Rachel T. Klein
Rutgers University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Rachel T. Klein.
Genetics in Medicine | 2016
Lisa Susswein; Megan L. Marshall; Rachel Nusbaum; Kristen J. Vogel Postula; Scott M. Weissman; Lauren Yackowski; Erica Vaccari; Jeffrey Bissonnette; Jessica K. Booker; M. Laura Cremona; Federica Gibellini; Patricia Murphy; Daniel E. Pineda-Alvarez; Guido D. Pollevick; Zhixiong Xu; Gabi Richard; Sherri J. Bale; Rachel T. Klein; Kathleen S. Hruska; Wendy K. Chung
Purpose:Germ-line testing for panels of cancer genes using next-generation sequencing is becoming more common in clinical care. We report our experience as a clinical laboratory testing both well-established, high-risk cancer genes (e.g., BRCA1/2, MLH1, MSH2) as well as more recently identified cancer genes (e.g., PALB2, BRIP1), many of which have increased but less well-defined penetrance.Methods:Clinical genetic testing was performed on over 10,000 consecutive cases referred for evaluation of germ-line cancer genes, and results were analyzed for frequency of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants, and were stratified by testing panel, gene, and clinical history.Results:Overall, a molecular diagnosis was made in 9.0% of patients tested, with the highest yield in the Lynch syndrome/colorectal cancer panel. In patients with breast, ovarian, or colon/stomach cancer, positive yields were 9.7, 13.4, and 14.8%, respectively. Approximately half of the pathogenic variants identified in patients with breast or ovarian cancer were in genes other than BRCA1/2.Conclusion:The high frequency of positive results in a wide range of cancer genes, including those of high penetrance and with clinical care guidelines, underscores both the genetic heterogeneity of hereditary cancer and the usefulness of multigene panels over genetic tests of one or two genes.Genet Med 18 8, 823–832.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology | 2015
Jeanne Meck; Elizabeth Kramer Dugan; Ludmila Matyakhina; Ayala Aviram; Carolyn Trunca; Daniel E. Pineda-Alvarez; Swaroop Aradhya; Rachel T. Klein; Athena M. Cherry
OBJECTIVE We sought to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for various aneuploidies based on cases referred for follow-up cytogenetic testing. Secondarily, we wanted to determine the false-negative (FN) rate for those cases with a negative NIPS result. STUDY DESIGN We compared the cytogenetic findings (primarily from chromosome analysis) from 216 cases referred to our laboratories with either a positive or negative NIPS result, and classified NIPS results as true positive, false positive, true negative, or FN. Diagnostic cytogenetic testing was performed on the following tissue types: amniotic fluid (n = 137), chorionic villi (n = 69), neonatal blood (n = 6), and products of conception (n = 4). RESULTS The PPV for NIPS were as follows: 93% for trisomy (T)21 (n = 99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86-97.1%), 58% for T18 (n = 24; 95% CI, 36.6-77.9%), 45% for T13 (n = 11; 95% CI, 16.7-76.6%), 23% for monosomy X (n = 26; 95% CI, 9-43.6%), and 67% for XXY (n = 6; 95% CI, 22.3-95.7%). Of the 26 cases referred for follow-up cytogenetics after a negative NIPS result, 1 (4%) was FN (T13). Two cases of triploidy, a very serious condition but one not claimed to be detectable by the test providers, were among those classified as true negatives. CONCLUSION T21, which has the highest prevalence of all aneuploidies, demonstrated a high true-positive rate, resulting in a high PPV. However, the other aneuploidies, with their lower prevalence, displayed relatively high false-positive rates and, therefore, lower PPV. Patients and physicians must fully understand the limitations of this screening test and the need in many cases to follow up with appropriate diagnostic testing to obtain an accurate diagnosis.
Genetics in Medicine | 2018
Maegan Roberts; Sarah A. Jackson; Lisa Susswein; Nur Zeinomar; Xinran Ma; Megan L. Marshall; Amy R. Stettner; Becky Milewski; Zhixiong Xu; Benjamin D. Solomon; Mary Beth Terry; Kathleen S. Hruska; Rachel T. Klein; Wendy K. Chung
PurposeAn association of Lynch syndrome (LS) with breast cancer has been long suspected; however, there have been insufficient data to address this question for each of the LS genes individually.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of personal and family history in 423 women with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germ-line variants in MLH1 (N = 65), MSH2 (N = 94), MSH6 (N = 140), or PMS2 (N = 124) identified via clinical multigene hereditary cancer testing. Standard incidence ratios (SIRs) of breast cancer were calculated by comparing breast cancer frequencies in our study population with those in the general population (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 data).ResultsWhen evaluating by gene, the age-standardized breast cancer risks for MSH6 (SIR = 2.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56–2.86) and PMS2 (SIR = 2.92; 95% CI, 2.17–3.92) were associated with a statistically significant risk for breast cancer whereas no association was observed for MLH1 (SIR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.42–1.83) or MSH2 (SIR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.72–2.06).ConclusionOur data demonstrate that two LS genes, MSH6 and PMS2, are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer and should be considered when ordering genetic testing for individuals who have a personal and/or family history of breast cancer.
Gynecologic Oncology | 2018
Natalie J. Carter; Megan L. Marshall; Lisa Susswein; Kristin K. Zorn; Susan Hiraki; Kevin J. Arvai; Rebecca I. Torene; Anna K. McGill; Lauren Yackowski; Patricia Murphy; Zhixiong Xu; Benjamin D. Solomon; Rachel T. Klein; Kathleen S. Hruska
OBJECTIVE The recognition of genes implicated in ovarian cancer risk beyond BRCA1, BRCA2, and the Lynch syndrome genes has increased the variety of testing options available to providers and patients. We report the frequency of pathogenic variants identified among individuals with ovarian cancer undergoing clinical genetic testing via a multi-gene hereditary cancer panel. METHODS Genetic testing of up to 32 genes using a hereditary cancer panel was performed on 4439 ovarian cancer cases, and results were analyzed for frequency of pathogenic variants. Statistical comparisons were made using t-tests and Fishers exact tests. RESULTS The positive yield was 13.2%. While BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants were most frequent, one third (33.7%) of positive findings were in other homologous recombination genes, and accounted for over 40.0% of findings in endometrioid and clear cell cases. Women with a personal history of breast cancer (22.1%), who reported a family history of ovarian cancer (17.7%), and/or serous histology (14.7%) were most likely to harbor a pathogenic variant. Those with very early onset (<30 years) and late onset (≥70 years) ovarian cancer had low positive yields. CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights the genetic heterogeneity of ovarian cancer, showing that a large proportion of cases are not due to BRCA1/2 and the Lynch syndrome genes, but still have an identifiable hereditary basis. These findings substantiate the utility of multi-gene panel testing in ovarian cancer care regardless of age at diagnosis, family history, or histologic subtype, providing evidence for testing beyond BRCA1/2 and the Lynch syndrome genes.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017
Jill S. Dolinsky; Kathleen S. Hruska; Tina Pesaran; Marcy E. Richardson; Rachel T. Klein; Benjamin D. Solomon; Chia-Ling Gau
The Journal of Urology | 2018
Maegan Roberts; Megan L. Marshall; Natalie J. Carter; Kevin J. Arvai; Lance Grau; Shirley Yao; Ying Wang; Rachel T. Klein; Kathleen S. Hruska
Obstetrics & Gynecology | 2018
Megan L. Marshall; Natalie J. Carter; Patricia Murphy; Adebanke Fagbemi; Rachel T. Klein; Kathleen S. Hruska
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2018
Shirley Yao; Elizabeth A Wiley; Lisa Susswein; Megan L. Marshall; Natalie J. Carter; Anna K. McGill; Rachel T. Klein; Ying Wang; Kathleen S. Hruska
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2018
Megan L. Marshall; Maegan Roberts; Lisa Susswein; Anna K. McGill; Zhixiong Xu; Rachel T. Klein; Kathleen S. Hruska
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2018
Maegan Roberts; Megan L. Marshall; Erica M Webb; Anna K. McGill; Lisa Susswein; Zhixiong Xu; Rachel T. Klein; Kathleen S. Hruska