Search

Purpose: Risk-stratified screening has potential to improve the cost effectiveness of national breast cancer screening programs. This study aimed to inform a socially acceptable and equitable implementation framework by determining what influences a woman's decision to accept a personalized breast cancer risk assessment and what the relative impact of these key determinants is. Methods: Multicriteria decision analysis was used to elicit the relative weights for 8 criteria that women reported influenced their decision. Preference heterogeneity was explored through cluster analysis. Results: The 2 criteria valued most by the 347 participants related to program access, “Mode of invitation” and “Testing process”. Both criteria significantly influenced participation (P

Objective: To measure menopausal symptoms and quality of life up to 12 months after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and to measure the effects of hormone therapy. Methods: Prospective observational study of 95 premenopausal women planning RRSO and a comparison group of 99 who retained their ovaries. Vasomotor symptoms and menopausal-related quality of life (QoL) were measured by the Menopause-Specific QoL Intervention scale at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. Chi-square tests measured differences in prevalence of vasomotor symptoms between RRSO vs the comparison group and by hormone therapy use. Change in QoL were examined with multilevel modelling. Results: Three months after RRSO hot flush prevalence increased from 5.3% to 56.2% and night sweats from 20.2% to 47.2%. Symptoms did not worsen between 3 and 12 months and remained unchanged in the comparison group (p

Purpose To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease. Methods We performed clinically accredited singleton ES in a prospectively ascertained cohort of 204 patients assessed in multidisciplinary renal genetics clinics at four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Results ES identified a molecular diagnosis in 80 (39%) patients, encompassing 35 distinct genetic disorders. Younger age at presentation was independently associated with an ES diagnosis (p

Background Research identifying and returning clinically actionable germline variants offer a new avenue of access to genetic information. The psychosocial and clinical outcomes for women who have received this ‘genome-first care’ delivering hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk information outside of clinical genetics services are unknown. Methods: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case-control study compared outcomes between women who did (cases; group 1) and did not (controls; group 2) receive clinically actionable genetic information from a research cohort in Victoria, Australia. Participants completed an online survey examining cancer risk perception and worry, and group 1 also completed distress and adaptation measures. Group 1 participants subsequently completed a semi structured interview. Results: Forty-five participants (group 1) and 96 (group 2) completed the online survey, and 31 group 1 participants were interviewed. There were no demographic differences between groups 1 and 2, although more of group 1 participants had children (p = 0.03). Group 1 reported significantly higher breast cancer risk perception (p < 0.001) compared to group 2, and higher cancer worry than group 2 (p < 0.001). Some group 1 participants described how receiving their genetic information heightened their cancer risk perception and exacerbated their cancer worry while waiting for risk-reducing surgery. Group 1 participants reported a MICRA mean score of 27.4 (SD 11.8, range 9–56; possible range 0–95), and an adaptation score of 2.9 (SD = 1.1). Conclusion: There were no adverse psychological outcomes amongst women who received clinically actionable germline information through a model of ‘genome-first’ care compared to those who did not. These findings support the return of clinically actionable research results to research participants.

Purpose: Lynch syndrome-related colorectal cancer (CRC) risk substantially varies by mismatch repair (MMR) gene. We evaluated the health impact and cost-effectiveness of MMR gene-tailored colonoscopic surveillance. Methods: We first estimated sex- and MMR gene-specific cumulative lifetime risk of first CRC without colonoscopic surveillance using an optimization algorithm. Next, we harnessed these risk estimates in a microsimulation model, “Policy1-Lynch,” and compared 126 colonoscopic surveillance strategies against no surveillance. Results: The most cost-effective strategy was 3-yearly surveillance from age 25 to 70 years (pathogenic variants [path_] in MLH1 [path_MLH1], path_MSH2) with delayed surveillance for path_MSH6 (age 30-70 years) and path_PMS2 (age 35-70 years) heterozygotes (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = Australian dollars (A) $8,833/life-year saved). This strategy averted 60 CRC deaths (153 colonoscopies per death averted) over the lifetime of 1000 confirmed patients with Lynch syndrome (vs no surveillance). This also reduced colonoscopies by 5% without substantial change in health outcomes (vs nontailored 3-yearly surveillance from 25-70 years). Generally, starting surveillance at age 25 (vs 20) years was more cost-effective with minimal effect on life-years saved and starting 5 to 10 years later for path_MSH6 and path_PMS2 heterozygotes (vs path_MLH1 and path_MSH2) further improved cost-effectiveness. Surveillance end age (70/75/80 years) had a minor effect. Three-yearly surveillance strategies were more cost-effective (vs 1 or 2-yearly) but prevented 3 fewer CRC deaths. Conclusion: MMR gene-specific colonoscopic surveillance would be effective and cost-effective.

BackgroundThe strength of evidence supporting the validity of gene-disease relationships is variable. Hereditary cancer has the additional complexity of low or moderate penetrance for some confirmed disease-associated alleles.MethodsTo promote national consistency in interpretation of hereditary cancer/tumour gene test results, we requested opinions of representatives from Australian Family Cancer Clinics regarding the clinical utility of 157 genes initially collated for a national research project. Viewpoints were sought by initial survey, face-to-face workshop and follow-up survey. Subsequent review was undertaken by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee, a national resource providing evidence-based and consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols.ResultsGenes were categorised by clinical actionability as: relevant for testing on presentation of common cancer/tumour types (n=45); relevant for testing in the context of specific rare phenotypes (n=74); insufficient clinical utility (n=34) or contentious clinical utility (n=3). Opinions for several genes altered during the study time frame, due to new information.ConclusionThrough an iterative process, consensus was achieved on genes with clinical utility for hereditary cancer/tumour conditions in the Australian setting. This study highlighted need for regular review of gene-disease lists, a role assumed in Australia for hereditary cancer/tumour predisposition genes by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee.

Women who inherit a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant are at high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term management in clinical practice is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost-effectiveness of BRCA carrier management within a structured clinical program. Lifetime health outcomes and costs of clinical management for female unaffected BRCA carriers aged 20 were measured using a microsimulation model. For the intervention, women could attend a high-risk clinic, undergo risk-reducing surgery, and receive annual breast screening. Input data for the model was from a clinical database of 983 BRCA carriers. The comparator was no risk management. Outcomes were discounted at 5%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the program was $32,359 to $48,263 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Limiting uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy to

PURPOSE To estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized. METHODS We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes. RESULTS We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10−76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10−3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10−3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10−2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age ( P for trend = 2.0 × 10−3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies ( P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer. CONCLUSION These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.

usc Refereed/Peer-reviewed Purpose: Genetic variants causing aberrant premessenger RNA splicing are increasingly being recognized as causal variants in genetic disorders. In this study, we devise standardized practices for polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based RNA diagnostics using clinically accessible specimens (blood, fibroblasts, urothelia, biopsy). Methods: A total of 74 families with diverse monogenic conditions (31% prenatal-congenital onset, 47% early childhood, and 22% teenage-adult onset) were triaged into PCR-based RNA testing, with comparative RNA sequencing for 19 cases. Results: Informative RNA assay data were obtained for 96% of cases, enabling variant reclassification for 75% variants that can be used for genetic counseling (71%), to inform clinical care (32%) and prenatal counseling (41%). Variant-associated mis-splicing was highly reproducible for 28 cases with samples from ≥2 affected individuals or heterozygotes and 10 cases with ≥2 biospecimens. PCR amplicons encompassing another segregated heterozygous variant was vital for clinical interpretation of 22 of 79 variants to phase RNA splicing events and discern complete from partial mis-splicing. Conclusion: RNA diagnostics enabled provision of a genetic diagnosis for 64% of recruited cases. PCR-based RNA diagnostics has capacity to analyze 81.3% of clinically significant genes, with long amplicons providing an advantage over RNA sequencing to phase RNA splicing events. The Australasian Consortium for RNA Diagnostics (SpliceACORD) provide clinically-endorsed, standardized protocols and recommendations for interpreting RNA assay data.

Breast and prostate cancer risks; Pathogenic variant Riscos de càncer de mama i pròstata; Variants patogèniques Riesgos de cáncer de mama y próstata; Variantes patogénicas Background Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management. The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A20861 and PPRPGM-Nov20\100002. The research leading to these results has received funding from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) under IG 2018 - ID. 21389 and the Italian League for the Fight Against Cancer (LILT) under IG 2019 projects, P.I. Ottini Laura and Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research-Dipartimenti di Eccellenza-L. 232/2016. CIMBA: GCT is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Fellow. iCOGS and OncoArray data: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation and the Ontario Research Fund. Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR): UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC): Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). City of Hope - Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network (COH-CCGCRN): Research reported in this publication was supported by the NCI of the NIH under grant No. R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the NCI and the Office of the Director, NIH. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 No.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’) to S. Manoukian. Associazione CAOS Varese to M.G. Tibiletti. AIRC (IG2015 No.16732) to P. Peterlongo. National Centre for Scientific Research Demokritos (DEMOKRITOS): European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. German Cancer Research Center (DFKZ): German Cancer Research Center. Epidemiological Study of Familial Breast Cancer (EMBRACE): Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC): The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. AKG was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545 and R01 CA140323), The Kansas Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professor. Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica (FPGMX): FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). German Familial Breast Group (GC-HBOC): German Cancer Aid (grant No. 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE—Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project No. 713-241202, No. 713-241202, No. 14505/2470, and No. 14575/2470). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). Georgetown University (GEORGETOWN): the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. Ghent University Hospital (G-FAST): Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study the Netherlands (HEBON): the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HEBON thanks the registration teams of Dutch Cancer Registry (IKNL; S. Siesling, J. Verloop) and the Dutch Pathology database (PALGA; L. Overbeek) for part of the data collection. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO): The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “FEDER, una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. Iceland Landspitali – University Hospital (ILUH): Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program—grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade—grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto Breast Cancer Study (IPOBCS): Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study (KOHBRA): the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). Mayo Clinic (MAYO): NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. McGill University (MCGILL): Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MH CZ—DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS—NPS I—LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). Women’s College Research Institute Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study (NAROD): 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): the Intramural Research Program of the US NCI, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCG): Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Università di Pisa (PBCS): AIRC [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. Sheba Medical Centre (SMC): the Israeli Cancer Association. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): the Swedish Cancer Society. University of Chicago (UCHICAGO): NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women’s Cancer Research Alliance and the Breast Cancer research Foundation. OIO is an American Cancer Society (ACS) Clinical Research Professor. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (UKFOCR): Cancer Research UK. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): NIH (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855); Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. Cancer Family Registry University of Pittsburg (UPITT/MWH): Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women’s Cancer Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (WCP): Dr Karlan is funded by the ACS Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. TN-D is a recipient of a Career Development Fellow from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia, ECF-17-001).

PURPOSE: This study aimed to correlate the indications and diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) in adult patients across various clinical settings. The secondary aim was to examine the clinical utility of ES in adult patients. METHODS: Data on demographics, clinical indications, results, management changes, and cascade testing were collected for 250 consecutive patients who underwent ES through an adult genetics department between 2016 and 2021. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Testing in which traditional gene panels were in standard use, such as in heritable cancers, was excluded. RESULTS: The average age at testing was 43 years (range = 17-80 years). A molecular diagnosis was identified in 29% of patients. Older age at symptom onset did not pre-exclude a substantial diagnostic yield. Patients with syndromic intellectual disability and multiple system disorders had the highest yield. In >50% of patients with an exome diagnosis, the results changed management. Cascade testing occured in at least one family member for 30% of patients with a diagnosis. Diagnostic results had reproductive implications for 26% of patients and 31% of patients' relatives. CONCLUSION: ES has a robust diagnostic yield and clear clinical utility in adult patients across a range of ages and phenotypes.

Personal Breast Cancer (BC) Risk Assessments (PBCRA) have potential to stratify women into clinically-actionable BC risk categories. As this could involve population-wide genomic testing, women’s attitudes to PBCRA and views on acceptable implementation platforms must be considered to ensure optimal population participation. We explored these issues with 31 women with different BC risk profiles through semi-structured focus group discussions or interviews. Inductive thematic coding of transcripts was performed. Subsequently, women listed factors that would impact on their decision to participate. Participants’ attitudes to PBCRA were positive. Identified themes included that PBCRA acceptance hinges on result actionability. Women value the ability to inform decision-making. Participants reported anxiety, stress, and genetic discrimination as potential barriers. The age at which PBCRA was offered, ease of access, and how results are returned held importance. Most women value the opportunity for PBCRA to inform increased surveillance, while highlighting hesitance to accept reduced surveillance as they find reassurance in regular screening. Women with BRCA pathogenic variants value the potential for PBCRA to identify a lower cancer risk and potentially inform delayed prophylactic surgery. This study highlights complexities in adopting advances in BC early detection, especially for current users who value existing processes as a social good.

Breast cancer (BC) has a significant heritable component but the genetic contribution remains unresolved in the majority of high-risk BC families. This study aims to investigate the monogenic causes underlying the familial aggregation of BC beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, including the identification of new predisposing genes. A total of 11,511 non-BRCA familial BC cases and population-matched cancer-free female controls in the BEACCON study were investigated in two sequencing phases: 1303 candidate genes in up to 3892 cases and controls, followed by validation of 145 shortlisted genes in an additional 7619 subjects. The coding regions and exon–intron boundaries of all candidate genes and 14 previously proposed BC genes were sequenced using custom designed sequencing panels. Pedigree and pathology data were analysed to identify genotype-specific associations. The contribution of ATM, PALB2 and CHEK2 to BC predisposition was confirmed, but not RAD50 and NBN. An overall excess of loss-of-function (LoF) (OR 1.27, p = 9.05 × 10−9) and missense (OR 1.27, p = 3.96 × 10−73) variants was observed in the cases for the 145 candidate genes. Leading candidates harbored LoF variants with observed ORs of 2–4 and individually accounted for no more than 0.79% of the cases. New genes proposed by this study include NTHL1, WRN, PARP2, CTH and CDK9. The new candidate BC predisposition genes identified in BEACCON indicate that much of the remaining genetic causes of high-risk BC families are due to genes in which pathogenic variants are both very rare and convey only low to moderate risk.

The aim of this study was to identify the unmet information needs of healthcare professionals managing risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) in premenopausal women.A cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals managing high-risk women in Victoria, Australia. Questions included roles and responsibilities around RRBSO, perceived barriers to uptake of RRBSO, and unmet information needs.One hundred eighteen healthcare professionals across 10 different disciplines and specialties were approached to participate, of whom 47 completed the survey. Most respondents were genetic counselors (47%) or nurses (19%) and all worked in the public health system. Almost all (81%) provided information about RRBSO, but there was considerable uncertainty about who was responsible for making decisions with high-risk women about RRBSO. Most (85%) were "quite a bit" or "extremely" confident about informing high-risk women about ovarian cancer risk reduction from RRBSO and the surgical procedure (47%), but only one-third were "quite a bit" or "extremely" confident about discussing (36%) or managing (31%) surgical menopause. Furthermore, surgical menopause was considered the main barrier (88%, "quite a bit" or "extremely") to RRBSO. Most healthcare professionals (78%) wanted more information and resources about surgical menopause for high-risk women.There is uncertainty around the roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals managing high-risk women around RRBSO. Surgical menopause is perceived as a major barrier to RRBSO and healthcare professionals lack confidence in managing this outcome. : Video Summary:http://links.lww.com/MENO/A477.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a potentially life-threatening genetic cardiomyopathy with a spectrum of clinical presentations including sudden cardiac death (SCD).Clinical and genetic data of 44 probands referred to a cardiac genetics clinic (2007-2017) who met 2010 Task Force Criteria (TFC) for ARVC diagnosis were included.Thirty-three (33) (75%) male, 20 (45%) were referred by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. Presentation that lead to diagnosis included ARVC-related SCD (n=19), SCD due to alternate cause of death (n=1), aborted cardiac arrest (n=6), stable symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (n=14), palpitations (n=3) and presyncope (n=1). Left ventricular involvement (50%) was more common in the SCD subgroup (84% vs 21%, p0.001). Genetic testing (n=39) revealed a pathogenic mutation in 16 (commonest: plakophillin-2 (n=9)), a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in 15, with no abnormality in eight. In the SCD subgroup, median age at death was 44.7 years and 74% were male. Genetic testing (n=16) in this subgroup revealed a pathogenic mutation in six patients (commonest: desmoplakin (n=4)). Comparison of the two commonest mutations (PKP2 and desmoplakin [DSP]) showed DSP mutation was more frequently associated with SCD (p0.01) and LV involvement (p0.001). Screening of 117 relatives has lead to ARVC diagnosis in 29 patients.Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy has a heterogeneous and often severe clinical presentation. Sudden cardiac death and aborted cardiac arrest (ACA) are common, demonstrating electrical abnormalities appear early in the ARVC phenotype. Left ventricular involvement was common and may reflect a worse prognosis. Genetic testing is essential in family screening and may be helpful in risk assessment. Desmoplakin mutation is associated with LV involvement and may be indicative of worse prognosis and increased risk of SCD. Genetic screening of proband family members in a specialised multidisciplinary clinic is essential in early diagnosis of affected family members.

Purpose To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of cascade genetic testing in asymptomatic relatives of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) compared with periodical clinical surveillance. Methods A decision-analytic model, combining a decision tree and a Markov model, was used to determine the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the two strategies. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the robustness of findings and to explore decision uncertainty. Results The incremental cost per additional QALY of cascade genetic testing prior to periodical clinical surveillance of first-degree relatives compared with periodical clinical surveillance alone was estimated at approximately AUD $6100. At established thresholds of cost-effectiveness, there is a 90% probability that cascade genetic testing is cost-effective. Extensive sensitivity analyses, including the addition of second-degree relatives, did not alter the conclusions drawn from the main analysis. Conclusion Using cascade genetic testing to guide clinical surveillance of asymptomatic relatives of patients with DCM is very likely to be cost-effective. As the DCM pathogenic variant detection rate rises and new evidence for personalized treatment of at-risk individuals becomes available, the cost-effectiveness of cascade testing will further increase.

Background Personalised prevention of breast cancer has focused on women at very high risk, yet most breast cancers occur in women at average, or moderately increased risk (≤moderate risk). Objectives To determine; 1) interest of women at ≤ moderate risk (consumers) in personalised information about breast cancer risk; 2) familial cancer clinicians' (FCCs) perspective on managing women at ≤ moderate risk, and; 3) both consumers' and FCCs reactions to iPrevent, a personalised breast cancer risk assessment and risk management decision support tool. Methods Seven focus groups on breast cancer risk were conducted with 49 participants; 27 consumers and 22 FCCs. Data were analysed thematically. Results Consumers reported some misconceptions, low trust in primary care practitioners for breast cancer prevention advice and frustration that they often lacked tailored advice about breast cancer risk. They expressed interest in receiving personalised risk information using iPrevent. FCCs reported an inadequate workforce to advise women at ≤ moderate risk and reacted positively to the potential of iPrevent to assist. Conclusions While highlighting a potential role for iPrevent, several outstanding issues remain. For personalised prevention of breast cancer to extend beyond women at high risk, we must harness women's interest in receiving tailored information about breast cancer prevention and identify a workforce willing to advise women.

Background This nationwide study assessed the impact of nationally agreed cancer genetics guidelines on use of BRCA1/2 germline testing, risk management advice given by health professionals to women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants and uptake of such advice by patients. Methods Clinic files of 883 women who had initial proband screens for BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants at 12 familial cancer clinics between July 2008–July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010–July 2011 and July 2012–July 2013 (both after guideline release) were audited to determine reason given for genetic testing. Separately, the clinic files of 599 female carriers without a personal history of breast/ovarian cancer who underwent BRCA1/2 predictive genetic testing and received their results pre- and post-guideline were audited to ascertain the risk management advice given by health professionals. Carriers included in this audit were invited to participate in a telephone interview to assess uptake of advice, and 329 agreed to participate. Results There were no significant changes in the percentages of tested patients meeting at least one published indication for genetic testing - 79, 77 and 78% of files met criteria before guideline, and two-, and four-years post-guideline, respectively (χ = 0.25, p = 0.88). Rates of documentation of post-test risk management advice as per guidelines increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for 6/9 risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance amongst carriers or awareness post-release of guidelines were annual magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography in women 30–50 years (97%) and annual mammography in women > 50 years (92%). Of women aged over 40 years, 41% had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy. Amongst women aged > 40 years, 75% had a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Amongst women who had not had a risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, only 6% took risk-reducing medication. Fear of side-effects was cited as the main reasons for not taking these medicines by 73% of women. Conclusions Guidelines did not change the percentages of tested patients meeting genetic testing criteria but improved documentation of risk management advice by health professionals. Effective approaches to enhance compliance with guidelines are needed to improve risk management and quality of care.

Premature or primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) affects approximately 1% of women and can be due to a variety of causes. Genetic causes include syndromic and non-syndromic POI. There are several promising candidate genes for whom a clear Mendelian association with non-syndromic POI has not yet been conclusively established, including GDF9. GDF9 is an oocyte-secreted factor and is part of the TGF-beta superfamily of morphogens. It has an important role in follicular development and granulosa cell maturation. We report the case of two siblings with primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) and a homozygous truncating variant in GDF9 (c.604C>T; p.(Gln202*). This report helps establish a clear gene-disease association between GDF9 and POI and argues for routine evaluation for GDF9 variants in patients undergoing genomic investigation for POI.

Objective: To prospectively measure cardiometabolic risk 12 months after premenopausal risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) compared to a similar age comparison group, and the effects of Hormone Therapy (HT) on cardiometabolic risk. Methods: Prospective observational study of 95 premenopausal women planning RRBSO and 99 comparisons who retained their ovaries. At baseline and 12 months, blood pressure (BP), Body Mass Index (BMI), waist and hip circumference, fasting total, HDL and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, glucose and insulin were measured and HOMA-IR was calculated. Chi-square tests, t-tests and adjusted logistic regression models were used to compare groups. Results: Baseline cardiometabolic phenotypes were similar between groups but more RRBSO participants were overweight/obese with higher waist/hip ratios. By 12 months, BP and cardiometabolic phenotypes were largely unchanged. Paired t-tests showed statistically significant increases in BMI (p = 0.037) and weight (p = 0.042) and larger increases in waist circumference (p < 0.001) and waist-hip ratio (p = 0.009) after RRBSO vs comparisons. However, these were not significant when adjusted for baseline values. After RRBSO 60% initiated Hormone Therapy (HT). Paired t-tests demonstrated that non-HT users had a significantly greater mean increase in waist circumference of 4.3 cm (95% CI 2.0–6.5) compared to 1.3 cm in HT users (95% CI -0.2-2.7, p < 0.001), which remained significant when adjusted for baseline values (p = 0.02). At 12 months, mean waist circumference was 2.94 cm greater in non-HT users compared to HT users. Conclusions: Cardiometabolic risk markers are largely unchanged 12 months after RRBSO. Hormone Therapy after RRBSO may prevent against an increase in waist circumference.

Objective: Sleep difficulties impair function and increase the risk of depression at menopause and premenopausal oophorectomy may further worsen sleep. However, prospective data are limited, and it remains uncertain whether Hormone Therapy (HT) improves sleep. This prospective observational study measured sleep quality before and up to 12 months after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) compared to a similar age comparison group who retained their ovaries. Methods: Ninety-five premenopausal women undergoing RRSO and 99 comparisons were evaluated over a 12-month period using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results: Almost half reported poor sleep quality at baseline. Overall sleep quality was not affected by RRSO until 12 months (p = 0.007). However, sleep disturbance increased by 3 months and remained significantly elevated at 12 months (p < 0.001). Trajectory analysis demonstrated that 41% had increased sleep disturbance after RRSO which persisted in 17.9%. Risk factors for sleep disturbance included severe vasomotor symptoms, obesity and smoking. Around 60% initiated HT after RRSO. Sleep quality was significantly better in HT users vs non users (p = 0.020) but HT did not restore sleep quality to baseline levels. Conclusions: Overall sleep quality is not affected by RRSO, but new onset sleep disturbance is common, particularly in those with severe vasomotor symptoms. Clinicians should be alert to new-onset sleep disturbance and the potential for HT to improve sleep quality.

Author(s): Coignard, Juliette; Lush, Michael; Beesley, Jonathan; O'Mara, Tracy A; Dennis, Joe; Tyrer, Jonathan P; Barnes, Daniel R; McGuffog, Lesley; Leslie, Goska; Bolla, Manjeet K; Adank, Muriel A; Agata, Simona; Ahearn, Thomas; Aittomaki, Kristiina; Andrulis, Irene L; Anton-Culver, Hoda; Arndt, Volker; Arnold, Norbert; Aronson, Kristan J; Arun, Banu K; Augustinsson, Annelie; Azzollini, Jacopo; Barrowdale, Daniel; Baynes, Caroline; Becher, Heko; Bermisheva, Marina; Bernstein, Leslie; Bialkowska, Katarzyna; Blomqvist, Carl; Bojesen, Stig E; Bonanni, Bernardo; Borg, Ake; Brauch, Hiltrud; Brenner, Hermann; Burwinkel, Barbara; Buys, Saundra S; Caldes, Trinidad; Caligo, Maria A; Campa, Daniele; Carter, Brian D; Castelao, Jose E; Chang-Claude, Jenny; Chanock, Stephen J; Chung, Wendy K; Claes, Kathleen BM; Clarke, Christine L; GEMO Study Collaborators; EMBRACE Collaborators; Collee, J Margriet; Conroy, Don M; Czene, Kamila; Daly, Mary B; Devilee, Peter; Diez, Orland; Ding, Yuan Chun; Domchek, Susan M; Dork, Thilo; Dos-Santos-Silva, Isabel; Dunning, Alison M; Dwek, Miriam; Eccles, Diana M; Eliassen, A Heather; Engel, Christoph; Eriksson, Mikael; Evans, D Gareth; Fasching, Peter A; Flyger, Henrik; Fostira, Florentia; Friedman, Eitan; Fritschi, Lin; Frost, Debra; Gago-Dominguez, Manuela; Gapstur, Susan M; Garber, Judy; Garcia-Barberan, Vanesa; Garcia-Closas, Montserrat; Garcia-Saenz, Jose A; Gaudet, Mia M; Gayther, Simon A; Gehrig, Andrea; Georgoulias, Vassilios; Giles, Graham G; Godwin, Andrew K; Goldberg, Mark S; Goldgar, David E | Abstract: A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23162-4.

Contains fulltext : 229292.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10(-72)). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10(-50)). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10(-22)) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.

BackgroundThe aetiology of male breast cancer (MBC) is poorly understood. In particular, the extent to which the genetic basis of MBC differs from female breast cancer (FBC) is unknown. A previous genome-wide association study (GWAS) of MBC identified two predisposition loci for the disease, both of which were also associated with risk of FBC.MethodsWe performed genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping of European ancestry MBC case subjects and controls, in three stages. Associations between directly genotyped and imputed SNPs with MBC were assessed using fixed-effects meta-analysis of 1,380 cases and 3,620 controls. Replication genotyping of 810 cases and 1,026 controls was used to validate variants with P-values < 1 x 10-06. Genetic correlation with FBC was evaluated using LD score regression, by comprehensively examining the associations of published FBC risk loci with risk of MBC and by assessing associations between a FBC polygenic risk score (PRS) and MBC. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsThe GWAS identified three novel MBC susceptibility loci that attained genome-wide significance (P < 5 x 10-08). Genetic correlation analysis revealed a strong shared genetic basis with estrogen-receptor (ER) positive FBC. Males in the top quintile of genetic risk had a four-fold increased risk of breast cancer relative to those in the bottom quintile (odds ratio = 3.86, 95% confidence interval = 3.07 to 4.87, P = 2.08 x 10-30).ConclusionsThese findings advance our understanding of the genetic basis of MBC, providing support for an overlapping genetic aetiology with FBC and identifying a four-fold high risk group of susceptible men.

This nationwide study assessed the impact of Lynch syndrome-related risk management guidelines on clinicians’ recommendations of risk management strategies to carriers of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes and the extent to which carriers took up strategies in concordance with guidelines. Clinic files of 464 carriers (with and without colorectal cancer) were audited for carriers who received their genetic testing results in July 2008–July 2009 (i.e. before guideline release), July 2010–July 2011 and July 2012–July 2013 (both after guideline release) at 12 familial cancer clinics (FCCs) to ascertain the extent to which carriers were informed about risk management in accordance with guidelines. All carriers captured by the audit were invited to participate in interviews; 215 were interviewed to assess adherence to recommended risk management guidelines. The rates of documentation in clinic files increased significantly from pre- to post-guideline for only two out of eight risk management strategies. The strategies with the highest compliance of carriers post-guidelines were: uptake of one or two-yearly colonoscopy (87%), followed by hysterectomy to prevent endometrial cancer (68%), aspirin as risk-reducing medication (67%) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (63%). Interrater reliability check for all guidelines showed excellent agreement (k statistics = 0.89). These results indicate that there is scope to further increase provision of advice at FCCs to ensure that all carriers receive recommendations about evidence-based risk management. A multi-pronged behaviour change and implementation science approach tailored to specific barriers is likely to be needed to achieve optimal clinician behaviours and outcomes for carriers.

PurposeThe increasing popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) is thought to be creating a burden on clinical genetic health services worldwide. However, no studies have collected recent evidence regarding the extent of this impact in Australia.MethodsWe administered an online survey to Australian clinical genetics services, asking questions related to DTCGT-related referrals received and outcomes over the past 10 years.ResultsEleven publicly-funded clinical genetics services completed the survey, reporting over 100 DTCGT-related referrals. Most referrals (83%) were made by general practitioners seeking interpretation of DTCGT results. More than 30% of referrals related to imputed genetic risk estimates generated from third-party web-based software tools. Services reported low validation rates for DTCGT results (ConclusionOur study helps quantify the impact of DTCGT on clinical genetics services, and highlights the impact of imputed genetic risk estimates generated from third-party software.

OBJECTIVES:\ud \ud To evaluate the health impact and cost-effectiveness of systematic testing for Lynch syndrome (LS) in people with incident colorectal cancer (CRC) in Australia.\ud DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS:\ud \ud We investigated the impact of LS testing strategies in a micro-simulation model (Policy1-Lynch), explicitly modelling the cost of testing all patients diagnosed with incident CRC during 2017, with detailed modelling of outcomes for patients identified as LS carriers (probands) and their at-risk relatives throughout their lifetimes. For people with confirmed LS, we modelled ongoing colonoscopic surveillance.\ud MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:\ud \ud Cost-effectiveness of six universal tumour testing strategies (testing for DNA mismatch repair deficiencies) and of universal germline gene panel testing of patients with incident CRC; impact on cost-effectiveness of restricting testing by age at CRC diagnosis (all ages, under 50/60/70 years) and of colonoscopic surveillance interval (one, two years).\ud RESULTS:\ud \ud The cost-effectiveness ratio of universal tumour testing strategies (annual colonoscopic surveillance, no testing age limit) compared with no testing ranged from $28 915 to $31 904/life-year saved (LYS) (indicative willingness-to-pay threshold: $30 000-$50 000/LYS). These strategies could avert 184-189 CRC deaths with an additional 30 597-31 084 colonoscopies over the lifetimes of 1000 patients with incident CRC with LS and 1420 confirmed LS carrier relatives (164-166 additional colonoscopies/death averted). The most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $28 915/LYS). Universal germline gene panel testing was not cost-effective compared with universal tumour testing strategies (ICER, $2.4 million/LYS). Immunohistochemistry and BRAF V600E testing was cost-effective at all age limits when paired with 2-yearly colonoscopic surveillance (ICER, $11 525-$32 153/LYS), and required 4778-15 860 additional colonoscopies to avert 46-181 CRC deaths (88-103 additional colonoscopies/death averted).\ud CONCLUSIONS:\ud \ud Universal tumour testing strategies for guiding germline genetic testing of people with incident CRC for LS in Australia are likely to be cost-effective compared with no testing. Universal germline gene panel testing would not currently be cost-effective.

Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Background Dilated cardiomyopathy may be heritable but shows extensive genetic heterogeneity. The utility of whole exome sequencing as a first‐line genetic test for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in a contemporary “real‐world” setting has not been specifically established. Using whole exome sequencing with rigorous, evidence‐based variant interpretation, we aimed to identify the prevalence of a molecular diagnosis in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy in a clinical setting. Methods and Results Whole exome sequencing was performed in eligible patients (n=83) with idiopathic or familial dilated cardiomyopathy. Variants were prioritized for curation in up to 247 genes and classified using American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics–based criteria. Ten (12%) had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Eight (10%) participants had truncating TTN variants classified as variants of uncertain significance. Five (6%) participants had variants of unknown significance according to strict American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics criteria but classified as either pathogenic or likely pathogenic by other clinical laboratories. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were found in 8 genes (all within tier 1 genes), 2 (20%) of which are not included in a standard commercially available dilated cardiomyopathy panel. Using our bioinformatics pipeline, there was an average of 0.74 variants of uncertain significance per case with ≈0.75 person‐hours needed to interpret each of these variants. Conclusions Whole exome sequencing is an effective diagnostic tool for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. With stringent classification using American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics criteria, the rate of detection of pathogenic variants is lower than previous reports. Efforts to improve adherence to these guidelines will be important to prevent erroneous misclassification of nonpathogenic variants in dilated cardiomyopathy genetic testing and inappropriate cascade screening.

AIMS: Unexplained sudden cardiac death (SCD) may be attributable to cardiogenetic disease. Presence or absence of autopsy anomalies detected following premature sudden death direct appropriate clinical evaluation of at-risk relatives towards inherited cardiomyopathies or primary arrhythmia syndromes, respectively. We investigated the relevance of non-diagnostic pathological abnormalities of indeterminate causality (uncertain) such as myocardial hypertrophy, fibrosis, or inflammatory infiltrates to SCD. METHODS AND RESULTS: At-risk relatives of unexplained SCD cases aged 1-64 years without prior cardiac disease (n = 98) with either normal and negative (40%, true sudden arrhythmic death syndrome; SADS) or isolated non-diagnostic (60%, uncertain sudden unexplained death; SUD) cardiac histological autopsy findings at a central forensic pathology unit were referred to the regional unexplained SCD clinic for clinical cardiac phenotyping. Uncertain SUD were older than true SADS cases (31.8 years vs. 21.1 years, P

To review the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cancer risk management interventions for BRCA carriers. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses were identified by searching scientific and health economic databases. Eligible studies modeled the impact of a cancer risk management intervention in BRCA carriers on life expectancy (LE), cancer incidence, or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with or without costs. Twenty-six economic evaluations and eight comparative effectiveness analyses were included. Combined risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and prophylactic mastectomy resulted in the greatest LE and was cost-effective in most analyses. Despite leading to increased LE and QALYs, combined mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was less likely to be cost-effective than either mammography or MRI alone, particularly for women over 50 and BRCA2 carriers. Variation in patient compliance to risk management interventions was incorporated in 11/34 studies with the remaining analyses assuming 100% adherence. Prophylactic surgery and intensive breast screening are effective and cost-effective in models of BRCA carrier risk management. Findings were based predominantly on assuming perfect adherence to recommendations without assessment of the health-care resource use and costs related to engaging patients and maximizing compliance, meaning the real-world impact on clinical outcomes and resource use remains unclear.

Federal funding for germline genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) was recently introduced. Germline testing for HBOC under Medicare Benefits Schedule items 73296/73297 can be requested by any specialist, whereas the previous state- and territory-funded testing was limited to those operating within a familial cancer service. The impact of this decentralisation of HBOC testing on health and economic outcomes is uncertain, primarily as it has potential to significantly disrupt the clinical framework that generated the evidence used to justify clinical implementation of the Medicare Benefits Schedules.

PURPOSE: To estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized. METHODS: We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes. RESULTS: We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10(−76)), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10(−3)), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10(−3)), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10(−2)). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age (P for trend = 2.0 × 10(−3)). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies (P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer. CONCLUSION: These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.

Purpose: Biallelic pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes cause a recessive childhood cancer predisposition syndrome known as constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD). Family members with a heterozygous MMR variant have Lynch syndrome. We aimed at estimating cancer risk in these heterozygous carriers as a novel approach to avoid complicated statistical methods to correct for ascertainment bias.Methods: Cumulative colorectal cancer incidence was estimated in a cohort of PMS2- and MSH6-associated families, ascertained by the CMMRD phenotype of the index, by using mutation probabilities based on kinship coefficients as analytical weights in a proportional hazard regression on the cause-specific hazards. Confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by bootstrapping at the family level.Results: The estimated cumulative colorectal cancer risk at age 70 years for heterozygous PMS2 variant carriers was 8.7% (95% CI 4.3-12.7%) for both sexes combined, and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9-15.3%) for men and 5.9% (95% CI 1.6-11.1%) for women separately. For heterozygous MSH6 variant carriers these estimates are 11.8% (95% CI 4.5-22.7%) for both sexes combined, 10.0% (95% CI 1.83-24.5%) for men and 11.7% (95% CI 2.10-26.5%) for women.Conclusion: Our findings are consistent with previous reports that used more complex statistical methods to correct for ascertainment bias. These results underline the need for MMR gene-specific surveillance protocols for Lynch syndrome.

Background: iPrevent estimates an individual's personal BC risk, using either the IBIS or BOADICEA algorithms, and provides tailored risk management information on screening, lifestyle modifications, risk-reducing surgery and risk-reducing medication. It is designed to be used collaboratively by women and their clinicians. The purpose of this pre-implementation pilot study was to assess the clinical usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype, and to identify barriers to clinical implementation. Exploratory aims investigated patients' BC worry, anxiety, risk perception and knowledge before and after using iPrevent. Methods: Eligible clinicians worked in primary care (PC), breast surgical (BS) or genetics clinics (GC). Their female patients were eligible if aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history. Clinicians were familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical cases, then actor scenarios, and lastly iPrevent was trialed with patients. All participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent. Patients also completed the Lerman BC Worry Scale, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and BC risk perception and prevention knowledge questionnaires before and 2 weeks after using the tool. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: 63 participants comprising 20 clinicians (median age 47 years, 8 PC, 6 BS, 6 GC) and 43 patients (median age 38 years, 16% high risk, 51% moderate risk, 33% average risk) were recruited. Usability was rated above average (SUS score >68) by most clinicians (68%) and patients (76%). Most (79% of clinicians, 81% of patients) agreed iPrevent was 'easy to use', although 10 (53%) clinicians and 10 (27%) patients reported that it was too long. Most clinicians (84%) and patients (86%) found iPrevent 'very' or 'somewhat' helpful. 89% of participants reported that iPrevent provided the right amount of information. 5% reported to 'rarely' or 'not at all' worry about BC before iPrevent, and 29% after use. 25% of patients reported less impact of worrying about BC after iPrevent, 47% were unchanged and 28% reported more impact of worrying about BC after iPrevent use. State anxiety remained the same. 87% of patients correctly reported their risk category after using iPrevent® compared with 40% before. BC prevention knowledge improved for most questions. Conclusions: iPrevent has high usability and acceptability. Exploratory analyses suggest that iPrevent may also improve patients' BC risk perception and knowledge without adversely affecting anxiety or BC worry. Because concerns about length could be a barrier to implementation, data entry has been abbreviated in the modified version of iPrevent that will be publically available. Citation Format: Phillips K-A, Lo L, Bressel M, Collins IM, Emery J, Weideman P, Keogh L, Steel E, Bickerstaffe A, Mann GB, Trainer A, Hopper JL, Antoniou AC, Cuzick J, Butow P. Acceptability and usability of iPrevent, a web-based decision support tool for assessment and management of breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-02.

Background: Identifying the missing hereditary factors underlying the familial risk of breast cancer could have a major and immediate impact on managing the breast cancer risk for these families. Methods: We identified candidate breast cancer predisposition genes through whole exome sequencing of BRCAx families and subsequently sequenced up to 1325 genes, along with 76 common low penetrance variants associated with breast cancer, in index cases from 6,000 BRCAx families and 6,000 cancer free women (ethnically matched on principal component analysis). Results: The role of recently described (PALB2) or suspected (MRE11A) moderately penetrant genes was confirmed. Conversely, the size of the cohort means that the absence of enrichment for loss of function (LoF mutations) provides strong evidence against other reported breast cancer genes (BRIP1, RINT1, RECQL). For further moderate risk variants (in CHEK2, ATM, BRCA2) we observed significant risk modification based on the polygenic risk score (PRS - calculated from the common variant data), with the risk restricted to the co-occurrence of the rare variant and high PRS. Novel candidate genes were identified based on LoF mutations, including NTHL1 (38 cases versus 15 controls, OR 2.5 p=0.002): a member of the base excision repair (BER) pathway. DNA sequencing of the breast carcinomas from 17 heterozygous NTHL1 mutation carriers revealed a strong bias towards a C:G>T:A (C>T) transitions, consistent with a BER defect, which confirmed the recent findings in colorectal carcinomas from bi-allelic NTHL1 mutation carriers. This data extends the cancer predisposition phenotype of NTHL1 to heterozygous carriers. In addition to NTHL1, there are a large number of candidate genes where the ratio of LoF mutations in cases versus controls indicates that they may convey an actionable level of risk; 46 genes (519 families) meet the basic criteria of multiple LoF variants and an OR >2 for cases versus controls – including previously proposed breast cancer genes MRE11A, BLM, MLH1, MYH, FANCD2 and functionally plausible candidates such as MLH3, PARP2 and ATR. Collectively the OR of breast cancer for LoF mutations in this group of genes is 3.3 (95% CI 2.7-3.9, P=3.5x10-41). Conclusion: Our data shows that the effect of rare variation in established and novel breast cancer genes, along with consideration of the background polygenic risk, together explains a substantial component of the heritable risk of breast cancer in our cohort. Citation Format: Campbell IG, Li N, Rowley S, Goode D, Devereux L, McInerny S, Grewal N, Lee A, Trainer A, Wong-Brown M, Scott R, Gorringe K, James P. The contribution of rare variants, polygenic risk, and novel candidate genes to the hereditary risk of breast cancer in a large cohort of breast cancer families [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-04.

Background. Germline mutations in certain genes account for a large proportion of inherited risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The identification of asymptomatic mutation carriers could significantly reduce the incidence of these diseases as active risk management can dramatically reduce the risk of developing cancer. In most countries, identifying high-risk individuals is based on their family history. In general, a family is first identified because one family member develops cancer and, because of high-risk indicators is referred to a familial cancer centre (FCC). However, current data suggests that many BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers do not have a remarkable history of cancer in a close relative. Population-based genetic testing would be a far more effective strategy for identification of at-risk individuals. To test the feasibility of such a strategy we are conducting a population genetic testing trial for actionable mutations in 11 breast/ovarian cancer predisposition genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CDH1, PTEN, STK11, TP53, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D) among 15,000 healthy women from the Australian population. Methods. All subjects are female participants in the LifePool cohort (www.lifepool.org) who had no personal history of breast or ovarian cancer at the time of DNA collection. Participants found to carry an actionable germline mutation were notified by letter with an invitation to contact the PeterMac telephone genetic counselling service for further information and/or also invited for counselling at an FCC. Only participants with an actionable mutation were notified of their genetic testing result. Results. Of the 5,557 women tested to date, 40 (0.72%) were carriers of mutations that are currently actionable in the Australian context (BRCA1 n=7, BRCA2 n=15, PALB2 n=15, ATM n=3). All 40 women accepted the invitation to attend a familial cancer centre for formal predictive testing. Less than 20% of the women would have met the minimum threshold for clinical genetic testing under current guidelines. A further 16 participants (0.29%) carried mutations in BRIP1, RAD51C and RAD51D but were not notified of the result as these genes are not currently actionable in Australia. No mutations were identified in CDH1, PTEN, STK11 or TP53. Conclusions. A relatively large proportion of cancer free-women from Australia carry high-risk mutations in BRCA genes and subsequent uptake of clinical genetic testing was very high. Population-based genetic testing is well accepted and can identify a much larger proportion of the at risk-population than contemporary family history based approaches. Citation Format: Campbell IG, Rowley S, Devereux L, McInerny S, Grewal N, Young M-A, Lee A, Trainer A, James P. Population genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-07.

To explore clinical features and relationship with positive mutation ascertainment in inherited heart diseases in order to develop a clinical tool to assist identification of individuals in whom to offer genetic testing. A clinical tool that increases pre test probability of mutation detection would have the benefits of improving patient counselling, prioritising cases for MPS and allowing equity in decision making.Consecutive MPS mutation detection testing cases were identified (September 2014 - December 2015, n = 126). Cases were scored for the presence of pre-determined clinical and family history variables, blinded to MPS results. Subsequent unblinding allowed ascertainment of the odds ratio (OR) between these clinical variables and positive mutation detection. A clinical tool was developed and variables with higher OR association were given a higher weighting. The mean score in the cohort was 3.94: mutation positive subgroup 4.74, and mutation negative subgroup: 3.49 (t-test, p 0.0001). The clinical tool was validated in a cohort of 40 patients. There was a strong linear correlation between increasing clinical tool score and probability of detecting a mutation (rClinical information on probands and their family history allows identification of individuals with a greater chance of positive mutation detection. This improves pre test counselling, allows equitable identification of individuals in whom to offer cardiac genetic testing and can be calibrated to a predictable ratio of positive mutation and missed opportunity cases for individual health services.

This economic evaluation analyzes the cost-effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies by genotype among women with Lynch syndrome., Key Points Question What are the most cost-effective gene-specific screening and preventive strategies for reducing gynecologic cancer risk for women with Lynch syndrome (LS)? Findings This cost-effectiveness economic evaluation found that optimal screening strategies varied by genotype. A novel 2-stage approach with hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy at age 40 years and delayed oophorectomy at age 50 years was effective and cost-effective for individuals with MLH1 and MSH6 genetic variants, while hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was optimal at age 40 years for individuals with MSH2 genetic variants and at age 50 years for individuals with PMS2 variants. Meaning These findings suggest that surgical decision-making should consider LS genotype for gynecologic cancer prevention and that a novel 2-stage approach may be associated with decreased cancer risk while avoiding early menopause in individuals with select genetic variants., Importance With the expansion of multigene testing for cancer susceptibility, Lynch syndrome (LS) has become more readily identified among women. The condition is caused by germline pathogenic variants in DNA mismatch repair genes (ie, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and is associated with high but variable risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers based on genotype. However, current guidelines on preventive strategies are not specific to genotypes. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of genotype-specific surveillance and preventive strategies for LS-associated gynecologic cancers, including a novel, risk-reducing surgical approach associated with decreased early surgically induced menopause. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation developed a cohort-level Markov simulation model of the natural history of LS-associated gynecologic cancer for each gene, among women from ages 25 to 75 years or until death from a health care perspective. Age was varied at hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (hyst-BSO) and at surveillance initiation, and a 2-stage surgical approach (ie, hysterectomy and salpingectomy at age 40 years and delayed oophorectomy at age 50 years [hyst-BS]) was included. Extensive 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Interventions Hyst-BSO at ages 35 years, 40 years, or 50 years with or without annual surveillance beginning at age 30 years or 35 years or hyst-BS at age 40 years with oophorectomy delayed until age 50 years. Main Outcomes and Measures Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between management strategies within an efficiency frontier. Results For women with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, the optimal strategy was the 2-stage approach, with respective ICERs of $33 269 and $20 008 compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years. Despite being cost-effective, the 2-stage approach was associated with increased cancer incidence and mortality compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MLH1 variants (incidence: 7.76% vs 3.84%; mortality: 5.74% vs 2.55%) and those with MSH6 variants (incidence: 7.24% vs 4.52%; mortality: 5.22% vs 2.97%). Hyst-BSO at age 40 years was optimal for individuals with MSH2 variants, with an ICER of $5180 compared with hyst-BSO at age 35 years, and was associated with 4.42% cancer incidence and 2.97% cancer mortality. For individuals with PMS2 variants, hyst-BSO at age 50 years was optimal and all other strategies were dominated; hyst-BSO at age 50 years was associated with an estimated cancer incidence of 0.68% and cancer mortality of 0.29%. Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that gene-specific preventive strategies for gynecologic cancers in LS may be warranted and support hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MSH2 variants. For individuals with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, these findings suggest that a novel 2-stage surgical approach with delayed oophorectomy may be an alternative to hyst-BSO at age 40 years to avoid early menopause, and for individuals with PMS2 variants, the findings suggest that hyst-BSO may be delayed until age 50 years.