Gene patents and personalized cancer care: impact of the Myriad case on clinical oncology

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.

The Translation and Commercialisation of Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Disease—A Review

As a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, cardiovascular disease and its diagnosis, quantification, and stratification remain significant health issues. Increasingly, patients present with cardiovascular disease in the absence of known risk factors, suggesting the presence of yet unrecognized pathological processes and disease predispositions. Fortunately, a host of emerging cardiovascular biomarkers characterizing and quantifying ischaemic heart disease have shown great promise in both laboratory settings and clinical trials. These have demonstrated improved predictive value additional to widely accepted biomarkers as well as providing insight into molecular phenotypes beneath the broad umbrella of cardiovascular disease that may allow for further personalized treatment regimens. However, the process of translation into clinical practice – particularly navigating the legal and commercial landscape – poses a number of challenges. Practical and legal barriers to the biomarker translational pipeline must be further considered to develop strategies to bring novel biomarkers into the clinical sphere and apply these advances at the patient bedside. Here we review the progress of emerging biomarkers in the cardiovascular space, with particular focus on those relevant to the unmet needs in ischaemic heart disease.

Racial and ethnic variation in multigene panel testing in a cohort of BRCA1/2-negative individuals who had genetic testing in a large urban comprehensive cancer center

Background

There is sparse clinical information on the racial and ethnic distribution of results of multigene panel testing among individuals at high risk for hereditary cancer.

Methods

We evaluated the results of multigene panel testing across eight clinical sites across the state of Michigan for individuals seen for genetic counseling from May 13, 2013 to October 31, 2019 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute's cancer genetics clinic. We estimated the prevalence of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) from genes other than BRCA1/2 among individuals of non‐Hispanic White (NHW), Black or African American (AA), Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ), Arab, Hispanic, and other ancestry.

Results

The racial and ethnic distribution of 2419 individuals who had panel testing included 68.8% NHW, 22.1% AA, 2.3% Arab, 2.2% AJ, 1.0% Hispanic, and 3.6% other. Of these, 11.2% had pathogenic variants and 17.5% had VUS. After multivariable analyses, compared to NHW, AA were less likely to have pathogenic variants (OR 95% CI, 0.38, 0.24–0.59, p < 0.001). Both AA and Arabs were more likely to have VUS (OR 95% CI, 1.53, 1.18–1.98, p = 0.001 and OR 95% CI, 2.28, 1.17–4.43, p = 0.015, respectively). There were no significant differences for other groups. The most common pathogenic variants were CHEK2 (n = 65), MUTYH (n = 45), ATM (n = 28), and MSH2 (n = 22); the most common pathogenic variants by race and ethnicity were CHEK2 (NHW), MSH2 and MUTYH (AA), MSH2 (Arab), MSH6 and CHEK2 (AJ), and MLH1 (Hispanic); the most common pathogenic variants by primary cancer site were CHEK2 (breast), MSH2 (colon), BRIP1 and MUTYH (ovarian), and MSH2 and MSH6 (endometrial).

Conclusions

Understanding the racial and ethnic distribution of pathogenic variants in multi‐gene panels has the potential to lead to better identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer.

Outcomes of retesting in patients with previously uninformative cancer genetics evaluations

Advances in cancer genetics have increased germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) detection rates. More data is needed to inform which patients with previously uninformative results could benefit most from retesting, especially beyond breast/ovarian cancer populations. Here, we describe retesting outcomes and predictors of PV/LPVs in a cohort of patients unselected by cancer diagnosis. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients at a cancer genetics clinic between 1998 and 2019 who underwent genetic testing (GT) on ≥ 2 dates with ≥ 1 year between tests, with no PV/LPVs on first-line GT. Demographics, retesting indications, and GT details were reviewed to evaluate predictive factors of PV/LPV identification. 139 patients underwent retesting, of whom 24 (17.3%) had a PV/LPV, encompassing 15 genes. 14 PV/LPV carriers (58.3%) only returned for retesting after personal or familial history changes (typically new cancer diagnoses), while 10 (41.7%) retested due to updated GT availability. No specific GT method was most likely to identify PV/LPVs and no specific clinical factors were predictive of a PV/LPV. The identified PV/LPVs were consistent with patients' personal or family histories, but were discordant with the initial referral indication for GT. For 16 (66.7%) PV/LPV carriers, the genetic diagnosis changed clinical management. This study adds to the limited body of literature on retesting outcomes beyond first-line BRCA analysis alone and confirms the utility of multigene panel testing. Retesting certain affected individuals when updated GT is available could result in earlier PV/LPV identification, significantly impacting screening recommendations and potentially reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality.

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.

Out-of-pocket and private pay in clinical genetic testing: A scoping review

Full coverage of the cost of clinical genetic testing is not always available through public or private insurance programs, or a public healthcare system. Consequently, some patients may be faced with the decision of whether to finance testing out-of-pocket (OOP), meet OOP expenses required by their insurer, or not proceed with testing. A scoping review was conducted to identify literature associated with patient OOP and private pay in clinical genetic testing. Seven databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PAIS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the JBI Evidence-Based Practice database) were searched, resulting in 83 unique publications included in the review. The presented evidence includes a descriptive analysis, followed by a narrative account of the extracted data. Results were divided into four groups according to clinical indication: (1) hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, (2) other hereditary cancers, (3) prenatal testing, (4) other clinical indications. The majority of studies focused on hereditary cancer and prenatal genetic testing. Overall trends indicated that OOP costs have fallen and payer coverage has improved, but OOP expenses continue to present a barrier to patients who do not qualify for full coverage.

A situation analysis of the state of supply of in vitro diagnostics in Low-Income Countries

In vitro diagnostics (IVDs) are medical devices and accessories used to test bodily samples for causative agents of disease. IVDs play a central role in the diagnosis of individuals, in the rationale use of medicines, in burden of disease estimates, as well as in public health surveillance; especially for detection of emerging epidemics, the identification and monitoring of antimicrobial resistance, and the documentation of infection rates in populations. This article examines how the state of (a) product quality, (b) pricing, and (c) development country manufacturing capacity, are affecting the supply of IVDs in Low-Income Countries (LICs). Data informing this work is derived from interviews with representatives of leading stakeholder organisations working in this space, and analysis of secondary literature. The findings of this analysis are that the supply of IVDs in LICs is undermined by (i) significant variation in product quality; (ii) inconsistent market demand from governments; (iii) limited opportunities for pooled procurement; (iv) a lack of transparency and consistency in product pricing; and (v) insufficient competition among producers capable of innovating for populations with limited purchasing power and low-resource settings. The article then examines four strategies for how these challenges can be overcome.

Cascade Genetic Testing of Relatives for Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of an Online Initiative

In cascade testing, genetic testing for an identified familial pathogenic variant extends to disease-free relatives to allow genetically targeted disease prevention. We evaluated the results of an online initiative in which carriers of 1 of 30 cancer-associated genes, or their first-degree relatives, could offer low-cost testing to at-risk first-degree relatives. In the first year, 1101 applicants invited 2280 first-degree relatives to undergo genetic testing. Of invited relatives, 47.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.5 to 49.6%) underwent genetic testing, and 12.0% (95% CI = 9.2 to 14.8%) who tested positive continued the cascade by inviting additional relatives to test. Of tested relatives, 4.9% (95% CI = 3.8 to 6.1%) had a pathogenic variant in a different gene from the known familial one, and 16.8% (95% CI = 14.7 to 18.8%) had a variant of uncertain significance. These results suggest that an online, low-cost program is an effective approach to implementing cascade testing, and that up to 5% of the general population may carry a pathogenic variant in 1 of 30 cancer-associated genes.

Decision Making About Genetic Testing Among Women With a Personal and Family History of Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To understand genetic testing use and decision making among patients with high genetic risk.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey of breast cancer survivors was administered online by a hereditary cancer nonprofit organization, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, from October 2017 to March 2018.

RESULTS

Of 1,322 respondents, 46% had breast cancer at age < 45 years, 61% had a first-degree relative with cancer, and 84% underwent genetic testing, of whom 56% had a risk-associated pathogenic variant. Most (86%; 95% CI, 84% to 88%) tested respondents were very satisfied with their testing decision, versus 34% (95% CI, 27% to 41%) of untested respondents. Factors that encouraged testing included relatives' cancer risk (75%; 95% CI, 73% to 78%), clinicians' recommendations (68%; 95% CI, 66% to 71%), and potential treatment implications (67%; 95% CI, 64% to 69%). Factors that discouraged testing included insurance concerns (14%; 95% CI, 12% to 16%), cost (14%; 95% CI, 12% to 16%), and discrimination (9%; 95% CI, 7% to 11%). Thirty-nine percent (95% CI, 36% to 41%) recalled hearing from a clinician that genetic discrimination is illegal. Respondents often recalled clinicians informing them about inheritance patterns (65%; 95% CI, 62% to 67%), surgical implications (65%; 95% CI, 63% to 68%), and other cancer risks (66%; 95% CI, 63% to 68%) but less often that results could have potential implications for clinical trial eligibility (38%; 95% CI, 36% to 42%) or targeted therapies (14%; 95% CI, 12% to 16%). Patients who had genetic counseling were twice as likely to recall clinicians informing them about all queried topics. Results did not vary by diagnosis year.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with high genetic risk, clinicians' recommendations, potential treatment implications, and protections against discrimination were motivating factors to undergo genetic testing, but fewer than half recalled clinicians providing all this information, and this did not improve over time. Clinicians influence testing decisions and should inform patients about legal protections and treatment implications.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

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.

Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics

In recent years, with both the development of next-generation sequencing approaches and the Supreme Court decision invalidating gene patents, declining costs have contributed to the emergence of a new model of hereditary cancer genetic testing. Multigene panel testing (or multiplex testing) involves using next-generation sequencing technology to determine the sequence of multiple cancer-susceptibility genes. In addition to high-penetrance cancer-susceptibility genes, multigene panels frequently include genes that are less robustly associated with cancer predisposition. Scientific understanding about associations between many specific moderate-penetrance gene variants and cancer risks is incomplete. The emergence of multigene panel tests has created unique challenges that may have meaningful psychosocial implications. Contrasted with the serial testing process, wherein patients consider the personal and clinical implications of each evaluated gene, with multigene panel testing, patients provide broad consent to whichever genes are included in a particular panel and then, after the test, receive in-depth genetic counseling to clarify the distinct implications of their specific results. Consequently, patients undergoing multigene panel testing may have a less nuanced understanding of the test and its implications, and they may have fewer opportunities to self-select against the receipt of particular types of genetic-risk information. Evidence is conflicting regarding the emotional effects of this testing.

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.

Higher Absolute Lymphocyte Counts Predict Lower Mortality from Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) in pretreatment biopsies are associated with improved survival in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We investigated whether higher peripheral lymphocyte counts are associated with lower breast cancer-specific mortality (BCM) and overall mortality (OM) in TNBC.Experimental Design: Data on treatments and diagnostic tests from electronic medical records of two health care systems were linked with demographic, clinical, pathologic, and mortality data from the California Cancer Registry. Multivariable regression models adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, cancer stage, grade, neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy use, radiotherapy use, and germline BRCA1/2 mutations were used to evaluate associations between absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), BCM, and OM. For a subgroup with TIL data available, we explored the relationship between TILs and peripheral lymphocyte counts.Results: A total of 1,463 stage I-III TNBC patients were diagnosed from 2000 to 2014; 1,113 (76%) received neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy within 1 year of diagnosis. Of 759 patients with available ALC data, 481 (63.4%) were ever lymphopenic (minimum ALC <1.0 K/μL). On multivariable analysis, higher minimum ALC, but not absolute neutrophil count, predicted lower OM [HR = 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16-0.35] and BCM (HR = 0.19; CI, 0.11-0.34). Five-year probability of BCM was 15% for patients who were ever lymphopenic versus 4% for those who were not. An exploratory analysis (n = 70) showed a significant association between TILs and higher peripheral lymphocyte counts during neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Conclusions: Higher peripheral lymphocyte counts predicted lower mortality from early-stage, potentially curable TNBC, suggesting that immune function may enhance the effectiveness of early TNBC treatment. Clin Cancer Res; 24(12); 2851-8. ©2018 AACR.

Gaps in Receipt of Clinically Indicated Genetic Counseling After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Purpose Little is known about the extent to which genetic counseling is integrated into community practices for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. We examined the receipt of clinically indicated genetic counseling in these patients. Patients and Methods We surveyed 5,080 patients between the ages of 20 and 79 years, diagnosed from July 2013 to August 2015 with early-stage breast cancer and reported to the SEER registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were linked to SEER clinical data and genetic test results. The study sample (N = 1,711) comprised patients with indications for formal genetic risk evaluation. Results Overall, 47.4% did not get tested, 40.7% tested negative, 7.4% had a variant of uncertain significance only, and 4.5% had a pathogenic mutation. Three quarters (74.6%) received some form of genetic counseling (43.5%, formal counseling and 31.1%, physician-directed discussion). Virtually all tested patients (96.1%) reported some form of genetic discussion (62.2%, formal counseling and 33.9%, physician-directed discussion). However, only one half (50.6%) of those not tested received any discussion about genetics. Younger women were more likely to report some type of counseling, controlling for other factors: odds ratio, 4.5 (95% CI, 2.6 to 8.0); 1.9 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3); and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.3) for women younger than 50 years of age, 50 to 59 years of age, and 60 to 69 years of age versus those 70 years of age and older. Patients' assessments of the amount of information they received about whether to get tested were similarly high whether they were counseled by a genetics expert or by a physician only (80.8% v 79.4% stated information was just right, P = .59). Conclusion Less than one half (43.5%) of patients with clinical indications received formal genetic counseling. There is a large gap between mandates for timely pretest formal genetic counseling in higher-risk patients and the reality of practice today.

The Changing Landscape of Genetic Testing for Inherited Breast Cancer Predisposition

OPINION STATEMENT

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

Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Purpose Genetic testing for breast cancer risk is evolving rapidly, with growing use of multiple-gene panels that can yield uncertain results. However, little is known about the context of such testing or its impact on treatment. Methods A population-based sample of patients with breast cancer diagnosed in 2014 to 2015 and identified by two SEER registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) were surveyed about genetic testing experiences (N = 3,672; response rate, 68%). Responses were merged with SEER data. A patient subgroup at higher pretest risk of pathogenic mutation carriage was defined according to genetic testing guidelines. Patients' attending surgeons were surveyed about genetic testing and results management. We examined patterns and correlates of genetic counseling and testing and the impact of results on bilateral mastectomy (BLM) use. Results Six hundred sixty-six patients reported genetic testing. Although two thirds of patients were tested before surgical treatment, patients without private insurance more often experienced delays. Approximately half of patients (57% at higher pretest risk, 42% at average risk) discussed results with a genetic counselor. Patients with pathogenic mutations in BRCA1/2 or another gene had the highest rates of BLM (higher risk, 80%; average risk, 85%); however, BLM was also common among patients with genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUS; higher risk, 43%; average risk, 51%). Surgeons' confidence in discussing testing increased with volume of patients with breast cancer, but many surgeons (higher volume, 24%; lower volume, 50%) managed patients with BRCA1/2 VUS the same as patients with BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations. Conclusion Many patients with breast cancer are tested without ever seeing a genetic counselor. Half of average-risk patients with VUS undergo BLM, suggesting a limited understanding of results that some surgeons share. These findings emphasize the need to address challenges in personalized communication about genetic testing.

The future of clinical cancer genomics

The current and future applications of genomics to the practice of preventive oncology are being impacted by a number of challenges. These include rapid advances in genomic science and technology that allow massively parallel sequencing of both tumors and the germline, a diminishing of intellectual property restrictions on diagnostic genetic applications, rapid expansion of access to the internet which includes mobile access to both genomic data and tools to communicate and interpret genetic data in a medical context, the expansion of for-profit diagnostic companies seeking to monetize genetic information, and a simultaneous effort to depict medical professionals as barriers to rather than facilitators of understanding one's genome. Addressing each of these issues will be required to bring "personalized" germline genomics to cancer prevention and care. A profound future challenge will be whether clinical cancer genomics will be "de-medicalized" by commercial interests and their advocates, or whether the future course of this field can be modulated in a responsible way that protects the public health while implementing powerful new medical tools for cancer prevention and early detection.

Genetics of triple-negative breast cancer: Implications for patient care

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), defined as lacking expression of the estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER/PR) and amplification of the HER2 oncogene, often have a more aggressive disease course than do patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, including higher rates of visceral and central nervous system metastases, early cancer recurrences and deaths. Triple-negative breast cancer is associated with a young age at diagnosis and both African and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, the latter due to three common founder mutations in the highly penetrant cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2). In the past decade, there has been a surge both in genetic testing technology and in patient access to such testing. Advances in genetic testing have enabled more rapid and less expensive commercial sequencing than could be imagined only a few years ago. Massively parallel, next-generation sequencing allows the simultaneous analysis of many different genes. Studies of TNBC patients in the current era have revealed associations of TNBC with mutations in several moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, including PALB2, BARD1, BRIP1, RAD51C and RAD51D. Interestingly, many of these genes, like BRCA1/2, are involved in homologous recombination DNA double-stranded repair. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of pathogenic germline gene mutations associated with TNBC and the early detection and prevention strategies for women at risk of developing this high-risk breast cancer subtype. Furthermore, we discuss recent the advances in targeted therapies for TNBC patients with a hereditary predisposition, including the role of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in BRCA1/2 mutation-associated breast cancers.

Cost Implications of Value-Based Pricing for Companion Diagnostic Tests in Precision Medicine

Many interpretations of personalized medicine, also referred to as precision medicine, include discussions of companion diagnostic tests that allow drugs to be targeted to those individuals who are most likely to benefit or that allow treatment to be designed in a way such that individuals who are unlikely to benefit do not receive treatment. Many authors have commented on the clinical and competitive implications of companion diagnostics, but there has been relatively little formal analysis of the cost implications of companion diagnostics, although cost reduction is often cited as a significant benefit of precision medicine. We investigate the potential impact on costs of precision medicine implemented through the use of companion diagnostics. We develop a framework in which the costs of companion diagnostic tests are determined by considerations of profit maximization and cost effectiveness. We analyze four scenarios that are defined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the new drug in the absence of a companion diagnostic test. We find that, in most scenarios, precision medicine strategies based on companion diagnostics should be expected to lead to increases in costs in the short term and that costs would fall only in a limited number of situations.

Understanding the Needs of Young Women Regarding Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Genetic Testing: Convergence and Divergence among Patient-Counselor Perceptions and the Promise of Peer Support

Young women from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) families face a series of medical decisions regarding their cancer risk management and integrating this information into their life planning. This presents unique medical and psychosocial challenges that exist without comprehensive intervention. To help lay the groundwork for intervention, we conducted a qualitative study among young women from HBOC families (N = 12; Mean age = 22) and cancer genetic counselors (N = 12) to explicate domains most critical to caring for this population. Women and counselors were interviewed by telephone. The predominant interview themes included preventative care planning and risk management, decision making around the pros and cons of cancer risk assessment, medical management, and psychosocial stresses experienced. Young women endorsed psychosocial stress significantly more frequently than did counselors. Both groups noted the short- and long-term decision making challenges and the support and conflict engendered among familial relationships. Our results suggest young women value the support they receive from their families and their genetic counselors, but additional, external supports are needed to facilitate adaptation to HBOC risk. In feedback interviews focused on intervention planning with a subset of these young women (N = 9), they endorsed the predominant interview themes discovered as important intervention content, a structure that would balance discussion of medical information and psychosocial skill-building that could be tailored to the young women’s needs, and delivery by trained peers familiar with HBOC risk.

Refining Breast Cancer Risk Stratification: Additional Genes, Additional Information

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

Next-generation sequencing for hereditary breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize advances in next-generation sequencing and their application to breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Next-generation sequencing panels of 6-112 cancer-associated genes are increasingly used in patient care. Studies report a 4-16% prevalence of mutations other than BRCA1/2 among patients who meet evidence-based practice guidelines for BRCA1/2 testing, with a high rate (15-88%) of uninterpretable variants of uncertain significance. Despite uncertainty about results interpretation and communication, there is early evidence of a benefit from multiple-gene sequencing panels for appropriately selected patients.

SUMMARY

Multiple-gene sequencing panels appear highly promising for the assessment of breast and gynecologic cancer risk, and they may usefully be administered in the context of cancer genetics expertise and/or clinical research protocols.

A Novel WRN Frameshift Mutation Identified by Multiplex Genetic Testing in a Family with Multiple Cases of Cancer

Next-generation sequencing technology allows simultaneous analysis of multiple susceptibility genes for clinical cancer genetics. In this study, multiplex genetic testing was conducted in a Chinese family with multiple cases of cancer to determine the variations in cancer predisposition genes. The family comprises a mother and her five daughters, of whom the mother and the eldest daughter have cancer and the secondary daughter died of cancer. We conducted multiplex genetic testing of 90 cancer susceptibility genes using the peripheral blood DNA of the mother and all five daughters. WRN frameshift mutation is considered a potential pathogenic variation according to the guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics. A novel WRN frameshift mutation (p.N1370Tfs*23) was identified in the three cancer patients and in the youngest unaffected daughter. Other rare non-synonymous germline mutations were also detected in DICER and ELAC2. Functional mutations in WRN cause Werner syndrome, a human autosomal recessive disease characterized by premature aging and associated with genetic instability and increased cancer risk. Our results suggest that the WRN frameshift mutation is important in the surveillance of other members of this family, especially the youngest daughter, but the pathogenicity of the novel WRN frameshift mutation needs to be investigated further. Given its extensive use in clinical genetic screening, multiplex genetic testing is a promising tool in clinical cancer surveillance.

Current and future intratumoral targeted treatment for pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer is an insidious type of cancer with its symptoms manifested upon extensive disease. The overall 5-year survival rates between 0.4 and 4%. Surgical resection is an option for only 10% of the patients with pancreatic cancer. Local recurrence and hepatic metastases occur within 2 years after surgery. There are currently several molecular pathways investigated and novel targeted treatments are on the market. However; the nature of pancreatic cancer with its ability to spread locally in the primary site and lymph nodes indicates that further experimentation with local interventional therapies could be a future treatment proposal as palliative care or adjunct to gene therapy and chemotherapy/radiotherapy. In the current review, we will summarize the molecular pathways and present the interventional treatment options for pancreatic cancer.

Concerns about cancer risk and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse population of patients with breast cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate preferences for and experiences with genetic testing in a diverse cohort of patients with breast cancer identified through population-based registries, with attention to differences by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

We surveyed women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer from 2005 to 2007, as reported to the SEER registries of metropolitan Los Angeles and Detroit, about experiences with hereditary risk evaluation. Multivariable models evaluated correlates of a strong desire for genetic testing, unmet need for discussion with a health care professional, and receipt of testing.

RESULTS

Among 1,536 patients who completed the survey, 35% expressed strong desire for genetic testing, 28% reported discussing testing with a health care professional, and 19% reported test receipt. Strong desire for testing was more common in younger women, Latinas, and those with family history. Minority patients were significantly more likely to have unmet need for discussion (failure to discuss genetic testing with a health professional when they had a strong desire for testing): odds ratios of 1.68, 2.44, and 7.39 for blacks, English-speaking Latinas, and Spanish-speaking Latinas compared with whites, respectively. Worry in the long-term survivorship period was higher among those with unmet need for discussion (48.7% v 24.9%; P <.001). Patients who received genetic testing were younger, less likely to be black, and more likely to have a family cancer history.

CONCLUSION

Many patients, especially minorities, express a strong desire for genetic testing and may benefit from discussion to clarify risks. Clinicians should discuss genetic risk even with patients they perceive to be at low risk, as this may reduce worry.

Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?

Thousands of patents have been awarded that claim human gene sequences and their uses, and some have been challenged in court. In a recent high-profile case, Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., the US Supreme Court ruled that genes are natural occurring substances and therefore not patentable through 'composition of matter' claims. The consequences of this ruling will extend well beyond ending Myriad's monopoly over BRCA testing and may affect similar monopolies of other commercial laboratories for tests involving other genes. It could also simplify intellectual property issues surrounding genome-wide clinical sequencing, which can generate results for genes covered by intellectual property. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for common aneuploidies using cell-free fetal (cff) DNA in maternal blood is currently offered through commercial laboratories and is also the subject of ongoing patent litigation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Myriad case has already been invoked by a lower district court in NIPT litigation and resulted in invalidation of primary claims in a patent on currently marketed cffDNA-based testing for chromosomal aneuploidies.

Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment

PURPOSE

Multiple-gene sequencing is entering practice, but its clinical value is unknown. We evaluated the performance of a customized germline-DNA sequencing panel for cancer-risk assessment in a representative clinical sample.

METHODS

Patients referred for clinical BRCA1/2 testing from 2002 to 2012 were invited to donate a research blood sample. Samples were frozen at -80° C, and DNA was extracted from them after 1 to 10 years. The entire coding region, exon-intron boundaries, and all known pathogenic variants in other regions were sequenced for 42 genes that had cancer risk associations. Potentially actionable results were disclosed to participants.

RESULTS

In total, 198 women participated in the study: 174 had breast cancer and 57 carried germline BRCA1/2 mutations. BRCA1/2 analysis was fully concordant with prior testing. Sixteen pathogenic variants were identified in ATM, BLM, CDH1, CDKN2A, MUTYH, MLH1, NBN, PRSS1, and SLX4 among 141 women without BRCA1/2 mutations. Fourteen participants carried 15 pathogenic variants, warranting a possible change in care; they were invited for targeted screening recommendations, enabling early detection and removal of a tubular adenoma by colonoscopy. Participants carried an average of 2.1 variants of uncertain significance among 42 genes.

CONCLUSION

Among women testing negative for BRCA1/2 mutations, multiple-gene sequencing identified 16 potentially pathogenic mutations in other genes (11.4%; 95% CI, 7.0% to 17.7%), of which 15 (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5% to 16.9%) prompted consideration of a change in care, enabling early detection of a precancerous colon polyp. Additional studies are required to quantify the penetrance of identified mutations and determine clinical utility. However, these results suggest that multiple-gene sequencing may benefit appropriately selected patients.

Cancer genomics and inherited risk

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enabled whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing of tumors for causative mutations, allowing for more accurate targeting of therapies. In the process of sequencing the tumor, comparisons to the germline genome may identify variants associated with susceptibility to cancer as well as other hereditary diseases. Already, the combination of massively parallel sequencing and selective capture approaches has facilitated efficient simultaneous genetic analysis (multiplex testing) of large numbers of candidate genes. As the field of oncology incorporates NGS approaches into tumor and germline analyses, it has become clear that the ability to achieve high-throughput genotyping surpasses our current ability to interpret and appropriately apply the vast amounts of data generated from such technologies. A review of the current state of knowledge of rare and common genetic variants associated with cancer risk or treatment outcome reveals significant progress, as well as a number of challenges associated with the clinical translation of these discoveries. The combined efforts of oncologists, genetic counselors, and cancer geneticists will be required to drive the paradigm shift toward personalized or precision medicine and to ensure the incorporation of NGS technologies into the practice of preventive oncology.