19 research outputs found
Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers
The risk of germline copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers in breast cancer is assessed, with CNVs overlapping SULT1A1 decreasing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.Peer reviewe
The predictive ability of the 313 variant–based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant
PURPOSE : To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant–based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score
(PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes.
METHODS : We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402
prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2
(CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall
and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk.
RESULTS : For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard
ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06–1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive
PRS313, HR= 1.15, 95% CI (1.07–1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological
characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative
PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes,
respectively.
CONCLUSION : The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the
PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decisionmaking.This work was supported by the Alpe d’HuZes/Dutch Cancer Society (KWF
Kankerbestrijding) project 6253 and Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding)
project UL2014-7473. CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were
supported by Cancer Research–UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. G.C.T.
and A.B.S. are NHMRC Research Fellows. iCOGS: the European Community’s Seventh
Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-
223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/
A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/
A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS
initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112–the GAME-ON
initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-
87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade
(PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research
Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. OncoArray: the PERSPECTIVE
and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects funded by the Government of Canada through
Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministère de
l’Économie, de la Science et de l’Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec,
and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation; the NCI Genetic Associations and
Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME-ON) initiative and Discovery, Biology and Risk of
Inherited Variants in Breast Cancer (DRIVE) project (NIH grants U19 CA148065 and
X01HG007492); and Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118 and C1287/A16563). BCFR:
UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this paper does
not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of
the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does
mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement
by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research
Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation.
BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). BRI-COH: S.
L.N. is partially supported by the Morris and Horowitz Families Professorship. CNIO:
Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research
reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the
National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828
(PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director,
National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors
and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of
Health. CONSIT TEAM: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 number
16732) to P. Peterlongo. DEMOKRITOS: European Union (European Social Fund–ESF)
and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong
Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)–Research Funding
Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA.
Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. DFKZ: German
Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and
C1287/A11990. D.G.E. and F.L. are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical
Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research
and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the
Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal
Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. R.E. and E.B. are supported by Cancer Research UK
Grant C5047/A8385. R.E. is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical
Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. FCCC: A.K.G. was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545), The
University of Kansas Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA168524), The Kansas
Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority
Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical
Sciences Professorship. FPGMX: A. Vega is supported by the Spanish Health Research
Foundation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), partially supported by FEDER funds
through Research Activity Intensification Program (contract grant numbers: INT15/
00070, INT16/00154, INT17/00133), and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica
en Red de Enferemdades Raras CIBERER (ACCI 2016: ER17P1AC7112/2018);
Autonomous Government of Galicia (Consolidation and structuring program:
IN607B), and by the Fundación Mutua Madrileña. The German Consortium for
Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) is funded by the German Cancer
Aid (110837, 70111850, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne) and the Ministry for
Innovation, Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (#323-
8.0302.16.02-132142). GEMO: initially funded by the French National Institute of
Cancer (INCa, PHRC Ile de France, grant AOR 01 082, 2001-2003, grant 2013-1-BCB-01-
ICH-1), the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award (2004), the Association
for International Cancer Research (2008-2010), and the Foundation ARC pour la
recherche sur le cancer (grant PJA 20151203365). It also received support from the
Canadian Institute of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast
Cancer” program (2008–2013), and the European commission FP7, Project
«Collaborative Ovarian, breast and prostate Gene-environment Study (COGS),
Large-scale integrating project» (2009–2013). GEMO is currently supported by the
INCa grant SHS-E-SP 18-015. GEORGETOWN: The Survey, Recruitment, and Biospecimen
Collection Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-
CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research,
and the Nina Hyde Center for Breast Cancer Research. G-FAST: Bruce Poppe is a
senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from
IWT. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301
CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development
FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer
Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HEBON study is supported by the
Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink
Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46
and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HRBCP: Hong Kong Sanatorium and
Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation,
National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center.
HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745, NKFI_OTKA K-112228
and TUDFO/51757/2019-ITM. ICO: Contract grant sponsor: Supported by the Carlos III
National Health Institute funded by FEDER funds–a way to build Europe–(PI16/00563,
PI19/00553 and CIBERONC); the Government of Catalonia (Pla estratègic de recerca i
innovació en salut (PERIS) Project MedPerCan, 2017SGR1282 and 2017SGR496); and
CERCA program.IHCC: supported by grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004 and the program
of the Minister of Science and Higher Education under the name “Regional Initiative
of Excellence” in 2019–2022 project number 002/RID/2018/19 amount of financing 12
000 000 PLN. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by
the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of
Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program–grant
CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export
Trade–grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5×1000” Istituto
Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. kConFab: The
National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer
Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer
Foundation of Western Australia. KOHBRA: the Korea Health Technology R&D Project
through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National
R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea
(HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). KUMC: NIGMS P20 GM130423 (to A.K.G.). MAYO: NIH
grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research
Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer
Research Foundation. MCGILL: Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast
Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade.
Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh
Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018).
MODSQUAD: MH CZ–DRO (MMCI, 00209805) and LM2018125, MEYS–NPS I–LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). MSKCC: the
Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer
Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support
Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). NAROD: 1R01 CA149429-01. NCI: the Intramural
Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services
contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc,
Rockville, MD. NICCC: Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and
the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation
for Basic Research (grants 17-00-00171, 18-515-45012 and 19-515-25001). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative
Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA
37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. OSUCCG: Ohio State University
Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: supported by the “Fondazione Pisa per la
Scienza, project nr. 127/2016. Maria A Caligo was supported by the grant: “n. 127/16
Caratterizzazione delle varianti missenso nei geni BRCA1/2 per la valutazione del
rischio di tumore al seno” by Fondazione Pisa, Pisa, Italy; SEABASS: Ministry of
Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/
06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association.
SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. UCHICAGO: NCI Specialized Program of
Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996,
1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the
Entertainment Industry Fund National Women’s Cancer Research Alliance and the
Breast Cancer research Foundation. O.I.O. is an ACS Clinical Research Professor. UCLA:
Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research
Foundation. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive
Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Research h UK. UPENN: Breast Cancer Research
Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for
BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency,
Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: B.Y.K. is funded by the
American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and
the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), grant
UL1TR000124.https://www.gimjournal.org/am2023Genetic
The predictive ability of the 313 variant–based polygenic risk score for contralateral breast cancer risk prediction in women of European ancestry with a heterozygous BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant
Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the association between a previously published 313 variant–based breast cancer (BC) polygenic risk score (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk, in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant heterozygotes. Methods: We included women of European ancestry with a prevalent first primary invasive BC (BRCA1 = 6,591 with 1,402 prevalent CBC cases; BRCA2 = 4,208 with 647 prevalent CBC cases) from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), a large international retrospective series. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the association between overall and ER-specific PRS313 and CBC risk. Results: For BRCA1 heterozygotes the estrogen receptor (ER)-negative PRS313 showed the largest association with CBC risk, hazard ratio (HR) per SD = 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.06–1.18), C-index = 0.53; for BRCA2 heterozygotes, this was the ER-positive PRS313, HR = 1.15, 95% CI (1.07–1.25), C-index = 0.57. Adjusting for family history, age at diagnosis, treatment, or pathological characteristics for the first BC did not change association effect sizes. For women developing first BC < age 40 years, the cumulative PRS313 5th and 95th percentile 10-year CBC risks were 22% and 32% for BRCA1 and 13% and 23% for BRCA2 heterozygotes, respectively. Conclusion: The PRS313 can be used to refine individual CBC risks for BRCA1/2 heterozygotes of European ancestry, however the PRS313 needs to be considered in the context of a multifactorial risk model to evaluate whether it might influence clinical decision-making
Polygenic Risk Modelling for Prediction of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Risk
Funder: Funding details are provided in the Supplementary MaterialAbstractPolygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally-efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, “select and shrink for summary statistics” (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestry; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestry; 1,072 women of African ancestry, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38(95%CI:1.28–1.48,AUC:0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestry; 1.14(95%CI:1.08–1.19,AUC:0.538) in women of East Asian ancestry; 1.38(95%CI:1.21-1.58,AUC:0.593) in women of African ancestry; hazard ratios of 1.37(95%CI:1.30–1.44,AUC:0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.51(95%CI:1.36-1.67,AUC:0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs.</jats:p
Telomere biology disorders
Telomere biology disorders (TBD) are a heterogeneous group of diseases arising from germline mutations affecting genes involved in telomere maintenance. Telomeres are DNA-protein structures at chromosome ends that maintain chromosome stability; their length affects cell replicative potential and senescence. A constellation of bone marrow failure, pulmonary fibrosis, liver cirrhosis and premature greying is suggestive, however incomplete penetrance results in highly variable manifestations, with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis as the most common presentation. Currently, the true extent of TBD burden is unknown as there is no established diagnostic criteria and the disorder often is unrecognised and underdiagnosed. There is no gold standard for measuring telomere length and not all TBD-related mutations have been identified. There is no specific cure and the only treatment is organ transplantation, which has poor outcomes. This review summarises the current literature and discusses gaps in understanding and areas of need in managing TBD.Published versio
General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review
Objective: The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services. Design: A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022. Eligibility criteria: The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing. Information sources: The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes. Results: A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption. Conclusion: This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.Ministry of Health (MOH)Nanyang Technological UniversityNational Medical Research Council (NMRC)Published versionThis research is supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Clinician Scientist Award (MOH-¬000654) as well as the Centre for Primary Health Care Research & Innovation, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Seedcorn grant (L0483103 NHG--CPHCRI)
Experience and perceptions of a family health history risk assessment tool among multi-ethnic asian breast cancer patients
A family health history-based risk assessment is particularly valuable for guiding cancer screening and treatment strategies, yet an optimal implementation depends upon end-users' values and needs. This is not only true prior to disease development, but also for those already affected. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of the value of knowing one's family health history (FHH)-based risk, experience using a patient-facing FHH tool and the potential of the tool for wider implementation. Twenty multi-ethnic Asian patients undergoing breast cancer treatment in Singapore completed an FHH-based risk assessment. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted and data were thematically analyzed. All participants were female and slightly more than half were Chinese. The acceptance and usage of an FHH risk assessment tool for cancers and its broader implementation was affected by a perceived importance of personal control over early detection, patient concerns of anxiety for themselves and their families due to risk results, concerns for genetic discrimination, adequacy of follow-up care plans and Asian cultural beliefs toward disease and dying. This study uniquely sheds light on the factors affecting Asian breast cancer patients' perceptions about undergoing an FHH-based risk assessment, which should inform steps for a broader implementation in Asian healthcare systems.Published versionThis research was funded by the Duke University School of Medicine and Duke-NUS Medical School, grant number Duke/Duke-NUS/RECA(Pilot)/2017/0033, and the APC was funded by the Duke University School of Medicine and Duke-NUS Medical School
How practice setting affects family physicians' views on genetic screening: a qualitative study
Genetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.Published versionThe study was funded by the Centre for Primary Health Care Research & Innovation, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Seedcorn grant (L0483103 NHG-CPHCRI)
Managing cancer in context of pandemic : a qualitative study to explore the emotional and behavioural responses of patients with cancer and their caregivers to COVID-19
Objectives: Having to access life-sustaining treatment during the emerging COVID-19 outbreak has placed patients with cancer at an especially vulnerable position notwithstanding their immunocompromised condition. The present study aimed to elucidate cancer patients’ and their caregivers’ experiences during this outbreak. Design: Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted. Setting: A tertiary cancer care facility. Participants: 16 patients with cancer and 14 caregivers. Inclusions criteria were: (A) diagnosed with cancer, (B) receiving active treatment or follow-ups, (C) aged 21 years and above and (D) fluent in English or Mandarin. Results: Thematic analysis was conducted. Five themes were identified: heightened sense of threat, impact on healthcare experience, responsibility falls on oneself, striving for normalcy and sense of safety and trust. Heightened threat of COVID-19 was more pronounced in patients and linked to vulnerability and fear, uncertainty and actions of socially irresponsible others. Dominant in their healthcare experience was prioritising cancer and treatment amidst heightened threat and anticipatory worry about treatment disruptions. Both noted on the importance of taking responsibility for one’s health, with caregivers reporting a reinforced sense of duty towards patients. They strived to maintain normalcy by viewing COVID-19 as beyond personal control, downplaying and living life as usual. Their resolve was supported by a sense of safety from the actions of authorities, hospitals and trust towards healthcare providers. Conclusions: Cancer intensifies threat and the emotional impact of COVID-19 and may trigger specific concerns related to treatment. Psychoeducation interventions led by healthcare providers over digital platforms could help address cancer-specific concerns and support patients and caregivers during the pandemic.National Medical Research Council (NMRC)Published versionThis work was supported by the National Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Award (NMRC/CSA-INV/0017/2017) and administered by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council