The psychological impact of genetic testing in childhood cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Cancer predisposition syndromes are being more frequently recognized in the etiology of pediatric oncology and genetic-related technologies are evolving rapidly, leading to an increasing availability of genetic testing for families. This systematic review assessed the psychological impact of genetic testing on children and parents in the context of childhood cancer.

METHODS

Searches were performed using three databases (Web of Science, Pubmed and Embase) to identify relevant empirical studies. Following Cochrane guidelines, we screened 3838 articles and identified 18 eligible studies, representing the perspectives of children and/or parents.

RESULTS

The included studies described the impact of genetic testing in different contexts (e.g. predictive testing and diagnostic testing) and in different subgroups, (e.g. carriers and non-carriers). Overall, the studies did not identify clinically-relevant long-term increases in negative emotions (depression, anxiety, distress, uncertainty, guilt) as a result of genetic testing. Negative emotions were typically time-limited and generally occurred in families with particular characteristics (e.g. those with a history of multiple cancer diagnoses, families receiving an unfavorable result for one child and a favorable result in siblings, and those with pre-existing mental health difficulties). Positive emotions (hopefulness, relief and peace of mind) were also reported. Knowing their genetic risk status appeared to help to foster empowerment among families, regardless of the result and any associated emotions.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetic testing in pediatric oncology does not appear to cause significant additional harm and can lead to positive outcomes. Clinicians need to be especially attentive when counseling families at increased risk of distress.

Joint Belgian recommendation on screening for DPD-deficiency in patients treated with 5-FU, capecitabine (and tegafur)

OBJECTIVES

Fluoropyrimidines such as 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), capecitabine and tegafur are drugs that are often used in the treatment of maliginancies. The enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the first and rate limiting enzyme of 5-FU catabolism. Genetic variations within the DPYD gene (encoding for DPD protein) can lead to reduced or absent DPD activity. Treatment of DPD deficient patients with fluoropyrimidines can result in severe and, rarely, fatal toxicity. Screening for DPD deficiency should be implemented in practice.

METHODS

The available methods in routine to screen for DPD deficiency were analyzed and discussed in several group meetings involving members of the oncological, genetic and toxicological societies in Belgium: targeted genotyping based on the detection of 4 DPYD variants and phenotyping, through the measurement of uracil and dihydrouracil/uracil ratio in plasma samples.

RESULTS

The main advantage of targeted genotyping is the existence of prospectively validated genotype-based dosing guidelines. The main limitations of this approach are the relatively low sensitivity to detect total and partial DPD deficiency and the fact that this approach has only been validated in Caucasians so far. Phenotyping has a better sensitivity to detect total and partial DPD deficiency when performed in the correct analytical conditions and is not dependent on the ethnic origin of the patient.

CONCLUSION

In Belgium, we recommend phenotype or targeted genotype testing for DPD deficiency before starting 5-FU, capecitabine or tegafur. We strongly suggest a stepwise approach using phenotype testing upfront because of the higher sensitivity and the lower cost to society.

Somatic mosaics in hereditary tumor predisposition syndromes

Historically, it is estimated that 5-10% of cancer patients carry a causative genetic variant for a tumor predisposition syndrome. These conditions have high clinical relevance as they are actionable regarding risk-specific surveillance, predictive genetic testing, reproductive options, and - in some cases - risk reducing surgery or targeted therapy. Every individual is born with on average 0.5-1 exonic mosaic variants prevalent in single or multiple tissues. Depending on the tissues affected, mosaic conditions can abrogate the clinical phenotype of a tumor predisposition syndrome and can even go unrecognized, because it can be impossible or difficult to detect them with routine genetic testing in blood/leucocytes. On the other hand, it is estimated that at least 4% of presumed de novo variants are the result of low-level mosaicism (variant allele frequency <10%) in a parent, while around 7% are true mosaic variants with a higher variant allele frequency, which can sometimes be confused for heterozygous variants. Clonal hematopoiesis however can simulate a mosaic tumor predisposition in genetic diagnostics and has to be taken into account, especially for TP53 variants. Depending on the technique, variant allele frequencies of 2-3% can be detected for single nucleotide variants by next generation sequencing, copy number variants with variant allele frequencies of 5-30% can be detected by array-based technologies or MLPA. Mosaic tumor predisposition syndromes are more common than previously thought and may often remain undiagnosed. The clinical suspicion and diagnostic procedure for several cases with mosaic tumor predisposition syndromes are presented.

Comparison of microsatellite instability detection by immunohistochemistry and molecular techniques in colorectal and endometrial cancer

DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) testing is crucial for diagnosing Lynch syndrome and detection of microsatellite unstable (MSI) tumors eligible for immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare the relative diagnostic performance of three molecular MSI assays: polymerase chain reaction (PCR), MSI testing by Idylla and next-generation-sequencing (NGS) on 49 tumor samples (28 colorectal and 21 endometrial adenocarcinomas) versus immunohistochemistry (IHC). Discrepancies were investigated by MLH1 methylation analysis and integrated with germline results if available. Overall, the molecular assays achieved equivalent diagnostic performance for MSI detection with area under the ROC curves (AUC) of respectively 0.91 for Idylla and PCR, and 0.93 for NGS. In colorectal cancers with tumor cell percentages ≥ 30% all three molecular assays achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 1) versus IHC. Also, in endometrial cancers, all three molecular assays showed equivalent diagnostic performance, albeit at a clearly lower sensitivity ranging from 58% for Idylla to 75% for NGS, corresponding to negative predictive values from 78 to 86%. PCR, Idylla and NGS show similar diagnostic performance for dMMR detection in colorectal and endometrial cancers. Molecular MSI analysis has lower sensitivity for dMMR detection in endometrial cancer indicating that combined use of both IHC and molecular methods is recommended.

Clinical Trial Number/IRB: B1172020000040, Ethical Committee, AZ Delta General Hospital.

The BRCA1 c. 5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) intermediate risk variant: breast and ovarian cancer risk estimation and recommendations for clinical management from the ENIGMA consortium

BACKGROUND

We previously showed that the BRCA1 variant c.5096G>A p.Arg1699Gln (R1699Q) was associated with an intermediate risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). This study aimed to assess these cancer risks for R1699Q carriers in a larger cohort, including follow-up of previously studied families, to further define cancer risks and to propose adjusted clinical management of female BRCA1*R1699Q carriers.

METHODS

Data were collected from 129 BRCA1*R1699Q families ascertained internationally by ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium members. A modified segregation analysis was used to calculate BC and OC risks. Relative risks were calculated under both monogenic model and major gene plus polygenic model assumptions.

RESULTS

In this cohort the cumulative risk of BC and OC by age 70 years was 20% and 6%, respectively. The relative risk for developing cancer was higher when using a model that included the effects of both the R1699Q variant and a residual polygenic component compared with monogenic model (for BC 3.67 vs 2.83, and for OC 6.41 vs 5.83).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that BRCA1*R1699Q confers an intermediate risk for BC and OC. Breast surveillance for female carriers based on mammogram annually from age 40 is advised. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy should be considered based on family history.

PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM rare variants and cancer risk: data from COGS

BACKGROUND

The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study.

METHODS

We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant.

RESULTS

For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10-5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10-8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants.

CONCLUSIONS

This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.