scholarly journals Reliability of Tumor Testing Compared to Germline Testing for Detecting BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 593
Author(s):  
Christine Bekos ◽  
Christoph Grimm ◽  
Marlene Kranawetter ◽  
Stephan Polterauer ◽  
Felicitas Oberndorfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Concordance Rate ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 Mutations ◽  
Germline Testing

Background: BRCA 1/2 mutation status has become one of the most important parameters for treatment decision in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). The aim of this study was to compare tumor DNA with blood DNA sequencing to evaluate the reliability of BRCA tumor testing results. Methods: Patients who were treated for EOC between 2003 and 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna and underwent both germline (gBRCA) and tumor (tBRCA) testing for BRCA mutations were identified. We calculated the concordance rate and further analyzed discordant cases. Results: Out of 140 patients with EOC, gBRCA mutation was found in 47 (33.6%) and tBRCA mutation in 53 (37.9%) patients. Tumor testing identified an additional 9/140 (6.4%) patients with somatic BRCA mutation and negative germline testing. The comparison of germline testing with tumor testing revealed a concordance rate of 93.5% and a negative predictive value of tumor testing of 96.0%. After BRCA variants of uncertain significance were included in the analysis, concordance rate decreased to 90.9%. Conclusion: Tumor testing identified the majority of pathogenic germline BRCA mutations but missed three (2.1%) patients. In contrast, nine (6.4%) patients harboring a somatic BRCA mutation would have been missed by gBRCA testing only.

scholarly journals Factors influencing women’s decisions to getting tested for BRCA mutation

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suha Al-Oballi Kridli ◽  
Holly Austin
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Genetic Mutations ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Breast And Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 Mutations ◽  
Internal And External Factors

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among gynecological cancers. There are many risk factors that can increase a woman’s susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers, some of which are modifiable.  However, non-modifiable risks for breast and ovarian cancer include the presence of genetic mutations (BRCA) increase the risk of these diseases. The purpose of this review was to identify factors, reported in the literature, known to affect women’s decision to get genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. A total of 31 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. Several internal and external factors, influencing women’s decision to getting tested for BRCA mutations, were identified and explained. Implications for clinical practice were provided.

scholarly journals Tailoring Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Implications of BRCA1/2 Mutations

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ainhoa Madariaga ◽  
Stephanie Lheureux ◽  
Amit Oza
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Repair Process ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Tumour Suppressor Genes ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Damage Repair ◽  
Brca Mutation Carriers ◽  
Drug Efflux Pumps

High grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is the most common epithelial ovarian cancer, harbouring more than 20% germline or somatic mutations in the tumour suppressor genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. These genes are involved in both DNA damage repair process via homologous recombination (HR) and transcriptional regulation. BRCA mutation confers distinct characteristics, including an increased response to DNA-damaging agents, such us platinum chemotherapy and poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). However, several mechanisms of resistance to these agents have been described, including increased HR capacity through reverse BRCA mutations, non-homologous end-joint (NHEJ) repair alterations and drug efflux pumps. Current treatments of ovarian cancer including surgery, chemotherapy, targeted treatment and maintenance strategies, as well as resistance mechanisms will be reviewed, focusing on future trends with respect to BRCA mutation carriers.

A Population-Based Study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Jewish Women With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
KAREN H. LU ◽  
DANIEL W. CRAMER ◽  
MICHAEL G. MUTO ◽  
EVELYN Y. LI ◽  
JONATHAN NILOFF ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Jewish Women ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 ◽  
Population Based Study ◽  
Brca2 Mutations ◽  
Brca1 And Brca2 Mutations

Genetic testing and referral patterns of non-BRCA mutation carriers at increased or uncertain risk of ovarian cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1585-1585
Author(s):  
Sarah S. Lee ◽  
Katherine Baumann ◽  
Bhoomi Bhuptani ◽  
Sarah Turecamo ◽  
Julia Anne Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Genetic Counselor ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Brca Mutation Carriers ◽  
Icd 10

1585 Background: While the management of BRCA1/2 is clear, management of non-BRCA mutations with increased risk or uncertain risk of ovarian cancer (OC) is not well established. Previously, we reported that referral to a gynecologic oncologist (GO) resulted in a 30-fold increased uptake of risk reducing surgery (RRS). We aimed to identify trends in genetic testing (GT) and referral to a GO of patients (pts) with such mutations. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study at 3 satellite sites within 1 institution from 2014 to 2018, pts were identified by ICD-10 codes Z15.01, Z15.02, Z15.09, Z15.89, C50.919, Q99.8, and C54.1. Pts with mutations with increased risk of OC ( MLH1, MSH2/6, PMS2, EPCAM (LS genes) , RAD51C/D, BRIP1, STK11) and uncertain risk of OC ( PALB2, ATM, BARD1, NBN) were included; BRCA1/2 and variants of uncertain significance were excluded . Outcomes of interest were patterns of GT and referral to a GO. Chi square and logistic regression were used with p < 0.05. Results: Of 20,000 pts with above ICD-10 codes, 240 pts had genes of interest. Mutations in increased risk of OC included: LS genes, 131; BRIP1, 14; RAD51D, 8; RAD51C, 5; STK11, 1. Mutations associated with uncertain risk of OC were: ATM, 43; PALB2, 23; NBN, 10; BARD1, 5. Pts with known mutations prior establishing care at our institution (N = 69) were less likely to be referred to a GO (22% vs 78%, p = 0.015). Pts with LS genes were more likely to be referred to a GO (52% vs. 25%, p < 0.001), to be tested by a GC (52% vs 25%, p < 0.001), and to be tested for family history (FH) of known mutation (69% vs 30%, p < 0.001). Provider performing GT included: genetic counselor (GC), 66 (28%); medical oncologist, 44 (18%); general obstetrician-gynecologist, 44 (18%); breast surgeon, 6 (3%), and primary care provider, 5 (2%). Of 66 pts tested by a GC, 46 (70%) were referred to GO, vs 48/105 (45%) pts who underwent GT by non-GC (p = 0.001). Reasons for GT among pts were: FH of cancer, 113 (47%); personal history of cancer, 56 (23%); known FH of a mutation, 49 (20%); and unknown indication, 22 (9%). When controlling for age, parity, race, insurance, GT provider, and reasons for GT, mutations with increased risk of OC were associated with referral to a GO (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.88-6.72), along with pts who were tested by a GC (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.27-5.51). Conclusions: Only ~30% of pts underwent GT by a GC, which was associated with increased referral to a GO. LS genes are better known and were associated with higher uptake of GO referral. Education of OC risks of these newer mutations among providers performing GT may increase referral to a GO and uptake of RRS.

scholarly journals Insights into BRCA Cancer Predisposition from Integrated Germline and Somatic Analyses in 7632 Cancers

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Yost ◽  
Elise Ruark ◽  
Ludmil B Alexandrov ◽  
Nazneen Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Pathogenic Mutation ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Variant Of Uncertain Significance ◽  
Allele Loss ◽  
Ovarian Cancers ◽  
Pathogenic Mutations ◽  
Uncertain Significance

Abstract Background It is often assumed any cancer in a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (collectively termed BRCA) mutation carrier was caused by that mutation. It is also often assumed the occurrence of breast or ovarian cancer in an individual with a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) suggests the VUS is pathogenic. These assumptions have profound management implications for cancer patients and healthy individuals. Methods We compared the frequency of BRCA mutations, allele loss, and Signature 3 in 7632 individuals with 28 cancers and 1000 population controls. Because only increased frequency was the focus of the study, all statistical tests were one-sided. Results Individuals with breast or ovarian cancer had increased germline BRCA pathogenic mutation frequencies compared to controls (P = 1.0x10−10 and P = 1.4x10−34, respectively). There was no increase in other cancer types. Wild-type allele loss and Signature 3 were statistically significantly higher in breast and ovarian cancers with BRCA mutations compared with other cancers with BRCA mutations (P = 5.1x10−10 and P = 3.7x10−9) and cancers without BRCA mutations (P = 2.8x10−53 and P = 1.0x10−134). There was no difference between non-breast and non-ovarian cancers with BRCA mutations and cancers without BRCA mutations. Allele loss and Signature 3 were statistically significantly higher in breast and ovarian cancers in individuals with BRCA pathogenic mutations compared to those with VUS (P = 3.8x10−17 and P = 1.6x10−8) or benign variants (P = 1.2x10−28 and P = 2.2x10−10). There was no difference between individuals with BRCA VUS and those with benign variants. Conclusions These data show that non-breast and non-ovarian cancers in individuals with germline BRCA pathogenic mutations are often not causally related to the mutation and that BRCA VUS are highly unlikely to be pathogenic. These results should reduce inappropriate management of germline BRCA information.

scholarly journals The Landscape and Therapeutic Implications of Molecular Profiles in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2239
Author(s):  
Ludivine Dion ◽  
Isis Carton ◽  
Sylvie Jaillard ◽  
Krystel Nyangoh Timoh ◽  
Sébastien Henno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Dna Breaks ◽  
Brca Mutations ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) affects 43,000 women worldwide every year and has a five-year survival rate of 30%. Mainstay treatment is extensive surgery and chemotherapy. Outcomes could be improved by molecular profiling. We conducted a review of the literature to identify relevant publications on molecular and genetic alterations in EOC. Approximately 15% of all EOCs are due to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Four histologic subtypes characterized by different mutations have been described: serous, endometrioid, mucinous, and clear-cell. Between 20–30% of high-grade serous EOCs have a BRCA mutation. Tumors with BRCA mutations are unable to repair double-strand DNA breaks, making them more sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy and to PolyAdenosine Diphosphate-Ribose Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Olaparib is a PARP inhibitor with proven efficacy in BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, but its effectiveness remains to be demonstrated in tumors with a BRCAness (breast cancer) profile (i.e., also including sporadic tumors in patients with deficient DNA repair genes). A universally accepted molecular definition of BRCAness is required to identify optimal theranostic strategies involving PARP inhibitors. Gene expression analyses have led to the identification of four subgroups of high-grade serous EOC: mesenchymal, proliferative, differentiated, and immunoreactive. These subtypes are not mutually exclusive but are correlated with prognosis. They are not yet used in routine clinical practice. A greater understanding of EOC subtypes could improve patient management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document