Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice最新文献

Background: Women carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants are exposed to elevated risks of developing breast cancer (BC) and are faced by a complex decision-making process on preventative measures, i.e., risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM), and intensified breast surveillance (IBS). In this prospective cohort study we investigated the effect of anxiety, personality factors and coping styles on the decision-making process on risk management options in women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2.

Methods: Breast cancer unaffected and affected women with a pathogenic variant in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene were psychologically evaluated immediately before (T0), 6 to 8 weeks (T1) and 6 to 8 months (T2) after the disclosure of their genetic test results. Uptake of RRM and IBS was assessed at T2. Psychological data were gathered using questionnaires on risk perception, personality factors, coping styles, decisional conflict, depression and anxiety, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). We performed tests on statistical significance and fitted a logistic regression based on significance level.

Results: A total of 98 women were included in the analysis. Baseline anxiety levels in women opting for RRM were high but decreased over time, while they increased in women opting for intensified breast surveillance (IBS). Elevated levels of anxiety after genetic test result disclosure (T1) were associated with the decision to undergo RRM (p < 0.01; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.05-1.42), while personal BC history and personality factors seemed to be less relevant.

Conclusions: Considering psychosocial factors influencing the decision-making process of women with pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 may help improving their genetic and psychological counselling. When opting for IBS they may profit from additional medical and psychological counselling.

Trial registration: Retrospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register under DRKS00027566 on January 13, 2022.

A brief description of why and for which purposes the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database was established, the principles and design, and the main classes of results are given. Data input is assumption-free input enabling validation of paradigms used to explain the results. The design is considering cancer/age as discrete events to occur or not in a time dimension in a closed room compliant with population genetic paradigms and last centuries developing paradigms of interpreting discrete events reflecting conditional and/or co-occurring stochastic probabilities. Which may be in contrast to the paradigm that any observed event has a cause. The results may indicate that some current paradigms on carcinogenesis should be reconsidered. The complete analytic code in MySQL© syntax together with a flowchart illustrating how the different pieces of codes interrelate are included as supplementary files, enabling third parties to use or modify the code to examine prospectively observed events in their own activities when referring to this report as the source.

Objective: To compare colorectal cancer (CRC) incidences in carriers of pathogenic variants of the MMR genes in the PLSD and IMRC cohorts, of which only the former included mandatory colonoscopy surveillance for all participants.

Methods: CRC incidences were calculated in an intervention group comprising a cohort of confirmed carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (path_MMR) followed prospectively by the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD). All had colonoscopy surveillance, with polypectomy when polyps were identified. Comparison was made with a retrospective cohort reported by the International Mismatch Repair Consortium (IMRC). This comprised confirmed and inferred path_MMR carriers who were first- or second-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands.

Results: In the PLSD, 8,153 subjects had follow-up colonoscopy surveillance for a total of 67,604 years and 578 carriers had CRC diagnosed. Average cumulative incidences of CRC in path_MLH1 carriers at 70 years of age were 52% in males and 41% in females; for path_MSH2 50% and 39%; for path_MSH6 13% and 17% and for path_PMS2 11% and 8%. In contrast, in the IMRC cohort, corresponding cumulative incidences were 40% and 27%; 34% and 23%; 16% and 8% and 7% and 6%. Comparing just the European carriers in the two series gave similar findings. Numbers in the PLSD series did not allow comparisons of carriers from other continents separately. Cumulative incidences at 25 years were < 1% in all retrospective groups.

Conclusions: Prospectively observed CRC incidences (PLSD) in path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 carriers undergoing colonoscopy surveillance and polypectomy were higher than in the retrospective (IMRC) series, and were not reduced in path_MSH6 carriers. These findings were the opposite to those expected. CRC point incidence before 50 years of age was reduced in path_PMS2 carriers subjected to colonoscopy, but not significantly so.

Lynch Syndrome (LS) is a highly variable entity with some patients presenting at very young ages with malignancy whereas others may never develop a malignancy yet carry an unequivocal genetic predisposition to disease. The most frequent LS malignancy remains colorectal cancer, a disease that is thought to involve genetic as well as environmental factors in its aetiology. Environmental insults are undeniably associated with cancer risk, especially those imparted by such activities as smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Notwithstanding, in an inherited predisposition the expected exposures to an environmental insult are considered to be complex and require knowledge about the respective exposure and how it might interact with a genetic predisposition. Typically, smoking is one of the major confounders when considering environmental factors that can influence disease expression on a background of significant genetic risk. In addition to environmental triggers, the risk of developing a malignancy for people carrying an inherited predisposition to disease can be influenced by additional genetic factors that do not necessarily segregate with a disease predisposition allele. The purpose of this review is to examine the current state of modifier gene detection in people with a genetic predisposition to develop LS and present some data that supports the notion that modifier genes are gene specific thus explaining why some modifier gene studies have failed to identify associations when this is not taken into account.

Background: There is a growing need for genetic testing of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. Mainstream genetic testing provides an alternative care pathway in which non-genetic healthcare professionals offer pre-test counseling themselves. We aimed to explore the impact of mainstream genetic testing on patients' experiences, turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol.

Methods: Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the gynecology departments between April 2018 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our intervention group. Patients receiving pre-test counseling at the genetics department between January 2017 and April 2020 were eligible to participate in our control group. We evaluated patients' experiences with questionnaires, consisting of questions regarding knowledge, satisfaction and psychosocial outcomes. Patients in the intervention group were sent two questionnaires: one after pre-test counseling and one after receiving their DNA test result. Patients in our control group were sent one questionnaire after receiving their test result. In addition, we collected data regarding turnaround times and adherence of non-genetic healthcare professionals to the mainstream genetic testing protocol.

Results: Participation was 79% in our intervention group (105 out of 133 patients) and 60% in our control group (91 out of 152 patients). Knowledge regarding genetics, decisional conflict, depression, anxiety, and distress were comparable in the two groups. In the intervention group, the risk of breast cancer in patients carrying a pathogenic germline variant was discussed less often (49% versus 74% in control group, p ≤ 0.05), and the mean score of regret about the decision to have genetic testing was higher than in the control group (mean 12.9 in the intervention group versus 9.7 in the control group, p ≤ 0.05), although below the clinically relevant threshold of 25. A consent form for the DNA test and a checklist to assess family history were present for ≥ 95% of patients in the intervention group.

Conclusion: Mainstream genetic testing is an acceptable approach to meet the increase in genetic testing among women with epithelial ovarian cancer.

Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 cause hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The vast majority of these variants are inherited from a parent. De novo constitutional pathogenic variants are rare. Even fewer cases of constitutional mosaicism have been reported and these have mostly been described in women with breast cancer. Here we report low-level constitutional mosaicism identified by Next Generation Sequencing in two women with ovarian cancer. A BRCA1 c.5074G > A p.(Asp1692Asn) variant detected in the first female at 42 years, classed as likely pathogenic, was found in ~ 52% of reads in DNA extracted from tumour, ~ 10% of reads in DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes and ~ 10% of reads in DNA extracted from buccal mucosa. The second BRCA1 c.2755_2758dupCCTG p.(Val920AlafsTer6) variant was detected in a female aged 53 years, classed as pathogenic, and was found in ~ 59% of reads in DNA extracted from tumour, ~ 14% of reads in DNA extracted from peripheral blood leukocytes and similarly in ~ 14% of reads in both DNA extracted from buccal mucosa and urine sample. Sanger sequencing confirmed the presence of these variants at a corresponding low level consistent with mosaicism that may not have been detected by this method alone. This report demonstrates the clinical benefit for two women of BRCA1/BRCA2 germline NGS testing at a depth that can detect low-level mosaicism. As well as informing appropriate treatments, tumour sequencing results may facilitate the detection and interpretation of low-level mosaic variants in the germline. Both results have implications for other cancer risks and for relatives when providing a family cancer risk assessment and reproductive risk. The implications for laboratory practice, clinical genetics management and genetic counselling for constitutional mosaicism of BRCA1/BRCA2 are discussed.

Background: While the role of BRCA1/2 genes in familial breast and ovarian cancer is well established, their implication in the sporadic form of both cancers is still controversial. With the development of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, the exact relationship between BRCA1/2 genes and sporadic triple negative breast cancer/high grade serous carcinoma (TNBC/HGSC) needs to be further investigated. Therefore, we conducted a study in which we analyze BRCA1/2 point mutations and copy number alterations in Moroccan patients suffering from TNBC/HGSC.

Methods: To achieve our goal, we analyzed BRCA1/2 genes in the FFPE tissue blocks and blood samples of 65 TNBC/HGSC selected patients, using next generation sequencing technology.

Results: From the 65 successfully sequenced patients in our cohort, we detected five-point variants in six different patients, four variants were classified as pathogenic and one of unknown significance. Regarding copy number alterations we detected one copy number loss in BRCA1 gene and one copy number gain in BRCA2 gene. The genetic screening of BRCA1/2 genes using these patients' genomic DNA indicated that five harbored a germline genetic alteration. While three harbored a somatic genetic alteration. To the best of our knowledge, three-point variants detected in our study have never been reported before.

Conclusion: According to the results found in the present study, in a population without a family history of cancer, the possibility of a BRCA1/2 somatic pathogenic variant in high grade serous carcinoma is 7%. While for Triple negative breast cancer somatic point variants and copy number alterations seems to be a very rare genetic event.

Background: It is estimated that about 10% of pancreatic cancer cases have a genetic background. People with a familial predisposition to pancreatic cancer can be divided into 2 groups. The first is termed hereditary pancreatic cancer, which occurs in individuals with a known hereditary cancer syndrome caused by germline single gene mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2, CDKN2A). The second is considered as familial pancreatic cancer, which is associated with several genetic factors responsible for the more common development of pancreatic cancer in certain families, but the precise single gene mutation has not been found.

Aim: This review summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding the risk of pancreatic cancer development in hereditary pancreatic cancer and familial pancreatic cancer patients. Furthermore, it gathers the latest recommendations from the three major organizations dealing with the prevention of pancreatic cancer in high-risk groups and explores recent guidelines of scientific societies on screening for pancreatic cancers in individuals at risk for hereditary or familial pancreatic cancer.

Conclusions: In order to improve patients' outcomes, authors of current guidelines recommend early and intensive screening in patients with pancreatic cancer resulting from genetic background. The screening should be performed in excellence centers. The scope, extent and cost-effectiveness of such interventions requires further studies.

Introduction: Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients.

Purpose: The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication.

Results: Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings.

Conclusion: The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.