Wendy McKinnon

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.

Endoglin Expression Is Reduced in Normal Vessels but Still Detectable in Arteriovenous Malformations of Patients with Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia Type 1

Endoglin is predominantly expressed on endothelium and is mutated in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) type 1 (HHT1). We report the analysis of endoglin in tissues of a newborn (family 2), who died of a cerebral arteriovenous malformation (CAVM), and in a lung specimen surgically resected from a 78-year-old patient (family 5), with a pulmonary AVM (PAVM). The clinically affected father of the newborn revealed a novel mutation that was absent in his parents and was identified as a duplication of exons 3 to 8, by quantitative multiplex polymerase chain reaction. The corresponding mutant protein (116-kd monomer) and the missense mutant protein (80-kd monomer) present in family 5 were detected only as transient intracellular species and were unreactive by Western blot analysis and immunostaining. Normal endoglin (90-kd monomer) was reduced by 50% on peripheral blood-activated monocytes of the HHT1 patients. When analyzed by immunostaining and densitometry, presumed normal blood vessels of the newborn lung and brain and vessels adjacent to the adult PAVM showed a 50% reduction in the endoglin/PECAM-1 ratio. A similar ratio was observed in the CAVM and PAVM, suggesting that all blood vessels of HHT1 patients express reduced endoglin in situ and that AVMs are not attributed to a focal loss of endoglin.

What Would You Do? Specialists’ Perspectives on Cancer Genetic Testing, Prophylactic Surgery, and Insurance Discrimination

PURPOSE To examine what cancer genetics specialists predict they would do personally if they were at 50% risk of carrying a mutation that predisposes to hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (BRCA1/BRCA2) and hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC). METHODS Questionnaire survey of the membership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) Special Interest Group (SIG) in Cancer. RESULTS Of the 296 active members of the NSGC Cancer-SIG surveyed, 163 (55%) responded. Eighty-five percent predicted that if they had a 50% risk of carrying a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation, they would pursue genetic testing. If they tested positive for a mutation at age 35, 25% predicted they would pursue prophylactic bilateral mastectomies and 68%, prophylactic oophorectomy. Ninety-one percent of respondents believe they would pursue genetic testing for HNPCC, and 17% would elect prophylactic colectomy; 54%, prophylactic hysterectomy; and 52%, prophylactic oophorectomy if they tested positive for a mutation. The majority (68%) would not bill their insurance companies for genetic testing because of fear of discrimination, and 26% would use an alias when undergoing testing. Fifty-seven percent of counselors would seek professional psychologic support to help them cope with the results of testing. CONCLUSION A large percentage of cancer genetic counseling providers predicted they would opt for prophylactic surgery at a young age if they carried a BRCA or HNPCC mutation, and most would seek professional psychologic assistance when undergoing testing. More than half of respondents would not bill their insurance companies for genetic testing, largely because of fear of genetic discrimination. The vast majority of those providers most familiar with cancer genetic testing and its associated medical, psychologic, and legal implications would still pursue genetic testing.

Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Telephone Versus In-Person Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE Although guidelines recommend in-person counseling before BRCA1/BRCA2 gene testing, genetic counseling is increasingly offered by telephone. As genomic testing becomes more common, evaluating alternative delivery approaches becomes increasingly salient. We tested whether telephone delivery of BRCA1/2 genetic counseling was noninferior to in-person delivery. PATIENTS AND METHODS Participants (women age 21 to 85 years who did not have newly diagnosed or metastatic cancer and lived within a study site catchment area) were randomly assigned to usual care (UC; n = 334) or telephone counseling (TC; n = 335). UC participants received in-person pre- and post-test counseling; TC participants completed all counseling by telephone. Primary outcomes were knowledge, satisfaction, decision conflict, distress, and quality of life; secondary outcomes were equivalence of BRCA1/2 test uptake and costs of delivering TC versus UC. RESULTS TC was noninferior to UC on all primary outcomes. At 2 weeks after pretest counseling, knowledge (d = 0.03; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.61), perceived stress (d = -0.12; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.21), and satisfaction (d = -0.16; lower bound of 97.5% CI, -0.70) had group differences and confidence intervals that did not cross their 1-point noninferiority limits. Decision conflict (d = 1.1; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 3.3) and cancer distress (d = -1.6; upper bound of 97.5% CI, 0.27) did not cross their 4-point noninferiority limit. Results were comparable at 3 months. TC was not equivalent to UC on BRCA1/2 test uptake (UC, 90.1%; TC, 84.2%). TC yielded cost savings of

Effect of Sulindac and Erlotinib vs Placebo on Duodenal Neoplasia in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

114 per patient. CONCLUSION Genetic counseling can be effectively and efficiently delivered via telephone to increase access and decrease costs.

Results of an Intervention for Individuals and Families with BRCA Mutations: A Model for Providing Medical Updates and Psychosocial Support Following Genetic Testing

IMPORTANCE Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are at markedly increased risk for duodenal polyps and cancer. Surgical and endoscopic management of duodenal neoplasia is difficult and chemoprevention has not been successful. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of a combination of sulindac and erlotinib on duodenal adenoma regression in patients with FAP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling 92 participants with FAP, conducted from July 2010 through June 2014 at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah. INTERVENTIONS Participants with FAP were randomized to sulindac (150 mg) twice daily and erlotinib (75 mg) daily (n = 46) vs placebo (n = 46) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The total number and diameter of polyps in the proximal duodenum were mapped at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was change in total polyp burden at 6 months. Polyp burden was calculated as the sum of the diameters of polyps. The secondary outcomes were change in total duodenal polyp count, change in duodenal polyp burden or count stratified by genotype and initial polyp burden, and percentage of change from baseline in duodenal polyp burden. RESULTS Ninety-two participants (mean age, 41 years [range, 24-55]; women, 56 [61%]) were randomized when the trial was stopped by the external data and safety monitoring board because the second preplanned interim analysis met the prespecified stopping rule for superiority. Grade 1 and 2 adverse events were more common in the sulindac-erlotinib group, with an acne-like rash observed in 87% of participants receiving treatment and 20% of participants receiving placebo (P < .001). Only 2 participants experienced grade 3 adverse events. [table: see text]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among participants with FAP, the use of sulindac and erlotinib compared with placebo resulted in a lower duodenal polyp burden after 6 months. Adverse events may limit the use of these medications at the doses used in this study. Further research is necessary to evaluate these preliminary findings in a larger study population with longer follow-up to determine whether the observed effects will result in improved clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01187901.

Autosomal Dominant Postaxial Polydactyly, Nail Dystrophy, and Dental Abnormalities Map to Chromosome 4p16, in the Region Containing the Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome Locus

Providing medical management updates and long-term support to families with hereditary cancer syndromes in rural areas is a challenge. To address this, we designed a one-day retreat for BRCA1/2 carriers in our region. The retreat included educational updates about medical management, genetic privacy and discrimination, and addressed psychological and family issues. Evaluations completed at the conclusion of the retreat were overwhelmingly positive with requests for a similar event in the future. The impact of this retreat on a variety of health behaviors was assessed. Eligible participants completed questionnaires before and 6 months after the retreat. Questionnaires focused on lifestyle, cancer screening and prevention practices, psychological history and distress, decision-making regarding genetic testing, and family communication issues. For individuals who completed both the pre and post retreat questionnaires, one-half made lifestyle changes and nearly two-thirds increased cancer screening, initiated chemoprevention, completed or planned to complete preventative surgery in the future. We conclude that this type of forum provides a valuable opportunity for BRCA carriers and their families to receive updated medical information, share personal experiences, provide and receive support, as well as change health behaviors.

Germ Line Mutations of Mismatch Repair Genes in Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Patients with Small Bowel Cancer: International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours Collaborative Study

We have studied a four-generation family with features of Weyers acrofacial dysostosis, in which the proband has a more severe phenotype, resembling Ellis-van Creveld syndrome. Weyers acrofacial dysostosis is an autosomal dominant condition with dental anomalies, nail dystrophy, postaxial polydactyly, and mild short stature. Ellis-van Creveld syndrome is a similar condition, with autosomal recessive inheritance and the additional features of disproportionate dwarfism, thoracic dysplasia, and congenital heart disease. Linkage and haplotype analysis determined that the disease locus in this pedigree resides on chromosome 4p16, distal to the genetic marker D4S3007 and within a 17-cM region flanking the genetic locus D4S2366. This region includes the Ellis-van Creveld syndrome locus, which previously was reported to map within a 3-cM region between genetic markers D4S2957 and D4S827. Either the genes for the condition in our family and for Ellis-van Creveld syndrome are near one another or these two conditions are allelic with mutations in the same gene. These data also raise the possibility that Weyers acrofacial dysostosis is the heterozygous expression of a mutation that, in homozygous form, causes the autosomal recessive disorder Ellis-van Creveld syndrome.

The MLH1 c.-27C>A and c.85G>T variants are linked to dominantly inherited MLH1 epimutation and are borne on a European ancestral haplotype.

Purpose: The aim of study was to determine the clinical characteristics and mutational profiles of the mismatch repair genes in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) patients with small bowel cancer (SBC). Experimental Design: A questionnaire was mailed to 55 members of the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours, requesting information regarding patients with HNPCC-associated SBC and germ line mismatch repair gene mutations. Results: The study population consisted of 85 HNPCC patients with identified mismatch repair gene mutations and SBCs. SBC was the first HNPCC-associated malignancy in 14 of 41 (34.1%) patients for whom a personal history of HNPCC-associated cancers was available. The study population harbored 69 different germ line mismatch repair gene mutations, including 31 mutations in MLH1, 34 in MSH2, 3 in MSH6, and 1 in PMS2. We compared the distribution of the mismatch repair mutations in our study population with that in a control group, including all pathogenic mismatch repair mutations of the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours database (excluding those in our study population). In patients with MSH2 mutations, patients with HNPCC-associated SBCs had fewer mutations in the MutL homologue interaction domain (2.9% versus 19.9%, P = 0.019) but an increased frequency of mutations in codons 626 to 733, a domain that has not previously been associated with a known function, versus the control group (26.5% versus 2.8%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: In HNPCC patients, SBC can be the first and only cancer and may develop as soon as the early teens. The distribution of MSH2 mutations found in patients with HNPCC-associated SBCs significantly differed from that found in the control group (P < 0.001).