scholarly journals Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of the Diagnostic Yield and Patient Experience of Multiplex Gene Panel Testing For Hereditary Cancer Risk

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory E. Idos ◽  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Charité Ricker ◽  
Duveen Sturgeon ◽  
Julie O. Culver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Prophylactic Surgery ◽  
University Of Southern California ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Multicenter Prospective Cohort

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.

scholarly journals Insights into Genetic Susceptibility to Melanoma by Gene Panel Testing: Potential Pathogenic Variants in ACD, ATM, BAP1, and POT1

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenza Pastorino ◽  
Virginia Andreotti ◽  
Bruna Dalmasso ◽  
Irene Vanni ◽  
Giulia Ciccarese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rare Variants ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Susceptibility Genes ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Missing Heritability ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Novel Variants ◽  
Uncertain Significance

The contribution of recently established or candidate susceptibility genes to melanoma missing heritability has yet to be determined. Multigene panel testing could increase diagnostic yield and better define the role of candidate genes. We characterized 273 CDKN2A/ARF and CDK4-negative probands through a custom-designed targeted gene panel that included CDKN2A/ARF, CDK4, ACD, BAP1, MITF, POT1, TERF2IP, ATM, and PALB2. Co-segregation, loss of heterozygosity (LOH)/protein expression analysis, and splicing characterization were performed to improve variant classification. We identified 16 (5.9%) pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in established high/medium penetrance cutaneous melanoma susceptibility genes (BAP1, POT1, ACD, MITF, and TERF2IP), including two novel variants in BAP1 and 4 in POT1. We also found four deleterious and five likely deleterious variants in ATM (3.3%). Thus, including potentially deleterious variants in ATM increased the diagnostic yield to about 9%. Inclusion of rare variants of uncertain significance would increase the overall detection yield to 14%. At least 10% of melanoma missing heritability may be explained through panel testing in our population. To our knowledge, this is the highest frequency of putative ATM deleterious variants reported in melanoma families, suggesting a possible role in melanoma susceptibility, which needs further investigation.

Multigene hereditary cancer panel testing for patients with pancreatic cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 244-244
Author(s):  
Anna K McGill ◽  
Sheila R Solomon ◽  
Megan L Marshall ◽  
Lisa Susswein ◽  
Corrine Fillman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family History ◽  
Hereditary Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Brca1 Brca2 ◽  
Cancer Panel

244 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PC) is associated with multiple hereditary cancer syndromes. Genes implicated in hereditary PC include ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2 and PMS2. The advent of multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing streamlines diagnoses and medical management for clinicians and patients. Our objective was to assess the yield of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV) in individuals with PC undergoing panel testing as an initial test at GeneDx. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed panel test results of 605 individuals reporting a personal history of PC. Panel testing evaluated up to 32 genes associated with hereditary cancer. Individuals reporting neuroendocrine pathology or previous BRCA1/BRCA2 testing were excluded. Results: In this cohort, 61 PV/LPV were detected in 57 individuals in the following genes: ATM (17), BRCA2 (14), BRCA1 (5), CDKN2A (5), PALB2 (5), CHEK2 (4), MLH1 (2), MUTYH (2), PMS2 (2), BARD1 (1), FANCC (1), MSH2 (1), RAD51D (1) and TP53 (1), corresponding to a positive yield of 9.4% (57/605). Fifty-one of 61 PV/LPV were detected in genes associated with PC (84%) while 10 PV/LPV (16%) were identified in other genes including BARD1, CHEK2, FANCC, MUTYH, and RAD51D. The diagnostic yield among those reporting a family history of PC (33/294, 11.2%) was not statistically different from those without a reported family history (24/311, 7.7%). However, PV/LPV in ATM were detected more often in individuals reporting a family history of PC compared to those without a family history (4.1% vs. 1.6%, p=0.018). Conclusions: In total, 9.4% of patients with PC tested positive for PV/LPV in 14 different genes by panel testing. Although the majority of PV/LPV were identified in known PC genes, 16% of positive findings occurred in genes not typically associated with PC. ATM was most commonly implicated and more frequently reported in patients reporting family histories of PC. Assessing whether these genes are indeed causally related to PC and/or are possibly associated with other cancer types requires further investigation. Based on our results we conclude multi-gene panel testing may be considered as a first option for patients with PC regardless of their family history.

scholarly journals Extended gene panel testing in lobular breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke M. van Veen ◽  
D. Gareth Evans ◽  
Elaine F. Harkness ◽  
Helen J. Byers ◽  
Jamie M. Ellingford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Lobular Breast Cancer ◽  
Germline Variants ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Increased Risk

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

scholarly journals 167P Role of the multi-gene panel testing for detection of pathogenic variants in patients with hereditary bilateral breast cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S432-S433
Author(s):  
C. Filorizzo ◽  
D. Fanale ◽  
L. Incorvaia ◽  
N. Barraco ◽  
M. Bono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Bilateral Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

scholarly journals Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hikmat Abdel-Razeq
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Healthy Women ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Risk Reducing ◽  
Current Guidelines ◽  
Missed Opportunity

Since the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes 3 decades ago, genetic testing and genetic counseling have become an integral part of routine clinical practice. The risk of breast cancer among carriers of germline pathogenic variants, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, is well established. Risk-reducing interventions, including bilateral mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies are both effective and have become more acceptable. Many researchers and professional societies view current guidelines as restrictive and may miss many at-risk women, and are calling to expand testing to include all patients with breast cancer, regardless of their personal or family history of cancer, while others are calling for wider adoption to even include all healthy women at age 30 or older. This review will address expanding testing in two directions; horizontally to include more patients, and even healthy women, and vertically to include more genes using next-generation sequencing-based multi-gene panel testing.

scholarly journals Multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer - is it ready to be used?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreea Catana ◽  
Adina Patricia Apostu ◽  
Razvan-Geo Antemie
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Hereditary Breast Cancer ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Variants Of Uncertain Significance ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Brca Genes ◽  
Prophylactic Measures ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
High Level

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies and the leading cause of death among women worldwide. About 20% of breast cancers are hereditary. Approximately 30% of the mutations have remained negative after testing BRCA1/2 even in families with a Mendelian inheritance pattern for breast cancer. Additional non-BRCA genes have been identified as predisposing for breast cancer. Multi gene panel testing tries to cover and explain the BRCA negative inherited breast cancer, improving efficiency, speed and costs of the breast cancer screening. We identified 23 studies reporting results from individuals who have undergone multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer and noticed a prevalence of 1-12% of non-BRCA genes, but also a high level of variants of uncertain significance. A result with a high level of variants of uncertain significance is likely to be more costly than bring benefits, as well as increase the anxiety for patients. Regarding further development of multi gene panel testing, more research is required to establish both the optimal care of patients with cancer (specific treatments like PARP inhibitors) and the management of unaffected individuals (chemoprevention and/or prophylactic surgeries). Early detection in these patients as well as prophylactic measures will significantly increase the chance of survival. Therefore, multi gene panel testing is not yet ready to be used outside clear guidelines. In conclusion, studies on additional cohorts will be needed to better define the real prevalence, penetrance and the variants of these genes, as well as to describe clear evidence-based guidelines for these patients. 

Cardiovascular genetics: the role of genetic testing in diagnosis and management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2020-316798
Author(s):  
Monica Ahluwalia ◽  
Carolyn Y Ho
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Family Management ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

Genetic testing in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a valuable tool to manage patients and their families. Genetic testing can help inform diagnosis and differentiate HCM from other disorders that also result in increased left ventricular wall thickness, thereby directly impacting treatment. Moreover, genetic testing can definitively identify at-risk relatives and focus family management. Pathogenic variants in sarcomere and sarcomere-related genes have been implicated in causing HCM, and targeted gene panel testing is recommended for patients once a clinical diagnosis has been established. If a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant is identified in a patient with HCM, predictive genetic testing is recommended for their at-risk relatives to determine who is at risk and to guide longitudinal screening and risk stratification. However, there are important challenges and considerations to implementing genetic testing in clinical practice. Genetic testing results can have psychological and other implications for patients and their families, emphasising the importance of genetic counselling before and after genetic testing. Determining the clinical relevance of genetic testing results is also complex and requires expertise in understanding of human genetic variation and clinical manifestations of the disease. In this review, we discuss the genetics of HCM and how to integrate genetic testing in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Diagnostic exome sequencing in non-acquired focal epilepsies highlights a major role of GATOR1 complex genes

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 624-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Krenn ◽  
Matias Wagner ◽  
Christoph Hotzy ◽  
Elisabeth Graf ◽  
Sandrina Weber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exome Sequencing ◽  
Rare Variants ◽  
Focal Epilepsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Molecular Heterogeneity ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Uncertain Significance

BackgroundThe genetic architecture of non-acquired focal epilepsies (NAFEs) becomes increasingly unravelled using genome-wide sequencing datasets. However, it remains to be determined how this emerging knowledge can be translated into a diagnostic setting. To bridge this gap, we assessed the diagnostic outcomes of exome sequencing (ES) in NAFE.Methods112 deeply phenotyped patients with NAFE were included in the study. Diagnostic ES was performed, followed by a screen to detect variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in 15 well-established focal epilepsy genes. Explorative gene prioritisation was used to identify possible novel candidate aetiologies with so far limited evidence for NAFE.ResultsES identified pathogenic or likely pathogenic (ie, diagnostic) variants in 13/112 patients (12%) in the genes DEPDC5, NPRL3, GABRG2, SCN1A, PCDH19 and STX1B. Two pathogenic variants were microdeletions involving NPRL3 and PCDH19. Nine of the 13 diagnostic variants (69%) were found in genes of the GATOR1 complex, a potentially druggable target involved in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling pathway. In addition, 17 VUSs in focal epilepsy genes and 6 rare variants in candidate genes (MTOR, KCNA2, RBFOX1 and SCN3A) were detected. Five patients with reported variants had double hits in different genes, suggesting a possible (oligogenic) role of multiple rare variants.ConclusionThis study underscores the molecular heterogeneity of NAFE with GATOR1 complex genes representing the by far most relevant genetic aetiology known to date. Although the diagnostic yield is lower compared with severe early-onset epilepsies, the high rate of VUSs and candidate variants suggests a further increase in future years.

scholarly journals Germline variants and phenotypic spectrum in a Canadian cohort of individuals with diffuse gastric cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Aronson ◽  
C. Swallow ◽  
A. Govindarajan ◽  
K. Semotiuk ◽  
Z. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Diffuse Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cancer Syndrome ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Inherited Cancer ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Gene Panel Testing

Background CDH1 pathogenic variants (PV) cause the majority of inherited diffuse-gastric cancer (DGC), but have low detection rates and vary geographically. This study examines hereditary causes of DGC in patients from Ontario, Canada. Methods Eligible DGC cases at the Zane Cohen Centre (ZCC) underwent multi-gene panel or CDH1 single-site testing if they met 2015 International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) criteria, isolated DGC <50 or family history suggestive of an inherited cancer syndrome. A secondary aim was to review all CDH1 families at the ZCC to assess cancer penetrance. Results 85 DGC patients underwent CDH1 (n=43) or multi-gene panel testing (n=42), and 15 (17.6%) PV or likely PV were identified.  CDH1 detection rate was 9.4% (n=8/85), and 11% (n=7/65) using IGCLC criteria.  No CDH1 PV identified in isolated DGC <40, but one PV identified in isolated DGC<50.  Multi-gene panel from 42 individuals identified 9 PV (21.4%) including CDH1, STK11, ATM, BRCA2, MLH1 and MSH2.  Review of 81 CDH1 carriers revealed that 10% had DGC (median age:48, range:38-59), 41% were unaffected (median age:53, range:26-89).  Three families had lobular-breast cancer (LBC) only.  Non-DGC/LBC malignancies included colorectal, gynecological, kidney/bladder, prostate, testicular and ductal breast. Conclusions Low detection rate of CDH1 in Ontario DGC patients.  No CDH1 PV found in isolated DGC <40, but identified in isolated DGC<50. Multi-gene panels are recommended for all DGC under age 50, and those meeting the IGCLC criteria, given overlapping phenotype with other hereditary conditions. HDGC phenotype is evolving with a spectrum of non-DGC/LBC cancers.

Benefits and safety of multigene panel testing in patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Nimmi S. Kapoor ◽  
Lisa D. Curcio ◽  
Carlee A. Blakemore ◽  
Amy K. Bremner ◽  
Rachel E. McFarland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Hereditary Breast Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Gene Panel ◽  
Panel Testing ◽  
Gene Testing ◽  
Gene Panel Testing ◽  
Patients At Risk

16 Background: Recently introduced multi-gene panel testing including BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (BRCA1/2) for hereditary cancer risk has raised concerns with the ability to detect all deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations compared to older methods of sequentially testing BRCA1/2 separately. The purpose of this study is to evaluate rates of pathogenic BRCA1/2mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUS) between previous restricted algorithms of genetic testing and newer approaches of multi-gene testing. Methods: Data was collected retrospectively from 966 patients who underwent genetic testing at one of three sites from a single institution. Test results were compared between patients who underwent BRCA1/2testing only (limited group, n = 629) to those who underwent multi-gene testing with 5-43 cancer-related genes (panel group, n = 337). Results: Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutations were identified in 37 patients, with equivalent rates between limited and panel groups (4.0% vs 3.6%, respectively, p = 0.86). Thirty-nine patients had a BRCA1/2 VUS, with similar rates between limited and panel groups (4.5% vs 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.49). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in detection of either BRCA1/2 mutations or VUS between both groups. Of patients undergoing panel testing, an additional 3.9% (n = 13) had non-BRCA pathogenic mutations and 13.4% (n = 45) had non-BRCA VUSs. Mutations in PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM were the most common non-BRCA mutations identified. Conclusions: Multi-gene panel testing detects pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations at equivalent rates as limited testing and increases the diagnostic yield. Panel testing increases the VUS rate, mainly due to non-BRCA genes. Patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer can safely benefit from upfront, more efficient, multi-gene panel testing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document