Rachel McFarland

Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer

Importance Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 predispose to an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, the relevance of germline variants in other genes from multigene hereditary cancer testing panels is not well defined. Objective To determine the risks of breast cancer associated with germline variants in cancer predisposition genes. Design, Setting, and Participants A study population of 65 057 patients with breast cancer receiving germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes with hereditary cancer multigene panels. Associations between pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes and breast cancer risk were estimated in a case-control analysis of patients with breast cancer and Exome Aggregation Consortium reference controls. The women underwent testing between March 15, 2012, and June 30, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures Breast cancer risk conferred by pathogenic variants in non-BRCA1 and non-BRCA2 predisposition genes. Results The mean (SD) age at diagnosis for the 65 057 women included in the analysis was 48.5 (11.1) years. The frequency of pathogenic variants in 21 panel genes identified in 41 611 consecutively tested white women with breast cancer was estimated at 10.2%. After exclusion of BRCA1, BRCA2, and syndromic breast cancer genes (CDH1, PTEN, and TP53), observed pathogenic variants in 5 of 16 genes were associated with high or moderately increased risks of breast cancer: ATM (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.22-3.62), BARD1 (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.31-3.63), CHEK2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.67), PALB2 (OR, 7.46; 95% CI, 5.12-11.19), and RAD51D (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.21-7.88). Conversely, variants in the BRIP1 and RAD51C ovarian cancer risk genes; the MRE11A, RAD50, and NBN MRN complex genes; the MLH1 and PMS2 mismatch repair genes; and NF1 were not associated with increased risks of breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance This study establishes several panel genes as high- and moderate-risk breast cancer genes and provides estimates of breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants in these genes among individuals qualifying for clinical genetic testing.

Multigene Panel Testing Provides a New Perspective on Lynch Syndrome

Purpose Most existing literature describes Lynch syndrome (LS) as a hereditary syndrome leading to high risks of colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer mainly as a result of mutations in MLH1 and MSH2. Most of these studies were performed on cohorts with disease suggestive of hereditary CRC and population-based CRC and endometrial cancer cohorts, possibly biasing results. We aimed to describe a large cohort of mismatch repair (MMR) mutation carriers ascertained through multigene panel testing, evaluate their phenotype, and compare the results with those of previous studies. Methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical histories of patients who had multigene panel testing, including the MMR and EPCAM genes, between March 2012 and June 2015 (N = 34,981) and performed a series of statistical comparisons. Results Overall, MSH6 mutations were most frequent, followed by PMS2, MSH2, MLH1, and EPCAM mutations, respectively. Of 528 patients who had MMR mutations, 63 (11.9%) had breast cancer only and 144 (27.3%) had CRC only. When comparing those with breast cancer only to those with CRC only, MSH6 and PMS2 mutations were more frequent than MLH1 and MSH2 mutations ( P = 2.3 × 10-5). Of the 528 patients, 22.2% met BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2) testing criteria and not LS criteria, and 5.1% met neither BRCA1/2 nor LS testing criteria. MSH6 and PMS2 mutations were more frequent than MLH1 and MSH2 mutations among patients who met BRCA1/2 testing criteria but did not meet LS testing criteria ( P = 4.3 × 10-7). Conclusion These results provide a new perspective on LS and suggest that individuals with MSH6 and PMS2 mutations may present with a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer phenotype. These data also highlight the limitations of current testing criteria in identifying these patients, as well as the need for further investigation of cancer risks in patients with MMR mutations.

Breast cancer risk is similar for CHEK2 founder and non-founder mutation carriers

CHEK2 mutations are associated with increased cancer risks, including breast; however, published risk estimates are limited to those conferred by CHEK2 founder mutations, presenting uncertainty in risk assessment for carriers of other CHEK2 mutations. This study aimed to assess phenotypes and molecular characteristics of CHEK2 mutation carriers (CHEK2 + s) from a multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) cohort, focusing on comparing phenotypes of founder and non-founder CHEK2 + s. Clinical histories and molecular results were reviewed from 45,879 patients who underwent MGPT including CHEK2 at a commercial laboratory. Of individuals tested, 2.4% (n = 1085) were CHEK2 + s. Sixteen individuals harbored biallelic CHEK2 mutations, bringing the total number of CHEK2 mutations detected in this cohort to 1101. Personal/family cancer histories were compared between founder (n = 576; included c.1100delC, p.S428F, c.444 + 1G > A, and EX8_9del) and non-founder (n = 259) CHEK2 + s using Fishers exact test and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Individuals carrying the p.I157T moderate risk founder mutation (n = 231), additional mutations in non-CHEK2 genes (n = 83), or biallelic mutations (n = 16) were excluded from phenotype analysis, as were cases with no clinical information provided. No significant phenotypic differences were observed between founder and non-founder CHEK2 + s. These data suggest that cancer risks reported for founder mutations may be generalizable to all CHEK2 + s, particularly for breast cancer.

Differences in TP53 Mutation Carrier Phenotypes Emerge From Panel-Based Testing

Background Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) has traditionally been identified by single-gene testing (SGT) of TP53 triggered by clinical criteria, but the widespread use of multigene panel tests (MGPTs) has upended this paradigm. We sought to compare the personal and family cancer histories of TP53-positive result (TP53+) carriers who were identified by either MGPT or SGT. Methods Of 44 310 individuals who underwent testing of TP53 in a single clinical diagnostic laboratory between 2010 and 2014, 44 086 (40 885 MGPT and 3201 SGT) met study eligibility criteria. Personal cancer histories were available for 38 938 subjects. The frequency of germline TP53 results and various phenotypic manifestations were compared according to test type. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results MGPT TP53+ individuals (n = 126) had an older median age at first cancer than SGT TP53+ carriers (n = 96; women: median = 36 vs 28 years, P < .001; and men: median = 40 vs 15 years, P = .004). The median age of breast cancer diagnosis was 40 years in MGPT TP53+ women vs 33 years in SGT TP53+ women (P < .001). In both cohorts, childhood and LFS core cancers, and for women, multiple primary cancers (not multiple breast tumors), were associated with TP53+ results. Established LFS testing criteria were less often met by MGPT TP53+ individuals. Conclusions MGPT TP53+ individuals differ in phenotype from those ascertained through SGT and are notably older at cancer diagnosis and less likely to meet LFS clinical criteria. These findings suggest that LFS may have a greater phenotypic spectrum than previously appreciated. This has implications for the counseling of MGPT TP53+ individuals. Prospective follow-up of these individuals and families is needed to re-evaluate cancer risks.

Association of Breast and Ovarian Cancers With Predisposition Genes Identified by Large-Scale Sequencing

Importance Since the discovery of BRCA1 and BRCA2, multiple high- and moderate-penetrance genes have been reported as risk factors for hereditary breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both; however, it is unclear whether these findings represent the complete genetic landscape of these cancers. Systematic investigation of the genetic contributions to breast and ovarian cancers is needed to confirm these findings and explore potentially new associations. Objective To confirm reported and identify additional predisposition genes for breast or ovarian cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants In this sample of 11 416 patients with clinical features of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both who were referred for genetic testing from 1200 hospitals and clinics across the United States and of 3988 controls who were referred for genetic testing for noncancer conditions between 2014 and 2015, whole-exome sequencing was conducted and gene-phenotype associations were examined. Case-control analyses using the Genome Aggregation Database as a set of reference controls were also conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures Breast cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants among 625 cancer predisposition genes; association of identified predisposition breast or ovarian cancer genes with the breast cancer subtypes invasive ductal, invasive lobular, hormone receptor–positive, hormone receptor–negative, and male, and with early-onset disease. Results Of 9639 patients with breast cancer, 3960 (41.1%) were early-onset cases (⩽45 years at diagnosis) and 123 (1.3%) were male, with men having an older age at diagnosis than women (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [12.8] vs 48.6 [11.4] years). Of 2051 women with ovarian cancer, 445 (21.7%) received a diagnosis at 45 years or younger. Enrichment of pathogenic variants were identified in 4 non-BRCA genes associated with breast cancer risk: ATM (odds ratio [OR], 2.97; 95% CI, 1.67-5.68), CHEK2 (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.40-3.56), PALB2 (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 2.24-17.65), and MSH6 (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.35-5.44). Increased risk for ovarian cancer was associated with 4 genes: MSH6 (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.95-9.47), RAD51C (OR, not estimable; false-discovery rate–corrected P = .004), TP53 (OR, 18.50; 95% CI, 2.56-808.10), and ATM (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30-6.32). Neither the MRN complex genes nor CDKN2A was associated with increased breast or ovarian cancer risk. The findings also do not support previously reported breast cancer associations with the ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D, or mismatch repair genes MSH2 and PMS2. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this large-scale exome sequencing of patients and controls shed light on both well-established and controversial non-BRCA predisposition gene associations with breast or ovarian cancer reported to date and may implicate additional breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility gene candidates involved in DNA repair and genomic maintenance.

Quality of Clinician-Reported Cancer History When Ordering Genetic Testing

PURPOSE Clinical history data reported on test requisition forms (TRFs) for hereditary cancer multigene panel testing (MGPT) are routinely used by genetic testing laboratories. More recently, publications have incorporated TRF-based clinical data into studies exploring yield of testing by phenotype and estimating cancer risks for mutation carriers. We aimed to assess the quality of TRF data for patients undergoing MGPT. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ten percent of patients who underwent hereditary cancer MGPT between January and June 2015 at a clinical laboratory were randomly selected. TRF-reported cancer diagnoses were evaluated for completeness and accuracy for probands and relatives using clinical documents such as pedigrees and chart notes as the comparison standard in cases where these documents were submitted after the time of test order. RESULTS TRF-reported cancer sites and ages at diagnosis were complete for > 90.0% of proband cancer diagnoses overall, and the completion rate was even higher (> 96.0%) for breast, ovarian, colorectal, and uterine cancers. When reported, these data were accurate on TRFs for > 99.5% of proband cancer sites and > 97.5% of proband ages at diagnosis. Cancer site and age at diagnosis data were also complete on the TRF for the majority of cancers among first- and second-degree relatives. Completeness decreased as relation to the proband became more distant, whereas accuracy remained high across all degrees of relation. CONCLUSION Data collected as part of cancer genetic risk assessment is completely and accurately reported on TRFs for the majority of probands and their close relatives and is comparable to information directly obtained from clinic notes, particularly for breast and other cancers commonly associated with hereditary cancer syndromes.

What about the guys? An assessment of gender differences in hereditary colorectal cancer testing.

537Background: Approximately 5-10% of colorectal cancer (CRC) is due to hereditary causes. Identification of an inherited cause may impact surgical and treatment decisions for CRC patients and may identify increased risks for other cancers that warrant increased screening and/or risk reduction measures. Men have testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer less often than women, even though these genes may also cause increased risk for cancer in men and men are as likely as women to carry mutations in these genes and pass them onto their children. We aimed to explore whether similar gender differences exist related to testing for hereditary CRC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data and test results from consecutive CRC cases, who had a multi-gene panel with 13-49 genes at our laboratory, between March 2012 and June 2016. Statistical comparisons between males and females were conducted using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of CRC cases (n = 7142), 61.1% were female and 12.8% were positive f...

Abstract S2-01: Breast cancer risks associated with mutations in cancer predisposition genes identified by clinical genetic testing of 60,000 breast cancer patients

Clinical genetic testing panels are broadly used to gather information about cancer predisposition in individuals with personal and/or family history of breast cancer. However, the involvement of several of the genes on clinical testing panels in predisposition to breast cancer, such as MRE11A and RAD50, has recently come into question. In addition, accurate risk estimates for breast and other cancer are not well defined for the majority of genes on testing panels. We studied 60,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer who were tested for germline cancer predisposing mutations using hereditary cancer gene panels. Information on personal and family cancer history, age of diagnosis, and ethnicity of patients was obtained from test requisition forms. Greater than 90% met National Comprehensive Cancer Network HBOC testing criteria. To estimate gene-specific risks for breast cancer, case-control analyses were performed comparing the frequencies of pathogenic mutations from Caucasian cancer cases with frequencies from Caucasian, non-Finnish, non-TCGA controls from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database. Mutations were detected in 9% of breast cancer patients. Twelve genes displayed a significant association (p 2.0) of breast cancer and three genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2) were associated with high risk (RR>5.0) of breast cancer. Cumulative age-dependent risk models were developed for each gene. This large clinical testing dataset of 60,000 women with breast cancer provides useful data for many predisposition genes previously lacking risk estimates, and should prove useful for clinical risk management of patients with inherited mutations in these genes. Citation Format: Couch FJ, Hu C, Lilyquist J, Shimelis H, Akinhanmi M, Na J, Polley EC, Hart SN, McFarland R, LaDuca H, Huether R, Goldgar DE, Dolinsky JS. Breast cancer risks associated with mutations in cancer predisposition genes identified by clinical genetic testing of 60,000 breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S2-01.

Abstract P5-09-03: Associations between breast cancer subtypes and mutations in cancer predisposition genes identified by clinical genetic testing of breast cancer patients

Clinical genetic testing of individuals with a personal or family history of breast and ovarian cancer using panels for BRCA1/2 and other candidate cancer predisposition genes has become routine clinical practice. Several of the genes on hereditary cancer testing panels have been strongly associated with specific subtypes of breast cancer. In particular, individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 predominantly develop estrogen receptor (ER)-negative and triple negative (TN) (estrogen receptor negative, progesterone receptor negative, HER2 negative) breast tumors. In contrast, CHEK2 and ATM mutations have been associated with ER-positive breast cancer. In this study, associations between mutations in panel genes and breast cancer subtypes were evaluated. A cohort of 60,000 breast cancer patients tested for germline cancer predisposing mutations using hereditary cancer gene panels was utilized. Information on personal and family cancer history, age of diagnosis, tumor pathology, and ethnicity of patients was obtained from test requisition forms or by follow up with ordering health care providers. Mutations in each gene were combined into four histological subtypes (triple negative; HER2 positive; ER-positive,HER2-positive; and ER-positive,HER2 negative). Associations for each subtype were estimated by case-control analyses comparing the frequencies of pathogenic mutations in each subtype with frequencies from non-TCGA controls from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database. In addition, case-case analyses were conducted to assess enrichment of gene mutations in specific breast cancer subtypes. Among the observed associations between genes and breast cancer subtypes, mutations in CHEK2 and ATM were highly enriched in luminal breast cancers and BARD1 was specifically associated with TN breast cancer. Refining the spectrum of pathological correlates with mutations in hereditary breast cancer genes will aid gene specific cancer risk management, and may accelerate the development of novel gene-specific therapeutic interventions. Citation Format: Couch FJ, Lilyquist J, Na J, Hu C, Polley EC, Shimelis H, Akinhanmi M, McFarland R, LaDuca H, Goldgar DE, Dolinsky JS. Associations between breast cancer subtypes and mutations in cancer predisposition genes identified by clinical genetic testing of breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-09-03.

Impact of hereditary multigene panel testing for cancer survivors.

261 Background: Recently, genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has seen numerous advances in testing spectrum, capability, and efficiency. This may have important implications for cancer survivors and their families. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of reflex genetic testing with newer multi-gene panels on patients with prior negative BRCA1/2 tests. METHODS Data was collected retrospectively from patients who underwent multi-gene panel testing at one of three sites from a single institution between 8/2013-6/2015. Those with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer and a prior negative BRCA1/2 test were included. RESULTS Of 914 patients who underwent multi-gene panel tests, 187 met study inclusion criteria. Ten patients (5.3%) were found to carry 11 pathogenic mutations, including 6 patients with mutations in CHEK2, 2 patients with mutations in PTEN, and 1 patient each with mutations in the following genes: BARD1, NF1, and RAD51C. One patient had two pathogenic mutations identified-CHEK2 and BARD1. Of 10 patients with mutations, 9 had a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at a median age of 43 (range 35-52) and 1 had ovarian cancer diagnosed at age 65. A majority of mutation carriers underwent panel testing years after their cancer diagnosis (median 6 years, range 0.5-32 years) and none with delayed testing had undergone prophylactic contralateral mastectomy prior to the discovery of their gene mutation. All patients with mutations had a family history of at least one cancer, with most having a variety of cancer diagnoses in multiple relatives. Positive panel testing results altered clinical management in most patients, including addition of breast MRI, colonoscopy, or thyroid ultrasound depending on the gene mutation. After discovery of a PTEN mutation 19 years after her initial cancer treatment, one woman underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy and was found to have occult ductal carcinoma in situ. CONCLUSIONS Cancer survivorship must incorporate advances in technology that may be beneficial even years after treatment has ended. Multi-gene panel testing can be applied in survivorship settings as a useful tool to guide screening recommendations.