Kelsey Moyes

BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and CDKN2A mutations in familial pancreatic cancer: A PACGENE study

Purpose:Familial pancreatic cancer kindreds contain at least two affected first-degree relatives. Comprehensive data are needed to assist clinical risk assessment and genetic testing.Methods:Germ-line DNA samples from 727 unrelated probands with positive family history (521 met criteria for familial pancreatic cancer) were tested in compliance with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (including analysis of deletions and rearrangements), PALB2, and CDKN2A. We compared prevalence of deleterious mutations between familial pancreatic cancer probands and nonfamilial pancreatic cancer probands (kindreds containing at least two affected biological relatives, but not first-degree relatives). We also examined the impact of family history on breast and ovarian cancers and melanoma.Results:Prevalence of deleterious mutations (excluding variants of unknown significance) among familial pancreatic cancer probands was: BRCA1, 1.2%; BRCA2, 3.7%; PALB2, 0.6%; and CDKN2A, 2.5%. Four novel deleterious mutations were detected. Familial pancreatic cancer probands carry more mutations in the four genes (8.0%) than nonfamilial pancreatic cancer probands (3.5%) (odds ratio: 2.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.06−5.44; P = 0.03). The probability of testing positive for deleterious mutations in any of the four genes ranges up to 10.4%, depending on family history of cancers. BRCA2 and CDKN2A account for the majority of mutations in familial pancreatic cancer.Conclusion:Genetic testing of multiple relevant genes in probands with a positive family history is warranted, particularly for familial pancreatic cancer.Genet Med 17 7, 569–577.

Comparison of locus-specific databases for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants reveals disparity in variant classification within and among databases

Genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) are a common outcome of clinical genetic testing. Locus-specific variant databases (LSDBs) have been established for numerous disease-associated genes as a research tool for the interpretation of genetic sequence variants to facilitate variant interpretation via aggregated data. If LSDBs are to be used for clinical practice, consistent and transparent criteria regarding the deposition and interpretation of variants are vital, as variant classifications are often used to make important and irreversible clinical decisions. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of 2017 consecutive BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic variants identified from 24,650 consecutive patient samples referred to our laboratory to establish an unbiased dataset representative of the types of variants seen in the US patient population, submitted by clinicians and researchers for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing. We compared the clinical classifications of these variants among five publicly accessible BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant databases: BIC, ClinVar, HGMD (paid version), LOVD, and the UMD databases. Our results show substantial disparity of variant classifications among publicly accessible databases. Furthermore, it appears that discrepant classifications are not the result of a single outlier but widespread disagreement among databases. This study also shows that databases sometimes favor a clinical classification when current best practice guidelines (ACMG/AMP/CAP) would suggest an uncertain classification. Although LSDBs have been well established for research applications, our results suggest several challenges preclude their wider use in clinical practice.

Assessment of in silico protein sequence analysis in the clinical classification of variants in cancer risk genes

Missense variants represent a significant proportion of variants identified in clinical genetic testing. In the absence of strong clinical or functional evidence, the American College of Medical Genetics recommends that these findings be classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). VUSs may be reclassified to better inform patient care when new evidence is available. It is critical that the methods used for reclassification are robust in order to prevent inappropriate medical management strategies and unnecessary, life-altering surgeries. In an effort to provide evidence for classification, several in silico algorithms have been developed that attempt to predict the functional impact of missense variants through amino acid sequence conservation analysis. We report an analysis comparing internally derived, evidence-based classifications with the results obtained from six commonly used algorithms. We compiled a dataset of 1118 variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, and MSH2 previously classified by our laboratory’s evidence-based variant classification program. We compared internally derived classifications with those obtained from the following in silico tools: Align-GVGD, CONDEL, Grantham Analysis, MAPP-MMR, PolyPhen-2, and SIFT. Despite being based on similar underlying principles, all algorithms displayed marked divergence in accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity. Overall, accuracy ranged from 58.7 to 90.8% while the Matthews Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.26–0.65. CONDEL, a weighted average of multiple algorithms, did not perform significantly better than its individual components evaluated here. These results suggest that the in silico algorithms evaluated here do not provide reliable evidence regarding the clinical significance of missense variants in genes associated with hereditary cancer.

Hereditary Cancer-Associated Mutations in Women Diagnosed with Two Primary Cancers: An Opportunity to Identify Hereditary Cancer Syndromes after the First Cancer Diagnosis

Objectives: Patients with hereditary cancer syndromes are at high risk for a second primary cancer. Early identification of these patients after an initial cancer diagnosis is the key to implementing cancer risk-reducing strategies. Methods: A commercial laboratory database was searched for women with a history of both breast and ovarian or colorectal and endometrial cancer who underwent genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS). Results: Among women with both breast and ovarian cancer, 22.4% (2,237/9,982) had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Among women with both colorectal and ovarian cancer, 28.1% (264/941) had a mutation associated with LS. In 66.6% of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and in 58.3% of LS mutation carriers, >5 years passed between the cancer diagnoses. Of patients with HBOC and LS, 56 and 65.2%, respectively, met the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for hereditary cancer testing after their initial diagnosis based on their personal cancer history alone. Conclusions: A substantial number of women tested for LS or HBOC after being diagnosed with two successive primary cancers were diagnosed with a hereditary cancer syndrome. In many cases, the time interval between the diagnoses was long enough to allow for the implementation of surveillance and/or prophylactic measures.

Community Practice Implementation of a Self-administered Version of PREMM1,2,6 to Assess Risk for Lynch Syndrome

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is a genetic disorder that greatly increases risk for colorectal and other cancers, although it is underdiagnosed. Prediction of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 (PREMM1,2,6) is a web‐based tool that analyzes individuals’ personal/family histories of cancer to quantify their likelihood of carrying a germline mutation associated with Lynch syndrome. We investigated the feasibility of systematic risk assessment for Lynch syndrome in a community gastroenterology practice using a patient‐completed version of PREMM1,2,6. METHODS: PREMM1,2,6 was adapted into a computer tablet version designed for self‐administration by patients. Individuals presenting to a community gastroenterology office and endoscopy facility in California completed the PREMM1,2,6 assessment before their visit (n = 3134). The total study duration (8 months) comprised a 2‐month initiation period (May 1–June 30, 2013) and a 6‐month study period (July 1–December 31, 2013). Genetic counseling and germline analysis for mutations in genes associated with Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM) were offered to individuals with PREMM1,2,6 scores of 5% or higher. Patients and providers completed surveys to evaluate the feasibility and satisfaction with the process. RESULTS: Of the 3134 individuals assessed by PREMM1,2,6 during the 6‐month study period, 177 individuals (5.6%) had scores of 5% or higher. Of these, 146 individuals underwent genetic testing, along with 28 additional participants recruited nonconsecutively during the initiation period. Mutations associated with Lynch syndrome were detected in 3 of the 146 individuals (2.1%) with PREMM1,2,6 scores of 5% or higher who underwent germline testing, and 3 of the 28 patients (10.7%) recruited during study initiation with PREMM1,2,6 scores of 5% or higher. Of the participants who underwent genetic analysis, 98.6% stated that they understood the information provided to them. All of the surveyed providers stated that they were satisfied with the incorporation of PREMM1,2,6 into their clinical practice, and that they would continue using it to assess risk for Lynch syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: A patient self‐administered version of the PREMM1,2,6 Lynch syndrome risk assessment model can be used systematically in community‐based gastroenterology and endoscopy practices.

Patients Tested at a Laboratory for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes Show an Overlap for Multiple Syndromes in Their Personal and Familial Cancer Histories.

Objective: Hereditary cancer testing guidelines are based on the premise that the common hereditary cancer syndromes have distinct, recognizable phenotypes. However, many syndromes present with overlapping cancers. The aim of this analysis was to identify the proportion of patients tested for Lynch syndrome (LS) or hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) who met testing criteria for the other syndrome. Method: We analyzed a commercial laboratory database of patients tested for LS and HBOC in a clinical setting from 2006 to 2013. Patient cancer histories were analyzed using the 2012 NCCN criteria for LS and the 2013 NCCN criteria for HBOC. Results: In all, 7% of the patients tested for HBOC met criteria for LS testing. The majority of these patients had a family history of colorectal (30.9%) and/or endometrial cancer (22.7%). Conversely, 29.5% of the patients tested for LS met criteria for HBOC testing. In this group, 30.5% of the patients had a personal history of breast cancer, and 12.6% had a personal history of ovarian cancer. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate a substantial phenotypic overlap among patients for multiple common inherited cancer syndromes, which likely complicates diagnosis and test selection. This supports the value of multigene panels to identify pathogenic mutations in the absence of a clinically specific phenotype.

Stratification of risk for patients with prostate cancer at biopsy using CCP score.

127 Background: In the US, most prostate cancers are treated with surgery or radiation, despite many having low malignant potential. If low cancer progression risk can be established, some men can be spared treatment. PSA, Gleason score and clinical stage work well for population risk assessment but lack precision for individuals. Molecular analysis can refine risk assessment as demonstrated by a cell cycle progression score (CCP) predictive of prostate cancer aggressiveness in 4 separate cohorts. In these studies, CCP typically ranged from -2 to +3 with each 1-unit increase corresponding to approximately a doubling of risk. We characterized the CCP distribution using recent samples from a typical US urology multi-centered clinical setting and determined the analytic success rate of the assay. METHODS Formalin fixed, prostate biopsy tissue from 300 patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma within the last 12 months was analyzed. CCP is calculated by measuring the relative RNA expression of 31 cell cycle progression genes. Patients were recruited from 15 geographically diverse community urology practices. RESULTS CCP could be measured for 98% of samples (294/300). This study showed a normal distribution for the CCP ranging from -2 to 3.2 (median = -0.3, SD=0.92). There was little correlation of CCP with PSA, age, or body mass index. Correlation with Gleason score was similar to those in prior studies (r=0.494). A relative classification of cancer aggressiveness based on CCP of ~ 1200 patients from multiple cohorts has been developed. The 294 evaluable patients were cross-classified by AUA risk and cancer aggressiveness (see table). CCP further stratified patients within each AUA risk classification. CONCLUSIONS CCP is a novel assay that can facilitate risk stratification for men with prostate adenocarcinoma. [Table: see text].

Erratum to: Incidence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 non-founder mutations in patients of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

In Table 2 of the original publication, the HGVS and legacy nomenclature were mismatched and the HGVS nomenclature did not correlate with data listed in the table. The corrected table is listed below.

Optimization of quality assurance to increase clinical utility and cost effectiveness of hereditary cancer testing

AIM To evaluate one laboratorys hereditary cancer testing clinical quality assurance (QA) process to minimize test-ordering errors. METHODS The proportion of tests canceled/revised due to pre-analytic QA processes or provider consultation prior to test ordering were determined and the resulting health cost savings were estimated. RESULTS Over 2000 genetic test orders were canceled/revised over a 1-year period due to the laboratory QA process, saving US

Lynch Syndrome Patients with Limited Family History Identified in a Laboratory Setting: A Descriptive Study

5,801,832 in healthcare costs. Consultation with healthcare providers prior to submitting genetic test requests resulted in 37 canceled/revised test orders in a 2-week period, which extrapolates to a savings of US