Julie O. Culver

Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and Counseling: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

These cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Genetic Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensivereview of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provid information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Key components include the intake (medical and family histories), psychosocial assessment (assessment of risk perception), cancer risk assessment (determination and communication of risk), molecular testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (regulations, informed consent, and counseling process), and follow-up considerations. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care providers professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Essential Elements of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment, Counseling, and Testing: Updated Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Updated from their original publication in 2004, these cancer genetic counseling recommendations describe the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of counseling at-risk individuals through genetic cancer risk assessment with or without genetic testing. They were developed by members of the Practice Issues Subcommittee of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Familial Cancer Risk Counseling Special Interest Group. The information contained in this document is derived from extensive review of the current literature on cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling as well as the personal expertise of genetic counselors specializing in cancer genetics. The recommendations are intended to provide information about the process of genetic counseling and risk assessment for hereditary cancer disorders rather than specific information about individual syndromes. Essential components include the intake, cancer risk assessment, genetic testing for an inherited cancer syndrome, informed consent, disclosure of genetic test results, and psychosocial assessment. These recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. These recommendations do not displace a health care provider’s professional judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a client.

Genetics, Genomics and Cancer Risk Assessment: State of the art and future directions in the era of personalized medicine

Scientific and technologic advances are revolutionizing our approach to genetic cancer risk assessment, cancer screening and prevention, and targeted therapy, fulfilling the promise of personalized medicine. In this monograph, we review the evolution of scientific discovery in cancer genetics and genomics, and describe current approaches, benefits, and barriers to the translation of this information to the practice of preventive medicine. Summaries of known hereditary cancer syndromes and highly penetrant genes are provided and contrasted with recently discovered genomic variants associated with modest increases in cancer risk. We describe the scope of knowledge, tools, and expertise required for the translation of complex genetic and genomic test information into clinical practice. The challenges of genomic counseling include the need for genetics and genomics professional education and multidisciplinary team training, the need for evidence‐based information regarding the clinical utility of testing for genomic variants, the potential dangers posed by premature marketing of first‐generation genomic profiles, and the need for new clinical models to improve access to and responsible communication of complex disease risk information. We conclude that given the experiences and lessons learned in the genetics era, the multidisciplinary model of genetic cancer risk assessment and management will serve as a solid foundation to support the integration of personalized genomic information into the practice of cancer medicine. CA Cancer J Clin 2011.

Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome

Recently, we identified 3′ end deletions in the EPCAM gene as a novel cause of Lynch syndrome. These truncating EPCAM deletions cause allele‐specific epigenetic silencing of the neighboring DNA mismatch repair gene MSH2 in tissues expressing EPCAM. Here we screened a cohort of unexplained Lynch‐like families for the presence of EPCAM deletions. We identified 27 novel independent MSH2‐deficient families from multiple geographical origins with varying deletions all encompassing the 3′ end of EPCAM, but leaving the MSH2 gene intact. Within The Netherlands and Germany, EPCAM deletions appeared to represent at least 2.8% and 1.1% of the confirmed Lynch syndrome families, respectively. MSH2 promoter methylation was observed in epithelial tissues of all deletion carriers tested, thus confirming silencing of MSH2 as the causative defect. In a total of 45 families, 19 different deletions were found, all including the last two exons and the transcription termination signal of EPCAM. All deletions appeared to originate from Alu‐repeat mediated recombination events. In 17 cases regions of microhomology around the breakpoints were found, suggesting nonallelic homologous recombination as the most likely mechanism. We conclude that 3′ end EPCAM deletions are a recurrent cause of Lynch syndrome, which should be implemented in routine Lynch syndrome diagnostics. Hum Mutat 32:1–8, 2011.

Genetic counseling for women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer

Women with a family history of breast cancer often over-estimate their personal risk for cancer and may view themselves as candidates for genetic testing even when the likelihood of an informative test result is low. We report here on genetic counseling of women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer, defined as women who have one or more biological relatives with breast cancer but whose pedigree suggests a low likelihood of autosomal dominant transmission. A genetic counseling protocol based on traditional genetic counseling strategies was developed with additional components added to address the needs of women with moderately increased breast cancer risk. These additional components included information about non-genetic risk factors, comparisons of high and moderate risk pedigrees, and evaluation of personal risk based on both genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Most participants liked the genetic counseling and found it useful. At baseline, participants over-estimated both their personal risk of breast cancer and that of the average woman. After counseling, estimates of personal and average risk of breast cancer were lower, although both remained higher than actual risk. Most participants reported that they felt less worried about breast cancer after receiving their personal-risk estimate. At baseline, most women judged themselves to be candidates for genetic testing and expressed interest in testing. The number who considered themselves candidates for testing was reduced after counseling (60% versus 82%) but still constituted a majority. Similarly, interest in testing was partially reduced by counseling (60% versus 91%). We conclude that genetic counseling can help women with an intermediate family history of breast cancer to develop more accurate views of their risk, reduce their breast cancer worry, and aid some of them in developing a more realistic view of genetic testing.

Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates

OBJECTIVE Health literacy and numeracy are necessary to understand health information and to make informed medical decisions. This study explored the relationships among health literacy, numeracy, and ability to accurately interpret graphical representations of breast cancer risk. METHODS Participants (N=120) were recruited from the Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE) membership. Health literacy and numeracy were assessed. Participants interpreted graphs depicting breast cancer risk, made hypothetical treatment decisions, and rated preference of graphs. RESULTS Most participants were Caucasian (98%) and had completed at least one year of college (93%). Fifty-two percent had breast cancer, 86% had a family history of breast cancer, and 57% had a deleterious BRCA gene mutation. Mean health literacy score was 65/66; mean numeracy score was 4/6; and mean graphicacy score was 9/12. Education and numeracy were significantly associated with accurate graph interpretation (r=0.42, p<0.001 and r=0.65, p<0.001, respectively). However, after adjusting for numeracy in multivariate linear regression, education added little to the prediction of graphicacy (r(2)=0.41 versus 0.42, respectively). CONCLUSION In our highly health-literate population, numeracy was predictive of graphicacy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Effective risk communication strategies should consider the impact of numeracy on graphicacy and patient understanding.

Tumor Protein p53 (TP53) Testing and Li-Fraumeni Syndrome

Prevalent as an acquired abnormality in cancer, the role of tumor protein p53 (TP53) as a germline mutation continues to evolve. The clinical impact of a germline TP53 mutation is often dramatic and affects the full life course, with a propensity to develop rare tumors in childhood and multiple common cancers of unexpectedly early onset in adulthood. In this article, we review the clinical relevance of germline mutations in the TP53 tumor suppressor gene to current healthcare practice, including the optimal ways to identify patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), to recognize the core cancers associated with LFS, and to develop strategies for early detection of LFS-associated tumors. Several TP53-targeted approaches to improve outcomes in LFS patients are also reviewed. A case report is used to highlight special TP53 testing dilemmas and unique challenges associated with genetic testing decisions in the current age of rapidly advancing genomic technologies.

Tumor protein p53 (TP53) testing and Li-Fraumeni syndrome : current status of clinical applications and future directions.

Prevalent as an acquired abnormality in cancer, the role of tumor protein p53 (TP53) as a germline mutation continues to evolve. The clinical impact of a germline TP53 mutation is often dramatic and affects the full life course, with a propensity to develop rare tumors in childhood and multiple common cancers of unexpectedly early onset in adulthood. In this article, we review the clinical relevance of germline mutations in the TP53 tumor suppressor gene to current healthcare practice, including the optimal ways to identify patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), to recognize the core cancers associated with LFS, and to develop strategies for early detection of LFS-associated tumors. Several TP53-targeted approaches to improve outcomes in LFS patients are also reviewed. A case report is used to highlight special TP53 testing dilemmas and unique challenges associated with genetic testing decisions in the current age of rapidly advancing genomic technologies.

Personalized cancer genetics training for personalized medicine: improving community-based healthcare through a genetically literate workforce.

Purpose: To assess the impact of a multimodal interdisciplinary course on genetic cancer risk assessment and research collaboration for community-based clinicians. Clinicians are increasingly requested to conduct genetic cancer risk assessment, but many are inadequately prepared to provide these services.Methods: A prospective analysis of 131 participants (48 physicians, 41 advanced-practice nurses, and 42 genetic counselors) from community settings across the United States. The course was delivered in three phases: distance didactic learning, face-to-face training, and 12 months of web-based professional development activities to support integration of skills into practice. Cancer genetics knowledge, skills, professional self-efficacy, and practice changes were measured at baseline, immediate, and 14 months postcourse.Results: Knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy scores were significantly different between practice disciplines; however, postscores increased significantly overall and for each discipline (P < 0.001). Fourteen-month practice outcomes reflect significant increases in provision of genetic cancer risk assessment services (P = 0.018), dissemination of cancer prevention information (P = 0.005) and high-risk screening recommendations (P = 0.004) to patients, patient enrollment in research (P = 0.013), and educational outreach about genetic cancer risk assessment (P = 0.003).Conclusions: Results support the efficacy of the multimodal course as a tool to develop a genetically literate workforce. Sustained alumni participation in web-based professional development activities has evolved into a distance-mediated community of practice in clinical cancer genetics, modeling the lifelong learning goals envisioned by leading continuing medical education stakeholders.

Increased yield of actionable mutations using multi-gene panels to assess hereditary cancer susceptibility in an ethnically diverse clinical cohort

This study aims to assess multi-gene panel testing in an ethnically diverse clinical cancer genetics practice. We conducted a retrospective study of individuals with a personal or family history of cancer undergoing clinically indicated multi-gene panel tests of 6-110 genes, from six commercial laboratories. The 475 patients in the study included 228 Hispanics (47.6%), 166 non-Hispanic Whites (35.4%), 55 Asians (11.6%), 19 Blacks (4.0%), and seven others (1.5%). Panel testing found that 15.6% (74/475) of patients carried deleterious mutations for a total of 79 mutations identified. This included 7.4% (35/475) of patients who had a mutation identified that would not have been tested with a gene-by-gene approach. The identification of a panel-added mutation impacted clinical management for most of cases (69%, 24/35), and genetic testing was recommended for the first degree relatives of nearly all of them (91%, 32/35). Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) were identified in a higher proportion of tests performed in ethnic minorities. Multi-gene panel testing increases the yield of mutations detected and adds to the capability of providing individualized cancer risk assessment. VUSs represent an interpretive challenge due to less data available outside of White, non-Hispanic populations. Further studies are necessary to expand understanding of the implementation and utilization of panels across broad clinical settings and patient populations.