The most efficient and effective BRCA1/2 testing strategy in epithelial ovarian cancer:Tumor-First or Germline-First?

Objective: Genetic testing in epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is essential to identify a hereditary cause like a germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV). An efficient strategy for genetic testing in OC is highly desired. We evaluated costs and effects of two strategies; (i) Tumor-First strategy, using a tumor DNA test as prescreen to germline testing, and (ii) Germline-First strategy, referring all patients to the clinical geneticist for germline testing.Methods: Tumor-First and Germline-First were compared in two scenarios; using real-world uptake of testing and setting implementation to 100%. Decision analytic models were built to analyze genetic testing costs (including counseling) per OC patient and per family as well as BRCA1/2 detection probabilities. With a Markov model, the life years gained among female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV was investigated.Results: Focusing on real-world uptake, with the Tumor-First strategy more OC patients and relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV are detected (70% versus 49%), at lower genetic testing costs (€1898 versus €2502 per patient, and €2511 versus €2930 per family). Thereby, female relatives with a germline BRCA1/2 PV can live on average 0.54 life years longer with Tumor-First compared to Germline-First. Focusing on 100% uptake, the genetic testing costs per OC patient are substantially lower in the Tumor-First strategy (€2257 versus €4986).Conclusions: The Tumor-First strategy in OC patients is more effective in identifying germline BRCA1/2 PV at lower genetic testing costs per patient and per family. Optimal implementation of Tumor-First can further improve detection of heredity in OC patients.</p

Probability of detecting germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in histological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma:A meta-analysis

Background: Histology restricted genetic predisposition testing of ovarian carcinoma patients is a topic of debate as the prevalence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in various histological subtypes is ambiguous. Our primary aim was to investigate the proportion of germline BRCA1/2 PVs per histological subtype. Additionally, we evaluated (i) proportion of somatic BRCA1/2 PVs and (ii) proportion of germline PVs in other ovarian carcinoma risk genes. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were systematically searched and we included all studies reporting germline BRCA1/2 PVs per histological subtype. Pooled proportions were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Subsets of studies were used for secondary analyses. Results: Twenty-eight studies were identified. The overall estimated proportion of germline BRCA1/2 PVs was 16.8% (95% CI 14.6 to 19.2). Presence differed substantially among patients with varying histological subtypes of OC; proportions being highest in high-grade serous (22.2%, 95% CI 19.6 to 25.0) and lowest in clear cell (3.0%, 95% CI 1.6 to 5.6) and mucinous (2.5%, 95% CI 0.6 to 9.6) carcinomas. Somatic BRCA1/2 PVs were present with total estimated proportion of 6.0% (95% CI 5.0 to 7.3), based on a smaller subset of studies. Germline PVs in BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, PALB2, and ATM were present in approximately 3%, based on a subset of nine studies. Conclusion: Germline BRCA1/2 PVs are most frequently identified in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma patients, but are also detected in patients having ovarian carcinomas of other histological subtypes. Limiting genetic predisposition testing to high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma patients will likely be insufficient to identify all patients with a germline PV

Mendelian randomisation study of height and body mass index as modifiers of ovarian cancer risk in 22,588 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

BACKGROUND : Height and body mass index (BMI) are associated with higher ovarian cancer risk in the general population, but whether such associations exist among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is unknown. METHODS : We applied a Mendelian randomisation approach to examine height/BMI with ovarian cancer risk using the Consortium of Investigators for the Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) data set, comprising 14,676 BRCA1 and 7912 BRCA2 mutation carriers, with 2923 ovarian cancer cases. We created a height genetic score (height-GS) using 586 height-associated variants and a BMI genetic score (BMI-GS) using 93 BMI-associated variants. Associations were assessed using weighted Cox models. RESULTS : Observed height was not associated with ovarian cancer risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.07 per 10-cm increase in height, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94–1.23). Height-GS showed similar results (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85–1.23). Higher BMI was significantly associated with increased risk in premenopausal women with HR = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.06–1.48) and HR = 1.59 (95% CI: 1.08–2.33) per 5-kg/m2 increase in observed and genetically determined BMI, respectively. No association was found for postmenopausal women. Interaction between menopausal status and BMI was significant (Pinteraction < 0.05). CONCUSION : Our observation of a positive association between BMI and ovarian cancer risk in premenopausal BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is consistent with findings in the general population.https://www.nature.com/bjc2020-06-19hj2020Genetic

Is It Our Duty To Hunt for Pathogenic Mutations?

Should professionals systematically screen whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data to check for life-threatening mutations? Alternatively, should genome analysis focus on the primary reason for testing – that is, aiming to achieve precision medicine? We present an ethical review of the arguments and compare the act of searching for mutations with disclosing mutations that are discovered incidentally

Factors associated with cancer worries in individuals participating in annual pancreatic cancer surveillance

It is important to adequately and timely identify individuals with cancer worries amongst participants in a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) surveillance program, because they could benefit from psychosocial support to decrease distress. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess both psychosocial and clinical factors associated with cancer worries. High-risk individuals participating in PDAC-surveillance were invited to annually complete a cancer worry scale (CWS) questionnaire which was sent after counseling by the clinical geneticist (T0), after intake for participation in PDAC-surveillance (T1), and then annually after every MRI and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) (T2 and further). Analyses were performed to identify factors associated with cancer worries in the second year of surveillance (T3). We found a significant intra-individual decrease in cancer worries (β = -0.84, P < 0.001), nevertheless, 33 % of individuals had a CWS-score ≥14 at T3. We found one factor significantly associated with cancer worries at T3: having a family member affected by PDAC <50 years of age (β = 0.22, P = 0.03). The detection of a cystic lesion, a shortened surveillance interval, or undergoing pancreatic surgery did not lead to more cancer worries (P = 0.163, P = 0.33, and P = 0.53, respectively). In conclusion, this study identified 'a family history of PDAC <50 years of age' as the only predictor of cancer worries experienced after 2 years of surveillance in individuals at high risk of developing PDAC. This knowledge could help clinicians to timely identify individuals 'at risk' for high levels of cancer worries who would likely benefit from psychosocial suppor

Genetic testing in Li-Fraumeni syndrome: uptake and psychosocial consequences.

Contains fulltext : 88530.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)PURPOSE: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome, characterized by a high risk of developing cancer at various sites and ages. To date, limited clinical benefits of genetic testing for LFS have been demonstrated, and there are concerns about the potential adverse psychosocial impact of genetic testing for LFS. In this study, we evaluated the uptake of genetic testing and the psychosocial impact of undergoing or not undergoing a genetic test for LFS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 18 families with a p53 germline mutation in the Netherlands were identified. Eligible family members were invited to complete a self-report questionnaire assessing motives for undergoing or not undergoing genetic testing, LFS-related distress and worries, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Uptake of presymptomatic testing was 55% (65 of 119). Of the total group, 23% reported clinically relevant levels of LFS-related distress. Carriers were not significantly more distressed than noncarriers or than those with a 50% risk who did not undergo genetic testing. Those with a lack of social support were more prone to report clinically relevant levels of distress (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5). CONCLUSION: Although preventive and treatment options for LFS are limited, more than half of the family members from known LFS families choose to undergo presymptomatic testing. An unfavorable genetic test result, in general, does not cause adverse psychological effects. Nonetheless, it is important to note that a substantial proportion of individuals, irrespective of their carrier status, exhibit clinically relevant levels of distress which warrant psychological support