Search

PURPOSE: Although multigene panel testing (MGPT) is increasingly utilized in clinical practice, there remain limited data on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: BRCA 1/2 negative patients were contacted and offered MGPT. Patients completed pre- and post-test counseling, and surveys assessing cognitive, affective and behavioral outcomes at baseline, post-disclosure and 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 317 eligible BRCA1/2 negative patients who discussed the study with research staff, 249 (79%) enrolled. Decliners were more likely to be older, non-white, and recruited by mail or email. Ninety-five percent of enrolled patients proceeded with MGPT. There were no significant changes in anxiety, depression, cancer specific distress or uncertainty post-disclosure. There were significant but small increases in knowledge, cancer-specific distress and depression at 6–12 months. Uncertainty declined over time. Those with a VUS had significant decreases in uncertainty but also small increases in cancer specific distress at 6 and 12 months. Among those with a positive result, medical management recommendations changed in 26% of cases and 2.6% of all tested. CONCLUSION: Most BRCA1/2 negative patients have favorable psychosocial outcomes after receipt of MGPT results, although small increases in depression and cancer-specific worry may exist and may vary by result. Medical management changed in few patients.

Purpose Multigene panels (MGPs) are increasingly being used despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling. How frequently genetic providers use MGP testing and how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) differ from targeted testing (eg, BRCA1/2 only) are unknown. Methods We evaluated use of MGP testing and PROs in participants undergoing cancer genetic testing in the multicenter Communication of Genetic Test Results by Telephone study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01736345), a randomized study of telephone versus in-person disclosure of genetic test results. PROs included genetic knowledge, general and state anxiety, depression, cancer-specific distress, uncertainty, and satisfaction. Genetic providers offered targeted or MGP testing based on clinical assessment. Results Since the inclusion of MGP testing in 2014, 395 patients (66%) were offered MGP testing. MGP testing increased over time from 57% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 ( P = .02) and varied by site (46% to 78%; P < .01). Being offered MGP testing was significantly associated with not having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, having a history of cancer, not having a mutation in the family, not having made a treatment decision, and study site. After demographic adjustment, patients offered MGP testing had lower general anxiety ( P = .04), state anxiety ( P = .03), depression ( P = .04), and uncertainty ( P = .05) pre-disclosure compared with patients offered targeted testing. State anxiety ( P = .05) and cancer-specific distress ( P = .05) were lower at disclosure in the MGP group. There was a greater increase in change in uncertainty ( P = .04) among patients who underwent MGP testing. Conclusion MGP testing was more frequently offered to patients with lower anxiety, depression, and uncertainty and was associated with favorable outcomes, with the exception of a greater increase in uncertainty compared with patients who had targeted testing. Addressing uncertainty may be important as MGP testing is increasingly adopted.

The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed pre- and posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing.Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre- (76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirty-three patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing.Some patients, particularly those without prior BRCA1/2 testing, decline multiplex testing. Most patients who proceeded with testing did not experience negative psychological responses, but larger studies are needed. The tiered-binned approach is an innovative genetic counseling and informed consent model for further study in the era of multiplex testing.Genet Med 18 1, 25-33.

This study examines the analytic validity of a software tool designed to provide individuals with risk assessments for colorectal cancer based on personal health and family history information. The software is compatible with the US Surgeon General's My Family Health Portrait (MFHP).An algorithm for risk assessment was created using accepted colorectal risk assessment guidelines and programmed into a software tool (MFHP). Risk assessments derived from 150 pedigrees using the MFHP tool were compared with "gold standard" risk assessments developed by three expert cancer genetic counselors.Genetic counselor risk assessments showed substantial, but not perfect, agreement. MFHP risk assessments for colorectal cancer yielded a sensitivity for colorectal cancer risk of 81% (95% confidence interval: 54-96%) and specificity of 90% (95% confidence interval: 83-94%), as compared with genetic counselor pedigree review. The positive predictive value for risk for MFHP was 48% (95% confidence interval: 29-68%), whereas the negative predictive value was 98% (95% confidence interval: 93-99%). Agreement between MFHP and genetic counselor pedigree review was moderate (κ = 0.54).The analytic validity of the MFHP colorectal cancer risk assessment software is similar to those of other types of screening tools used in primary care. Future investigations should explore the clinical validity and utility of the software in diverse population groups.Genet Med 17 9, 753-756.

Clinical testing for germ-line variation in multiple cancer susceptibility genes is available using massively parallel sequencing. Limited information is available for pretest genetic counseling regarding the spectrum of mutations and variants of uncertain significance in defined patient populations.We performed massively parallel sequencing using targeted capture of 22 cancer susceptibility genes in 278 BRCA1/2-negative patients with early-onset breast cancer (diagnosed at younger than 40 years of age).Thirty-one patients (11%) were found to have at least one deleterious or likely deleterious variant. Seven patients (2.5% overall) were found to have deleterious or likely deleterious variants in genes for which clinical guidelines exist for management, namely TP53 (4), CDKN2A (1), MSH2 (1), and MUTYH (double heterozygote). Twenty-four patients (8.6%) had deleterious or likely deleterious variants in a cancer susceptibility gene for which clinical guidelines are lacking, such as CHEK2 and ATM. Fifty-four patients (19%) had at least one variant of uncertain significance, and six patients were heterozygous for a variant in MUTYH.These data demonstrate that massively parallel sequencing identifies reportable variants in known cancer susceptibility genes in more than 30% of patients with early-onset breast cancer. However, only few patients (2.5%) have definitively actionable mutations given current clinical management guidelines.Genet Med 17 8, 630-638.

Background: New counseling models for multiplex genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility are needed. Further, the risks, benefits and utilities of multiplex genetic panels are unknown. Purpose: To obtain stakeholder feedback on an innovative tiered-binned model for pretest counseling and informed consent for multiplex testing and to evaluate the uptake of, cognitive and affective responses to and perceived utility of panel testing. Methods: Patients previously BRCA1/2- or BRCA1/2 untested completed in-person pre-test (V1) and post-test counseling (V2) and surveys regarding the novel counseling model and evaluating cognitive and affective responses to, and perceived utility of the 26 gene Myriad MyRisk panel for cancer susceptibility. Results: 49 patients (62% of eligible) enrolled and completed V1. 38% of decliners were not interested in panel testing. BRCA1/2- were more likely to proceed with MyRisk (89%) than BRCA1/2 untested (48%, p Table 1 BaselinePost V1Post V2 Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)General Anxiety6.8 (3.9)*6.1 (4.0)* 7.2 (3.5)*6.1 (3.6)*5.8 (4.2)*General Depression2.6 (3.0)2.3 (2.6) 2.6 (2.9)2.3 (2.6)2.9 (3.6)Event Anxiety37.1 (9.6)37.7 (9.5) 37.0 (8.9)37.3 (8.5)37.3 (9.4)Cancer Worry18.3 (15.7)16.9 (14.1) 18.4 (15.4)15.7 (14.1)6.6 (14.7)Knowledge (K) Total61.8 (6.1)**63.9 (6.4)** 62.1 (6.7)**64.1 (6.8)**66.3 (6.9)**K-Inheritance29.5 (3.2)30.0 (3.2) 29.7 (3.5)29.8 (3.3)30.3 (3.7)K-Benefits12.0 (1.4)12.3 (1.8) 12.0 (1.4)12.4 (1.7)12.4 (1.9)K-Limitations20.3 (3.2)**21.6 (2.8)** 20.4 (3.4)**21.9 (3.0)**23.6 (2.6)**Satisfaction 42.8 (3.8) 42.9 (3.6)*41.4 (2.6)*Uncertainty7.5 (4.3)6.9 (4.6) 7.7 (4.0)6.5 (4.5)6.7 (4.6)Perceived Utility 37.2 (7.9) 37.7 (7.0)*33.8 (8.6)**p,0.05, **p Conclusion: With a tiered-binned counseling model, patients experience increased knowledge. Uptake of panel testing varies by prior testing and potentially by patient affective factors. Most patients do not experience negative psychological responses, although this may vary by test result. Declines in satisfaction and perceived utility may also vary by test result and may reflect the current unclear utility and uncertainty of multiplex testing. Citation Format: Angela R Bradbury, Linda Patrick-Miller, Brian L Egleston, Amanda Brandt, Jessica Long, Jacquelyn Powers, Jill Stopfer, Laura DiGiovanni, Jamie Brower, Susan M Domchek. Uptake and outcomes of multiplex testing for breast cancer susceptibility [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-10.

Women at elevated risk for breast cancer are motivated to reduce their risk. Current approaches rely primarily on hormonal intervention. A preventive exercise intervention might address the same hormonal issues, yet have fewer serious side effects and less negative impact on quality of life as compared to prophylactic mastectomy. WISER Sister was a randomized controlled trial which examined effects of two doses of exercise training on endogenous sex hormone exposure, hormonally active breast tissue, and other breast cancer risk factors.Subjects for this single site trial were recruited from across the U.S., in collaboration with organizations that serve women at elevated risk, via emails, flyers, and letters. Eligibility criteria included age ≥ 18, eumenorrheic, and at elevated risk for breast cancer (e.g. BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and/or ≥ 18% lifetime risk according to prediction models). A 1:1:1 randomization scheme was used to allocate participants into: control, low dose (150 min/week), or high dose (300 min/week) home based treadmill exercise. Participants provided first morning urine samples daily for two menstrual cycles at study beginning and end for calculation of endogenous hormone exposure. In addition, women completed breast dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, a fasting blood draw, a treadmill exercise test, and surveys at baseline and follow-up.WISER Sister randomized 139 women, 122 of whom completed the study. The overall drop-out rate was 12%. Findings will be useful in understanding the potential for exercise to assist with reducing risk for breast cancer among women at elevated risk.

During the last 30 years, key advances in the field of cancer genetics have improved identification of high-risk families in which cancer risk can be linked to mutations in cancer susceptible genes. Identification of individuals with heritable cancer risk may influence short- and long-term medical management issues. Heightened screening and risk reducing options can offer lifesaving interventions for the woman and family members who are at risk.

Experimental and clinical data support a role for estrogens in the development and growth of breast cancer, and lowered estrogen exposure reduces breast cancer recurrence and new diagnoses in high-risk women. There is varied evidence that increased physical activity is associated with breast cancer risk reduction in both pre- and postmenopausal women, perhaps via lowered estrogen levels. The purpose of this study was to assess whether exercise intervention in premenopausal women at increased breast cancer risk reduces estrogen or progesterone levels. Seven healthy premenopausal women at high risk for breast cancer completed a seven-menstrual-cycle study. The study began with two preintervention cycles of baseline measurement of hormone levels via daily first-morning urine collection, allowing calculation of average area under the curve (AUC) hormone exposure across the menstrual cycle. Participants then began five cycles of exercise training to a maintenance level of 300 min per week at 80–85% of maximal aerobic capacity. During the last two exercise cycles, urinary estradiol and progesterone levels were again measured daily. Total estrogen exposure declined by 18.9% and total progesterone exposure by 23.7%. The declines were mostly due to decreased luteal phase levels, although menstrual cycle and luteal phase lengths were unchanged. The study demonstrated the feasibility of daily urine samples and AUC measurement to assess hormone exposure in experimental studies of the impact of interventions on ovarian hormones. The results suggest value in exercise interventions to reduce hormone levels in high-risk women with few side effects and the potential for incremental benefits to surgical or pharmacologic interventions.

Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) significantly reduces the risk of ovarian cancer and breast cancer in pre-menopausal women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (B1/2) mutations. Despite its clear benefits, little is known about non-cancer endpoints in this population. Medical records were examined in 226 B1/2 mutation carriers, who had previously undergone RRSO with a focus on bone health as well as the frequency of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease (CAD), myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, hypothyroidism and depression. From the medical records, DEXA scans, medications and medical conditions were recorded. Of the 226 patient records examined, 16% (36/226) had hypertension, 17% (39/226) hyperlipidemia, 2% (5/226) CAD or MI, 2% (4/226) diabetes, 13% (29/226) hypothyroidism and 14% (31/226) depression. DEXA results were available in 152 women. Of those DEXA scans, 71% (108/152) were abnormal (57% osteopenia and 14% osteoporosis). Among women who underwent RRSO prior to age 50, 71% (62/88) had osteopenia/osteoporosis. Although there was no difference in osteopenia/osteoporosis in women with RRSO prior to age 50 compared to those RRSO > 50, the age at follow up in these two groups differs greatly (mean age 44.7 vs. 60.6), suggesting that both current age and age at RRSO contribute to bone health assessment. In summary, here, we report the prevalence of non-cancer endpoints in a cohort of B1/2 mutation carriers and note a particularly high rate of osteopenia and osteoporosis in B1/2 with breast cancer undergoing RRSO prior to 50. Despite the risk reduction RRSO offers, attention should be paid to non-cancer endpoints, particularly bone health, in this population.

1531Background: How frequently research participants are interested in receiving genetic individual research results (IRR) and the best method for returning IRR remains unknown. Methods: Woman at t...

Annual MRI screening is recommended as an adjunct to mammography for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Prophylactic oophorectomy has been shown to decrease breast cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Here, we aimed to examine the combined effects of MRI and oophorectomy. For this purpose, 93 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were screened with yearly mammograms and yearly MRI scans. Study endpoints were defined as date of breast cancer diagnosis, date of prophylactic mastectomy, or date of most recent contact. Of 93 women, with a median age of 47, 80 (86%) had prophylactic oophorectomy. Fifty-one women (55%) had BRCA1 mutations. A total of 283 MRI scans were performed. Eleven breast cancers (9 invasive, 2 ductal carcinoma in situ) were detected in 93 women (12%) with a median follow-up of 3.2 years (incidence 40 per 1,000 person-years). Six cancers were first detected on MRI, three were first detected by mammogram, and two were “interval cancers.” All breast cancers occurred in BRCA1 mutation carriers (incidence 67 per 1,000 person-years). Apart from BRCA1 vs. BRCA2 mutation status, there were no other significant predictors of breast cancer incidence. Most invasive breast cancers were estrogen receptor negative (7 of 9) and lymph node negative (7 of 9). There have been no systemic recurrences with a median follow-up of 19 months after cancer diagnosis. Finally, it was concluded that all breast cancers occurred in BRCA1 mutation carriers, in most cases despite oophorectomy. These data suggest that surveillance and prevention strategies may have different outcomes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

This observational study evaluated utilization of religious coping strategies among 95 African American women who were at increased risk for having a BRCA1/BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation. Overall, women reported high levels of collaborative coping; however, women with fewer than 2 affected relatives (beta = -1.97, P = 0.04) and those who had a lower perceived risk of having a BRCA1/2 mutation (beta = -2.72, P = 0.01) reported significantly greater collaborative coping. These results suggest that African American women may be likely to use collaborative strategies to cope with cancer-related stressors. It may be important to discuss utilization of religious coping efforts during genetic counseling with African American women.

Introduction Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) reduces the risk of developing ovarian and breast cancer in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 (BRCA1/2) mutation carriers. The short-term use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after RRSO may relieve menopausal symptoms and does not appear to affect the breast cancer risk reduction gained by RRSO. Multiple factors may influence decisions regarding whether or not total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) is done at the time of RRSO, whether HRT is elected after surgery, and if so, which type of HRT is selected. Our investigation has been to examine factors associated with TAH and HRT use and to determine if the choice of TAH at the time of RRSO and the type of HRT that was chosen has changed since the report of data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, which showed that the relative risk for breast cancer is higher in subjects who used combined estrogen–progestin HRT compared with those who used estrogen alone. Methods We identified 73 female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who were known to have undergone RRSO between 1/1972 and 11/2005 who had no history of breast or ovarian cancer at the time of the surgery. Information regarding whether or not TAH was done in addition to RRSO, the type of HRT, and the subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer was collected. Results Of 73 unaffected BRCA1/2 carriers known to have had RRSO, 40 (40/73, 55%) also underwent TAH. Thirty-three of 73 (33/73, 45%) began HRT following RRSO. Of 33 HRT users, 17 (17/33, 52%) used estrogen only and 14 (14/33, 42%) used combined hormonal therapy. There was no difference in use of HRT in women with TAH (17/40, 43%) vs. those without (16/33, 48%) (P = 0.6). There was no difference in the proportion of women who underwent TAH before and after the WHI report in 2002. Use of HRT, most notably combined estrogen–progestin HRT, appears to have declined since 2002, although this result did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion In this single institution study, the majority of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers undergoing RRSO also underwent TAH, and a substantial number took HRT. TAH did not increase the likelihood of taking HRT compared to RRSO alone.

Objectives: To describe BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) risk perceptions among African American women at increased risk for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and to identify factors having independent associations with these perceptions. Methods: Risk perceptions were evaluated by self-report during a structured telephone interview among African American women (n = 162) at increased risk for hereditary cancer who were recruited from oncology clinics, general medical practices, and community oncology resources. Results: The majority of women (75%) believed that it was likely that they had a BRCA1/2 mutation. Women ages 50 and younger and those with greater cancer-specific worry were most likely to believe that they had a BRCA1/2 mutation. Conclusions: Although BRCA1/2 risk perceptions may be consistent with objective risk levels among African American women, discussion about the basis of risk perceptions may enhance provision of genetic counseling and testing in this population.

Although African American breast cancer survivors are at increased risk for developing breast cancer again, empirical data are not available on breast cancer risk perceptions in these women. This study characterized perceived risk of developing breast cancer in African American breast cancer survivors at risk for having a BRCA1 or BRCA1 (BRCA1/2) mutation and identified factors having significant independent associations with risk perceptions. Participants were 95 African American breast cancer survivors at an increased risk for having a BRCA1/2 mutation. Risk perceptions and sociodemographic, clinical, treatment, and sociocultural factors were collected during a structured telephone interview. Most women reported that they had the same or lower risk of developing breast cancer again compared with other women (53%); however, a substantial minority of women (47%) reported that they had a higher or much higher risk. Factors having significant independent associations with heightened risk perceptions included having a ≥10% prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation [odds ratio (OR), 2.91; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.09-7.72; P = 0.03] and more years of formal education (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.02-7.36; P = 0.05). In addition, women who thought about the past a lot were three times more likely to report heightened risk perceptions compared with those who did not think about the past a lot (OR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.45-9.57; P = 0.01). These results suggest that it may be important to ensure adequate risk comprehension among African American women as part of genetic counseling for inherited breast-ovarian cancer risk. Discussion of risk perceptions within the context of existing beliefs and values may facilitate this process. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(2):244–8)

Background: Dysregulation of adipokines, such as adiponectin and leptin, is associated with a variety of chronic diseases, including cancer. Physical activity protects against breast cancer and one of the mechanisms which may underlie this association is exercise-induced changes in adipokine levels. The WISER Sister Trial was a three-armed randomized controlled trial in premenopausal women (n = 137) with an elevated risk for breast cancer. Methods: A 5-menstrual-cycle-long dosed aerobic exercise intervention compared low-dose exercise (150 min/wk; n = 44) or high-dose exercise (300 min/wk; n = 48) with a control group asked to maintain usual activity levels (n = 45). Exercise intensity progressed to and was maintained at 70% to 80% of age predicted heart rate max. Body composition and adipokine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up. Results: We observed significant linear trends for increased fitness capacity (Δ%: −2.0% control, 10.1% low dose, 13.1% high dose), decreased fat tissue-to-total tissue mass (Δ%: 0.7% control, −2.9% low dose, −3.7% high dose), increased body fat adjusted adiponectin (Δ%: −0.6% control, 0.6% low dose, 0.9% high dose), and decreased body fat adjusted leptin (Δ%: 0.7% control, −8.2% low dose, −10.2% high dose). Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial of premenopausal women at risk for breast cancer, we demonstrate a dose–response effect of exercise on adiponectin and leptin and that dose response is dependent on changes in body fat. Impact: Improved adipokine levels, achieved by aerobic exercise training-induced decreases in body fat, may decrease breast cancer risk for high-risk premenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(8); 1195–200. ©2016 AACR.

Medical and surgical interventions for elevated breast cancer risk (e.g., BRCA1/2 mutation, family history) focus on reducing estrogen exposure. Women at elevated risk may be interested in less aggressive approaches to risk reduction. For example, exercise might reduce estrogen, yet has fewer serious side effects and less negative impact than surgery or hormonal medications. Randomized controlled trial. Increased risk defined by risk prediction models or BRCA mutation status. Eligibility: Age 18–50, eumenorrheic, non-smokers, and body mass index (BMI) between 21 and 50 kg/m2. 139 were randomized. Treadmill exercise: 150 or 300 min/week, five menstrual cycles. Control group maintained exercise

Complexities abound in the identification and management of families at increased risk for inherited forms of cancer. One of the ways to learn as a profession how best to provide cancer risk counseling (CRC) is to share counseling experiences. Such cases can provide insight into the issues raised by families and ways in which genetic counselors have handled complex situations. Here we describe three CRC cases initially presented at the 1995 American College of Medical Genetics meeting. The first case involves balancing the importance of informing a family of the presence of an inherited cancer syndrome with the family's right “not to know.” The second case illustrates the difficulties in assisting an individual to make medical management decisions in the face of uncertain risk information. The third case describes the complex interactions with a woman before and after her decision to have prophylactic surgery.

Despite the importance of breast cancer screening to reduce morbidity and mortality, limited information is available on screening practices among African American women with a family history that is suggestive of hereditary breast cancer.To describe adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations among African American women with a family history that is suggestive of hereditary disease.Participants were unaffected African American women (n=65) who had a family history of cancer that was suggestive of hereditary breast cancer. Breast cancer screening practices were evaluated by self-report. The study was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA. Women were recruited to participate in the study from February 2003-December 2005.Most women were adherent to recommendations for mammography (75%) and CBE (93%). A sizeable minority of women (41%) also performed excessive BSE. Being older than age 50 was associated significantly with mammography adherence (FET0.05). Employment had a significant independent association with BSE; unemployed women were most likely to perform excessive BSE (OR=3.28, 95% CI: 1.05, 10.21, p0.05).The results of this study suggest a complex pattern of breast cancer screening practices among African American women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Purpose: This study evaluated rates of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) test result acceptance among African American women and identified determinants of test result acceptance. Methods: Acceptance of BRCA1/2 test results was evaluated among 157 African American women at high and moderate risk for having a BRCA1/2 mutation who were offered genetic testing as part of a clinical genetic counseling research program. Results: Twenty-two percent of women received BRCA1/2 test results. Test result acceptance differed between women with ≥10% prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation (34%) and those who had a 5% prior probability (8%). Among women with ≥10% prior probability, test result acceptors were most likely to be married (OR = 5.29, 95% CI = 1.82, 15.38, P = 0.002) and be less certain about their risk of developing cancer (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.04, 9.80, P = 0.04). Conclusion: These results demonstrate that acceptance of BRCA1/2 test results may be limited among African American women. Being married and having less certainty about one's cancer risk may motivate acceptance of BRCA1/2 test results among African American women. It may be important to emphasize the possibility that BRCA1/2 test results may not clarify cancer risks during pre-test counseling with African American women to ensure informed decision-making about testing.

PurposeThis study evaluated the process of recruiting African American women to participate in genetic counseling research for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations with respect to referral, study enrollment, and participation in genetic counseling.Patients and MethodsAfrican American women (n = 783) were referred for study enrollment.ResultsOf 783 referrals, 164 (21%) women were eligible for enrollment. Eligible women were most likely to be referred from oncology clinics (44%) and were least likely to be referred from general medical practices (11%; χ2= 96.80; P = .0001). Overall, 62% of eligible women enrolled onto the study and 50% of enrollees completed genetic counseling. Women with a stronger family history of cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 3.18; 95% CI, 1.36 to 7.44; P = .01) and those referred from oncology clinics and community oncology resources (OR = 2.97; 95% CI, 1.34 to 6.58; P = .01) were most likely to enroll onto the study. Referral from oncology clinics was associated significantly with participation in genetic counseling (OR = 5.46; 95% CI, 1.44 to 20.60; P = .01).ConclusionDespite receiving a large number of referrals, only a small subset of women were eligible for enrollment. Oncology settings were the most effective at identifying eligible African American women and general medical practices were the least effective. Factors associated with enrollment included having a stronger family history of cancer and being referred from oncology clinics and community oncology resources. Referral from oncology clinics was the only factor associated significantly with participation in genetic counseling. Education about hereditary breast cancer may be needed among primary care providers to enhance appropriate referral of African American women to genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 mutations.

When BRCA1/2 testing became commercially available in 1996, many U.S. experts voiced concern about the potential for indiscriminate use of testing among low-risk women. Supporting this concern, several early surveys of interest in genetic testing suggested that genetic testing for cancer susceptibility might appeal most to individuals at low risk of carrying a mutation. To identify factors associated with early use of clinical BRCA1/2 testing, a case-control study was conducted at a large academic health system in the metropolitan Philadelphia region. A total of 167 women underwent genetic counseling for clinical BRCA1/2 testing between 1996 and 1997 (cases) compared with 138 women who were seen in faculty general internal medicine practices over the same period (controls). In this study we measured the risk factors for breast cancer, the risk factors for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, and sociodemographic characteristics. Use of BRCA1/2 counseling between 1996 and 1997 was positively associated with family but no personal history of breast cancer (odds ratio (OR), 22.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.3-54.3); family and personal history of breast cancer (OR, 150.3; 95% CI, 24.1-939.6); being Caucasian and non-Jewish (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.3-13.5); being Caucasian and Jewish (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 2.2-35.5); and being married (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6-6.3). Use of BRCA1/2 counseling was inversely associated with increasing age (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.28 for >60 compared to

Background: Increasing numbers of BRCA1 mutation carriers are being identified in cancer risk evaluation programs. However, no estimates of cancer risk specific to a clinic-based population of mutation carriers are available. These data are clinically relevant, because estimates based on families ascertained for linkage studies may overestimate cancer risk in mutation carriers, and population-based series may underestimate it. Wide variation in risk estimates from these disparate ascertainment groups makes counseling in risk evaluation programs difficult. The purpose of this study was to estimate BRCA1-related cancer risks for individuals ascertained in a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic. Methods: Cumulative observed and age-adjusted cancer risk estimates were determined by analyzing 483 BRCA1 mutation carriers in 147 families identified in two academic breast and ovarian cancer risk evaluation clinics. Cancer risks were computed from the proportion of individuals diagnosed with cancer during a 10-year age interval from among the total number of individuals alive and cancer-free at the beginning of that interval. Age-of-diagnosis comparisons were made using two-sided Student's t tests. Results: By age 70, female breast cancer risk was 72.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.9% to 77.7%) and ovarian cancer risk was 40.7% (95% CI = 35.7% to 45.6%). The risk for a second primary breast cancer by age 70 was 40.5% (95% CI = 34.1% to 47.0%). We also identified an increased risk of cancer of the colon (twofold), pancreas (threefold), stomach (fourfold), and fallopian tube (120-fold) in BRCA1 mutation carriers as compared with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program population-based estimates. Conclusion: The estimates for breast and ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers is higher than population-based estimates but lower than estimates based on families ascertained for linkage studies. These cancer risk estimates may most closely approximate those faced by BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in risk evaluation clinics.

The traditional emphasis on nondirectiveness in genetic counseling has become increasingly controversial with the rapid expansion of genetic testing in clinical medicine. This study was done to determine whether women considering clinical testing for BRCA1/2 mutations want to know their health care providers' opinions about whether or not they should undergo testing. Participating in the study was a retrospective cohort of 335 women who participated in a university-based clinic offering breast cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling, and BRCA1/2 testing between January, 1996, and April, 1998. A total of 242 women (77%) wanted to know if the doctors at the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Evaluation Program (BCREP) thought they should be tested, 28 women (9%) were unsure, and 46 women (14%) did not want a BCREP doctor's opinion on testing. A total of 158 women (49%) wanted to know if their primary doctor thought they should be tested, 31 women (10%) were unsure, and 130 women (41%) did not want to know. Desire to know the opinion of the BCREP doctors was inversely associated with having undergone BRCA1/2 testing (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95) and having a breast cancer diagnosis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99). Desire to know their primary doctor's opinion was inversely associated with having undergone BRCA1/2 testing (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.92). Our study suggests that over three-quarters of women who considered clinical testing for BRCA1/2 mutations wanted to know the opinions of the cancer genetics doctors and almost half wanted to know their primary doctor's opinion about whether or not they should undergo testing. These results support the use of models of genetic counseling that allow for sharing the health care providers' opinions when desired by the patient.

Cancer genetic services, typically provided by clinicians with expertise in both oncology and genetics, include cancer risk assessment and education, facilitation of genetic testing, pre-and post-test counseling, provision of personally tailored cancer risk management options and recommendations, and psychosocial counseling and support services. All oncology providers should obtain basic information on the family cancer history of their patients to determine the likelihood of hereditary cancer risk as well as possible indications for providing brief or comprehensive cancer genetic counseling. Those who choose to provide these services themselves must be familiar with the complex issues of genetic counseling and testing, and be aware of the time and expertise required to adequately deliver these services. Genetic nurses and genetic counselors with master's degrees function as valuable members of a comprehensive cancer genetic service; they are trained to independently collect and confirm medical and family history information, perform risk assessments, offer patient education regarding cancer and genetics, and provide supportive counseling services for patients and families. It is hoped that specific risk interventions will significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from familial forms of cancer. This review outlines the process of cancer genetic counseling and defines the roles of the cancer genetic counselor and the function of the cancer genetics specialty clinic. The possible medical and legal implications for failing to obtain adequate family history information are reviewed, and the issues of genetic discrimination are discussed. Semin. Surg. Oncol. 18:347–357, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Background To define the incidence of BRCA1 mutations among patients seen in clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer, we analyzed DNA samples from women seen in this setting and constructed probability tables to provide estimates of the likelihood of finding a BRCA1 mutation in individual families. Methods Clinical information, family histories, and blood for DNA analysis were obtained from 263 women with breast cancer. Conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis and DNA sequencing were used to identify BRCA1 mutations. Results BRCA1 mutations were identified in 16 percent of women with a family history of breast cancer. Only 7 percent of women from families with a history of breast cancer but not ovarian cancer had BRCA1 mutations. The rates were higher among women from families with a history of both breast and ovarian cancer. Among family members, an average age of less than 55 years at the diagnosis of breast cancer, the presence of ovarian cancer, the presence of breast and ovarian cancer in t...

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most important breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Biallelic mutations in BRCA2 can lead to Fanconi anemia and predisposition to cancers, whereas biallelic BRCA1 mutations have not been confirmed, presumably because one wild-type BRCA1 allele is required during embryogenesis. This study describes an individual who was diagnosed with ovarian carcinoma at age 28 and found to have one allele with a deleterious mutation in BRCA1, c.2457delC (p.Asp821Ilefs*25), and a second allele with a variant of unknown significance in BRCA1, c.5207T>C (p.Val1736Ala). Medical records revealed short stature, microcephaly, developmental delay, and significant toxicity from chemotherapy. BRCA1 p.Val1736Ala cosegregated with cancer in multiple families, associated tumors showed loss of wild-type BRCA1, and BRCA1 p.Val1736Ala showed reduced DNA damage localization. These findings represent the first validated example of biallelic deleterious human BRCA1 mutations and have implications for the interpretation of genetic test results. Significance: Accurate assessment of genetic testing data for BRCA1 mutations is essential for clinical monitoring and treatment strategies. Here, we report the first validated example of an individual with biallelic BRCA1 mutations, early-onset ovarian cancer, and clinically significant hypersensitivity to chemotherapy. Cancer Discov; 3(4); 399–405. ©2012 AACR. See related commentary by D'Andrea, p. 376 This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 363

BACKGROUND: This study sought to estimate the risk of breast cancer (BC) after a diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC) associated with mutation of the BRCA1/2 (breast cancer, early onset) genes (BRCA-OC). METHODS: The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the University of Pennsylvania, clinical genetics databases were searched to identify women with BRCA-OC who participated in genetic testing and follow-up studies from 1995 to 2009. The primary objective was to determine the risk of developing BC after BRCA-OC. Overall survival (OS) and BC-free survival (BCFS) were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method; patients were censored at the time of last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients had BRCA-OC (115 with BRCA1; 49 with BRCA2). Of these 164 patients, 152 developed OC prior to BRCA testing (median time to testing, 2.4 years [0.01-55 years]). Median follow-up from OC for those not developing BC was 5.8 years (0.25-55.6 years). There were 46 deaths, but none were due to BC. The 5- and 10-year OS were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78, 0.90) and 68% (95% CI = 0.59, 0.76), respectively. There were 18 metachronous BC diagnoses. The 5- and 10-year BCFS were 97% (95% CI = 0.92, 0.99) and 91% (95% CI = 0.82, 0.95), respectively. A subset of 64 women were tested either before or within 12 months of BRCA-OC. In this pseudo-incident subset, 5- and 10- year OS was 71% (95% CI = 0.53, 0.83) and 62% (95% CI = 0.44, 0.75), respectively, and 5- and 10-year BCFS were 100% and 87% (95% CI = 0.56, 0.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OS was dominated by OC deaths. Metachronous BC risk was lower than reported for unaffected BRCA mutation carriers. These results support nonsurgical management of BC risk in women with BRCA-OC. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

Background In developed countries, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 5%, and it is the second leading cause of death from cancer. The presence of family history is a well established risk factor with 25-35% of CRCs attributable to inherited and/or familial factors. The highly penetrant inherited colon cancer syndromes account for approximately 5%, leaving greater than 20% without clear genetic definition. Familial colorectal cancer has been linked to chromosome 7q31 by multiple affected relative pair studies. The MET proto-oncogene which resides in this chromosomal region is considered a candidate for genetic susceptibility. Methods MET exons were amplified by PCR from germline DNA of 148 affected sibling pairs with colorectal cancer. Amplicons with altered sequence were detected with high-resolution melt-curve analysis using a LightScanner (Idaho Technologies). Samples demonstrating alternative melt curves were sequenced. A TaqMan assay for the specific c.2975C >T change was used to confirm this mutation in a cohort of 299 colorectal cancer cases and to look for allelic amplification in tumors. Results Here we report a germline non-synonymous change in the MET proto-oncogene at amino acid position T992I (also reported as MET p.T1010I) in 5.2% of a cohort of sibling pairs affected with CRC. This genetic variant was then confirmed in a second cohort of individuals diagnosed with CRC and having a first degree relative with CRC at prevalence of 4.1%. This mutation has been reported in cancer cells of multiple origins, including 2.5% of colon cancers, and in Conclusions Although the MET p.T992I genetic mutation is commonly found in somatic colorectal cancer tissues, this is the first report also implicating this MET genetic mutation as a germline inherited risk factor for familial colorectal cancer. Future studies on the cancer risks associated with this mutation and the prevalence in different at-risk populations will be an important extension of this work to define the clinical significance.

Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in family members of individuals with known deleterious mutations can distinguish between patients at high risk of disease and those who are not. Some studies have suggested that individuals testing negative for known familial mutations (true negatives), may still have a higher risk of breast cancer (BC) than the general population. We have examined a prospectively followed cohort of true negative women in the US. Subjects were close relatives of known BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers who had undergone genetic testing, were negative for the known familial mutation, and were unaffected at the time of genetic testing. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using SEER incidence rates. Among 375 true negatives, two invasive and two in situ BC and no ovarian cancers were diagnosed with mean follow up of 4.9 years (total of 1,962 person-years). Four invasive BC were expected, whereas two were observed, for an age-adjusted SIR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.13–2.09). We observed more cases of in situ BC (n = 2) than were expected (n = 0.9; SIR = 2.30; 95% CI 0.57–9.19). There were no cases of ovarian cancer observed; 0.4 case was expected. In this prospective study of women who were unaffected at the time of genetic testing and who were negative for the known familial mutation in BRCA1/2, no excess risk of invasive BC was observed. Our data suggest that such women in the US should adhere to population-based guidelines for breast cancer screening.

Although retention is a critical component of longitudinal cancer genetics research, limited empirical data are available on predictors of study retention among populations that are difficult to enroll. We evaluated predictors of retention in cancer genetics research among African American women at increased risk for having a BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation. Participants were African American women (n = 192) at increased risk for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer who were enrolled in a longitudinal genetic counseling research study. Retention was evaluated separately for the 1- and 6-month follow-ups and in terms of overall retention (e.g., completion of both telephone interviews). Seventy-three percent of women and 65% of women were retained at the 1- and 6-month follow-ups respectively; in terms of overall retention, 60% of women were retained in both follow-up telephone interviews. Predictors of retention at 1-month included being employed (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.24, 4.93, P = 0.01) whereas predictors of overall retention included having a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer (OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.07, 3.95, P = 0.03) and having completed genetic counseling (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.39, 4.98, P = 0.003). These data suggest that once enrolled in genetic counseling research, the majority of African American women will continue to participate, especially if concrete clinical services are provided. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The occurrence of multiple primary (MP) cancers in a patient suggests a genetic predisposition to tumor formation. Multiplex panel testing may be an efficient way of evaluating MP patients for the presence of germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes. However the spectrum of mutations in many cancer susceptibility genes in the MP patient population is largely unknown. We performed massively parallel sequencing using targeted capture of 15 genes with well-established risks of breast and/or other cancers, specifically TP53, CDH1, PTEN, STK11, ATM, CHEK2, MRE11A, NBN, RAD50, PALB2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and MUTYH. Our patient cohort consisted of 221 BRCA1/2 negative patients diagnosed with breast cancer and at least one other primary cancer, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. Patients diagnosed with contralateral breast cancer were included. Thirty patients (14%) were found to have at least one deleterious variant in these 15 genes. Deleterious variants were found in CHEK2 (16 patients, 7.2%), TP53 (4, 1.8%), MSH6 (3, 1.4%), ATM (2, 0.9%) and one patient each had deleterious variants in CDKN2A, PTEN, PMS2, PALB2, BRIP1 and NBN. In addition, six patients (2.7%) were found to be heterozygous carriers of a MUTYH mutation. In comparison, deleterious variants were identified in 9% of 341 patients with breast cancer only, indicating a small but nonsignificant increase in the rate of deleterious variants in MP patients. The rate of MUTYH heterozygous mutations was also non-significantly different in patients with breast cancer only (1.2%). There was a significant increase in the rate of CHEK2 and MSH6 mutations in the MP versus breast-only patients (7.2% vs 3.5%, p = 0.04 for CHEK2 and 1.4% vs 0%, p = 0.05 for MSH6). As a corollary study, a subset of MP patients (n = 165) were assayed on a panel including TET2. Deleterious TET2 mutations were identified in 2 of 165 patients (1.2%) at allele frequencies of 0.17 and 0.36. These patients blood samples were ascertained at ages 77 and 72, respectively. These preliminary data show that in our cohort of patients with multiple primary cancers, over 16% of patients were found to have deleterious variants in 15 cancer susceptibility genes. In addition, approximately 1% of MP patients have deleterious variants in TET2 that may be due to age-related clonal hematopoiesis, although it is unknown if these mutations are related to the development of the tumors in these individuals. Further analysis of variants in less well-characterized cancer susceptibility genes and unclassified variants is ongoing. Discovery of clinically relevant mutations can potentially guide future treatment practices for those with similar diagnoses to our patients. Citation Format: Brandon Wenz, Kara N. Maxwell, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Kurt D'Andrea, Bradley Garman, Jessica M. Long, Jacquelyn Powers, Jill E. Stopfer, Angela R. Bradbury, Angela DeMichele, Susan M. Domchek, Katherine L. Nathanson. Identification of germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes in patients with multiple primary cancers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 4663. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-4663

1562 Background: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have an elevated lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Knowledge of one’s BRCA1/2 mutation status may aid earlier detection of breast cancers due to ...

1511 Background: Multiplex panel testing studies evaluating cancer susceptibility in breast cancer (BC) patients suggest that between 4-11% of BRCA1/2 negative individuals have a deleterious mutati...

e12503 Background: There is ongoing debate over the obligation, risks, benefits and utilities of returning individual genetic research results (IRR) identified in gene discovery or translational re...

541 Background: The Oncotype DX score is widely used to evaluate recurrence risk and potential benefit of chemotherapy in stage 1, estrogen receptor (ER) positive, Her2 negative tumors. Oncotype DX...

Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with breast cancer, ovarian cancer and other malignancies. Biallelic mutations of BRCA2 are a cause of Fanconi anemia and characteristic childhood cancers. We undertook this study to evaluate the contribution of familial BRCA mutations to childhood cancer in hereditary breast cancer families.We compared the prevalence of childhood cancers in 379 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 426 families without mutations. All families were ascertained at a high-risk breast cancer clinic. Our study included first- through fourth-degree relatives of BRCA mutation carriers and cancer-affected individuals with negative testing for BRCA mutations. The primary endpoint was any case of childhood cancer (diagnosedage 21).20 cases of childhood cancer occurred in 379 families with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 35 cases of childhood cancer occurred in 426 families with negative mutation testing (p = 0.12). Nine childhood cancers occurred in 240 families with BRCA1 mutations, and 11 childhood cancers occurred in 141 families with BRCA2 mutations (p = 0.1). 13 of 18 families with childhood cancer and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (72%) and 13 of 31 families with childhood cancer and negative mutation testing (42%) met the Birch criteria for Li-Fraumeni like syndrome (LFL).In this retrospective analysis, heterozygous BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations were not a risk factor for childhood cancer in hereditary breast cancer families. These data support the current practice of delaying BRCA mutation testing until adulthood.

Bilateral risk-reducing oophorectomy (BRRO) is widely used for cancer risk reduction in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations. BRRO significantly reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 50% and ovarian cancer risk by 85% to 95%, but it may be accompanied by menopausal symptoms, impaired quality of life, and accelerated bone loss. Therefore, decisions regarding the timing of BRRO, the risks and benefits of a simultaneous hysterectomy, and the use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) must be made in concert with the patient and individualized to their circumstances. However, recent data demonstrate that HRT after BRRO in unaffected premenopausal women does not negate the breast cancer risk reduction that BRRO provides. This article reviews the studies regarding BRRO in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, with particular focus on the use of HRT.

The function of BRCA1 is complex and includes roles in DNA damage repair, cell cycle control, regulation of transcription, and X chromosome inactivation.1,2 TSIX is thought to control X chromosome inactivation by blocking the accumulation of XIST on the active X chromosome.3 BRCA1 co-localises with XIST inactive X chromosomes (Xi) and stabilises Xi. Because of this interaction, the loss of BRCA1 is associated with altered Xi chromatin structure and increased expression of silenced Xi genes.1,2 Mouse models have suggested a link between aberrant X chromosome inactivation and sex ratio skewing, with a bias towards male births when TSIX activity is abolished.3 In addition, non-random X chromosome inactivation has been seen in BRCA1 mutation carriers with ovarian cancer.4 With these data as background, a skewed sex ratio in offspring of BRCA1 mutation carriers was reported,5 with a bias towards females, compared with offspring of women with BRCA2 mutations and those without mutations in either gene. Others have not found a difference in the sex ratios of offspring of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.6–8 Here, we analysed the sex ratio of offspring in a large cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, as well as in HBOC families who tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations or were not tested. ### Database We included data from 1276 families evaluated between 1992 and 1994 (University of Michigan) and between 1994 and 2003 (University of Pennsylvania) in breast cancer risk evaluation clinics and considered to be at increased risk for having a breast cancer susceptibility gene mutation. Individuals were either self referred or physician referred for assessment of inherited susceptibility to breast or ovarian cancer. All individuals providing data signed their informed consent before genetic testing and entry into our database, which includes detailed pedigree information. …

Risk information from health care providers is relevant to and used in nearly all medical decisions. Patients often misunderstand their risks, yet little is known about the risk perception that patients derive from risk communications with health care providers. This study examines patients' risk perceptions following communication with health care providers during genetic counseling about the risks of breast cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations.A prospective, longitudinal study was conducted from October 2002 to February 2004 of women who received genetic counseling. The women completed a survey before their counseling and a telephone interview in the week after the counseling. Main outcome measures included change from precounseling in risk perception and accuracy of postcounseling risk perception (relative to actual risk information communicated).A total of 108 women agreed to participate in the study. The women's postcounseling risk perceptions were significantly lower than their precounseling risk perceptions (breast cancer: 17%, P.001; mutation: 13%, P.001) but were significantly higher than the actual risk information communicated (breast cancer: 19%, P.001; mutation: 24%, P.001). Accuracy of breast cancer risk perception but not mutation risk perception was associated with precounseling worry (P = .04), even after adjusting for trait anxiety (P = .01).This research demonstrates patients' resistance to risk information. Inappropriately high risk perception derived from a risk communication with a health care provider can lead patients to make different, and potentially worse, medical decisions than they would with an accurate risk perception and to be unnecessarily distressed about their risk.

Cancer risk programs rely on accurately reported family history information. This study compares the accuracy with which cancer sites and ages at diagnosis are reported by Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) and hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) families undergoing genetic testing. We analyzed the accuracy of 191 cancer diagnoses among first-degree (FDRs) and second-degree (SDRs) relatives reported by 32 LFS and 52 HBOCS participants in genetic testing programs. Cancer diagnoses of relatives were more accurately reported in the HBOCS cohort (78%) than in the LFS cohort (52%). Almost all breast cancer diagnoses were accurately reported, whereas 74% of ovarian cancer diagnoses and only 55% of other LFS-related cancers were accurately reported. Age at diagnosis was accurate within 5 years for 60% of LFS relatives and 53% of HBOCS relatives. Factors correlating with accurate reporting of cancer history included: being member of BRCA1 family, higher education level, female historian, degree of closeness to affected relative, and having fewer than 5 affected FDRs and SDRs. Relying on verbal histories would not have altered eligibility for genetic testing among HBOCS historians, but fewer than half of LFS historians provided information that would have led to TP53 testing. Our data suggest that it may not be necessary to confirm breast cancer diagnoses routinely; however, documentation of other cancer types remains important for appropriate risk assessment and follow-up.

Breast cancer risk assessment provides an estimation of disease risk that can be used to guide management for women at all levels of risk. In addition, the likelihood that breast cancer risk is due to specific genetic susceptibility (such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations) can be determined. Recent developments have reinforced the clinical importance of breast cancer risk assessment. Tamoxifen chemoprevention as well as prevention studies such as the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are available to women at increased risk of developing breast cancer. In addition, specific management strategies are now defined for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Risk may be assessed as the likelihood of developing breast cancer (using risk assessment models) or as the likelihood of detecting a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (using prior probability models). Each of the models has advantages and disadvantages, and all need to be interpreted in context. We review available risk assessment tools and discuss their application. As illustrated by clinical examples, optimal counseling may require the use of several models, as well as clinical judgment, to provide the most accurate and useful information to women and their families.

1510 Background: Approximately 5-10% of breast cancers are attributable to inherited single gene mutations. Clinical testing for germline variation in multiple cancer susceptibility genes is availa...

1510 Background: Individuals who carry one mutated copy of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have elevated lifetime risks of breast and ovarian cancer. A number of studies have investigated the somatic mutational spectra of breast and ovarian tumors; however, BRCA1/2mutated tumors are underrepresented. Methods: Sixty-eight formalin-fixed paraffin embedded samples from BRCA1/2patients have been identified. Massively parallel sequencing using 48 gene capture is in process, whole exome sequencing of tumor and matched germline DNA is planned. Data are analyzed using a custom bioinformatics pipeline. Results: In analysis of data from the first 26 breast (4 BRCA1, 6 BRCA2) and ovarian (8 BRCA1, 8 BRCA2) tumors, the majority (23/26, 88%) had 0-2 variants in 48 cancer genes. Known deleterious TP53 mutations were the only variants identified in 2/4 BRCA1 and 2/6 BRCA2 breast tumors. Of those remaining, 2 BRCA1 and 1 BRCA2 breast tumors had no identified deleterious mutations. Two BRCA2 breast tumors with no TP53 mutations had known deleterious mutations in a single gene each - FGFR2 and PI3KCA. One BRCA2 breast tumor with no TP53 mutation had a variant of uncertain significance in FLT3. Finally, one BRCA2 breast tumor had a very high mutational rate, with one deleterious TP53 mutation and 7 other small deletion and single nucleotide variants. For the ovarian tumors, 15/16 BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors had known deleterious TP53 mutations; the ovarian tumor with no TP53 mutation had no other variants. TP53 mutations were the sole identified mutations in 8 ovarian tumors. One ovarian tumor carried a known JAK3 activating mutation and 4 ovarian tumors carried one variant of uncertain significance in a single gene - SMO, PDGFRA, GNA11 and NRAS. Finally, two ovarian tumors were found to have high mutational rates. Conclusions: Using a targeted resequencing panel, we confirmed the high rate of TP53 mutations in BRCA1/2 breast tumors and observed a higher than expected rate in BRCA1/2 ovarian tumors. Importantly, we have identified mutations in other known driver genes using FFPE samples, allowing generalizability to other sites. These analyses may uncover novel mutations that could be exploited in the development of targeted therapeutic agents for BRCA1/2 carriers.

Approximately 5-10% of breast cancers are likely attributable to single gene mutations. Multiple breast cancer susceptibility genes have been identified; however, there is insufficient information on the clinical benefit of testing for variants in many of these genes outside of BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 and PTEN. To obtain further information on the spectrum of variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes, we performed massively parallel sequencing using targeted capture of 28 known or proposed breast cancer susceptibility genes in over 250 patients with breast cancer diagnosed under age 40, negative clinical BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing and no personal or family history of ovarian cancer. Sixty-five percent of the patients had a family history of breast cancer. Breast cancers were triple negative in 26% of the patients; 70% of the patients presented with Stage II or greater disease. Positive control mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, CHEK2, MSH2 and BRCC3 were identified using the targeted panel. In analysis of the first 98 study patients, 46+/8 total variants were identified on average per patient with a median read depth of 131. Of the 4,483 total variants identified in the 98 patients, ten variants that are known to be or are likely functionally significant were identified in ten patients (10%). One patient had the CHEK2 1100delC mutation, and another the known deleterious TP53 mutation, P151T. Four of the functionally significant variants are novel frameshift or nonsense mutations in ATM, BRIP1, BARD1 and MRE11A. Four variants predicted to affect splicing, located within the first two nucleotides within the intron, were identified in CHEK2 (3) and MUTYH (1) and are therefore likely to be functionally significant. In addition, 29 patients (29%) were found to carry 27 variants predicted to be deleterious missense variants by multiple variant calling software programs and found at less than 1% frequency in the control population, but are of unclear functional significance as they are either novel or functionally untested. These potentially deleterious variants were identified in ATM (4), RAD50 (3), BRCA2 (3), BARD1 (2), BRCA1 (2), MLH1 (2), NBS (2), BRIP1 (1), CHEK2 (1), MCPH1 (1), MRE11A (1), MSH6 (1), PMS1 (1), and PMS2 (1). These data show that massively parallel sequencing has the ability to identify multiple potentially causative variants in known breast cancer susceptibility genes in patients who present with early onset breast cancer. However, only rare patients, 1% in our initial sample, which will be reported in full, have actionable mutations given current clinical management guidelines. Given the difficulty in determining the functional significance of novel variants, outside of truncating mutations, there is a great deal of uncertainty about how these findings can be translated into improvements in patient care. Citation Format: Kara N. Maxwell, Bradley Wubbenhorst, Richard Letrero, Kurt D'Andrea, Jacqueline Powers, Jill E. Stopfer, Susan M. Domchek, Katherine L. Nathanson. Targeted massively parallel sequencing identifies a limited number of clinically actionable variants in women with early onset breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2280. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-2280

Abstract #1099 Background: Efforts are now focused on increasing access to genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutations to address cancer disparities in African American women; however, limited empirical data are available on the effects of these services. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of genetic counseling among African American women at increased risk for hereditary disease. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted between February 2003 and November 2006. Participants were African American women (n=139) at increased risk for having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation. The effects of genetic counseling, including culturally tailored (CTGC) versus standard (SGC) counseling, on changes in risk perception and psychological functioning were evaluated. Results: Women who participated in genetic counseling had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting reductions in perceived risk compared to non-participants (P=0.03). Women who received BRCA1/2 results also had a significantly greater likelihood of reporting decreases in cancer worry (P=0.03). Similar effects were found among women who had a high prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation (P=0.03) and those affected with cancer (P=0.04). There were no differences in CTGC and SGC in study outcomes. Discussion: African American women may experience some benefit from receiving BRCA1/2 test results. Participation in counseling and receiving test results may be especially beneficial to African American women who have high prior probability of having a BRCA1/2 mutation and those affected with cancer. Continued efforts should be made to increase access to genetic counseling and testing among African American women at increased risk for hereditary disease. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 1099.

ContextGiven the current context of racial disparities in health and health care and the historical context of eugenics, racial disparities in the use of genetic susceptibility testing have been widely anticipated. However, to our knowledge there are no published studies examining the magnitude and determinants of racial differences in the use of genetic susceptibility testing.ObjectivesTo investigate the relationship between race and the use of BRCA1/2 counseling among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer and to determine the contribution of socioeconomic characteristics, cancer risk perception and worry, attitudes about genetic testing, and interactions with primary care physicians to racial differences in utilization.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsCase-control study (December 1999-August 2003) of 408 women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, of whom 217 underwent genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing (cases) and 191 women did not (controls). Participants received primary care within a large health system in greater Philadelphia, Pa.Main Outcome MeasuresProbability of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, socioeconomic characteristics, perception of breast and ovarian cancer risk, worry about breast and ovarian cancer, attitudes about BRCA1/2 testing, and primary care physician discussion of BRCA1/2 testing were measured prior to undergoing BRCA1/2 counseling for cases and at the time of enrollment for controls.ResultsAfrican American women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were significantly less likely to undergo genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing than were white women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.40). This association persisted after adjustment for probability of BRCA1/2 mutation, socioeconomic characteristics, breast and ovarian cancer risk perception and worry, attitudes about the risks and benefits of BRCA1/2 testing, and primary care physician discussion of BRCA1/2 testing (adjusted odds ratio for African American vs white, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.89).ConclusionsRacial disparities in the use of BRCA1/2 counseling are large and do not appear to be explained by differences in risk factors for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, socioeconomic factors, risk perception, attitudes, or primary care physician recommendations. The benefit of predictive genetic testing will not be fully realized unless these disparities can be addressed.

More women in all risk categories are seeking information regarding their individual breast cancer risk, and there is a need for their primary care clinicians to be able to assess familial risk factors for breast cancer, provide individualized risk information, and offer surveillance recommendations. Estimates of the number of women with a family history of breast cancer range from approximately 5% to 20%, depending on the population surveyed. Many of these women will not have a family history that suggests the presence of a highly penetrant breast cancer susceptibility gene. However, a small subset of such women will come from families with a striking incidence of breast and other cancers often associated with inherited mutations. The development and refinement of risk prediction models provide an epidemiologic basis for counseling women with a family history that does not appear related to a dominant susceptibility gene. In contrast, the recent isolation ofBRCA1, the localization ofBRCA2, and the acknowledgment that additional breast cancer susceptibility genes must exist provide a molecular basis for counseling some high-risk women. We present a guide for primary care clinicians that may be helpful in defining families as moderate or high risk, in determining individual risk in women with a family history of breast cancer based on this distinction, and for counseling women in a setting where the data necessary to design surveillance and prevention strategies are lacking. We include criteria for selecting women who may be candidates for detection of inherited mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes. (JAMA. 1995;273:577-585)