with breast cancer should include women with triple-negative breast cancer, regardless of age. All women aged 50 years or below at time of breast cancer diagnosis should be offered genetic testing.

Germline Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer: Systemic Therapy Implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this article, we discuss recent advances in germline genetic testing for patients with breast cancer and highlight current limitations and impacts on clinical care. We also provide an update on the therapeutic implications of having a germline mutation, including targeted systemic therapy options for treating early and metastatic breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Approximately 5 to 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have a pathogenic variant in a hereditary cancer susceptibility gene, which has significant implications for managing these patients. Previously, testing was done mainly to inform screening and risk-reduction treatment; however, more recently, germline genetic results have significant systemic therapy implications that can meaningfully improve outcomes in breast cancer patients, especially with oral poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. These systemic therapy advances implore a shift in paradigm for whom to test moving forward and how to modify the existing testing models to meet the increasing demand for germline testing, which is expected to grow exponentially.

PARP-inhibitors for BRCA1/2-related advanced HER2-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis and GRADE recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Approximately 5-10% of unselected breast cancer (BC) patients retain a hereditary predisposition related to a germline mutation in BRCA1/2 genes. The poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors olaparib and talazoparib have been granted marketing authorization by both FDA and EMA for adults with BRCA1/2 germline mutations and HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced BC based on the results from the phase III OlympiAd and EMBRACA trials.

METHODS

The panel of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) Clinical Practice Guidelines on Breast Cancer addressed two critical clinical questions, adopting the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Evidence to Decision framework (EtD), to develop recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related triple-negative (clinical question 1) and hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- (clinical question 2) advanced BC.

RESULTS

Two studies were eligible (OlympiAd and EMBRACA). For both clinical questions, the Panel judged the benefit/harm balance probably in favor of the intervention, given the favorable impact in terms of PFS, ORR, and QoL at an acceptable cost in terms of toxicity; the overall certainty of the evidence was low. The panel's final recommendations were conditional in favor of PARP-inhibitors over single-agent chemotherapy in both HR+/HER2-and triple-negative BC. Finally, the Panel identified and discussed areas of uncertainty calling for further exploration.

CONCLUSIONS

The Panel of AIOM BC Clinical Practice Guideline provided clinical recommendations on the use of PARP-inhibitors, with respect to single-agent chemotherapy, in patients with BRCA-related HER2-advanced BC by adopting the GRADE methodology.

Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022.

EXPOSURE

New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported.

RESULTS

Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.

Addressing the routine failure to clinically identify monogenic cases of common disease

Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of selected common diseases. This article seeks to focus attention on the need for universal genetic testing in common diseases for which the recommended clinical management of patients with specific monogenic forms of disease diverges from standard management and has evidence for improved outcomes.We review evidence from genomic screening of large patient cohorts, which has confirmed that important monogenic case identification failures are commonplace in routine clinical care. These case identification failures constitute diagnostic misattributions, where the care of individuals with monogenic disease defaults to the treatment plan offered to those with polygenic or non-genetic forms of the disease.The number of identifiable and actionable monogenic forms of common diseases is increasing with time. Here, we provide six examples of common diseases for which universal genetic test implementation would drive improved care. We examine the evidence to support genetic testing for common diseases, and discuss barriers to widespread implementation. Finally, we propose recommendations for changes to genetic testing and care delivery aimed at reducing diagnostic misattributions, to serve as a starting point for further evaluation and development of evidence-based guidelines for implementation.

Efficacy of Clinical Guidelines in Identifying All Japanese Patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Clinical screening using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) testing criteria may fail to identify all patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the strategy of expanding target patients for genetic testing among Japanese patients. We reviewed the medical records of 91 breast cancer patients who underwent genetic testing. Among 91 patients, eight were diagnosed with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants: BRCA1 (n = 4) and BRCA2 (n = 4). Among 50 patients meeting the testing criteria of the guidelines, 6 (12%) were diagnosed with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. The sensitivity and specificity of screening using the testing criteria were 75% and 47%, respectively. Expanding the NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer aged ≤65 years achieved 88% sensitivity but 8% specificity. The expansion of the NCCN criteria could benefit Japanese patients; however, larger studies are necessary to change clinical practice.

Predicting the Likelihood of Carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation in Asian Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

With the development of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment of patients with cancer with an altered BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, there is an urgent need to ensure that there are appropriate strategies for identifying mutation carriers while balancing the increased demand for and cost of cancer genetics services. To date, the majority of mutation prediction tools have been developed in women of European descent where the age and cancer-subtype distributions are different from that in Asian women.

METHODS

In this study, we built a new model (Asian Risk Calculator) for estimating the likelihood of carrying a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, using germline BRCA genetic testing results in a cross-sectional population-based study of 8,162 Asian patients with breast cancer. We compared the model performance to existing mutation prediction models. The models were evaluated for discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

Asian Risk Calculator included age of diagnosis, ethnicity, bilateral breast cancer, tumor biomarkers, and family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer as predictors. The inclusion of tumor grade improved significantly the model performance. The full model was calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow P value = .614) and discriminated well between BRCA and non-BRCA pathogenic variant carriers (area under receiver operating curve, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84). Addition of grade to the existing clinical genetic testing criteria targeting patients with breast cancer age younger than 45 years reduced the proportion of patients referred for genetic counseling and testing from 37% to 33% (P value = .003), thereby improving the overall efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Population-specific customization of mutation prediction models and clinical genetic testing criteria improved the accuracy of BRCA mutation prediction in Asian patients.

Global Increase in Breast Cancer Incidence: Risk Factors and Preventive Measures

Breast cancer is a global cause for concern owing to its high incidence around the world. The alarming increase in breast cancer cases emphasizes the management of disease at multiple levels. The management should start from the beginning that includes stringent cancer screening or cancer registry to effective diagnostic and treatment strategies. Breast cancer is highly heterogeneous at morphology as well as molecular levels and needs different therapeutic regimens based on the molecular subtype. Breast cancer patients with respective subtype have different clinical outcome prognoses. Breast cancer heterogeneity emphasizes the advanced molecular testing that will help on-time diagnosis and improved survival. Emerging fields such as liquid biopsy and artificial intelligence would help to under the complexity of breast cancer disease and decide the therapeutic regimen that helps in breast cancer management. In this review, we have discussed various risk factors and advanced technology available for breast cancer diagnosis to combat the worst breast cancer status and areas that need to be focused for the better management of breast cancer.

Do current family history-based genetic testing guidelines contribute to breast cancer health inequities?

Prior to the recommended age for population-based breast cancer screening by mammography, which ranges from 40−50 years depending on guidelines, the main way to identify higher risk women for earlier breast cancer (BC) screening to improve outcomes and discuss targeted chemoprevention is through specific clinical guidelines which are largely based on family history of breast cancer and known mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. The annual percent change (APC) in early-onset BC continues to rise, with the higher early-onset cancer burden and mortality continuing to be seen in non-Hispanic black (NHB) women compared to non-Hispanic white (NHW) women. Coupled with the increasing incidence overall as well as the lower percent of BC family history reported in NHB women compared with that of NHW women means that continued reliance on guidelines to identify women for genetic screening and initiation of early BC screening based largely on family history could lead to even greater BC health inequities. The similarity in the prevalence of mutations in key BC susceptibility genes between NHB and NHW women contrasts sharply to the differences in age-specific incidence rates between NHB and NHW women, supporting that there must be environmental modifiers that are contributing to the increased incidence in NHB women. This reality further argues for identifying NHB women early in adulthood through genetic testing who may benefit from tailored BC risk-reduction programs and early BC screening.

Integrating Medical Genetics Into Precision Oncology Practice in the Veterans Health Administration: The Time Is Now

PURPOSE

Increased access and utilization of tumor profiling of cancers in our veteran population uncovered a modest number of potentially pathogenic germline variants (PPGVs) that require genetics referral for follow-up evaluation and germline sequencing. Challenges identified specific to the veteran population include paucity of genetics providers, either at a veteran's VA facility or nearby non-VA facilities. We sought to investigate the number of veterans who would benefit from having such resources at both local and national levels.

METHODS

Annotated clinical reports of mutations identified by tumor-only profiling and medical records of veterans with solid tumors at the Veterans Administration Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VA AAHS) between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. PPGVs were identified according to society recommendations (such as ESMO and American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics), expert review, and/or previously published criteria. After the analysis of our local VA population, these same criteria were then applied to veterans in the National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP).

RESULTS

Two hundred eight veterans underwent tumor profiling at the VA AAHS over the defined time period. This included 20 different primary tumor sites with over half (n = 130) being advanced cancer at diagnosis. Of these, 18 veterans (8.5%) had mutations suggestive of a PPGV. Applying these criteria to the larger NPOP database (n = 20,014), a similar percentage (6%) of PPGVs were identified.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate a PPGV frequency (6%-9% of veterans) consistent with the prevalence of inherited cancer predisposition syndromes in the general population, underscoring the need for medical genetics as part of standard oncologic care for veterans. We explore current and future care delivery models to optimize incorporation of medical genetics and genetic counseling to best serve veterans needing such services.

DrABC: deep learning accurately predicts germline pathogenic mutation status in breast cancer patients based on phenotype data

Background

Identifying breast cancer patients with DNA repair pathway-related germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) is important for effectively employing systemic treatment strategies and risk-reducing interventions. However, current criteria and risk prediction models for prioritizing genetic testing among breast cancer patients do not meet the demands of clinical practice due to insufficient accuracy.

Methods

The study population comprised 3041 breast cancer patients enrolled from seven hospitals between October 2017 and 11 August 2019, who underwent germline genetic testing of 50 cancer predisposition genes (CPGs). Associations among GPVs in different CPGs and endophenotypes were evaluated using a case-control analysis. A phenotype-based GPV risk prediction model named DNA-repair Associated Breast Cancer (DrABC) was developed based on hierarchical neural network architecture and validated in an independent multicenter cohort. The predictive performance of DrABC was compared with currently used models including BRCAPRO, BOADICEA, Myriad, PENN II, and the NCCN criteria.

Results

In total, 332 (11.3%) patients harbored GPVs in CPGs, including 134 (4.6%) in BRCA2, 131 (4.5%) in BRCA1, 33 (1.1%) in PALB2, and 37 (1.3%) in other CPGs. GPVs in CPGs were associated with distinct endophenotypes including the age at diagnosis, cancer history, family cancer history, and pathological characteristics. We developed a DrABC model to predict the risk of GPV carrier status in BRCA1/2 and other important CPGs. In predicting GPVs in BRCA1/2, the performance of DrABC (AUC = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.74–0.85], sensitivity = 82.1%, specificity = 63.1% in the independent validation cohort) was better than that of previous models (AUC range = 0.57–0.70). In predicting GPVs in any CPG, DrABC (AUC = 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69–0.79], sensitivity = 83.8%, specificity = 51.3% in the independent validation cohort) was also superior to previous models in their current versions (AUC range = 0.55–0.65). After training these previous models with the Chinese-specific dataset, DrABC still outperformed all other methods except for BOADICEA, which was the only previous model with the inclusion of pathological features. The DrABC model also showed higher sensitivity and specificity than the NCCN criteria in the multi-center validation cohort (83.8% and 51.3% vs. 78.8% and 31.2%, respectively, in predicting GPVs in any CPG). The DrABC model implementation is available online at http://gifts.bio-data.cn/.

Conclusions

By considering the distinct endophenotypes associated with different CPGs in breast cancer patients, a phenotype-driven prediction model based on hierarchical neural network architecture was created for identification of hereditary breast cancer. The model achieved superior performance in identifying GPV carriers among Chinese breast cancer patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-022-01027-9.

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability.

Abstract

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

Novel Insights From the Germline Landscape of Breast Cancer in Brazil

Introduction

Breast cancer patients with germline pathogenic variants may benefit from risk-reducing surgeries, intensive screening, and targeted cancer therapies. There is a paucity of data regarding prevalence and distribution of germline pathogenic variants in the Brazilian population. Our primary endpoint was the description of prevalence and distribution of germline pathogenic variants among breast cancer patients who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel testing. Secondary endpoint was the assessment of predictive factors of a positive test.

Methods

We analyzed NGS results, personal, and family history data from a prospectively collected cohort of breast cancer patients from August 2013 to May 2019. Exact logistic regression was used to perform multivariable analysis.

Results

Of 370 breast cancer patients, we found 59 pathogenic variants in 57 (15%) patients. Pathogenic variants were identified in BRCA1 (24%), ATM (14%), BRCA2 (10%), TP53 (8%), PALB2 (8%), CHEK2 (7%), CDH1 (3%), RAD51C (3%), MITF (2%), PMS2 (2%), RAD51D (2%), and TERT (2%). Monoallelic MUTYH pathogenic variants were found in 15%. After multivariable analysis, age of diagnosis (OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81–0.95, for each year increase), triple-negative subtype (OR 17.2, 95% CI: 3.74–114.72), and number of breast cancers in the family (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.57–4.03, for each additional case) were associated with BRCA1 pathogenic variants. In the present study, a quarter of triple-negative breast cancer patients harbored a germline pathogenic variant and two-thirds of those were BRCA1 carriers.

Conclusions

Prevalence and distribution of germline pathogenic variants in this Brazilian sample of breast cancer patients are mostly similar to other populations. However, there is a trend to an overrepresentation of TP53 pathogenic variants that merits confirmation in further studies. Early-onset breast cancer patients should be offered genetic counseling, particularly those with triple-negative subtype.

Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes Among Women With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast

PURPOSE

To determine the contribution of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in hereditary cancer testing panel genes to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 2,999 women with ILC from a population-based cohort and 3,796 women with ILC undergoing clinical multigene panel testing (clinical cohort). Frequencies of germline PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were compared between women with ILC and unaffected female controls and between women with ILC and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC).

RESULTS

The frequency of PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes among women with ILC was 6.5% in the clinical cohort and 5.2% in the population-based cohort. In case-control analysis, CDH1 and BRCA2 PVs were associated with high risks of ILC (odds ratio [OR] > 4) and CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PVs were associated with moderate (OR = 2-4) risks. BRCA1 PVs and CHEK2 p.Ile157Thr were not associated with clinically relevant risks (OR < 2) of ILC. Compared with IDC, CDH1 PVs were > 10-fold enriched, whereas PVs in BRCA1 were substantially reduced in ILC.

CONCLUSION

The study establishes that PVs in ATM, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with an increased risk of ILC, whereas BRCA1 PVs are not. The similar overall PV frequencies for ILC and IDC suggest that cancer histology should not influence the decision to proceed with genetic testing. Similar to IDC, multigene panel testing may be appropriate for women with ILC, but CDH1 should be specifically discussed because of low prevalence and gastric cancer risk.

Profile of Pathogenic Mutations and Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in Consecutive Breast Cancer Patients Treated at a North Indian Tertiary Care Center

Background

The burden of hereditary breast cancer in India is not well defined. Moreover, genetic testing criteria (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] and Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics [MCG] Plus) have never been validated in the Indian population.

Methods

All new female breast cancer patients from 1st March 2019 to 28th February 2020 were screened. Those providing informed consent and without previous genetic testing were recruited. Multigene panel testing (107 genes) by next-generation sequencing was performed for all patients. The frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) mutations between patients qualifying and not qualifying the testing criteria was compared and their sensitivity was computed.

Results

Overall, 275 breast cancer patients were screened and 236 patients were included (median age 45 years); 30 patients did not consent and 9 patients previously underwent genetic testing. Thirty-four (14%) women had a positive family history and 35% had triple-negative breast cancer. P/LP mutations were found in 44/236 (18.64%) women; mutations in BRCA1 (22/47, 46.8%) and BRCA2 (9/47, 19.1%) were the most common, with 34% of mutations present in non-BRCA genes. Patients qualifying the testing criteria had a higher risk of having a P/LP mutation (NCCN: 23.6% vs. 7.04%, p = 0.03; MCG plus: 24.8% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.01). The sensitivity of the NCCN criteria was 88.6% (75.4–96.2) and 86.36% (72.65–94.83) for MCG plus. More than 95% sensitivity was achieved if all women up to 60 years of age were tested. Cascade testing was performed in 31 previous (16/44 families), with 23 testing positive.

Conclusions

The frequency of P/LP mutations in India is high, with significant contribution of non-BRCA genes. Testing criteria need modification to expand access to testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10870-w.

Analysis of Sequence and Copy Number Variants in Canadian Patient Cohort With Familial Cancer Syndromes Using a Unique Next Generation Sequencing Based Approach

Background

Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes account for approximately 10% of cancer cases. Next generation sequencing (NGS) based multi-gene targeted panels is now a frontline approach to identify pathogenic mutations in cancer predisposition genes in high-risk families. Recent evolvement of NGS technologies have allowed simultaneous detection of sequence and copy number variants (CNVs) using a single platform. In this study, we have analyzed frequency and nature of sequence variants and CNVs, in a Canadian cohort of patients, suspected with hereditary cancer syndrome, referred for genetic testing following specific genetic testing guidelines based on patient's personal and/or family history of cancer.

Methods

A 2870 patients were subjected to a single NGS based multi-gene targeted hereditary cancer panel testing algorithm to identify sequence variants and CNVs in cancer predisposition genes at our reference laboratory in Southwestern Ontario. CNVs identified by NGS were confirmed by alternative techniques like Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA).

Results

A 15% (431/2870) patients had a pathogenic variant and 36% (1032/2870) had a variant of unknown significance (VUS), in a cancer susceptibility gene. A total of 287 unique pathogenic variant were identified, out of which 23 (8%) were novel. CNVs identified by NGS based approach accounted for 9.5% (27/287) of pathogenic variants, confirmed by alternate techniques with high accuracy.

Conclusion

This study emphasizes the utility of NGS based targeted testing approach to identify both sequence and CNVs in patients suspected with hereditary cancer syndromes in clinical setting and expands the mutational spectrum of high and moderate penetrance cancer predisposition genes.

Optimization of prediction methods for risk assessment of pathogenic germline variants in the Japanese population

Predicting pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in breast cancer patients is important for selecting optimal therapeutics and implementing risk reduction strategies. However, PGV risk factors and the performance of prediction methods in the Japanese population remain unclear. We investigated clinicopathological risk factors using the Tyrer‐Cuzick (TC) breast cancer risk evaluation tool to predict BRCA PGVs in unselected Japanese breast cancer patients (n = 1,995). Eleven breast cancer susceptibility genes were analyzed using target‐capture sequencing in a previous study; the PGV prevalence in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 was 0.75%, 3.1%, and 0.45%, respectively. Significant associations were found between the presence of BRCA PGVs and early disease onset, number of familial cancer cases (up to third‐degree relatives), triple‐negative breast cancer patients under the age of 60, and ovarian cancer history (all P < .0001). In total, 816 patients (40.9%) satisfied the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for recommending multigene testing. The sensitivity and specificity of the NCCN criteria for discriminating PGV carriers from noncarriers were 71.3% and 60.7%, respectively. The TC model showed good discrimination for predicting BRCA PGVs (area under the curve, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.69‐0.81). Furthermore, use of the TC model with an optimized cutoff of TC score ≥0.16% in addition to the NCCN guidelines improved the predictive efficiency for high‐risk groups (sensitivity, 77.2%; specificity, 54.8%; about 11 genes). Given the influence of ethnic differences on prediction, we consider that further studies are warranted to elucidate the role of environmental and genetic factors for realizing precise prediction.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Mutations in BRCA1/2 and Other Panel Genes in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer -Association With Patient and Disease Characteristics and Effect on Prognosis

PURPOSE

Among patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the frequency of germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes and the clinical relevance of these mutations are unclear. In this study, a prospective cohort of patients with mBC was used to determine mutation rates for breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with mutations, and to assess the influence of mutations on patient outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Germline DNA from 2,595 patients with mBC enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry was evaluated for mutations in cancer predisposition genes. The frequencies of mutations in known BC predisposition genes were compared with results from a prospective registry of patients with nonmetastatic BC sequenced using the same QIAseq method and with public reference controls. Associations between mutation status and tumor characteristics, progression-free survival, and overall survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Germline mutations in 12 established BC predisposition genes (including BRCA1 and BRCA2) were detected in 271 (10.4%) patients. A mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was seen in 129 patients (5.0%). BRCA1 mutation carriers had a higher proportion of brain metastasis (27.1%) compared with nonmutation carriers (12.8%). Mutations were significantly enriched in PRAEGNANT patients with mBC compared with patients with nonmetastatic BC (10.4% v 6.6%, P < .01). Mutations did not significantly modify progression-free survival or overall survival for patients with mBC.

CONCLUSION

Multigene panel testing may be considered in all patients with mBC because of the high frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other BC predisposition genes. Although the prognosis of mutation carriers and nonmutation carriers with mBC was similar, differences observed in tumor characteristics have implications for treatment and for future studies of targeted therapies.

Extended gene panel testing in lobular breast cancer

Purpose: Lobular breast cancer (LBC) accounts for ~ 15% of breast cancer. Here, we studied the frequency of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in an extended panel of genes in women affected with LBC. Methods: 302 women with LBC and 1567 without breast cancer were tested for BRCA1/2 PGVs. A subset of 134 LBC affected women who tested negative for BRCA1/2 PGVs underwent extended screening, including: ATM, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51D, and TP53.Results: 35 PGVs were identified in the group with LBC, of which 22 were in BRCA1/2. Ten actionable PGVs were identified in additional genes (ATM(4), CDH1(1), CHEK2(1), PALB2(2) and TP53(2)). Overall, PGVs in three genes conferred a significant increased risk for LBC. Odds ratios (ORs) were: BRCA1: OR = 13.17 (95%CI 2.83–66.38; P = 0.0017), BRCA2: OR = 10.33 (95%CI 4.58–23.95; P < 0.0001); and ATM: OR = 8.01 (95%CI 2.52–29.92; P = 0.0053). We did not detect an increased risk of LBC for PALB2, CDH1 or CHEK2. Conclusion: The overall PGV detection rate was 11.59%, with similar rates of BRCA1/2 (7.28%) PGVs as for other actionable PGVs (7.46%), indicating a benefit for extended panel genetic testing in LBC. We also report a previously unrecognised association of pathogenic variants in ATM with LBC.

Cisplatin +/- rucaparib after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative or BRCA mutated breast cancer

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy have a high risk of recurrence. We tested the impact of DNA-damaging chemotherapy alone or with PARP inhibition in this high-risk population. Patients with TNBC or deleterious BRCA mutation (TNBC/BRCAmut) who had >2 cm of invasive disease in the breast or persistent lymph node (LN) involvement after neoadjuvant therapy were assigned 1:1 to cisplatin alone or with rucaparib. Germline mutations were identified with BROCA analysis. The primary endpoint was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) with 80% power to detect an HR 0.5. From Feb 2010 to May 2013, 128 patients were enrolled. Median tumor size at surgery was 1.9 cm (0-11.5 cm) with 1 (0-38) involved LN; median Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) score was 2.6. Six patients had known deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations at study entry, but BROCA identified deleterious mutations in 22% of patients with available samples. Toxicity was similar in both arms. Despite frequent dose reductions (21% of patients) and delays (43.8% of patients), 73% of patients completed planned cisplatin. Rucaparib exposure was limited with median concentration 275 (82-4694) ng/mL post-infusion on day 3. The addition of rucaparib to cisplatin did not increase 2-year DFS (54.2% cisplatin vs. 64.1% cisplatin + rucaparib; P = 0.29). In the high-risk post preoperative TNBC/BRCAmut setting, the addition of low-dose rucaparib did not improve 2-year DFS or increase the toxicity of cisplatin. Genetic testing was underutilized in this high-risk population.

A Population-Based Study of Genes Previously Implicated in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Population-based estimates of the risk of breast cancer associated with germline pathogenic variants in cancer-predisposition genes are critically needed for risk assessment and management in women with inherited pathogenic variants.

METHODS

In a population-based case-control study, we performed sequencing using a custom multigene amplicon-based panel to identify germline pathogenic variants in 28 cancer-predisposition genes among 32,247 women with breast cancer (case patients) and 32,544 unaffected women (controls) from population-based studies in the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) consortium. Associations between pathogenic variants in each gene and the risk of breast cancer were assessed.

RESULTS

Pathogenic variants in 12 established breast cancer-predisposition genes were detected in 5.03% of case patients and in 1.63% of controls. Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were associated with a high risk of breast cancer, with odds ratios of 7.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.33 to 11.27) and 5.23 (95% CI, 4.09 to 6.77), respectively. Pathogenic variants in PALB2 were associated with a moderate risk (odds ratio, 3.83; 95% CI, 2.68 to 5.63). Pathogenic variants in BARD1, RAD51C, and RAD51D were associated with increased risks of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer, whereas pathogenic variants in ATM, CDH1, and CHEK2 were associated with an increased risk of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Pathogenic variants in 16 candidate breast cancer-predisposition genes, including the c.657_661del5 founder pathogenic variant in NBN, were not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides estimates of the prevalence and risk of breast cancer associated with pathogenic variants in known breast cancer-predisposition genes in the U.S. population. These estimates can inform cancer testing and screening and improve clinical management strategies for women in the general population with inherited pathogenic variants in these genes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation.).

CHEK2 Germline Variants in Cancer Predisposition: Stalemate Rather than Checkmate

Germline alterations in many genes coding for proteins regulating DNA repair and DNA damage response (DDR) to DNA double-strand breaks (DDSB) have been recognized as pathogenic factors in hereditary cancer predisposition. The ATM-CHEK2-p53 axis has been documented as a backbone for DDR and hypothesized as a barrier against cancer initiation. However, although CHK2 kinase coded by the CHEK2 gene expedites the DDR signal, its function in activation of p53-dependent cell cycle arrest is dispensable. CHEK2 mutations rank among the most frequent germline alterations revealed by germline genetic testing for various hereditary cancer predispositions, but their interpretation is not trivial. From the perspective of interpretation of germline CHEK2 variants, we review the current knowledge related to the structure of the CHEK2 gene, the function of CHK2 kinase, and the clinical significance of CHEK2 germline mutations in patients with hereditary breast, prostate, kidney, thyroid, and colon cancers.