306 results on '"Gaff C."'
Search Results
2. Eliciting parental preferences and values for the return of additional findings from genomic sequencing
- Author
-
Goranitis, I, Meng, Y, Martyn, M, Best, S, Bouffler, S, Bombard, Y, Gaff, C, Stark, Z, Goranitis, I, Meng, Y, Martyn, M, Best, S, Bouffler, S, Bombard, Y, Gaff, C, and Stark, Z
- Abstract
Health economic evidence is needed to inform the design of high-value and cost-effective processes for returning genomic results from analyses for additional findings (AF). This study reports the results of a discrete-choice experiment designed to elicit preferences for the process of returning AF results from the perspective of parents of children with rare conditions and to estimate the value placed on AF analysis. Overall, 94 parents recruited within the Australian Genomics and Melbourne Genomics programmes participated in the survey, providing preferences in a total of 1128 choice scenarios. Statistically significant preferences were identified for the opportunity to change the choices made about AF; receiving positive AF in person from a genetic counsellor; timely access to a medical specialist and high-quality online resources; receiving automatic updates through a secure online portal if new information becomes available; and lower costs. For AF uptake rates ranging between 50–95%, the mean per person value from AF analysis was estimated at AU$450–$1700 (US$300–$1140). The findings enable the design of a value-maximising process of analysis for AF in rare-disease genomic sequencing.
- Published
- 2024
3. Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A theory- and empirically informed evaluation framework
- Author
-
Nisselle, A, Terrill, B, Janinski, M, Martyn, M, Jordan, H, Kaunein, N, Metcalfe, S, Gaff, C, Nisselle, A, Terrill, B, Janinski, M, Martyn, M, Jordan, H, Kaunein, N, Metcalfe, S, and Gaff, C
- Abstract
Implementation of genomic medicine into healthcare requires a workforce educated through effective educational approaches. However, ascertaining the impact of genomics education activities or resources is limited by a lack of evaluation and inconsistent descriptions in the literature. We aim to support those developing genomics education to consider how best to capture evaluation data that demonstrate program outcomes and effectiveness within scope. Here, we present an evaluation framework that is adaptable to multiple settings for use by genomics educators with or without education or evaluation backgrounds. The framework was developed as part of a broader program supporting genomic research translation coordinated by the Australian Genomics consortium. We detail our mixed-methods approach involving an expert workshop, literature review and iterative expert input to reach consensus and synthesis of a new evaluation framework for genomics education. The resulting theory-informed and evidence-based framework encompasses evaluation across all stages of education program development, implementation and reporting, and acknowledges the critical role of stakeholders and the effects of external influences.
- Published
- 2024
4. What's in a name? Justifying terminology for genomic findings beyond the initial test indication: A scoping review
- Author
-
White, S, Haas, M, Laginha, K-J, Laurendet, K, Gaff, C, Vears, D, Newson, AJ, White, S, Haas, M, Laginha, K-J, Laurendet, K, Gaff, C, Vears, D, and Newson, AJ
- Abstract
Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication.
- Published
- 2023
5. Structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics: A scoping review
- Author
-
Brown, Helen, Sherburn, IA, Gaff, C, Taylor, N, Best, S, Brown, Helen, Sherburn, IA, Gaff, C, Taylor, N, and Best, S
- Published
- 2022
6. Structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics: A scoping review
- Author
-
Brown, HL, Sherburn, IA, Gaff, C, Taylor, N, Best, S, Brown, HL, Sherburn, IA, Gaff, C, Taylor, N, and Best, S
- Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the extent to which structured approaches to implementation of clinical genomics, proposed or adapted, are informed by evidence. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to identify peer-reviewed articles and gray literature to report on 4 research questions: 1. What structured approaches have been proposed to support implementation? 2. To what extent are the structured approaches informed by evidence? 3. How have structured approaches been deployed in the genomic setting? 4. What are the intended outcomes of the structured approaches? RESULTS: A total of 30 unique structured approaches to implementation were reported across 23 peer-reviewed publications and 11 gray literature articles. Most approaches were process models, applied in the preadoption implementation phase, focusing on a "service" outcome. Key findings included a lack of implementation science theory informing the development/implementation of newly designed structured approaches in the genomic setting and a lack of measures to assess implementation effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified a significant number of structured approaches developed to inform the implementation of genomic medicine into clinical practice, with limited use of implementation science to support the process. We recommend the use of existing implementation science theory and the expertise of implementation scientists to inform the design of genomic programs being implemented into clinical care.
- Published
- 2022
7. Comparing Survival Outcomes for Advanced Cancer Patients Who Received Complex Genomic Profiling Using a Synthetic Control Arm
- Author
-
O'Haire, S, Degeling, K, Franchini, F, Tran, B, Luen, SJ, Gaff, C, Smith, K, Fox, S, Desai, J, IJzerman, M, O'Haire, S, Degeling, K, Franchini, F, Tran, B, Luen, SJ, Gaff, C, Smith, K, Fox, S, Desai, J, and IJzerman, M
- Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex genomic profiling (CGP) has transformed cancer treatment decision making, yet there is a lack of robust and quantifiable evidence for how utilisation of CGP improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated cohort level clinical effectiveness of CGP to improve overall survival (OS) in real-world advanced cancer patients using a registry-based matched control population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two cohorts of advanced and refractory cancer patients were seen in consecutive series for early phase trial enrolment consideration. The first cohort (CGP group) accessed tumour profiling via a research study; while the second cohort that followed was not profiled. Overall survival between cohorts was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Potential confounding was analysed and adjusted for using stabilised weights based on propensity scores. RESULTS: Within the CGP group, 25 (17.6%) patients received treatment informed by CGP results and this subgroup had significantly improved survival compared with CGP patients in whom results did not impact their treatment (unadjusted HR = 0.44, (0.22-0.88), p = 0.02). However, when comparing the entire CGP cohort with the No CGP cohort, no significant survival benefit was evident with adjusted median OS for CGP of 13.5 months (9.2-17.0) compared with 11.0 (9.2-17.4) for No CGP (adjusted HR = 0.92, (0.65-1.30), p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: This study utilised real-world data to simulate a control arm and quantify the clinical effectiveness of genomic testing. The magnitude of survival benefit for patients who had CGP result-led treatments was insufficient to drive an overall survival gain for the entire tested population. Translation of CGP into clinics requires strategies to ensure higher rates of tested patients obtain clinical benefit to deliver on the value proposition of CGP in an advanced cancer population.
- Published
- 2022
8. Ensuring best practice in genomics education and evaluation: reporting item standards for education and its evaluation in genomics (RISE2 Genomics)
- Author
-
Nisselle, A, Janinski, M, Martyn, M, McClaren, B, Kaunein, N, Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics Expert Group, Barlow-Stewart, K, Belcher, A, Bernat, JA, Best, S, Bishop, M, Carroll, JC, Cornel, M, Dissanayake, VHW, Dodds, A, Dunlop, K, Garg, G, Gear, R, Graves, D, Knight, K, Korf, B, Kumar, D, Laurino, M, Ma, A, Maguire, J, Mallett, A, McCarthy, M, McEwen, A, Mulder, N, Patel, C, Quinlan, C, Reed, K, Riggs, ER, Sinnerbrink, I, Slavotinek, A, Suppiah, V, Terrill, B, Tobias, ES, Tonkin, E, Trumble, S, Wessels, T-M, Metcalfe, S, Jordan, H, and Gaff, C
- Subjects
Genetics & Heredity ,0604 Genetics, 1103 Clinical Sciences - Abstract
PurposeWidespread, quality genomics education for health professionals is required to create a competent genomic workforce. A lack of standards for reporting genomics education and evaluation limits the evidence base for replication and comparison. We therefore undertook a consensus process to develop a recommended minimum set of information to support consistent reporting of design, development, delivery, and evaluation of genomics education interventions.MethodsDraft standards were derived from literature (25 items from 21 publications). Thirty-six international experts were purposively recruited for three rounds of a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, utility, and design.ResultsThe final standards include 18 items relating to development and delivery of genomics education interventions, 12 relating to evaluation, and 1 on stakeholder engagement.ConclusionThese Reporting Item Standards for Education and its Evaluation in Genomics (RISE2 Genomics) are intended to be widely applicable across settings and health professions. Their use by those involved in reporting genomics education interventions and evaluation, as well as adoption by journals and policy makers as the expected standard, will support greater transparency, consistency, and comprehensiveness of reporting. Consequently, the genomics education evidence base will be more robust, enabling high-quality education and evaluation across diverse settings.
- Published
- 2021
9. Mendelian randomisation study of smoking exposure in relation to breast cancer risk
- Author
-
Park, HA, Neumeyer, S, Michailidou, K, Bolla, MK, Wang, Q, Dennis, J, Ahearn, TU, Andrulis, IL, Anton-Culver, H, Antonenkova, NN, Arndt, V, Aronson, KJ, Augustinsson, A, Baten, A, Beane Freeman, LE, Becher, H, Beckmann, MW, Behrens, S, Benitez, J, Bermisheva, M, Bogdanova, NV, Bojesen, SE, Brauch, H, Brenner, H, Brucker, SY, Burwinkel, B, Campa, D, Canzian, F, Castelao, JE, Chanock, SJ, Chenevix-Trench, G, Clarke, CL, Børresen-Dale, A-L, Grenaker Alnæs, GI, Sahlberg, KK, Ottestad, L, Kåresen, R, Schlichting, E, Holmen, MM, Sauer, T, Haakensen, V, Engebråten, O, Naume, B, Fosså, A, Kiserud, CE, Reinertsen, KV, Helland, Å, Riis, M, Geisler, J, Conroy, DM, Couch, FJ, Cox, A, Cross, SS, Czene, K, Daly, MB, Devilee, P, Dörk, T, dos-Santos-Silva, I, Dwek, M, Eccles, DM, Eliassen, AH, Engel, C, Eriksson, M, Evans, DG, Fasching, PA, Flyger, H, Fritschi, L, García-Closas, M, García-Sáenz, JA, Gaudet, MM, Giles, GG, Glendon, G, Goldberg, MS, Goldgar, DE, González-Neira, A, Grip, M, Guénel, P, Hahnen, E, Haiman, CA, Håkansson, N, Hall, P, Hamann, U, Han, S, Harkness, EF, Hart, SN, He, W, Heemskerk-Gerritsen, BAM, Hopper, JL, Hunter, DJ, Clarke, C, Marsh, D, Scott, R, Baxter, R, Yip, D, Carpenter, J, Davis, A, Pathmanathan, N, Simpson, P, Graham, D, Sachchithananthan, M, Amor, D, Andrews, L, Antill, Y, Balleine, R, Beesley, J, Bennett, I, Bogwitz, M, Botes, L, Brennan, M, Brown, M, Buckley, M, Burke, J, Butow, P, Caldon, L, Campbell, I, Chauhan, D, Chauhan, M, Christian, A, Cohen, P, Colley, A, Crook, A, Cui, J, Cummings, M, Dawson, S-J, DeFazio, A, Delatycki, M, Dickson, R, Dixon, J, Edkins, T, Edwards, S, Farshid, G, Fellows, A, Fenton, G, Field, M, Flanagan, J, Fong, P, Forrest, L, Fox, S, French, J, Friedlander, M, Gaff, C, Gattas, M, George, P, Greening, S, Harris, M, Hart, S, Hayward, N, Hopper, J, Hoskins, C, Hunt, C, James, P, Jenkins, M, Kidd, A, Kirk, J, Koehler, J, Kollias, J, Lakhani, S, Lawrence, M, Lindeman, G, Lipton, L, Lobb, L, Mann, G, McLachlan, SA, Meiser, B, Milne, R, Nightingale, S, O’Connell, S, O’Sullivan, S, Ortega, DG, Pachter, N, Patterson, B, Pearn, A, Phillips, K, Pieper, E, Rickard, E, Robinson, B, Saleh, M, Salisbury, E, Saunders, C, Saunus, J, Scott, C, Sexton, A, Shelling, A, Southey, M, Spurdle, A, Taylor, J, Taylor, R, Thorne, H, Trainer, A, Tucker, K, Visvader, J, Walker, L, Williams, R, Winship, I, Young, MA, Jager, A, Jakubowska, A, John, EM, Jung, A, Kaaks, R, Kapoor, PM, Keeman, R, Khusnutdinova, E, Kitahara, CM, Koppert, LB, Koutros, S, Kristensen, VN, Kurian, AW, Lacey, J, Lambrechts, D, Le Marchand, L, Lo, W-Y, Lubiński, J, Mannermaa, A, Manoochehri, M, Margolin, S, Martinez, ME, Mavroudis, D, Meindl, A, Menon, U, Milne, RL, Muranen, TA, Nevanlinna, H, Newman, WG, Nordestgaard, BG, Offit, K, Olshan, AF, Olsson, H, Park-Simon, T-W, Peterlongo, P, Peto, J, Plaseska-Karanfilska, D, Presneau, N, Radice, P, Rennert, G, Rennert, HS, Romero, A, Saloustros, E, Sawyer, EJ, Schmidt, MK, Schmutzler, RK, Schoemaker, MJ, Schwentner, L, Shah, M, Shu, X-O, Simard, J, Smeets, A, Southey, MC, Spinelli, JJ, Stevens, V, Swerdlow, AJ, Tamimi, RM, Tapper, WJ, Taylor, JA, Terry, MB, Tomlinson, I, Troester, MA, Truong, T, Vachon, CM, van Veen, EM, Vijai, J, Wang, S, Wendt, C, Winqvist, R, Wolk, A, Ziogas, A, Dunning, AM, Pharoah, PDP, Easton, DF, Zheng, W, Kraft, P, Chang-Claude, J, HUS Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Park, Hanla A. [0000-0001-8055-3729], Dennis, Joe [0000-0003-4591-1214], Augustinsson, Annelie [0000-0003-3415-0536], Brenner, Hermann [0000-0002-6129-1572], Canzian, Federico [0000-0002-4261-4583], Cox, Angela [0000-0002-5138-1099], Devilee, Peter [0000-0002-8023-2009], Fasching, Peter A. [0000-0003-4885-8471], Harkness, Elaine F. [0000-0001-6625-7739], Hart, Steven N. [0000-0001-7714-2734], Heemskerk-Gerritsen, Bernadette A. M. [0000-0002-9724-6693], Jakubowska, Anna [0000-0002-5650-0501], Kapoor, Pooja Middha [0000-0001-5503-8215], Kurian, Allison W. [0000-0002-6175-9470], Newman, William G. [0000-0002-6382-4678], Peterlongo, Paolo [0000-0001-6951-6855], Peto, Julian [0000-0002-1685-8912], Sawyer, Elinor J. [0000-0001-8285-4111], Scott, Christopher [0000-0003-1340-0647], Smeets, Ann [0000-0002-5091-6602], Tomlinson, Ian [0000-0003-3037-1470], Truong, Thérèse [0000-0002-2943-6786], Pharoah, Paul D. P. [0000-0001-8494-732X], and Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,Oncology ,Medicin och hälsovetenskap ,Cancer Research ,Genotyping Techniques ,Breast Neoplasms ,Case-Control Studies ,Cigarette Smoking ,Female ,Genetic Pleiotropy ,Genetic Predisposition to Disease ,Genome-Wide Association Study ,Humans ,Mendelian Randomization Analysis ,Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide ,ALCOHOL ,Medical and Health Sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Breast cancer ,Pleiotropy ,Epidemiology ,Medicine ,TOBACCO ,Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology ,Cigarette Smoking/adverse effects ,WOMEN ,ASSOCIATION ,Single Nucleotide ,3. Good health ,Substance abuse ,692/699/67/1347 ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Life Sciences & Biomedicine ,692/499 ,medicine.medical_specialty ,3122 Cancers ,Single-nucleotide polymorphism ,Article ,03 medical and health sciences ,Internal medicine ,ddc:610 ,Polymorphism ,Genetic association ,Science & Technology ,business.industry ,Cancer ,medicine.disease ,030104 developmental biology ,Clinical research ,Risk factors ,TISSUE ,INFERENCE ,CIGARETTE-SMOKING ,business - Abstract
Background Despite a modest association between tobacco smoking and breast cancer risk reported by recent epidemiological studies, it is still equivocal whether smoking is causally related to breast cancer risk. Methods We applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) to evaluate a potential causal effect of cigarette smoking on breast cancer risk. Both individual-level data as well as summary statistics for 164 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in genome-wide association studies of lifetime smoking index (LSI) or cigarette per day (CPD) were used to obtain MR effect estimates. Data from 108,420 invasive breast cancer cases and 87,681 controls were used for the LSI analysis and for the CPD analysis conducted among ever-smokers from 26,147 cancer cases and 26,072 controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy. Results Genetically predicted LSI was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.18 per SD, 95% CI: 1.07–1.30, P = 0.11 × 10–2), but there was no evidence of association for genetically predicted CPD (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78–1.19, P = 0.85). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and showed no strong evidence of pleiotropic effect. Conclusion Our MR study provides supportive evidence for a potential causal association with breast cancer risk for lifetime smoking exposure but not cigarettes per day among smokers.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors
- Author
-
Hoskins, C, Gaff, C, McEwen, A, Macciocca, I, Pearn, A, Shalhoub, C, Salvemini, H, Berkman, J, Riley, KE, Williams, R, Milward, M, Young, M-A, Hoskins, C, Gaff, C, McEwen, A, Macciocca, I, Pearn, A, Shalhoub, C, Salvemini, H, Berkman, J, Riley, KE, Williams, R, Milward, M, and Young, M-A
- Abstract
As a result of the ongoing global expansion of genetic counseling, the need to formalize a system of professional regulation for genetic counselors was identified in Australasia. In June 2017, under the auspices of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA), a working party was convened. The purpose of the working party was to provide strategic leadership for the profession of Australasian genetic counselors with a goal to formalize a national regulatory framework for genetic counselors across both Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions. This was ultimately achieved in Australia through full membership with the National Alliance of Self-Regulating Health Professions (NASRHP) while the profession of genetic counseling in New Zealand is utilizing this framework to establish their regulation pathway. Regulation has a number of implications for genetic counselors, their employers, and the wider community, with the primary purpose of regulation being protection of the public from harm. This paper details the process of formalizing self-regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia, by defining professional regulation; outlining the purpose of regulation and the status of regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia and internationally, as well as health professionals more broadly; exploring the challenges of establishing regulation in Australasia; and the next steps for regulation in Australasia. Through detailing this process, the intention is to provide a framework to support genetic counseling colleagues internationally as well as other health professions in Australasia to explore and achieve regulation through their respective jurisdiction.
- Published
- 2021
11. The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study
- Author
-
Tutty, E, Hickerton, C, Terrill, B, McClaren, B, Tytherleigh, R, Stackpoole, E, Savard, J, Newson, A, Middleton, A, Nisselle, A, Cusack, M, Adamski, M, Gaff, C, Metcalfe, S, Tutty, E, Hickerton, C, Terrill, B, McClaren, B, Tytherleigh, R, Stackpoole, E, Savard, J, Newson, A, Middleton, A, Nisselle, A, Cusack, M, Adamski, M, Gaff, C, and Metcalfe, S
- Abstract
Background: Consumer genomic testing for nutrition and wellness, (nutritional genomics), is becoming increasingly popular. Concurrently, health-care practitioners (HPs) working in private practice (including doctors interested in integrative medicine, private genetic counsellors, pharmacists, dieticians, naturopaths and nutritionists) are involved as test facilitators or interpreters. Objective: To explore Australian consumers’ and HPs’ experiences with nutrigenomic testing. Method: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted using predominantly purposive sampling. The two data sets were analysed individually, then combined, using a constant comparative, thematic approach. Results: Overall, 45 interviews were conducted with consumers (n = 18) and HPs (n = 27). Many of the consumer interviewees experienced chronic ill-health. Nutrigenomic testing was perceived as empowering and a source of hope for answers. While most made changes to their diet/supplements post-test, self-reported health improvements were small. A positive relationship with their HP appeared to minimize disappointment. HPs’ adoption and views of nutrigenomic testing varied. Those enthusiastic about testing saw the possibilities it could offer. However, many felt nutrigenomic testing was not the only ‘tool’ to utilize when offering health care. Discussion: This research highlights the important role HPs play in consumers’ experiences of nutrigenomics. The varied practice suggests relevant HPs require upskilling in this area to at least support their patients/clients, even if nutrigenomic testing is not part of their practice. Patient or public contribution: Advisory group included patient/public group representatives who informed study design; focus group participants gave feedback on the survey from which consumer interviewees were sourced. This informed the HP data set design. Interviewees from HP data set assisted with snowball sampling.
- Published
- 2021
12. Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Exome Analysis as a Diagnostic Test in Glomerular Diseases.
- Author
-
Jayasinghe K., Wu Y., Stark Z., Kerr P.G., Mallett A.J., Gaff C., Martyn M., Goranitis I., Quinlan C., Jayasinghe K., Wu Y., Stark Z., Kerr P.G., Mallett A.J., Gaff C., Martyn M., Goranitis I., and Quinlan C.
- Abstract
Background: Despite the emergence of diagnostic and clinical utility evidence in nephrology, publicly funded access to genomic testing is restricted in most health care systems. To establish genomic sequencing as a clinical test, an evaluation of cost-effectiveness is urgently required. Method(s): An economic evaluation, informed by a primary clinical study and available clinical evidence and guidelines in nephrology, was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and optimal timing of exome sequencing (ES) in adults and children with suspected monogenic glomerular diseases compared with nongenomic investigations (NGIs). Six diagnostic strategies reflecting current practice and recommended models of care in Australia were modeled: (i) NGIs, (ii) late gene panel followed by ES, (iii) late ES, (iv) early gene panel, (v) early gene panel followed by ES, and (vi) early ES. Result(s): ES with targeted analysis achieved a diagnosis in 23 of 63 (36.5%) adults and 10 of 24 (41.6%) children. NGIs were estimated to diagnose 4.0% of children, with an average estimated cost of AU$6120 per child. Integrating ES as a first-line test in children was cost saving, with an incremental cost saving of AU$3230 per additional diagnosis compared with NGIs. In adults, NGIs was estimated to diagnose 8% of patients, with an average estimated cost of AU$1830 per person. In adults, integrating ES early resulted in an incremental cost per additional diagnosis of AU$5460 relative to NGIs. Conclusion(s): Early ES with targeted analysis was effective for diagnosing monogenic kidney disease, with substantial cost savings in children.Copyright © 2021
- Published
- 2021
13. Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease.
- Author
-
Quinlan C., Wardrop L., West K.H., White S.M., Wilkins E., Mallett A.J., Jayasinghe K., Stark Z., Kerr P.G., Gaff C., Martyn M., Whitlam J., Creighton B., Donaldson E., Hunter M., Jarmolowicz A., Johnstone L., Krzesinski E., Lunke S., Lynch E., Nicholls K., Patel C., Prawer Y., Ryan J., See E.J., Talbot A., Trainer A., Tytherleigh R., Valente G., Wallis M., Quinlan C., Wardrop L., West K.H., White S.M., Wilkins E., Mallett A.J., Jayasinghe K., Stark Z., Kerr P.G., Gaff C., Martyn M., Whitlam J., Creighton B., Donaldson E., Hunter M., Jarmolowicz A., Johnstone L., Krzesinski E., Lunke S., Lynch E., Nicholls K., Patel C., Prawer Y., Ryan J., See E.J., Talbot A., Trainer A., Tytherleigh R., Valente G., and Wallis M.
- Abstract
Purpose: To determine the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease. Method(s): 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. Result(s): 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 < 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%), changing surveillance in 35/80 (44%), and changing the treatment plan in 16/80 (20%). In cases with no change to management in the proband, the ES result had implications for the management of family members in 26/33 (79%). Cascade testing was subsequently offered to 40/80 families (50%). Conclusion(s): In this pragmatic pediatric and adult cohort with suspected monogenic kidney disease, ES had high diagnostic and clinical utility. Our findings, including predictors of positive diagnosis, can be used to guide clinical practice and health service design.Copyright © 2020, The Author(s).
- Published
- 2021
14. Mendelian randomisation study of smoking exposure in relation to breast cancer risk.
- Author
-
Park H.A., Neumeyer S., Michailidou K., Bolla M.K., Wang Q., Dennis J., Ahearn T.U., Andrulis I.L., Anton-Culver H., Antonenkova N.N., Arndt V., Aronson K.J., Augustinsson A., Baten A., Beane Freeman L.E., Becher H., Beckmann M.W., Behrens S., Benitez J., Bermisheva M., Bogdanova N.V., Bojesen S.E., Brauch H., Brenner H., Brucker S.Y., Burwinkel B., Campa D., Canzian F., Castelao J.E., Chanock S.J., Clarke C.L., Borresen-Dale A.-L., Grenaker Alnaes G.I., Sahlberg K.K., Ottestad L., Karesen R., Schlichting E., Holmen M.M., Sauer T., Haakensen V., Engebraten O., Naume B., Fossa A., Kiserud C.E., Reinertsen K.V., Helland A., Riis M., Geisler J., Conroy D.M., Couch F.J., Cox A., Cross S.S., Czene K., Daly M.B., Devilee P., Dork T., dos-Santos-Silva I., Dwek M., Eccles D.M., Eliassen A.H., Engel C., Eriksson M., Evans D.G., Fasching P.A., Flyger H., Fritschi L., Garcia-Closas M., Garcia-Saenz J.A., Gaudet M.M., Giles G.G., Glendon G., Goldberg M.S., Goldgar D.E., Gonzalez-Neira A., Grip M., Guenel P., Hahnen E., Haiman C.A., Hakansson N., Hall P., Hamann U., Han S., Harkness E.F., Hart S.N., He W., Heemskerk-Gerritsen B.A.M., Hopper J.L., Hunter D.J., Clarke C., Baxter R., Yip D., Carpenter J., Davis A., Pathmanathan N., Graham D., Sachchithananthan M., Amor D., Andrews L., Antill Y., Balleine R., Beesley J., Bennett I., Bogwitz M., Botes L., Brennan M., Brown M., Buckley M., Burke J., Butow P., Caldon L., Campbell I., Chauhan D., Chauhan M., Chenevix-Trench G., Christian A., Cohen P., Colley A., Crook A., Cui J., Cummings M., Dawson S.-J., DeFazio A., Delatycki M., Dickson R., Dixon J., Edkins T., Edwards S., Farshid G., Fellows A., Fenton G., Field M., Flanagan J., Fong P., Forrest L., Fox S., French J., Friedlander M., Gaff C., Gattas M., George P., Greening S., Harris M., Hart S., Hayward N., Hopper J., Hoskins C., Hunt C., James P., Jenkins M., Kidd A., Kirk J., Koehler J., Kollias J., Lakhani S., Lawrence M., Lindeman G., Lipton L., Lobb L., Mann G., Marsh D., McLachlan S.A., Meiser B., Milne R., Nightingale S., O'Connell S., O'Sullivan S., Ortega D.G., Pachter N., Patterson B., Pearn A., Phillips K., Pieper E., Rickard E., Robinson B., Saleh M., Salisbury E., Saunders C., Saunus J., Scott R., Sexton A., Shelling A., Simpson P., Southey M., Spurdle A., Taylor J., Taylor R., Thorne H., Trainer A., Tucker K., Visvader J., Walker L., Williams R., Winship I., Young M.A., Jager A., Jakubowska A., John E.M., Jung A., Kaaks R., Kapoor P.M., Keeman R., Khusnutdinova E., Kitahara C.M., Koppert L.B., Koutros S., Kristensen V.N., Kurian A.W., Lacey J., Lambrechts D., Le Marchand L., Lo W.-Y., Lubinski J., Mannermaa A., Manoochehri M., Margolin S., Martinez M.E., Mavroudis D., Meindl A., Menon U., Milne R.L., Muranen T.A., Nevanlinna H., Newman W.G., Nordestgaard B.G., Offit K., Olshan A.F., Olsson H., Park-Simon T.-W., Peterlongo P., Peto J., Plaseska-Karanfilska D., Presneau N., Radice P., Rennert G., Rennert H.S., Romero A., Saloustros E., Sawyer E.J., Schmidt M.K., Schmutzler R.K., Schoemaker M.J., Schwentner L., Scott C., Shah M., Shu X.-O., Simard J., Smeets A., Southey M.C., Spinelli J.J., Stevens V., Swerdlow A.J., Tamimi R.M., Tapper W.J., Taylor J.A., Terry M.B., Tomlinson I., Troester M.A., Truong T., Vachon C.M., van Veen E.M., Vijai J., Wang S., Wendt C., Winqvist R., Wolk A., Ziogas A., Dunning A.M., Pharoah P.D.P., Easton D.F., Zheng W., Kraft P., Chang-Claude J., Park H.A., Neumeyer S., Michailidou K., Bolla M.K., Wang Q., Dennis J., Ahearn T.U., Andrulis I.L., Anton-Culver H., Antonenkova N.N., Arndt V., Aronson K.J., Augustinsson A., Baten A., Beane Freeman L.E., Becher H., Beckmann M.W., Behrens S., Benitez J., Bermisheva M., Bogdanova N.V., Bojesen S.E., Brauch H., Brenner H., Brucker S.Y., Burwinkel B., Campa D., Canzian F., Castelao J.E., Chanock S.J., Clarke C.L., Borresen-Dale A.-L., Grenaker Alnaes G.I., Sahlberg K.K., Ottestad L., Karesen R., Schlichting E., Holmen M.M., Sauer T., Haakensen V., Engebraten O., Naume B., Fossa A., Kiserud C.E., Reinertsen K.V., Helland A., Riis M., Geisler J., Conroy D.M., Couch F.J., Cox A., Cross S.S., Czene K., Daly M.B., Devilee P., Dork T., dos-Santos-Silva I., Dwek M., Eccles D.M., Eliassen A.H., Engel C., Eriksson M., Evans D.G., Fasching P.A., Flyger H., Fritschi L., Garcia-Closas M., Garcia-Saenz J.A., Gaudet M.M., Giles G.G., Glendon G., Goldberg M.S., Goldgar D.E., Gonzalez-Neira A., Grip M., Guenel P., Hahnen E., Haiman C.A., Hakansson N., Hall P., Hamann U., Han S., Harkness E.F., Hart S.N., He W., Heemskerk-Gerritsen B.A.M., Hopper J.L., Hunter D.J., Clarke C., Baxter R., Yip D., Carpenter J., Davis A., Pathmanathan N., Graham D., Sachchithananthan M., Amor D., Andrews L., Antill Y., Balleine R., Beesley J., Bennett I., Bogwitz M., Botes L., Brennan M., Brown M., Buckley M., Burke J., Butow P., Caldon L., Campbell I., Chauhan D., Chauhan M., Chenevix-Trench G., Christian A., Cohen P., Colley A., Crook A., Cui J., Cummings M., Dawson S.-J., DeFazio A., Delatycki M., Dickson R., Dixon J., Edkins T., Edwards S., Farshid G., Fellows A., Fenton G., Field M., Flanagan J., Fong P., Forrest L., Fox S., French J., Friedlander M., Gaff C., Gattas M., George P., Greening S., Harris M., Hart S., Hayward N., Hopper J., Hoskins C., Hunt C., James P., Jenkins M., Kidd A., Kirk J., Koehler J., Kollias J., Lakhani S., Lawrence M., Lindeman G., Lipton L., Lobb L., Mann G., Marsh D., McLachlan S.A., Meiser B., Milne R., Nightingale S., O'Connell S., O'Sullivan S., Ortega D.G., Pachter N., Patterson B., Pearn A., Phillips K., Pieper E., Rickard E., Robinson B., Saleh M., Salisbury E., Saunders C., Saunus J., Scott R., Sexton A., Shelling A., Simpson P., Southey M., Spurdle A., Taylor J., Taylor R., Thorne H., Trainer A., Tucker K., Visvader J., Walker L., Williams R., Winship I., Young M.A., Jager A., Jakubowska A., John E.M., Jung A., Kaaks R., Kapoor P.M., Keeman R., Khusnutdinova E., Kitahara C.M., Koppert L.B., Koutros S., Kristensen V.N., Kurian A.W., Lacey J., Lambrechts D., Le Marchand L., Lo W.-Y., Lubinski J., Mannermaa A., Manoochehri M., Margolin S., Martinez M.E., Mavroudis D., Meindl A., Menon U., Milne R.L., Muranen T.A., Nevanlinna H., Newman W.G., Nordestgaard B.G., Offit K., Olshan A.F., Olsson H., Park-Simon T.-W., Peterlongo P., Peto J., Plaseska-Karanfilska D., Presneau N., Radice P., Rennert G., Rennert H.S., Romero A., Saloustros E., Sawyer E.J., Schmidt M.K., Schmutzler R.K., Schoemaker M.J., Schwentner L., Scott C., Shah M., Shu X.-O., Simard J., Smeets A., Southey M.C., Spinelli J.J., Stevens V., Swerdlow A.J., Tamimi R.M., Tapper W.J., Taylor J.A., Terry M.B., Tomlinson I., Troester M.A., Truong T., Vachon C.M., van Veen E.M., Vijai J., Wang S., Wendt C., Winqvist R., Wolk A., Ziogas A., Dunning A.M., Pharoah P.D.P., Easton D.F., Zheng W., Kraft P., and Chang-Claude J.
- Abstract
Background: Despite a modest association between tobacco smoking and breast cancer risk reported by recent epidemiological studies, it is still equivocal whether smoking is causally related to breast cancer risk. Method(s): We applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) to evaluate a potential causal effect of cigarette smoking on breast cancer risk. Both individual-level data as well as summary statistics for 164 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in genome-wide association studies of lifetime smoking index (LSI) or cigarette per day (CPD) were used to obtain MR effect estimates. Data from 108,420 invasive breast cancer cases and 87,681 controls were used for the LSI analysis and for the CPD analysis conducted among ever-smokers from 26,147 cancer cases and 26,072 controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy. Result(s): Genetically predicted LSI was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.18 per SD, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, P = 0.11 x 10-2), but there was no evidence of association for genetically predicted CPD (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19, P = 0.85). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and showed no strong evidence of pleiotropic effect. Conclusion(s): Our MR study provides supportive evidence for a potential causal association with breast cancer risk for lifetime smoking exposure but not cigarettes per day among smokers.Copyright © 2021, The Author(s).
- Published
- 2021
15. The clinical utility of exome sequencing and extended bioinformatic analyses in adolescents and adults with a broad range of neurological phenotypes: an Australian perspective.
- Author
-
O'Keefe M., Schneider A., Lynch E., Martyn M., Velakoulis D., Leventer R., Rafehi H., Chong B., Stark Z., Ademi Z., Gaff C., Huq A., Walsh M., James P.A., Krzesinski E.I., Wallis M., Stutterd C.A., Bahlo M., Delatycki M.B., Berkovic S.F., Kwan P., Fahey M., Lunke S., Phelan D.G., Eratne D., Siemering K., West K., Sexton A., Jarmolowicz A., Taylor J.A., Schultz J., Purvis R., Uebergang E., Chalinor H., Creighton B., Gelfand N., Saks T., Prawer Y., Smagarinsky Y., Pan T., Goranitis I., O'Keefe M., Schneider A., Lynch E., Martyn M., Velakoulis D., Leventer R., Rafehi H., Chong B., Stark Z., Ademi Z., Gaff C., Huq A., Walsh M., James P.A., Krzesinski E.I., Wallis M., Stutterd C.A., Bahlo M., Delatycki M.B., Berkovic S.F., Kwan P., Fahey M., Lunke S., Phelan D.G., Eratne D., Siemering K., West K., Sexton A., Jarmolowicz A., Taylor J.A., Schultz J., Purvis R., Uebergang E., Chalinor H., Creighton B., Gelfand N., Saks T., Prawer Y., Smagarinsky Y., Pan T., and Goranitis I.
- Abstract
Currently there is no secured ongoing funding in Australia for next generation sequencing (NGS) such as exome sequencing (ES) for adult neurological disorders. Studies have focused on paediatric populations in research or highly specialised settings, utilised standard NGS pipelines focusing only on small insertions, deletions and single nucleotide variants, and not explored impacts on management in detail. This prospective multi-site study performed ES and an extended bioinformatics repeat expansion analysis pipeline, on patients with broad phenotypes (ataxia, dementia, dystonia, spastic paraparesis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease and complex/not-otherwise-specified), with symptom onset between 2 and 60 years. Genomic data analysis was phenotype-driven, using virtual gene panels, reported according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines. One-hundred-and-sixty patients (51% female) were included, median age 52 years (range 14-79) and median 9 years of symptoms. 34/160 (21%) patients received a genetic diagnosis. Highest diagnostic rates were in spastic paraparesis (10/25, 40%), complex/not-otherwise-specified (10/38, 26%) and ataxia (7/28, 25%) groups. Findings were considered 'possible/uncertain' in 21/160 patients. Repeat expansion detection identified an unexpected diagnosis of Huntington disease in an ataxic patient with negative ES. Impacts on management, such as more precise and tailored care, were seen in most diagnosed patients (23/34, 68%). ES and a novel bioinformatics analysis pipepline had a substantial diagnostic yield (21%) and management impacts for most diagnosed patients, in heterogeneous, complex, mainly adult-onset neurological disorders in real-world settings in Australia, providing evidence for NGS and complementary multiple, new technologies as valuable diagnostic tools.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V.
- Published
- 2021
16. A cost-effectiveness and utility analysis of genomic sequencing in a prospective versus historical cohort of complex pediatric patients.
- Author
-
Prawer Y., Martin M., McEwan C., Goranitis I., Gaff C., Brett G., Jarmolowicz A., Valente G., Samarinsky Y., White S.M., Yeung A., Tan N.B., Tan T.Y., Stark Z., Brown N., Hunter M.J., Delatycki M., Stutterd C., Savarirayan R., McGillivray G., Stapleton R., Kumble S., Downie L., Regan M., Lunke S., Chong B., Phelan D., Prawer Y., Martin M., McEwan C., Goranitis I., Gaff C., Brett G., Jarmolowicz A., Valente G., Samarinsky Y., White S.M., Yeung A., Tan N.B., Tan T.Y., Stark Z., Brown N., Hunter M.J., Delatycki M., Stutterd C., Savarirayan R., McGillivray G., Stapleton R., Kumble S., Downie L., Regan M., Lunke S., Chong B., and Phelan D.
- Abstract
The diagnosis of children with genetic conditions places a significant economic burden on health care services. The lack of well-defined comparative cohorts has been a limitation of health economic studies comparing first-line genomic sequencing (GS) against traditional approaches. Aim(s): To evaluate utility and cost effectiveness of early GS in pediatric patients with complex monogenic conditions compared to a matched historical cohort. Method(s): Data, including diagnosis rate and investigation costs, were collected in a prospective cohort of 92 pediatric patients who underwent singleton GS over an 18-month period (2016-2017). Inclusion required patients to have two of the following: a condition with high morbidity or mortality, a multi-system disease involving three or more organ systems, or severe limitation of daily function. For comparison, data were collected in a historical patient cohort fulfilling the inclusion criteria who underwent traditional investigations in the two years (2012-2013) prior to the availability of clinical genomic sequencing. Result(s): Genomic sequencing yielded a diagnosis in 42% while traditional investigations yielded a diagnosis in 23% (p = 0.003). 75% of diagnosed patients experienced a change in management, compared to 33% of diagnosed patients who underwent traditional investigations. In the GS cohort, four times fewer invasive investigations were observed. Compared to traditional investigations, singleton genomic sequencing at a cost of $3100 AUD resulted in a mean saving per person of $2780 AUD (95%CI $1585-$3974). Conclusion(s): Early genomic sequencing is highly costeffective while doubling the diagnostic yield of traditional approaches and improving the care of patients with complex genetic conditions.
- Published
- 2021
17. CYP3A7*1C allele: linking premenopausal oestrone and progesterone levels with risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancers.
- Author
-
Johnson N., Maguire S., Morra A., Kapoor P.M., Tomczyk K., Jones M.E., Schoemaker M.J., Gilham C., Bolla M.K., Wang Q., Dennis J., Ahearn T.U., Andrulis I.L., Anton-Culver H., Antonenkova N.N., Arndt V., Aronson K.J., Augustinsson A., Baynes C., Freeman L.E.B., Beckmann M.W., Benitez J., Bermisheva M., Blomqvist C., Boeckx B., Bogdanova N.V., Bojesen S.E., Brauch H., Brenner H., Burwinkel B., Campa D., Canzian F., Castelao J.E., Chanock S.J., Chenevix-Trench G., Clarke C.L., Borresen-Dale A.-L., Alnaes G.I.G., Sahlberg K.K., Ottestad L., Karesen R., Schlichting E., Holmen M.M., Sauer T., Haakensen V., Engebraten O., Naume B., Fossa A., Kiserud C.E., Reinertsen K.V., Helland A., Riis M., Geisler J., Conroy D.M., Couch F.J., Cox A., Cross S.S., Czene K., Dork T., Eliassen A.H., Engel C., Evans D.G., Fasching P.A., Figueroa J., Floris G., Flyger H., Gago-Dominguez M., Gapstur S.M., Garcia-Closas M., Gaudet M.M., Giles G.G., Goldberg M.S., Gonzalez-Neira A., Bowtell D.D.L., Webb P.M., Guenel P., Hahnen E., Haiman C.A., Hakansson N., Hall P., Hamann U., Harrington P.A., Hart S.N., Hooning M.J., Hopper J.L., Howell A., Hunter D.J., Clarke C., Scott R., Baxter R., Yip D., Carpenter J., Davis A., Pathmanathan N., Graham D., Sachchithananthan M., Amor D., Andrews L., Antill Y., Balleine R., Beesley J., Bennett I., Bogwitz M., Botes L., Brennan M., Brown M., Buckley M., Burke J., Butow P., Caldon L., Campbell I., Chauhan D., Chauhan M., Christian A., Cohen P., Colley A., Crook A., Cui J., Cummings M., Dawson S.-J., DeFazio A., Delatycki M., Dickson R., Dixon J., Edkins T., Edwards S., Farshid G., Fellows A., Fenton G., Field M., Flanagan J., Fong P., Forrest L., Fox S., French J., Friedlander M., Gaff C., Gattas M., George P., Greening S., Harris M., Hart S., Hayward N., Hopper J., Hoskins C., Hunt C., James P., Jenkins M., Kidd A., Kirk J., Koehler J., Kollias J., Lakhani S., Lawrence M., Lindeman G., Lipton L., Lobb L., Mann G., Marsh D., McLachlan S.A., Meiser B., Milne R.L., Nightingale S., O'Connell S., O'Sullivan S., Ortega D.G., Pachter N., Patterson B., Pearn A., Phillips K., Pieper E., Rickard E., Robinson B., Saleh M., Salisbury E., Saunders C., Saunus J., Sexton A., Shelling A., Simpson P., Southey M.C., Spurdle A., Taylor J., Taylor R., Thorne H., Trainer A., Tucker K., Visvader J., Walker L., Williams R., Winship I., Young M.A., Jager A., Jakubowska A., John E.M., Keeman R., Khusnutdinova E., Kitahara C.M., Kosma V.-M., Koutros S., Kraft P., Kristensen V.N., Kurian A.W., Lambrechts D., Le Marchand L., Linet M., Lubinski J., Mannermaa A., Manoukian S., Margolin S., Martens J.W.M., Mavroudis D., Mayes R., Meindl A., Neuhausen S.L., Nevanlinna H., Newman W.G., Nielsen S.F., Nordestgaard B.G., Obi N., Olshan A.F., Olson J.E., Olsson H., Orban E., Park-Simon T.-W., Peterlongo P., Plaseska-Karanfilska D., Pylkas K., Rennert G., Rennert H.S., Ruddy K.J., Saloustros E., Sandler D.P., Sawyer E.J., Schmutzler R.K., Scott C., Shu X.-O., Simard J., Smichkoska S., Sohn C., Spinelli J.J., Stone J., Tamimi R.M., Taylor J.A., Tollenaar R.A.E.M., Tomlinson I., Troester M.A., Truong T., Vachon C.M., van Veen E.M., Wang S.S., Weinberg C.R., Wendt C., Wildiers H., Winqvist R., Wolk A., Zheng W., Ziogas A., Dunning A.M., Pharoah P.D.P., Easton D.F., Howie A.F., Peto J., dos-Santos-Silva I., Swerdlow A.J., Chang-Claude J., Schmidt M.K., Orr N., Fletcher O., Johnson N., Maguire S., Morra A., Kapoor P.M., Tomczyk K., Jones M.E., Schoemaker M.J., Gilham C., Bolla M.K., Wang Q., Dennis J., Ahearn T.U., Andrulis I.L., Anton-Culver H., Antonenkova N.N., Arndt V., Aronson K.J., Augustinsson A., Baynes C., Freeman L.E.B., Beckmann M.W., Benitez J., Bermisheva M., Blomqvist C., Boeckx B., Bogdanova N.V., Bojesen S.E., Brauch H., Brenner H., Burwinkel B., Campa D., Canzian F., Castelao J.E., Chanock S.J., Chenevix-Trench G., Clarke C.L., Borresen-Dale A.-L., Alnaes G.I.G., Sahlberg K.K., Ottestad L., Karesen R., Schlichting E., Holmen M.M., Sauer T., Haakensen V., Engebraten O., Naume B., Fossa A., Kiserud C.E., Reinertsen K.V., Helland A., Riis M., Geisler J., Conroy D.M., Couch F.J., Cox A., Cross S.S., Czene K., Dork T., Eliassen A.H., Engel C., Evans D.G., Fasching P.A., Figueroa J., Floris G., Flyger H., Gago-Dominguez M., Gapstur S.M., Garcia-Closas M., Gaudet M.M., Giles G.G., Goldberg M.S., Gonzalez-Neira A., Bowtell D.D.L., Webb P.M., Guenel P., Hahnen E., Haiman C.A., Hakansson N., Hall P., Hamann U., Harrington P.A., Hart S.N., Hooning M.J., Hopper J.L., Howell A., Hunter D.J., Clarke C., Scott R., Baxter R., Yip D., Carpenter J., Davis A., Pathmanathan N., Graham D., Sachchithananthan M., Amor D., Andrews L., Antill Y., Balleine R., Beesley J., Bennett I., Bogwitz M., Botes L., Brennan M., Brown M., Buckley M., Burke J., Butow P., Caldon L., Campbell I., Chauhan D., Chauhan M., Christian A., Cohen P., Colley A., Crook A., Cui J., Cummings M., Dawson S.-J., DeFazio A., Delatycki M., Dickson R., Dixon J., Edkins T., Edwards S., Farshid G., Fellows A., Fenton G., Field M., Flanagan J., Fong P., Forrest L., Fox S., French J., Friedlander M., Gaff C., Gattas M., George P., Greening S., Harris M., Hart S., Hayward N., Hopper J., Hoskins C., Hunt C., James P., Jenkins M., Kidd A., Kirk J., Koehler J., Kollias J., Lakhani S., Lawrence M., Lindeman G., Lipton L., Lobb L., Mann G., Marsh D., McLachlan S.A., Meiser B., Milne R.L., Nightingale S., O'Connell S., O'Sullivan S., Ortega D.G., Pachter N., Patterson B., Pearn A., Phillips K., Pieper E., Rickard E., Robinson B., Saleh M., Salisbury E., Saunders C., Saunus J., Sexton A., Shelling A., Simpson P., Southey M.C., Spurdle A., Taylor J., Taylor R., Thorne H., Trainer A., Tucker K., Visvader J., Walker L., Williams R., Winship I., Young M.A., Jager A., Jakubowska A., John E.M., Keeman R., Khusnutdinova E., Kitahara C.M., Kosma V.-M., Koutros S., Kraft P., Kristensen V.N., Kurian A.W., Lambrechts D., Le Marchand L., Linet M., Lubinski J., Mannermaa A., Manoukian S., Margolin S., Martens J.W.M., Mavroudis D., Mayes R., Meindl A., Neuhausen S.L., Nevanlinna H., Newman W.G., Nielsen S.F., Nordestgaard B.G., Obi N., Olshan A.F., Olson J.E., Olsson H., Orban E., Park-Simon T.-W., Peterlongo P., Plaseska-Karanfilska D., Pylkas K., Rennert G., Rennert H.S., Ruddy K.J., Saloustros E., Sandler D.P., Sawyer E.J., Schmutzler R.K., Scott C., Shu X.-O., Simard J., Smichkoska S., Sohn C., Spinelli J.J., Stone J., Tamimi R.M., Taylor J.A., Tollenaar R.A.E.M., Tomlinson I., Troester M.A., Truong T., Vachon C.M., van Veen E.M., Wang S.S., Weinberg C.R., Wendt C., Wildiers H., Winqvist R., Wolk A., Zheng W., Ziogas A., Dunning A.M., Pharoah P.D.P., Easton D.F., Howie A.F., Peto J., dos-Santos-Silva I., Swerdlow A.J., Chang-Claude J., Schmidt M.K., Orr N., and Fletcher O.
- Abstract
Background: Epidemiological studies provide strong evidence for a role of endogenous sex hormones in the aetiology of breast cancer. The aim of this analysis was to identify genetic variants that are associated with urinary sex-hormone levels and breast cancer risk. Method(s): We carried out a genome-wide association study of urinary oestrone-3-glucuronide and pregnanediol-3-glucuronide levels in 560 premenopausal women, with additional analysis of progesterone levels in 298 premenopausal women. To test for the association with breast cancer risk, we carried out follow-up genotyping in 90,916 cases and 89,893 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. All women were of European ancestry. Result(s): For pregnanediol-3-glucuronide, there were no genome-wide significant associations; for oestrone-3-glucuronide, we identified a single peak mapping to the CYP3A locus, annotated by rs45446698. The minor rs45446698-C allele was associated with lower oestrone-3-glucuronide (-49.2%, 95% CI -56.1% to -41.1%, P = 3.1 x 10-18); in follow-up analyses, rs45446698-C was also associated with lower progesterone (-26.7%, 95% CI -39.4% to -11.6%, P = 0.001) and reduced risk of oestrogen and progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.82-0.91, P = 6.9 x 10-8). Conclusion(s): The CYP3A7*1C allele is associated with reduced risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer possibly mediated via an effect on the metabolism of endogenous sex hormones in premenopausal women.Copyright © 2021, The Author(s).
- Published
- 2021
18. Early genomic sequencing increases diagnostic yield and is cost effective in children.
- Author
-
Quinlan C., Wu E., Jayasinghe K., Kerr P., Mallett A., Stark Z., Martyn M., Gaff C., Goranitis I., Quinlan C., Wu E., Jayasinghe K., Kerr P., Mallett A., Stark Z., Martyn M., Gaff C., and Goranitis I.
- Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing (ES) in patients with suspected genetic kidney disease (GKD) compared with current standard diagnostic care, and to evaluate the optimal timing of ES. Background(s): There is an urgent need to determine the health economic value of genomic testing in kidney disease patients. Method(s): This model based economic analysis was informed by a pragmatic, multicentre study which included 87 patients with suspected monogenic glomerular disease. Resource use for non-genomic investigations were also informed by data from the cohort, in addition to current guidelines. Six diagnostic strategies reflecting current practice were compared. Result(s): ES achieved a diagnosis in 23/63 (36.5%) adults and 10/24 (41.6%) children. The average cost of ES (including sequencing, analysis, and related consultations) was $2,355 in both children and adults. Children: Standard investigations were estimated to diagnose 4.0%, with an average estimated cost of $6,119 per child. Integrating ES as a first line test was cost saving, with an incremental cost saving per additional diagnosis of $3,230 compared to standard diagnostic care. Adults: Standard investigations were estimated to diagnose 7.9%, with an average estimated cost of $1,834 per adult, (including a biopsy rate of 70%). Integrating ES early resulted in an incremental cost per additional diagnosis of $5,456 relative to standard care. Conclusion(s): Integrating ES early in the diagnostic pathway is likely to be more effective and less costly for establishing a diagnosis and informing care in children. In adults, the incremental cost per additional diagnosis may be justified, depending on the value of a genomic diagnosis. Applying ES as a last resort test resulted in considerably higher cost compared with earlier application in the diagnostic trajectory.
- Published
- 2021
19. General practitioners' views on genomics, practice and education A qualitative interview study
- Author
-
Cusack, MB, Hickerton, C, Nisselle, A, McClaren, B, Terrill, B, Gaff, C, Dunlop, K, Metcalfe, S, Cusack, MB, Hickerton, C, Nisselle, A, McClaren, B, Terrill, B, Gaff, C, Dunlop, K, and Metcalfe, S
- Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Genomics is moving rapidly into mainstream medicine through clinical genomic testing and consumer-initiated online DNA testing. The aim of this study was to identify Australian general practitioners' (GPs') views on genomics, impact on practice and educational needs to inform continuing education. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, with constant comparative inductive analysis and governance from a national taskforce. RESULTS: Twenty-eight GPs (43% female) were interviewed; 71% worked in a metropolitan workplace. Most initially reported little experience with genetic/genomic tests but, when prompted, recognised encountering genomics, mainly non-invasive prenatal and single-gene tests. Many GPs referred patients for cancer screening to genetic services or specialists. GPs reported needing continuing education and resources, with preferences underpinned by relevance to practice. DISCUSSION: GPs are integrating genomic testing into care, mainly through prenatal screening, and anticipate further impact. They want diverse and context-dependent education but are unaware of some available resources, such as The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' Genomics in general practice guideline.
- Published
- 2021
20. Investigating the Adoption of Clinical Genomics in Australia. An Implementation Science Case Study
- Author
-
Best, S, Long, JC, Gaff, C, Braithwaite, J, Taylor, N, Best, S, Long, JC, Gaff, C, Braithwaite, J, and Taylor, N
- Abstract
Despite the overwhelming interest in clinical genomics, uptake has been slow. Implementation science offers a systematic approach to reveal pathways to adoption and a theory informed approach to addressing barriers presented. Using case study methodology, we undertook 16 in-depth interviews with nongenetic medical specialists to identify barriers and enablers to the uptake of clinical genomics. Data collection and analysis was guided by two evidence-based behaviour change models: the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and the Capability, Opportunity Motivation Behaviour model (COM-B). Our findings revealed the use of implementation science not only provided a theoretical structure to frame the study but also facilitated uncovering of traditionally difficult to access responses from participants, e.g., "safety in feeling vulnerable" (TDF code emotion/COM-B code motivation). The most challenging phase for participants was ensuring appropriate patients were offered genomic testing. There were several consistent TDF codes: professional identity, social influences, and environmental context and resources and COM-B codes opportunity and motivation, with others varying along the patient journey. We conclude that implementation science methods can maximise the value created by the exploration of factors affecting the uptake of clinical genomics to ensure future interventions are designed to meet the needs of novice nongenetic medical specialists.
- Published
- 2021
21. Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives
- Author
-
Menezes, RG, Vears, DF, Minion, JT, Roberts, SJ, Cummings, J, Machirori, M, Blell, M, Budin-Ljosne, I, Cowley, L, Dyke, SOM, Gaff, C, Green, R, Hall, A, Johns, AL, Knoppers, BM, Mulrine, S, Patch, C, Winkler, E, Murtagh, MJ, Menezes, RG, Vears, DF, Minion, JT, Roberts, SJ, Cummings, J, Machirori, M, Blell, M, Budin-Ljosne, I, Cowley, L, Dyke, SOM, Gaff, C, Green, R, Hall, A, Johns, AL, Knoppers, BM, Mulrine, S, Patch, C, Winkler, E, and Murtagh, MJ
- Abstract
Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some
- Published
- 2021
22. Utility of clinical comprehensive genomic characterization for diagnostic categorization in patients presenting with hypocellular bone marrow failure syndromes
- Author
-
Blombery, P, Fox, LC, Ryland, GL, Thompson, ER, Lickiss, J, McBean, M, Yerneni, S, Hughes, D, Greenway, A, Mechinaud, F, Wood, EM, Lieschke, GJ, Szer, J, Barbaro, P, Roy, J, Wight, J, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Gaff, C, Ritchie, D, Blombery, P, Fox, LC, Ryland, GL, Thompson, ER, Lickiss, J, McBean, M, Yerneni, S, Hughes, D, Greenway, A, Mechinaud, F, Wood, EM, Lieschke, GJ, Szer, J, Barbaro, P, Roy, J, Wight, J, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Gaff, C, and Ritchie, D
- Abstract
Bone marrow failure (BMF) related to hypoplasia of hematopoietic elements in the bone marrow is a heterogeneous clinical entity with a broad differential diagnosis including both inherited and acquired causes. Accurate diagnostic categorization is critical to optimal patient care and detection of genomic variants in these patients may provide this important diagnostic and prognostic information. We performed real-time, accredited (ISO15189) comprehensive genomic characterization including targeted sequencing and whole exome sequencing in 115 patients with BMF syndrome (median age 24 years, range 3 months - 81 years). In patients with clinical diagnoses of inherited BMF syndromes, acquired BMF syndromes or clinically unclassifiable BMF we detected variants in 52% (12/23), 53% (25/47) and 56% (25/45) respectively. Genomic characterization resulted in a change of diagnosis in 30/115 (26%) including the identification of germline causes for 3/47 and 16/45 cases with pre-test diagnoses of acquired and clinically unclassifiable BMF respectively. The observed clinical impact of accurate diagnostic categorization included choice to perform allogeneic stem cell transplantation, disease-specific targeted treatments, identification of at-risk family members and influence of sibling allogeneic stem cell donor choice. Multiple novel pathogenic variants and copy number changes were identified in our cohort including in TERT, FANCA, RPS7 and SAMD9. Whole exome sequence analysis facilitated the identification of variants in two genes not typically associated with a primary clinical manifestation of BMF but also demonstrated reduced sensitivity for detecting low level acquired variants. In conclusion, genomic characterization can improve diagnostic categorization of patients presenting with hypoplastic BMF syndromes and should be routinely performed in this group of patients.
- Published
- 2021
23. Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease
- Author
-
Jayasinghe, K, Stark, Z, Kerr, PG, Gaff, C, Martyn, M, Whitlam, J, Creighton, B, Donaldson, E, Hunter, M, Jarmolowicz, A, Johnstone, L, Krzesinski, E, Lunke, S, Lynch, E, Nicholls, K, Patel, C, Prawer, Y, Ryan, J, See, EJ, Talbot, A, Trainer, A, Tytherleigh, R, Valente, G, Wallis, M, Wardrop, L, West, KH, White, SM, Wilkins, E, Mallett, AJ, Quinlan, C, Jayasinghe, K, Stark, Z, Kerr, PG, Gaff, C, Martyn, M, Whitlam, J, Creighton, B, Donaldson, E, Hunter, M, Jarmolowicz, A, Johnstone, L, Krzesinski, E, Lunke, S, Lynch, E, Nicholls, K, Patel, C, Prawer, Y, Ryan, J, See, EJ, Talbot, A, Trainer, A, Tytherleigh, R, Valente, G, Wallis, M, Wardrop, L, West, KH, White, SM, Wilkins, E, Mallett, AJ, and Quinlan, C
- Abstract
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 < 0.001). Of those diagnosed, 31/80 (39%) had a change in their clinical diagnosis. ES diagnosis was considered to have contributed to management in 47/80 (59%), including negating the need for diagnostic renal biopsy in 10/80 (13%), changing surveillance in 35/80 (44%), and changing the treatment plan in 16/80 (20%). In cases with no change to management in the proband, the ES result had implications for the management of family members in 26/33 (79%). Cascade testing was subsequently offered to 40/80 families (50%). CONCLUSION: In this pragmatic pediatric and adult cohort with suspected monogenic kidney disease, ES had high diagnostic and clinical utility. Our findings, including predictors of positive diagnosis, can be used to guide clinical practice and health service design.
- Published
- 2021
24. Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Exome Analysis as a Diagnostic Test in Glomerular Diseases
- Author
-
Jayasinghe, K, Wu, Y, Stark, Z, Kerr, PG, Mallett, AJ, Gaff, C, Martyn, M, Goranitis, I, Quinlan, C, Jayasinghe, K, Wu, Y, Stark, Z, Kerr, PG, Mallett, AJ, Gaff, C, Martyn, M, Goranitis, I, and Quinlan, C
- Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the emergence of diagnostic and clinical utility evidence in nephrology, publicly funded access to genomic testing is restricted in most health care systems. To establish genomic sequencing as a clinical test, an evaluation of cost-effectiveness is urgently required. METHODS: An economic evaluation, informed by a primary clinical study and available clinical evidence and guidelines in nephrology, was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and optimal timing of exome sequencing (ES) in adults and children with suspected monogenic glomerular diseases compared with nongenomic investigations (NGIs). Six diagnostic strategies reflecting current practice and recommended models of care in Australia were modeled: (i) NGIs, (ii) late gene panel followed by ES, (iii) late ES, (iv) early gene panel, (v) early gene panel followed by ES, and (vi) early ES. RESULTS: ES with targeted analysis achieved a diagnosis in 23 of 63 (36.5%) adults and 10 of 24 (41.6%) children. NGIs were estimated to diagnose 4.0% of children, with an average estimated cost of AU$6120 per child. Integrating ES as a first-line test in children was cost saving, with an incremental cost saving of AU$3230 per additional diagnosis compared with NGIs. In adults, NGIs was estimated to diagnose 8% of patients, with an average estimated cost of AU$1830 per person. In adults, integrating ES early resulted in an incremental cost per additional diagnosis of AU$5460 relative to NGIs. CONCLUSIONS: Early ES with targeted analysis was effective for diagnosing monogenic kidney disease, with substantial cost savings in children.
- Published
- 2021
25. Clinical Genomics: Integrated teamworking across the sociotechnical divide
- Author
-
Best, S, Long, JC, Braithwaite, J, Stark, Z, Gaff, C, Martyn, M, Brown, H, McClaren, B, Ng, L, Hewage, K, Williams, S, Taylor, N, Best, S, Long, JC, Braithwaite, J, Stark, Z, Gaff, C, Martyn, M, Brown, H, McClaren, B, Ng, L, Hewage, K, Williams, S, and Taylor, N
- Published
- 2021
26. Measuring physician practice, preparedness and preferences for genomic medicine: a national survey
- Author
-
Nisselle, A, King, EA, McClaren, B, Janinski, M, Metcalfe, S, Gaff, C, Dunlop, K, Nisselle, A, King, EA, McClaren, B, Janinski, M, Metcalfe, S, Gaff, C, and Dunlop, K
- Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Even as genomic medicine is implemented globally, there remains a lack of rigorous, national assessments of physicians' current genomic practice and continuing genomics education needs. The aim of this study was to address this gap. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey, informed by qualitative data and behaviour change theory, to assess the current landscape of Australian physicians' genomic medicine practice, perceptions of proximity and individual preparedness, and preferred models of practice and continuing education. The survey was advertised nationally through 10 medical colleges, 24 societies, 62 hospitals, social media, professional networks and snowballing. RESULTS: 409 medical specialists across Australia responded, representing 30 specialties (majority paediatricians, 20%), from mainly public hospitals (70%) in metropolitan areas (75%). Half (53%) had contacted their local genetics services and half (54%) had ordered or referred for a gene panel or exome/genome sequencing test in the last year. Two-thirds (67%) think genomics will soon impact their practice, with a significant preference for models that involved genetics services (p<0.0001). Currently, respondents mainly perform tasks associated with pretest family history taking and counselling, but more respondents expect to perform tasks at all stages of testing in the future, including tasks related to the test itself, and reporting results. While one-third (34%) recently completed education in genomics, only a quarter (25%) felt prepared to practise. Specialists would like (more) education, particularly on genomic technologies and clinical utility, and prefer this to be through varied educational strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides data from a breadth of physician specialties that can inform models of genetic service delivery and genomics education. The findings support education providers designing and delivering education that best meet learner needs to build a competent, genomic-li
- Published
- 2021
27. Exome sequencing in infants with congenital hearing impairment: a population-based cohort study (vol 28, pg 587, 2020)
- Author
-
Downie, L, Halliday, J, Burt, R, Lunke, S, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Poulakis, Z, Gaff, C, Sung, V, Wake, M, Hunter, MF, Saunders, K, Rose, E, Lewis, S, Jarmolowicz, A, Phelan, D, Rehm, HL, Amor, DJ, Downie, L, Halliday, J, Burt, R, Lunke, S, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Poulakis, Z, Gaff, C, Sung, V, Wake, M, Hunter, MF, Saunders, K, Rose, E, Lewis, S, Jarmolowicz, A, Phelan, D, Rehm, HL, and Amor, DJ
- Abstract
In Table 3, on pages 591–592 of the original article, in the fourth row of the table, an alteration in GJB2 is shown as “c.429G>A p.(Glu147Lys)”, but it should read “c.439G>A p.(Glu147Lys)”.
- Published
- 2021
28. The clinical utility of exome sequencing and extended bioinformatic analyses in adolescents and adults with a broad range of neurological phenotypes: an Australian perspective.
- Author
-
Eratne, D, Schneider, A, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Velakoulis, D, Fahey, M, Kwan, P, Leventer, R, Rafehi, H, Chong, B, Stark, Z, Lunke, S, Phelan, DG, O'Keefe, M, Siemering, K, West, K, Sexton, A, Jarmolowicz, A, Taylor, JA, Schultz, J, Purvis, R, Uebergang, E, Chalinor, H, Creighton, B, Gelfand, N, Saks, T, Prawer, Y, Smagarinsky, Y, Pan, T, Goranitis, I, Ademi, Z, Gaff, C, Huq, A, Walsh, M, James, PA, Krzesinski, EI, Wallis, M, Stutterd, CA, Bahlo, M, Delatycki, MB, Berkovic, SF, Eratne, D, Schneider, A, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Velakoulis, D, Fahey, M, Kwan, P, Leventer, R, Rafehi, H, Chong, B, Stark, Z, Lunke, S, Phelan, DG, O'Keefe, M, Siemering, K, West, K, Sexton, A, Jarmolowicz, A, Taylor, JA, Schultz, J, Purvis, R, Uebergang, E, Chalinor, H, Creighton, B, Gelfand, N, Saks, T, Prawer, Y, Smagarinsky, Y, Pan, T, Goranitis, I, Ademi, Z, Gaff, C, Huq, A, Walsh, M, James, PA, Krzesinski, EI, Wallis, M, Stutterd, CA, Bahlo, M, Delatycki, MB, and Berkovic, SF
- Abstract
Currently there is no secured ongoing funding in Australia for next generation sequencing (NGS) such as exome sequencing (ES) for adult neurological disorders. Studies have focused on paediatric populations in research or highly specialised settings, utilised standard NGS pipelines focusing only on small insertions, deletions and single nucleotide variants, and not explored impacts on management in detail. This prospective multi-site study performed ES and an extended bioinformatics repeat expansion analysis pipeline, on patients with broad phenotypes (ataxia, dementia, dystonia, spastic paraparesis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease and complex/not-otherwise-specified), with symptom onset between 2 and 60 years. Genomic data analysis was phenotype-driven, using virtual gene panels, reported according to American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines. One-hundred-and-sixty patients (51% female) were included, median age 52 years (range 14-79) and median 9 years of symptoms. 34/160 (21%) patients received a genetic diagnosis. Highest diagnostic rates were in spastic paraparesis (10/25, 40%), complex/not-otherwise-specified (10/38, 26%) and ataxia (7/28, 25%) groups. Findings were considered 'possible/uncertain' in 21/160 patients. Repeat expansion detection identified an unexpected diagnosis of Huntington disease in an ataxic patient with negative ES. Impacts on management, such as more precise and tailored care, were seen in most diagnosed patients (23/34, 68%). ES and a novel bioinformatics analysis pipepline had a substantial diagnostic yield (21%) and management impacts for most diagnosed patients, in heterogeneous, complex, mainly adult-onset neurological disorders in real-world settings in Australia, providing evidence for NGS and complementary multiple, new technologies as valuable diagnostic tools.
- Published
- 2021
29. Development of a Communication Aid to Facilitate Risk Communication in Consultations with Unaffected Women from High Risk Breast Cancer Families: A Pilot Study
- Author
-
Lobb, E. A., Butow, P. N., Moore, A., Barratt, A., Tucker, K., Gaff, C., Kirk, J., Dudding, T., and Butt, D.
- Published
- 2006
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
30. Evaluating barriers to uptake of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in advanced cancer patients (pts).
- Author
-
Martyn M., Solomon B.J., Tran B., Scott C.L., Kee D., McArthur G.A., Fellowes A., Weerasuriya R., Lynch E., Gaff C., Desai J., Fox S.B., Smith K.M., Haire S.O., Khuong-Quang D.A., Markman B., Gan H.K., Ekert P.G., O'Byrne K.J., Millward M., Martyn M., Solomon B.J., Tran B., Scott C.L., Kee D., McArthur G.A., Fellowes A., Weerasuriya R., Lynch E., Gaff C., Desai J., Fox S.B., Smith K.M., Haire S.O., Khuong-Quang D.A., Markman B., Gan H.K., Ekert P.G., O'Byrne K.J., and Millward M.
- Abstract
Background: Despite increasing evidence of benefit supporting CGP in personalizing cancer therapy, its widespread uptake remains limited. Barriers include low patient understanding, unmet patient expectations related to low utility, clinician concerns over cost-effectiveness, perceived value, and discomfort in management of complex genomic results. Method(s): This prospective cross-institutional demonstration study was designed to evaluate implementation of CGP in the care of adult and paediatric advanced cancer pts, incorporating pt reported outcomes (PROMs), discrete choice experiment (DCE), ongoing process optimization and clinician evaluations. DNA sequencing of FFPE tumor and matched blood was completed with CGP (PMCC Comprehensive Cancer Panel; 391 genes) via central laboratory. A tumor board reported results weekly with emphasis on therapeutic relevance. Oncologists performed consent and results delivery. Pts completed pre-and post-test surveys, including validated and study-specific questions, DCE and if eligible, semi-structured interviews. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with study clinicians and laboratory staff to evaluate processes. Result(s): 86% (315) of 365 enrolled pts had successful CGP; of these 63% (199) had relevant therapeutic, diagnostic or germline results. 50 (16%) had treatment change at 6m, 49 (16%) had germline mutations. 293 (88% of adult pts) completed PROMs. 17 of 19 clinicians/laboratory staff approached consented to an interview. At consent pts cited multifaceted value in testing, showed good understanding of basic concepts, but most (69%) overestimated the likelihood of result-led change. Post-test pts remained consistently satisfied with accessing CGP; valuing research contribution, taking opportunities and information for family. 21% struggled with understanding results but there were low levels of decisional regret following participation (89% had nil/mild regret). Pt-elicited preferences (via DCE) indicated priority for h
- Published
- 2020
31. Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) enhances the diagnostic rate of perinatal autopsy: A prospective clinical utility trial with implications for prenatal diagnosis.
- Author
-
Teoh M., Dao C., Davis T., Hui L., Rowlands S., Walker S., Lynch E., Martyn M., Chong B., Gaff C., Lunke S., Collett J., McGillivray G., Chan F., Yeung A., Vasudevan A., Stark Z., Prystupa S., Chan Y., Leong T., Ireland-Jenkin K., Fawcett S., Graetz M., Rose K., Ayres S., Jarmolowicz A., Brett G., Prawer Y., Chalinor H., Teoh M., Dao C., Davis T., Hui L., Rowlands S., Walker S., Lynch E., Martyn M., Chong B., Gaff C., Lunke S., Collett J., McGillivray G., Chan F., Yeung A., Vasudevan A., Stark Z., Prystupa S., Chan Y., Leong T., Ireland-Jenkin K., Fawcett S., Graetz M., Rose K., Ayres S., Jarmolowicz A., Brett G., Prawer Y., and Chalinor H.
- Abstract
Genomic classification is rapidly becoming a routine and integral part of diagnosis in pathology. Perinatal pathology is following this trend. The aims of this study were to determine the utility of WES in perinatal autopsy for congenital anomalies and to model the outcome of WES as a prenatal test. A total of 131 probands with congenital anomalies who underwent post mortem examination were referred by pathologists to the study. 82 probands were considered suitable for sequencing. The parents of 5 declined enrolment and 10 could not be consented. 67 probands were enrolled. Autopsy identified specific diagnoses in 11 cases (17%). WES identified specific diagnoses ('pathogenic' or 'likely pathogenic' variants) in 23 cases - a diagnostic rate of 35%. The combined diagnostic rate of autopsy and sequencing was 38%. A geneticist blinded to the autopsy findings reviewed the probands' antenatal imaging reports and recommended a gene list to model the clinical utility of prenatal WES. The use of antenatal sequencing in this cohort would have identified a specific diagnosis in 18 of the 23 cases with positive sequencing findings. In conclusion, WES doubles the diagnostic rate of autopsy for congenital anomalies and our data supports the prenatal use of genomic sequencing.Copyright © 2020
- Published
- 2020
32. A cost-effectiveness analysis of genomic sequencing in a prospective versus historical cohort of complex pediatric patients.
- Author
-
McEwan C., White S.M., Smagarinsky Y., Martyn M., Goranitis I., Gaff C., Yeung A., Tan N.B., Tan T.Y., Stark Z., Brown N., Hunter M.F., Delatycki M., Stutterd C., Savarirayan R., Mcgillivray G., Stapleton R., Kumble S., Downie L., Regan M., Lunke S., Chong B., Phelan D., Brett G.R., Jarmolowicz A., Prawer Y., Valente G., McEwan C., White S.M., Smagarinsky Y., Martyn M., Goranitis I., Gaff C., Yeung A., Tan N.B., Tan T.Y., Stark Z., Brown N., Hunter M.F., Delatycki M., Stutterd C., Savarirayan R., Mcgillivray G., Stapleton R., Kumble S., Downie L., Regan M., Lunke S., Chong B., Phelan D., Brett G.R., Jarmolowicz A., Prawer Y., and Valente G.
- Abstract
Purpose: Cost-effectiveness evaluations of first-line genomic sequencing (GS) in the diagnosis of children with genetic conditions are limited by the lack of well-defined comparative cohorts. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early GS in pediatric patients with complex monogenic conditions compared with a matched historical cohort. Method(s): Data, including investigation costs, were collected in a prospective cohort of 92 pediatric patients undergoing singleton GS over an 18-month period (2016-2017) with two of the following: a condition with high mortality, multisystem disease involving three or more organs, or severe limitation of daily function. Comparative data were collected in a matched historical cohort who underwent traditional investigations in the years 2012-2013. Result(s): GS yielded a diagnosis in 42% while traditional investigations yielded a diagnosis in 23% (p = 0.003). A change in management was experienced by 74% of patients diagnosed following GS, compared with 32% diagnosed following traditional investigations. Singleton GS at a cost of AU$3100 resulted in a mean saving per person of AU$3602 (95% confidence interval [CI] AU$2520-4685). Cost savings occurred across all investigation subtypes and were only minimally offset by clinical management costs. Conclusion(s): GS in complex pediatric patients saves significant costs and doubles the diagnostic yield of traditional approaches.Copyright © 2020, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.
- Published
- 2020
33. Exome sequencing in infants with congenital hearing impairment: a population-based cohort study.
- Author
-
Phelan D., Jarmolowicz A., Rehm H.L., Amor D.J., Downie L., Halliday J., Burt R., Lunke S., Lynch E., Martyn M., Poulakis Z., Gaff C., Sung V., Wake M., Hunter M.F., Saunders K., Rose E., Lewis S., Phelan D., Jarmolowicz A., Rehm H.L., Amor D.J., Downie L., Halliday J., Burt R., Lunke S., Lynch E., Martyn M., Poulakis Z., Gaff C., Sung V., Wake M., Hunter M.F., Saunders K., Rose E., and Lewis S.
- Abstract
Congenital hearing impairment (HI) is the most common sensory impairment and can be isolated or part of a syndrome. Diagnosis through newborn hearing screening and management through early intervention, hearing aids and cochlear implantation is well established in the Australian setting; however understanding the genetic basis of congenital HI has been missing. This population-derived cohort comprised infants with moderate-profound bilateral HI born in the 2016-2017 calendar years, detected through newborn hearing screening. Participants were recruited through an integrated paediatric, otolaryngology and genetics HI clinic and offered whole exome sequencing (WES) on a HiSeq4000 or NextSeq500 (Illumina) platform with a targeted average sequencing depth of 100x and chromosome microarray on the Illumina Infinium core exome-24v1.2 platform. Of those approached, 68% (106/156) consented to participate. The rate of genetic diagnosis was 56% (59/106), significantly higher than standard of care (GJB2/6 sequencing only), 21% (22/106). There were clinical implications for the 106 participants: 36% required no further screening, 9% had tailored screening initiated, 2% were offered treatment and 4% had informed care for a complex neurodevelopmental syndrome. WES in this cohort demonstrates the range of diagnoses associated with congenital HI and confirms the genetic heterogeneity of congenital HI. The high diagnostic yield and clinical implications emphasises the need for genomic sequencing to become standard of care.Copyright © 2019, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.
- Published
- 2020
34. A demonstration of the diagnostic and clinical utility of genomic sequencing in primary immunodeficiency diseases in Australia.
- Author
-
Gaff C., Lynch E., Masters S., Bryant V.L., Douglass J.A., Slade C., Moghaddas F., Lunke S., Stark Z., Winship I., West K., Trainer A., Ojaimi S., Hunter M., Prawer Y., Nicholls K., Patel M., Auyeung P., Spriggs K., McComish J., Unglik G., De Luca J., Chan S., Valente G., Jarmolowicz A., Hosking L., Van Dort B., Cole T., Smart J., Choo S., Gaff C., Lynch E., Masters S., Bryant V.L., Douglass J.A., Slade C., Moghaddas F., Lunke S., Stark Z., Winship I., West K., Trainer A., Ojaimi S., Hunter M., Prawer Y., Nicholls K., Patel M., Auyeung P., Spriggs K., McComish J., Unglik G., De Luca J., Chan S., Valente G., Jarmolowicz A., Hosking L., Van Dort B., Cole T., Smart J., and Choo S.
- Abstract
Primary Immunodeficiency diseases (PID) are a heterogeneous group of conditions with variable clinical features that are frequently associated with significant diagnostic delay. Accurate diagnosis has significant therapeutic benefit and may lead to personalized therapies. We established the Immunology Flagship of Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance in Australia to determine the clinical utility of genomic sequencing for diagnosis and management of individuals with suspected and confirmed cases of PID. 198 adults and children with suspected or confirmed PID (n=153), autoinflammatory disease (n=33) and hereditary angioedema (HAE, n=11) were recruited to the Melbourne Genomics Immunology Flagship.Whole-exome sequencing (WES) was performed, with targeted gene analysis. Variant curation and reporting was performed according to the American Council of Medical Genetics guidelines. Overall, WES was diagnostic in 15% (30/198), confirming a preexisting diagnosis in 7% (14/198), and offering a new or more specific diagnosis in 8% (16/198). Variants of uncertain significance were identified in a further 28 patients (14%) in genes known to be associated with their clinical diagnosis, that warrant further functional validation. In the HAE group, diagnosis was confirmed in only 5 patients (45%), suggesting thatWES may not be the appropriate technique for genetic diagnosis in this condition. A higher diagnostic rate was observed for autoinflammatory disorders (20%; 8/40) compared to PID (12%; 18/146). Of those who received a diagnosis, immediate changes to patient management and treatment occurred for 17/29 patients (59%), including HSCT for 3 and specific targeted therapy for 11 (38%) individuals. We have demonstrated the utility ofWES for accurate diagnosis of complex immune diseases, with the potential to change diagnoses, guide therapeutic intervention and provide opportunities for genetic counseling. Further longitudinal analysis will determine clinical outcomes and health econ
- Published
- 2020
35. Exome sequencing enhances the diagnostic rate of perinatal autopsy: A prospective multicentre clinical utility trial with implications for prenatal diagnosis.
- Author
-
Belinda C., Martyn M., Gaff C., Collett J., Lunke S., McGillivray G., Chan F., Yeung A., Anand V., Stark Z., Prystupa S., Chan Y., Trishe L., Ireland-Jenkin K., Fawcett S., Graetz M., Rose K., Ayres S., Jarmolowicz A., Brett G., Prawer Y., Chalinor H., Dao C., Davis T., Hui L., Teoh M., Rowlands S., Walker S., Lynch E., Belinda C., Martyn M., Gaff C., Collett J., Lunke S., McGillivray G., Chan F., Yeung A., Anand V., Stark Z., Prystupa S., Chan Y., Trishe L., Ireland-Jenkin K., Fawcett S., Graetz M., Rose K., Ayres S., Jarmolowicz A., Brett G., Prawer Y., Chalinor H., Dao C., Davis T., Hui L., Teoh M., Rowlands S., Walker S., and Lynch E.
- Abstract
Objectives: To determine the utility of exome sequencing as an adjunct to perinatal post mortem for congenital anomalies. To model the likely outcome of exome sequencing as a prenatal test in the same setting. Method(s): Probands with congenital anomalies were referred by perinatal pathologists. They were enrolled for sequencing if their microarray analysis was negative and their anomalies were considered to have a monogenic cause. Singleton or trio exome sequencing was performed as an adjunct to routine perinatal autopsy and the diagnostic outcomes were compared. A geneticist independently reviewed the probands' antenatal imaging findings and recommended a phenotype specific gene list to model the clinical utility of prenatal exome sequencing. Result(s): A prospective cohort of 131 probands was referred. Fortynine (37%) were unsuitable for inclusion. The parents of five (4%) declined enrolment and 10 (8%) could not be consented. Sixty-seven probands (52%) were enrolled. One proband could not be sequenced due to a degraded DNA sample. Results are available for 65 probands (32 singletons and 33 trios). Specific diagnoses were identified at autopsy in 11 cases (17%) including two cases with negative sequencing. Sequencing identified specific diagnoses ("pathogenic" or "likely pathogenic" variants) in 23 cases giving a diagnostic rate of 35%. The combined diagnostic rate of autopsy and exome was 38%. The individual autopsy and genomic diagnostic rates were highest in probands with significant skeletal findings (39% and 61% respectively, n = 18). Genomic diagnoses were obtained from 34% of singleton exomes, with segregation when required, and 36% of trio exomes. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were reported in 13 cases (20%). In four, a strong phenotype-genotype match together with plausible candidate variants indicated a need for additional studies. The combined rate of diagnostic or suspicious variants was 42%. The use of antenatal sequencing in this cohort u
- Published
- 2020
36. Correction: Exome sequencing in infants with congenital hearing impairment: a population-based cohort study (European Journal of Human Genetics, (2020), 28, 5, (587-596), 10.1038/s41431-019-0553-8).
- Author
-
Phelan D., Lewis S., Jarmolowicz A., Rehm H.L., Amor D.J., Downie L., Halliday J., Burt R., Lunke S., Lynch E., Martyn M., Poulakis Z., Gaff C., Sung V., Wake M., Hunter M.F., Saunders K., Rose E., Phelan D., Lewis S., Jarmolowicz A., Rehm H.L., Amor D.J., Downie L., Halliday J., Burt R., Lunke S., Lynch E., Martyn M., Poulakis Z., Gaff C., Sung V., Wake M., Hunter M.F., Saunders K., and Rose E.
- Abstract
In Table 3, on pages 591-592 of the original article, in the fourth row of the table, an alteration in GJB2 is shown as "c.429G>A p.(Glu147Lys)", but it should read "c.439G>A p.(Glu147Lys)".Copyright © 2020, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.
- Published
- 2020
37. 'It's something I've committed to longer term': The impact of an immersion program for physicians on adoption of genomic medicine.
- Author
-
Gaff C., Martyn M., McClaren B., Janinski M., Lynch E., Cunningham F., Gaff C., Martyn M., McClaren B., Janinski M., Lynch E., and Cunningham F.
- Abstract
Objective: To foster implementation of genomic testing in medical care by providing a cadre of physicians with 'hands on' experience in genomics, positioning them as opinion leaders in their medical speciality. This paper presents qualitative evaluation of immediate outcomes, in particular its impact on peer interactions. Method(s): Program design and delivery was informed by implementation science, behavior change and experiential learning theories. Inductive content analysis of transcribed audio-recordings from semi-structured post-project interviews with all participants (n = 12) was conducted. Result(s): Participants reported the immersion experience improved their genomic capability, established them as credible genomic experts within their speciality and altered their practice in genomic medicine. Participants reported strengthening and widening of peer-to-peer and interdisciplinary communication, with both passive diffusion and active dissemination of information to peers. Some also became a resource for genetic professionals. Conclusion(s): Genomic immersion participants described elements which support sustained integration of an innovation, including immediate changes (e.g. use of genomic tests) and wider impacts (e.g. professional networks). Practice implications: This study supports a role for immersion as a successful strategy for enhancing engagement of non-geneticist physicians in genomics. Additional study is needed to understand how immersion experiences change the delivery of genomic services at the provider, practice and health system level.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V.
- Published
- 2020
38. Breast Cancer Polygenic Risk Score and Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk.
- Author
-
Heemskerk-Gerritsen B.A.M., Ito H., Jakimovska M., Jakubowska A., Janni W., John E.M., Jung A., Kang D., Kets C.M., Khusnutdinova E., Ko Y.-D., Kristensen V.N., Kurian A.W., Kwong A., Lambrechts D., Le Marchand L., Li J., Lindblom A., Lubinski J., Mannermaa A., Manoochehri M., Margolin S., Matsuo K., Mavroudis D., Meindl A., Milne R.L., Mulligan A.M., Muranen T.A., Neuhausen S.L., Nevanlinna H., Newman W.G., Olshan A.F., Olson J.E., Olsson H., Park-Simon T.-W., Peto J., Petridis C., Plaseska-Karanfilska D., Presneau N., Pylkas K., Radice P., Rennert G., Romero A., Roylance R., Saloustros E., Sawyer E.J., Schmutzler R.K., Schwentner L., Scott C., See M.-H., Shah M., Shen C.-Y., Shu X.-O., Siesling S., Slager S., Sohn C., Spinelli J.J., Stone J., Tapper W.J., Tengstrom M., Teo S.H., Terry M.B., Tollenaar R.A.E.M., Tomlinson I., Troester M.A., Vachon C.M., van Ongeval C., van Veen E.M., Winqvist R., Wolk A., Zheng W., Ziogas A., Easton D.F., Hall P., Schmidt M.K., Kramer I., Hooning M.J., Mavaddat N., Hauptmann M., Keeman R., Steyerberg E.W., Giardiello D., Antoniou A.C., Pharoah P.D.P., Canisius S., Abu-Ful Z., Andrulis I.L., Anton-Culver H., Aronson K.J., Augustinsson A., Becher H., Beckmann M.W., Behrens S., Benitez J., Bermisheva M., Bogdanova N.V., Bojesen S.E., Bolla M.K., Bonanni B., Brauch H., Bremer M., Brucker S.Y., Burwinkel B., Castelao J.E., Chan T.L., Chang-Claude J., Chanock S.J., Chenevix-Trench G., Choi J.-Y., Clarke C.L., Borresen-Dale A.-L., Sahlberg K., Ottestad L., Karesen R., Schlichting E., Holmen M.M., Sauer T., Haakensen V., Engebraten O., Naume B., Fossa A., Kiserud C., Reinertsen K., Helland A., Riis M., Geisler J., Alnaes G.G., Collee J.M., Couch F.J., Cox A., Cross S.S., Czene K., Daly M.B., Devilee P., Dork T., dos-Santos-Silva I., Dunning A.M., Dwek M., Eccles D.M., Evans D.G., Fasching P.A., Flyger H., Gago-Dominguez M., Garcia-Closas M., Garcia-Saenz J.A., Giles G.G., Goldgar D.E., Gonzalez-Neira A., Haiman C.A., Hakansson N., Hamann U., Hartman M., Hollestelle A., Hopper J.L., Hou M.-F., Howell A., Clarke C., Marsh D., Scott R., Baxter R., Yip D., Carpenter J., Davis A., Pathmanathan N., Simpson P., Graham J.D., Sachchithananthan M., Amor D., Andrews L., Antill Y., Balleine R., Beesley J., Bennett I., Bogwitz M., Botes L., Brennan M., Brown M., Buckley M., Burke J., Butow P., Caldon L., Campbell I., Chauhan D., Chauhan M., Christian A., Cohen P., Colley A., Crook A., Cui J., Cummings M., Dawson S.-J., deFazio A., Delatycki M., Dickson R., Dixon J., Edkins T., Edwards S., Farshid G., Fellows A., Fenton G., Field M., Flanagan J., Fong P., Forrest L., Fox S., French J., Friedlander M., Gaff C., Gattas M., George P., Greening S., Harris M., Hart S., Hayward N., Hopper J., Hoskins C., Hunt C., James P., Jenkins M., Kidd A., Kirk J., Koehler J., Kollias J., Lakhani S., Lawrence M., Lindeman G., Lipton L., Lobb L., Mann G., McLachlan S.A., Meiser B., Nightingale S., O'Connell S., O'Sullivan S., Ortega D.G., Pachter N., Patterson B., Pearn A., Phillips K., Pieper E., Rickard E., Robinson B., Saleh M., Salisbury E., Saunders C., Saunus J., Sexton A., Shelling A., Southey M.C., Spurdle A., Taylor J., Taylor R., Thorne H., Trainer A., Tucker K., Visvader J., Walker L., Williams R., Winship I., Young M.A., Heemskerk-Gerritsen B.A.M., Ito H., Jakimovska M., Jakubowska A., Janni W., John E.M., Jung A., Kang D., Kets C.M., Khusnutdinova E., Ko Y.-D., Kristensen V.N., Kurian A.W., Kwong A., Lambrechts D., Le Marchand L., Li J., Lindblom A., Lubinski J., Mannermaa A., Manoochehri M., Margolin S., Matsuo K., Mavroudis D., Meindl A., Milne R.L., Mulligan A.M., Muranen T.A., Neuhausen S.L., Nevanlinna H., Newman W.G., Olshan A.F., Olson J.E., Olsson H., Park-Simon T.-W., Peto J., Petridis C., Plaseska-Karanfilska D., Presneau N., Pylkas K., Radice P., Rennert G., Romero A., Roylance R., Saloustros E., Sawyer E.J., Schmutzler R.K., Schwentner L., Scott C., See M.-H., Shah M., Shen C.-Y., Shu X.-O., Siesling S., Slager S., Sohn C., Spinelli J.J., Stone J., Tapper W.J., Tengstrom M., Teo S.H., Terry M.B., Tollenaar R.A.E.M., Tomlinson I., Troester M.A., Vachon C.M., van Ongeval C., van Veen E.M., Winqvist R., Wolk A., Zheng W., Ziogas A., Easton D.F., Hall P., Schmidt M.K., Kramer I., Hooning M.J., Mavaddat N., Hauptmann M., Keeman R., Steyerberg E.W., Giardiello D., Antoniou A.C., Pharoah P.D.P., Canisius S., Abu-Ful Z., Andrulis I.L., Anton-Culver H., Aronson K.J., Augustinsson A., Becher H., Beckmann M.W., Behrens S., Benitez J., Bermisheva M., Bogdanova N.V., Bojesen S.E., Bolla M.K., Bonanni B., Brauch H., Bremer M., Brucker S.Y., Burwinkel B., Castelao J.E., Chan T.L., Chang-Claude J., Chanock S.J., Chenevix-Trench G., Choi J.-Y., Clarke C.L., Borresen-Dale A.-L., Sahlberg K., Ottestad L., Karesen R., Schlichting E., Holmen M.M., Sauer T., Haakensen V., Engebraten O., Naume B., Fossa A., Kiserud C., Reinertsen K., Helland A., Riis M., Geisler J., Alnaes G.G., Collee J.M., Couch F.J., Cox A., Cross S.S., Czene K., Daly M.B., Devilee P., Dork T., dos-Santos-Silva I., Dunning A.M., Dwek M., Eccles D.M., Evans D.G., Fasching P.A., Flyger H., Gago-Dominguez M., Garcia-Closas M., Garcia-Saenz J.A., Giles G.G., Goldgar D.E., Gonzalez-Neira A., Haiman C.A., Hakansson N., Hamann U., Hartman M., Hollestelle A., Hopper J.L., Hou M.-F., Howell A., Clarke C., Marsh D., Scott R., Baxter R., Yip D., Carpenter J., Davis A., Pathmanathan N., Simpson P., Graham J.D., Sachchithananthan M., Amor D., Andrews L., Antill Y., Balleine R., Beesley J., Bennett I., Bogwitz M., Botes L., Brennan M., Brown M., Buckley M., Burke J., Butow P., Caldon L., Campbell I., Chauhan D., Chauhan M., Christian A., Cohen P., Colley A., Crook A., Cui J., Cummings M., Dawson S.-J., deFazio A., Delatycki M., Dickson R., Dixon J., Edkins T., Edwards S., Farshid G., Fellows A., Fenton G., Field M., Flanagan J., Fong P., Forrest L., Fox S., French J., Friedlander M., Gaff C., Gattas M., George P., Greening S., Harris M., Hart S., Hayward N., Hopper J., Hoskins C., Hunt C., James P., Jenkins M., Kidd A., Kirk J., Koehler J., Kollias J., Lakhani S., Lawrence M., Lindeman G., Lipton L., Lobb L., Mann G., McLachlan S.A., Meiser B., Nightingale S., O'Connell S., O'Sullivan S., Ortega D.G., Pachter N., Patterson B., Pearn A., Phillips K., Pieper E., Rickard E., Robinson B., Saleh M., Salisbury E., Saunders C., Saunus J., Sexton A., Shelling A., Southey M.C., Spurdle A., Taylor J., Taylor R., Thorne H., Trainer A., Tucker K., Visvader J., Walker L., Williams R., Winship I., and Young M.A.
- Abstract
Previous research has shown that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can be used to stratify women according to their risk of developing primary invasive breast cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the association between a recently validated PRS of 313 germline variants (PRS313) and contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk. We included 56,068 women of European ancestry diagnosed with first invasive breast cancer from 1990 onward with follow-up from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Metachronous CBC risk (N = 1,027) according to the distribution of PRS313 was quantified using Cox regression analyses. We assessed PRS313 interaction with age at first diagnosis, family history, morphology, ER status, PR status, and HER2 status, and (neo)adjuvant therapy. In studies of Asian women, with limited follow-up, CBC risk associated with PRS313 was assessed using logistic regression for 340 women with CBC compared with 12,133 women with unilateral breast cancer. Higher PRS313 was associated with increased CBC risk: hazard ratio per standard deviation (SD) = 1.25 (95%CI = 1.18-1.33) for Europeans, and an OR per SD = 1.15 (95%CI = 1.02-1.29) for Asians. The absolute lifetime risks of CBC, accounting for death as competing risk, were 12.4% for European women at the 10th percentile and 20.5% at the 90th percentile of PRS313. We found no evidence of confounding by or interaction with individual characteristics, characteristics of the primary tumor, or treatment. The C-index for the PRS313 alone was 0.563 (95%CI = 0.547-0.586). In conclusion, PRS313 is an independent factor associated with CBC risk and can be incorporated into CBC risk prediction models to help improve stratification and optimize surveillance and treatment strategies.Copyright © 2020 American Society of Human Genetics
- Published
- 2020
39. Exome sequencing in newborns with congenital deafness as a model for genomic newborn screening: the Baby Beyond Hearing project
- Author
-
Downie, L, Halliday, J, Lewis, S, Lunke, S, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Gaff, C, Jarmolowicz, A, Amor, DJ, Downie, L, Halliday, J, Lewis, S, Lunke, S, Lynch, E, Martyn, M, Gaff, C, Jarmolowicz, A, and Amor, DJ
- Abstract
PURPOSE: Genomic newborn screening raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence is required to build a framework to introduce this technology safely and effectively. We investigated the choices made by a diverse group of parents with newborns when offered tiered genomic information from exome sequencing. METHODS: This population-derived cohort comprised infants with congenital deafness. Parents were offered exome sequencing and choice regarding the scope of analysis. Options were choice A, diagnostic analysis only; choice B, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with medical actionability; or choice C, diagnostic analysis plus childhood-onset diseases with or without medical actionability. RESULTS: Of the 106 participants, 72 (68%) consented to receive additional findings with 29 (27.4%) selecting choice B and 43 (40.6%) opting for choice C. Family size, ethnicity, and age of infant at time of recruitment were the significant predictors of choice. Parents who opted to have additional findings analysis demonstrated less anxiety and decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide evidence from a culturally diverse population that choice around additional findings is important and the age of the infant when this choice is offered impacts on their decision. We found no evidence that offering different levels of genomic information to parents of newborns has a negative psychological impact.
- Published
- 2020
40. Development of an Evidence-Based, Theory-Informed National Survey of Physician Preparedness for Genomic Medicine and Preferences for Genomics Continuing Education
- Author
-
McClaren, BJ, King, EA, Crellin, E, Gaff, C, Metcalfe, SA, Nisselle, A, McClaren, BJ, King, EA, Crellin, E, Gaff, C, Metcalfe, SA, and Nisselle, A
- Abstract
Despite some early implementation of genomic medicine globally, there is a lack of rigorous, large-scale assessments of medical specialists' current practice and continuing education needs. As a first step to addressing this gap, we describe the development of a robust, expert-reviewed, survey using a mixed-methods sequential study design. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 education providers and 86 non-genetic medical specialists about current genomic medicine practice and need for continuing education. Key concepts were identified and used as an initial framework for the survey. These were: personal characteristics (medical specialty, years of practice); current practice of genomics in clinical and research settings; perception of how proximal genomic medicine is to practice; perception of preparedness (competence and confidence); and, preferences for future roles and models of care in genomic medicine and for continuing education. Potential survey questions that related to at least one of these concepts were identified from the literature or were created if no suitable question existed. Using a modified, reactive Delphi approach, questions were reviewed by a panel of 22 experts. Experts were selected purposefully representing four areas of expertise: non-genetic medical specialties; clinical genetics; genetic/genomic education and evaluation; and implementation science. Three Delphi rounds assessed relevance, clarity and importance of each question. The questions were also mapped to the behaviour change wheel theoretical framework which encompasses capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B). The survey (included as supplementary material) was then tested with a small group of non-genetic medical specialists and feedback was written or verbal in 'talk-aloud', cognitive interviews. The final survey was then piloted with a further 29 specialists. We describe the methodology to create a robust, data- and theory-informed survey. The final
- Published
- 2020
41. From Expectations to Experiences: Consumer Autonomy and Choice in Personal Genomic Testing.
- Author
-
Savard, J, Hickerton, C, Metcalfe, SA, Gaff, C, Middleton, A, Newson, AJ, Savard, J, Hickerton, C, Metcalfe, SA, Gaff, C, Middleton, A, and Newson, AJ
- Abstract
Background: Personal genomic testing (PGT) offers individuals genetic information about relationships, wellness, sporting ability, and health. PGT is increasingly accessible online, including in emerging markets such as Australia. Little is known about what consumers expect from these tests and whether their reflections on testing resonate with bioethics concepts such as autonomy.Methods: We report findings from focus groups and semi-structured interviews that explored attitudes to and experiences of PGT. Focus group participants had little experience with PGT, while interview participants had undergone testing. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings were critically interpreted with reference to bioethics scholarship on autonomy.Results: Fifty-six members of the public participated in seven focus groups, and 40 individuals were interviewed separately. Both groups valued the choice of PGT, and believed that it could motivate relevant actions. Focus group themes centered on the perceived value of choices, knowledge enabling action and knowledge about the self. Interview themes suggest that participants reflexively engage with their PGT information to make meaning, and that some appreciate its shortcomings. Critical interpretation of findings shows that while consumers of PGT are able to exercise a degree of autonomy in choosing, they may not be able to achieve a substantive conceptualization of autonomy, one that promotes alignment with higher-order desires.Conclusions: PGT consumers can critically reason about testing. However, they may uncritically accept test results, may not appreciate drawbacks of increased choice, or may overestimate the potential for information to motivate behavioral change. While consumers appear to be capable of substantive autonomy, they do so without ongoing support from companies. PGT companies promote a problematic ("default") account of autonomy, reliant on empowerment rhetoric. This leaves consumers
- Published
- 2020
42. The leadership behaviors needed to implement clinical genomics at scale: a qualitative study
- Author
-
Best, S, Stark, Z, Brown, H, Long, JC, Hewage, K, Gaff, C, Braithwaite, J, Taylor, N, Best, S, Stark, Z, Brown, H, Long, JC, Hewage, K, Gaff, C, Braithwaite, J, and Taylor, N
- Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate leadership in clinical genomics and identify likely implications of different leadership approaches for future implementation of clinical genomics. METHODS: We undertook 37 interviews in a cross-sectional qualitative study examining implementation of clinical genomics in Australia. Participants were either nongenetic medical specialists working with genomic initiatives (e.g., immunologists, nephrologists) or working at a service/organizational level (e.g., department heads, chief medical officers). We identified participants as genomic migrants (long-established practitioners) and genomic natives (those medical specialists coming into independent practice with genomic technology in situ). Data were analyzed deductively with reference to leadership approach. RESULTS: Leadership approaches were often blended or reported to iteratively support development of another. There was concern at both the absence or the excess of entrepreneurial leadership (i.e., risk-taking). CONCLUSION: Entrepreneurial leadership is needed to promote innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactivity, essential in these early stages of clinical genomics. Shared decision-making is required from a wide range of clinicians, calling for both clinical and distributed leadership. Sharing leadership, and the potential loss of positional status from formal senior positions, may prove challenging to genomics "migrants," who are essential for nurturing genomic "natives." Clinicians will need support from their organizations and professional bodies to manage the transition.
- Published
- 2020
43. Professional regulation for Australasian genetic counselors.
- Author
-
Hoskins, C, Gaff, C, McEwen, A, Macciocca, I, Pearn, A, Shalhoub, C, Salvemini, H, Berkman, J, Riley, KE, Williams, R, Milward, M, Young, M-A, Hoskins, C, Gaff, C, McEwen, A, Macciocca, I, Pearn, A, Shalhoub, C, Salvemini, H, Berkman, J, Riley, KE, Williams, R, Milward, M, and Young, M-A
- Abstract
As a result of the ongoing global expansion of genetic counseling, the need to formalize a system of professional regulation for genetic counselors was identified in Australasia. In June 2017, under the auspices of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA), a working party was convened. The purpose of the working party was to provide strategic leadership for the profession of Australasian genetic counselors with a goal to formalize a national regulatory framework for genetic counselors across both Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions. This was ultimately achieved in Australia through full membership with the National Alliance of Self-Regulating Health Professions (NASRHP) while the profession of genetic counseling in New Zealand is utilizing this framework to establish their regulation pathway. Regulation has a number of implications for genetic counselors, their employers, and the wider community, with the primary purpose of regulation being protection of the public from harm. This paper details the process of formalizing self-regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia, by defining professional regulation; outlining the purpose of regulation and the status of regulation for genetic counselors in Australasia and internationally, as well as health professionals more broadly; exploring the challenges of establishing regulation in Australasia; and the next steps for regulation in Australasia. Through detailing this process, the intention is to provide a framework to support genetic counseling colleagues internationally as well as other health professions in Australasia to explore and achieve regulation through their respective jurisdiction.
- Published
- 2020
44. A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of ovarian cancer
- Author
-
Tiller, K., Meiser, B., Gaff, C., Kirk, J., Dudding, T., Phillips, K.-A., Friedlander, M., and Tucker, K.
- Subjects
Women -- Health aspects -- Genetic aspects -- Research ,Ovarian cancer -- Prevention -- Research -- Management -- Genetic aspects ,Health ,Company business management ,Management ,Prevention ,Research ,Genetic aspects ,Health aspects - Abstract
Purpose. To carry out a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer to facilitate decision making regarding risk management options. Methods. [...]
- Published
- 2006
45. Issues Faced by Unaffected Men With a Family History of Prostate Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Overview
- Author
-
Wakefield, C. E., Meiser, B., Gaff, C. L., Barratt, A., Patel, M. I., Suthers, G., Lobb, E. A., Ramsay, J., and Mann, G. J.
- Published
- 2008
46. Development and validation of a targeted gene sequencing panel for application to disparate cancers
- Author
-
McCabe, MJ, Gauthier, MEA, Chan, CL, Thompson, TJ, De Sousa, SMC, Puttick, C, Grady, JP, Gayevskiy, V, Tao, J, Ying, K, Cipponi, A, Deng, N, Swarbrick, A, Thomas, ML, Lord, RV, Johns, AL, Kohonen-Corish, M, O’Toole, SA, Clark, J, Mueller, SA, Gupta, R, McCormack, AI, Dinger, ME, Cowley, MJ, Aghmesheh, M, Amor, D, Andrews, L, Antill, Y, Armitage, S, Arnold, L, Balleine, R, Bastick, P, Beesley, J, Beilby, J, Bennett, I, Blackburn, A, Bogwitz, M, Botes, L, Brennan, M, Brown, M, Buckley, M, Burgess, M, Burke, J, Butow, P, Caldon, L, Callen, D, Campbell, I, Chauhan, D, Chauhan, M, Chenevix-Trench, G, Christian, A, Clarke, C, Cohen, P, Colley, A, Crook, A, Cui, J, Culling, B, Cummings, M, Dawson, SJ, deFazio, A, Delatycki, M, Dickson, R, Dixon, J, Dobrovic, A, Dudding, T, Edkins, T, Edwards, S, Eisenbruch, M, Farshid, G, Fellows, A, Fenton, G, Field, M, Flanagan, J, Fong, P, Forrest, L, Fox, S, French, J, Friedlander, M, Gaff, C, Ortega, DG, Gattas, M, George, P, Giles, G, Gill, G, Greening, S, Haan, E, Harris, M, Hart, S, Hayward, N, Heiniger, L, Hopper, J, Hunt, C, James, P, Jenkins, M, Kefford, R, Kidd, A, Kirk, J, Koehler, J, Kollias, J, and Lakhani, S
- Abstract
© 2019, The Author(s). Next generation sequencing has revolutionised genomic studies of cancer, having facilitated the development of precision oncology treatments based on a tumour’s molecular profile. We aimed to develop a targeted gene sequencing panel for application to disparate cancer types with particular focus on tumours of the head and neck, plus test for utility in liquid biopsy. The final panel designed through Roche/Nimblegen combined 451 cancer-associated genes (2.01 Mb target region). 136 patient DNA samples were collected for performance and application testing. Panel sensitivity and precision were measured using well-characterised DNA controls (n = 47), and specificity by Sanger sequencing of the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Interacting Protein (AIP) gene in 89 patients. Assessment of liquid biopsy application employed a pool of synthetic circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Library preparation and sequencing were conducted on Illumina-based platforms prior to analysis with our accredited (ISO15189) bioinformatics pipeline. We achieved a mean coverage of 395x, with sensitivity and specificity of >99% and precision of >97%. Liquid biopsy revealed detection to 1.25% variant allele frequency. Application to head and neck tumours/cancers resulted in detection of mutations aligned to published databases. In conclusion, we have developed an analytically-validated panel for application to cancers of disparate types with utility in liquid biopsy.
- Published
- 2019
47. The FANCM:p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer
- Author
-
Figlioli, G., Bogliolo, M., Catucci, I., Caleca, L., Lasheras, S. V., Pujol, R., Kiiski, J. I., Muranen, T. A., Barnes, D. R., Dennis, J., Michailidou, K., Bolla, M. K., Leslie, G., Aalfs, C. M., Balleine, R., Baxter, R., Braye, S., Carpenter, J., Dahlstrom, J., Forbes, J., Lee, C. S., Marsh, D., Morey, A., Pathmanathan, N., Scott, R., Simpson, P., Spigelman, A., Wilcken, N., Yip, D., Zeps, N., Adank, M. A., Adlard, J., Agata, S., Cadoo, K., Agnarsson, B. A., Ahearn, T., Aittomaki, K., Ambrosone, C. B., Andrews, L., Anton-Culver, H., Antonenkova, N. N., Arndt, V., Arnold, N., Aronson, K. J., Arun, B. K., Asseryanis, E., Auber, B., Auvinen, P., Azzollini, J., Balmana, J., Barkardottir, R. B., Barrowdale, D., Barwell, J., Beane Freeman, L. E., Beauparlant, C. J., Beckmann, M. W., Behrens, S., Benitez, J., Berger, R., Bermisheva, M., Blanco, A. M., Blomqvist, C., Bogdanova, N. V., Bojesen, A., Bojesen, S. E., Bonanni, B., Borg, A., Brady, A. F., Brauch, H., Brenner, H., Bruning, T., Burwinkel, B., Buys, S. S., Caldes, T., Caliebe, A., Caligo, M. A., Campa, D., Campbell, I. G., Canzian, F., Castelao, J. E., Chang-Claude, J., Chanock, S. J., Claes, K. B. M., Clarke, C. L., Collavoli, A., Conner, T. A., Cox, D. G., Cybulski, C., Czene, K., Daly, M. B., de la Hoya, M., Devilee, P., Diez, O., Ding, Y. C., Dite, G. S., Ditsch, N., Domchek, S. M., Dorfling, C. M., dos-Santos-Silva, I., Durda, K., Dwek, M., Eccles, D. M., Ekici, A. B., Eliassen, A. H., Ellberg, C., Eriksson, M., Evans, D. G., Fasching, P. A., Figueroa, J., Flyger, H., Foulkes, W. D., Friebel, T. M., Friedman, E., Gabrielson, M., Gaddam, P., Gago-Dominguez, M., Gao, C., Gapstur, S. M., Garber, J., Garcia-Closas, M., Garcia-Saenz, J. A., Gaudet, M. M., Gayther, S. A., Belotti, M., Bertrand, O., Birot, A. -M., Buecher, B., Caputo, S., Dupre, A., Fourme, E., Gauthier-Villars, M., Golmard, L., Le Mentec, M., Moncoutier, V., de Pauw, A., Saule, C., Boutry-Kryza, N., Calender, A., Giraud, S., Leone, M., Bressac-de-Paillerets, B., Caron, O., Guillaud-Bataille, M., Bignon, Y. -J., Uhrhammer, N., Bonadona, V., Lasset, C., Berthet, P., Castera, L., Vaur, D., Bourdon, V., Nogues, C., Noguchi, T., Popovici, C., Remenieras, A., Sobol, H., Coupier, I., Pujol, P., Adenis, C., Dumont, A., Revillion, F., Muller, D., Barouk-Simonet, E., Bonnet, F., Bubien, V., Longy, M., Sevenet, N., Gladieff, L., Guimbaud, R., Feillel, V., Toulas, C., Dreyfus, H., Leroux, C. D., Peysselon, M., Rebischung, C., Legrand, C., Baurand, A., Bertolone, G., Coron, F., Faivre, L., Jacquot, C., Lizard, S., Kientz, C., Lebrun, M., Prieur, F., Fert-Ferrer, S., Mari, V., Venat-Bouvet, L., Bezieau, S., Delnatte, C., Mortemousque, I., Colas, C., Coulet, F., Soubrier, F., Warcoin, M., Bronner, M., Sokolowska, J., Collonge-Rame, M. -A., Damette, A., Gesta, P., Lallaoui, H., Chiesa, J., Molina-Gomes, D., Ingster, O., Manouvrier-Hanu, S., Lejeune, S., Giles, G. G., Glendon, G., Godwin, A. K., Goldberg, M. S., Goldgar, D. E., Guenel, P., Gutierrez-Barrera, A. M., Haeberle, L., Haiman, C. A., Hakansson, N., Hall, P., Hamann, U., Harrington, P. A., Hein, A., Heyworth, J., Hillemanns, P., Hollestelle, A., Hopper, J. L., Hosgood, H. D., Howell, A., Hu, C., Hulick, P. J., Hunter, D. J., Imyanitov, E. N., Aghmesheh, M., Greening, S., Amor, D., Gattas, M., Botes, L., Buckley, M., Friedlander, M., Koehler, J., Meiser, B., Saleh, M., Salisbury, E., Trainer, A., Tucker, K., Antill, Y., Dobrovic, A., Fellows, A., Fox, S., Harris, M., Nightingale, S., Phillips, K., Sambrook, J., Thorne, H., Armitage, S., Arnold, L., Kefford, R., Kirk, J., Rickard, E., Bastick, P., Beesley, J., Hayward, N., Spurdle, A., Walker, L., Beilby, J., Saunders, C., Bennett, I., Blackburn, A., Bogwitz, M., Gaff, C., Lindeman, G., Pachter, N., Scott, C., Sexton, A., Visvader, J., Taylor, J., Winship, I., Brennan, M., Brown, M., French, J., Edwards, S., Burgess, M., Burke, J., Patterson, B., Butow, P., Culling, B., Caldon, L., Callen, D., Chauhan, D., Eisenbruch, M., Heiniger, L., Chauhan, M., Christian, A., Dixon, J., Kidd, A., Cohen, P., Colley, A., Fenton, G., Crook, A., Dickson, R., Field, M., Cui, J., Cummings, M., Dawson, S. -J., Defazio, A., Delatycki, M., Dudding, T., Edkins, T., Farshid, G., Flanagan, J., Fong, P., Forrest, L., Gallego-Ortega, D., George, P., Gill, G., Kollias, J., Haan, E., Hart, S., Jenkins, M., Hunt, C., Lakhani, S., Lipton, L., Lobb, L., Mann, G., Mclachlan, S. A., O'Connell, S., O'Sullivan, S., Pieper, E., Robinson, B., Saunus, J., Scott, E., Shelling, A., Williams, R., Young, M. A., Isaacs, C., Jakimovska, M., Jakubowska, A., James, P., Janavicius, R., Janni, W., John, E. M., Jones, M. E., Jung, A., Kaaks, R., Karlan, B. Y., Khusnutdinova, E., Kitahara, C. M., Konstantopoulou, I., Koutros, S., Kraft, P., Lambrechts, D., Lazaro, C., Le Marchand, L., Lester, J., Lesueur, F., Lilyquist, J., Loud, J. T., K. H., Lu, Luben, R. N., Lubinski, J., Mannermaa, A., Manoochehri, M., Manoukian, S., Margolin, S., Martens, J. W. M., Maurer, T., Mavroudis, D., Mebirouk, N., Meindl, A., Menon, U., Miller, A., Montagna, M., Nathanson, K. L., Neuhausen, S. L., Newman, W. G., Nguyen-Dumont, T., Nielsen, F. C., Nielsen, S., Nikitina-Zake, L., Offit, K., Olah, E., Olopade, O. I., Olshan, A. F., Olson, J. E., Olsson, H., Osorio, A., Ottini, L., Peissel, B., Peixoto, A., Peto, J., Plaseska-Karanfilska, D., Pocza, T., Presneau, N., Pujana, M. A., Punie, K., Rack, B., Rantala, J., Rashid, M. U., Rau-Murthy, R., Rennert, G., Lejbkowicz, F., Rhenius, V., Romero, A., Rookus, M. A., Ross, E. A., Rossing, M., Rudaitis, V., Ruebner, M., Saloustros, E., Sanden, K., Santamarina, M., Scheuner, M. T., Schmutzler, R. K., Schneider, M., Senter, L., Shah, M., Sharma, P., Shu, X. -O., Simard, J., Singer, C. F., Sohn, C., Soucy, P., Southey, M. C., Spinelli, J. J., Steele, L., Stoppa-Lyonnet, D., Tapper, W. J., Teixeira, M. R., Terry, M. B., Thomassen, M., Thompson, J., Thull, D. L., Tischkowitz, M., Tollenaar, R. A. E. M., Torres, D., Troester, M. A., Truong, T., Tung, N., Untch, M., Vachon, C. M., van Rensburg, E. J., van Veen, E. M., Vega, A., Viel, A., Wappenschmidt, B., Weitzel, J. N., Wendt, C., Wieme, G., Wolk, A., Yang, X. R., Zheng, W., Ziogas, A., Zorn, K. K., Dunning, A. M., Lush, M., Wang, Q., Mcguffog, L., Parsons, M. T., Pharoah, P. D. P., Fostira, F., Toland, A. E., Andrulis, I. L., Ramus, S. J., Swerdlow, A. J., Greene, M. H., Chung, W. K., Milne, R. L., Chenevix-Trench, G., Dork, T., Schmidt, M. K., Easton, D. F., Radice, P., Hahnen, E., Antoniou, A. C., Couch, F. J., Nevanlinna, H., Surralles, J., Peterlongo, P., Caleca, Laura [0000-0002-3381-7493], Muranen, Taru A. [0000-0002-5895-1808], Dennis, Joe [0000-0003-4591-1214], Adlard, Julian [0000-0002-1693-0435], Arndt, Volker [0000-0001-9320-8684], Auber, Bernd [0000-0003-1880-291X], Bonanni, Bernardo [0000-0003-3589-2128], Brauch, Hiltrud [0000-0001-7531-2736], Devilee, Peter [0000-0002-8023-2009], Foulkes, William D. [0000-0001-7427-4651], Isaacs, Claudine [0000-0002-9646-1260], Jakimovska, Milena [0000-0002-1506-0669], Konstantopoulou, Irene [0000-0002-0470-0309], Lesueur, Fabienne [0000-0001-7404-4549], Menon, Usha [0000-0003-3708-1732], Miller, Austin [0000-0001-9739-8462], Peto, Julian [0000-0002-1685-8912], Punie, Kevin [0000-0002-1162-7963], Romero, Atocha [0000-0002-1634-7397], Saloustros, Emmanouil [0000-0002-0485-0120], Scott, Christopher [0000-0003-1340-0647], Viel, Alessandra [0000-0003-2804-0840], Wieme, Greet [0000-0003-2718-5300], Zheng, Wei [0000-0003-1226-070X], Ziogas, Argyrios [0000-0003-4529-3727], Greene, Mark H. [0000-0003-1852-9239], Nevanlinna, Heli [0000-0002-0916-2976], Peterlongo, Paolo [0000-0001-6951-6855], Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, Medical Oncology, Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), IFOM, Istituto FIRC di Oncologia Molecolare (IFOM), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center - Academisch Medisch Centrum [Amsterdam] (AMC), University of Amsterdam [Amsterdam] (UvA)-University of Amsterdam [Amsterdam] (UvA), Yorkshire Regional Genetics Service, Department of Pathology, University Hospital and University of Iceland School of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Schleswig–Holstein, Università degli Studi di Milano [Milano] (UNIMI), Medical Oncology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital [Barcelona], University of Iceland [Reykjavik]-Landspitali - University Hospital, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM), Leicestershire Clinical Genetics Service, University Hospitals Leicester, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch [Bethesda, Maryland], Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics [Bethesda, Maryland], National Cancer Institute [Bethesda] (NCI-NIH), National Institutes of Health [Bethesda] (NIH)-National Institutes of Health [Bethesda] (NIH)-National Cancer Institute [Bethesda] (NCI-NIH), National Institutes of Health [Bethesda] (NIH)-National Institutes of Health [Bethesda] (NIH), Laboratoire Interuniversitaire des Systèmes Atmosphériques (LISA (UMR_7583)), Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), German Cancer Research Center - Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum [Heidelberg] (DKFZ), Departemento Genetica Humana, Centro Nacional Investigaciones Oncologicas, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics of Ufa Scientific Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences [Moscow] (RAS), Department of Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (MHH), Hannover Medical School [Hannover] (MHH), Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, Department of Oncology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University [Lund]-Skåne University Hospital, North West Thames Regional Genetics, Northwick Park Hospital, Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch Institute for Clinical Pharmacology [Stuttgart], Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance (IPA), Molecular Epidemiology Research Group, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Section of Genetic Oncology, University of Pisa - Università di Pisa, Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon (UNICANCER/CRCL), Centre Léon Bérard [Lyon]-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL), Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Department of Genetics and Pathology, International Hereditary Cancer Centre-Pomeranian Medical University [Szczecin] (PUM), Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (MEB), Karolinska Institutet [Stockholm], Division of Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Human Genetics & Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Oncogenetics Laboratory, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology [Munich, Germany], University-Hospital Munich-Großhadern [München]-Ludwig Maximilian University [Munich] (LMU), Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania [Philadelphia]-University of Pennsylvania [Philadelphia], Wessex clinical genetics service, Lund University Hospital, Department of Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester [Manchester], Department of Breast Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Department of Human Genetics [Montréal], McGill University = Université McGill [Montréal, Canada], The Susanne Levy Gertner Oncogenetics Unit, Institute of Human Genetics, National Institutes of Health [Bethesda] (NIH), Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California (USC)-Keck School of Medicine [Los Angeles], University of Southern California (USC), University of Melbourne, Ontario Cancer Genetics Network, Cancer Care Ontario, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center [Kansas City, KS, USA], International Agency for Cancer Research (IACR), Centre de recherche en épidémiologie et santé des populations (CESP), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 (UP11)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Department of OB/Gyn, University Breast Center Franconia, Univeristy Hospital Erlangen, Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology [Cambridge], University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM)-Department of Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Josephine Nefkens Institute and Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, Erasmus University Medical Center [Rotterdam] (Erasmus MC), Centre for MEGA Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, The Christie, Department of Statistics, Penn State University, University of Pennsylvania [Philadelphia], Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Department of Molecular and Regenerative Medicine, Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion, Vilnius University [Vilnius]-Hospital Santariskiu Clinics, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf = Heinrich Heine University [Düsseldorf], Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, Women's Cancer Program, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics [Bashkortostan Republic, Russia], Russian Academy of Sciences / Ufa Scientific Centre [Bashkortostan Republic, Russia]], National Center for Scientific Research 'Demokritos' (NCSR), Harvard School of Public Health, Laboratory for translational genetics Leuven, Genetic Counseling and Hereditary Cancer Programme, Catalan Institute of Oncology, University of Hawai‘i [Mānoa] (UHM), Cancer et génome: Bioinformatique, biostatistiques et épidémiologie d'un système complexe, Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Institut Curie [Paris]-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Clinical Genetics Branch, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Unit of Medical Genetics, Fondazione IRCCS INT, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Technische Universität Munchen - Université Technique de Munich [Munich, Allemagne] (TUM), Institute for Women's Health [London], University College London Hospitals (UCLH), Immunology and Molecular Oncology Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV - IRCCS, Department of Medicine, Medical Genetics, Abramson Cancer Center-Perelman School of Medicine, Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Section Génétique - Groupe Prédispositions génétiques au cancer, Centre International de Recherche contre le Cancer (CIRC), Clinical Genetics Service, Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center [New York], Department of Molecular Genetics and Department of Chemotherapy, National Institute of Oncology, University of Chicago, Recherches épidémiologiques et statistiques sur l'environnement et la santé., Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Human Genetics Group, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Department of Molecular Medicine, Università degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza' = Sapienza University [Rome], Department of Genetics, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), University of Munich, Karolinska University Hospital [Stockholm], Umm Al-Qura University, Department of Community Medicine and Epidemiology, CHS National Cancer Control Center, Netherlands Cancer Institute, IT University of Copenhagen (ITU), Division of Molecular Gyneco-Oncology, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Clinical Center Un, Queen's University [Belfast] (QUB), Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine [Nashville], Laboratoire de Génomique des Cancers, Université Laval [Québec] (ULaval), Division of Special Gynecology, Medizinische Universität Wien = Medical University of Vienna-Department of OB/GYN, Division Molecular Biology of Breast Cancer, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Universität Heidelberg [Heidelberg], Cancer Genomics Laboratory, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Unité de génétique et biologie des cancers (U830), Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Institut Curie [Paris]-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar (ICBAS), Universidade do Porto = University of Porto, Department of Epidemiology [Columbia University], Columbia University [New York]-Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University [New York], Odense University Hospital, Instituto de Genética Humana, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (PUJ), HELIOS Hospital Berlin-Buch, Cancer Genetics Laboratory, University of Pretoria [South Africa], Genomic Medicine Group, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela [Spain] (USC ), Division of Experimental Oncology 1, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (CRO), Division of Molecular Gyneco-Oncology, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, Center for Astrophysical Sciences [Baltimore], Johns Hopkins University (JHU), European Bioinformatics Institute [Hinxton] (EMBL-EBI), EMBL Heidelberg, University of Science and Technology Beijing [Beijing] (USTB), University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM)-Department of Public Health and Primary Care-Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour (UPPA), Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology and Medical Genetics [Colombus], Ohio State University [Columbus] (OSU)-College of Medicine and Public Health [Colombus], Departments of Molecular Genetics and Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto-Cancer Care Ontario, The institute of cancer research [London], Department of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Cancer Research U.K. Genetic Epidemiology Unit, Unit of Genetic Susceptibility to Cancer, Department of Experimental Oncology and Molecular Medici, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Unit of Molecular Bases of Genetic Risk and Genetic Testing, Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine-Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori (INT), Muranen, Taru A [0000-0002-5895-1808], Foulkes, William D [0000-0001-7427-4651], Greene, Mark H [0000-0003-1852-9239], Institut Català de la Salut, [Figlioli G, Catucci I] IFOM - the FIRC Institute for Molecular Oncology, Genome Diagnostics Program, Milan, Italy. [Bogliolo M, Pujol R] Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. Center for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Madrid, Spain. Institute of Biomedical Research, Sant Pau Hospital, Barcelona, Spain. [Caleca L] Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Unit of Molecular Bases of Genetic Risk and Genetic Testing, Department of Research, Milan, Italy. [Lasheras SV] Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. [Balmaña J] High Risk and Cancer Prevention Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. Oncologia Mèdica, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. [Diez O] Oncogenetics Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. Genètica, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, University of Iceland [Reykjavik], Università degli Studi di Milano = University of Milan (UNIMI), Universiteit Leiden-Universiteit Leiden, University of Pennsylvania-University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University [Washington] (GU), Università degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza' = Sapienza University [Rome] (UNIROMA), Universität Heidelberg [Heidelberg] = Heidelberg University, European Project: 634935,H2020,H2020-PHC-2014-two-stage,BRIDGES(2015), European Project: 633784,H2020,H2020-PHC-2014-two-stage,B-CAST(2015), European Project: 223175,EC:FP7:HEALTH,FP7-HEALTH-2007-B,COGS(2009), Human Genetics, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona [Barcelona] (UAB), Università degli studi di Milano [Milano], University Hospitals of Leicester, Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon (CRCL), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL), Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Centre Léon Bérard [Lyon]-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Pomeranian Medical University-International Hereditary Cancer Centre, McGill University, University of Kansas Medical Center [Lawrence], Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 (UP11)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Department of Oncology-University of Cambridge [UK] (CAM), Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf [Düsseldorf], Cancer et génôme: Bioinformatique, biostatistiques et épidémiologie d'un système complexe, MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris-Institut Curie-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Technical University of Munich (TUM), Università degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza' [Rome], IT University of Copenhagen, Laval University [Québec], Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Institut Curie-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, University of Santiago de Compostela, Læknadeild (HÍ), Faculty of Medicine (UI), Biomedical Center (UI), Lífvísindasetur (HÍ), Heilbrigðisvísindasvið (HÍ), School of Health Sciences (UI), Háskóli Íslands, University of Iceland, Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Université Paris-Sud - Paris 11 (UP11)-Hôpital Paul Brousse-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), MINES ParisTech - École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris, Institut Curie [Paris]-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5), Universidade do Porto, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), Unión Europea. Comisión Europea, Against Breast Cancer, Cancer Research UK (Reino Unido), Unión Europea. Comisión Europea. H2020, Cancer UK Grant, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ministère de Économie, de la science et de innovation (Canadá), NIH - National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Estados Unidos), Dutch Cancer Society (Holanda), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Xunta de Galicia (España), Canadian Cancer Society, California Breast Cancer Research Program, California Department of Public Health, Medical Research Council (Reino Unido), Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE -Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases), Federal Ministry of Education & Research (Alemania), German Cancer Aid, Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Finlands Akademi (Finlandia), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Alemania), Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Rusia), National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Infrastructure (Países Bajos), Estée Lauder Companies’ Breast Cancer Campaign, Swedish Research Council, NIH - National Cancer Institute (NCI). Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPOREs) (Estados Unidos), Lon V. Smith Foundation, Research Coincil of Lithuania, Italian Association for Cancer Research, University of Kansas. Cancer Center (Estados Unidos), Unión Europea. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER/ERDF), French National Cancer Institute, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Pink Ribbons Project, United States of Department of Health & Human Services, HUS Gynecology and Obstetrics, Clinicum, University of Helsinki, Medicum, Kristiina Aittomäki / Principal Investigator, HUSLAB, University Management, HUS Comprehensive Cancer Center, Biosciences, Helsinki University Hospital, and Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba (Lituania)
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,Gene mutation ,Càncer - Aspectes genètics ,chemistry.chemical_compound ,0302 clinical medicine ,Breast cancer ,Mama - Càncer ,Fanconi anemia ,[SDV.MHEP.MI]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Infectious diseases ,Brjóstakrabbamein ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Pharmacology (medical) ,FANCM ,631/208/68 ,skin and connective tissue diseases ,Cancer genetics ,Triple-negative breast cancer ,ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS ,[SDV.MHEP.ME]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Emerging diseases ,Manchester Cancer Research Centre ,Otros calificadores::Otros calificadores::/genética [Otros calificadores] ,article ,lcsh:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens ,3. Good health ,Oncology ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Neoplasms::Neoplasms by Site::Breast Neoplasms::Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms [DISEASES] ,[SDV.MP.VIR]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Microbiology and Parasitology/Virology ,Life Sciences & Biomedicine ,3122 Cancers ,ABCTB Investigators ,lcsh:RC254-282 ,KConFab ,Olaparib ,Càncer de mama ,GEMO Study Collaborators ,03 medical and health sciences ,breast cancer ,[SDV.MHEP.CSC]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Cardiology and cardiovascular system ,SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being ,631/67/68 ,medicine ,Other subheadings::Other subheadings::/genetics [Other subheadings] ,Erfðafræði ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,[SDV.MP.PAR]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Microbiology and Parasitology/Parasitology ,ddc:610 ,Risk factor ,CHEK2 ,Krabbamein ,Cancer och onkologi ,FancM ,Science & Technology ,cancer ,MUTATIONS ,business.industry ,ResearchInstitutes_Networks_Beacons/mcrc ,Biology and Life Sciences ,nutritional and metabolic diseases ,cancer genetics ,medicine.disease ,GENE ,Expressió gènica ,[SDV.MP.BAC]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Microbiology and Parasitology/Bacteriology ,neoplasias::neoplasias por localización::neoplasias de la mama::neoplasias de mama triple negativos [ENFERMEDADES] ,030104 developmental biology ,chemistry ,692/4028/67/68 ,Cancer and Oncology ,FANCONI-ANEMIA ,Cancer research ,gene expression ,C.5791C-GREATER-THAN-T ,business - Abstract
Publisher's version (útgefin grein), Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM−/− patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors., Peterlongo laboratory is supported by Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2015 no.16732) to P. Peterlongo and by a fellowship from Fondazione Umberto Veronesi to G. Figlioli. Surrallés laboratory is supported by the ICREA-Academia program, the Spanish Ministry of Health (projects FANCOSTEM and FANCOLEN), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competiveness (projects CB06/07/0023 and RTI2018-098419-B-I00), the European Commission (EUROFANCOLEN project HEALTH-F5-2012-305421 and P-SPHERE COFUND project), the Fanconi Anemia Research Fund Inc, and the “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, una manera de hacer Europa” (FEDER). CIBERER is an initiative of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain. BCAC: we thank all the individuals who took part in these studies and all the researchers, clinicians, technicians and administrative staff who have enabled this work to be carried out. ABCFS thank Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Tu Nguyen-Dumont is a National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia) Career Development Fellow. ABCS thanks the Blood bank Sanquin, The Netherlands. Samples are made available to researchers on a non-exclusive basis. BCEES thanks Allyson Thomson, Christobel Saunders, Terry Slevin, BreastScreen Western Australia, Elizabeth Wylie, Rachel Lloyd. The BCINIS study would not have been possible without the contributions of Dr. Hedy Rennert, Dr. K. Landsman, Dr. N. Gronich, Dr. A. Flugelman, Dr. W. Saliba, Dr. E. Liani, Dr. I. Cohen, Dr. S. Kalet, Dr. V. Friedman, Dr. O. Barnet of the NICCC in Haifa, and all the contributing family medicine, surgery, pathology and oncology teams in all medical institutes in Northern Israel. The BREOGAN study would not have been possible without the contributions of the following: Manuela Gago-Dominguez, Jose Esteban Castelao, Angel Carracedo, Victor Muñoz Garzón, Alejandro Novo Domínguez, Maria Elena Martinez, Sara Miranda Ponte, Carmen Redondo Marey, Maite Peña Fernández, Manuel Enguix Castelo, Maria Torres, Manuel Calaza (BREOGAN), José Antúnez, Máximo Fraga and the staff of the Department of Pathology and Biobank of the University Hospital Complex of Santiago-CHUS, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago, IDIS, Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Santiago-SERGAS; Joaquín González-Carreró and the staff of the Department of Pathology and Biobank of University Hospital Complex of Vigo, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur, SERGAS, Vigo, Spain. BSUCH thanks Peter Bugert, Medical Faculty Mannheim. CBCS thanks study participants, co-investigators, collaborators and staff of the Canadian Breast Cancer Study, and project coordinators Agnes Lai and Celine Morissette. CCGP thanks Styliani Apostolaki, Anna Margiolaki, Georgios Nintos, Maria Perraki, Georgia Saloustrou, Georgia Sevastaki, Konstantinos Pompodakis. CGPS thanks staff and participants of the Copenhagen General Population Study. For the excellent technical assistance: Dorthe Uldall Andersen, Maria Birna Arnadottir, Anne Bank, Dorthe Kjeldgård Hansen. The Danish Cancer Biobank is acknowledged for providing infrastructure for the collection of blood samples for the cases. Investigators from the CPS-II cohort thank the participants and Study Management Group for their invaluable contributions to this research. They also acknowledge the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, as well as cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. The CTS Steering Committee includes Leslie Bernstein, Susan Neuhausen, James Lacey, Sophia Wang, Huiyan Ma, and Jessica Clague DeHart at the Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Dennis Deapen, Rich Pinder, and Eunjung Lee at the University of Southern California, Pam Horn-Ross, Peggy Reynolds, Christina Clarke Dur and David Nelson at the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Hoda Anton-Culver, Argyrios Ziogas, and Hannah Park at the University of California Irvine, and Fred Schumacher at Case Western University. DIETCOMPLYF thanks the patients, nurses and clinical staff involved in the study. The DietCompLyf study was funded by the charity Against Breast Cancer (Registered Charity Number 1121258) and the NCRN. We thank the participants and the investigators of EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition). ESTHER thanks Hartwig Ziegler, Sonja Wolf, Volker Hermann, Christa Stegmaier, Katja Butterbach. FHRISK thanks NIHR for funding. GC-HBOC thanks Stefanie Engert, Heide Hellebrand, Sandra Kröber and LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases (Markus Loeffler, Joachim Thiery, Matthias Nüchter, Ronny Baber). The GENICA Network: Dr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, and University of Tübingen, Germany [HB, Wing-Yee Lo], German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) [HB], Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy - EXC 2180 - 390900677 [HB], Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany [Yon-Dschun Ko, Christian Baisch], Institute of Pathology, University of Bonn, Germany [Hans-Peter Fischer], Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany [Ute Hamann], Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany [TB, Beate Pesch, Sylvia Rabstein, Anne Lotz]; and Institute of Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany [Volker Harth]. HABCS thanks Michael Bremer. HEBCS thanks Heidi Toiminen, Kristiina Aittomäki, Irja Erkkilä and Outi Malkavaara. HMBCS thanks Peter Hillemanns, Hans Christiansen and Johann H. Karstens. HUBCS thanks Shamil Gantsev. KARMA thanks the Swedish Medical Research Counsel. KBCP thanks Eija Myöhänen, Helena Kemiläinen. LMBC thanks Gilian Peuteman, Thomas Van Brussel, EvyVanderheyden and Kathleen Corthouts. MABCS thanks Milena Jakimovska (RCGEB “Georgi D. Efremov), Katerina Kubelka, Mitko Karadjozov (Adzibadem-Sistina” Hospital), Andrej Arsovski and Liljana Stojanovska (Re-Medika” Hospital) for their contributions and commitment to this study. MARIE thanks Petra Seibold, Dieter Flesch-Janys, Judith Heinz, Nadia Obi, Alina Vrieling, Sabine Behrens, Ursula Eilber, Muhabbet Celik, Til Olchers and Stefan Nickels. MBCSG (Milan Breast Cancer Study Group) thanks Daniela Zaffaroni, Irene Feroce, and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory. We thank the coordinators, the research staff and especially the MMHS participants for their continued collaboration on research studies in breast cancer. MSKCC thanks Marina Corines and Lauren Jacobs. MTLGEBCS would like to thank Martine Tranchant (CHU de Québec Research Center), Marie-France Valois, Annie Turgeon and Lea Heguy (McGill University Health Center, Royal Victoria Hospital; McGill University) for DNA extraction, sample management and skillful technical assistance. J.S. is Chairholder of the Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics. NBHS thanks study participants and research staff for their contributions and commitment to the studies. We would like to thank the participants and staff of the Nurses’ Health Study and Nurses’ Health Study II for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and those of participating registries as required. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. OFBCR thanks Teresa Selander and Nayana Weerasooriya. ORIGO thanks E. Krol-Warmerdam, and J. Blom for patient accrual, administering questionnaires, and managing clinical information. PBCS thanks Louise Brinton, Mark Sherman, Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska, Beata Peplonska, Witold Zatonski, Pei Chao and Michael Stagner. The ethical approval for the POSH study is MREC /00/6/69, UKCRN ID: 1137. We thank staff in the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) supported Faculty of Medicine Tissue Bank and the Faculty of Medicine DNA Banking resource. PREFACE thanks Sonja Oeser and Silke Landrith. PROCAS thanks NIHR for funding. RBCS thanks Petra Bos, Jannet Blom, Ellen Crepin, Elisabeth Huijskens, Anja Kromwijk-Nieuwlaat, Annette Heemskerk, the Erasmus MC Family Cancer Clinic. We thank the SEARCH and EPIC teams. SKKDKFZS thanks all study participants, clinicians, family doctors, researchers and technicians for their contributions and commitment to this study. We thank the SUCCESS Study teams in Munich, Duessldorf, Erlangen and Ulm. SZBCS thanks Ewa Putresza. UCIBCS thanks Irene Masunaka. UKBGS thanks Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research for support and funding of the Breakthrough Generations Study, and the study participants, study staff, and the doctors, nurses and other health care providers and health information sources who have contributed to the study. We acknowledge NHS funding to the Royal Marsden/ICR NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. CIMBA: we are grateful to all the families and clinicians who contribute to the studies; Sue Healey, in particular taking on the task of mutation classification with the late Olga Sinilnikova; Maggie Angelakos, Judi Maskiell, Helen Tsimiklis; members and participants in the New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry; members and participants in the Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry; Vilius Rudaitis and Laimonas Griškevičius; Yuan Chun Ding and Linda Steele for their work in participant enrollment and biospecimen and data management; Bent Ejlertsen and Anne-Marie Gerdes for the recruitment and genetic counseling of participants; Alicia Barroso, Rosario Alonso and Guillermo Pita; all the individuals and the researchers who took part in CONSIT TEAM (Consorzio Italiano Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella), thanks in particular: Giulia Cagnoli, Roberta Villa, Irene Feroce, Mariarosaria Calvello, Riccardo Dolcetti, Giuseppe Giannini, Laura Papi, Gabriele Lorenzo Capone, Liliana Varesco, Viviana Gismondi, Maria Grazia Tibiletti, Daniela Furlan, Antonella Savarese, Aline Martayan, Stefania Tommasi, Brunella Pilato, Isabella Marchi, Elena Bandieri, Antonio Russo, Daniele Calistri and the personnel of the Cogentech Cancer Genetic Test Laboratory, Milan, Italy. FPGMX: members of the Cancer Genetics group (IDIS): Ana Blanco, Miguel Aguado, Uxía Esperón and Belinda Rodríguez. We thank all participants, clinicians, family doctors, researchers, and technicians for their contributions and commitment to the DKFZ study and the collaborating groups in Lahore, Pakistan (Noor Muhammad, Sidra Gull, Seerat Bajwa, Faiz Ali Khan, Humaira Naeemi, Saima Faisal, Asif Loya, Mohammed Aasim Yusuf) and Bogota, Colombia (Diana Torres, Ignacio Briceno, Fabian Gil). Genetic Modifiers of Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers (GEMO) study is a study from the National Cancer Genetics Network UNICANCER Genetic Group, France. We wish to pay a tribute to Olga M. Sinilnikova, who with Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet initiated and coordinated GEMO until she sadly passed away on the 30th June 2014. The team in Lyon (Olga Sinilnikova, Mélanie Léoné, Laure Barjhoux, Carole Verny-Pierre, Sylvie Mazoyer, Francesca Damiola, Valérie Sornin) managed the GEMO samples until the biological resource centre was transferred to Paris in December 2015 (Noura Mebirouk, Fabienne Lesueur, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet). We want to thank all the GEMO collaborating groups for their contribution to this study. Drs.Sofia Khan, Irja Erkkilä and Virpi Palola; The Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Research Group Netherlands (HEBON) consists of the following Collaborating Centers: Netherlands Cancer Institute (coordinating center), Amsterdam, NL: M.A. Rookus, F.B.L. Hogervorst, F.E. van Leeuwen, M.A. Adank, M.K. Schmidt, N.S. Russell, D.J. Jenner; Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, NL: J.M. Collée, A.M.W. van den Ouweland, M.J. Hooning, C.M. Seynaeve, C.H.M. van Deurzen, I.M. Obdeijn; Leiden University Medical Center, NL: C.J. van Asperen, P. Devilee, T.C.T.E.F. van Cronenburg; Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, NL: C.M. Kets, A.R. Mensenkamp; University Medical Center Utrecht, NL: M.G.E.M. Ausems, M.J. Koudijs; Amsterdam Medical Center, NL: C.M. Aalfs, H.E.J. Meijers-Heijboer; VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, NL: K. van Engelen, J.J.P. Gille; Maastricht University Medical Center, NL: E.B. Gómez-Garcia, M.J. Blok; University of Groningen, NL: J.C. Oosterwijk, A.H. van der Hout, M.J. Mourits, G.H. de Bock; The Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL): S. Siesling, J.Verloop; The nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in The Netherlands (PALGA): A.W. van den Belt-Dusebout. HEBON thanks the study participants and the registration teams of IKNL and PALGA for part of the data collection. Overbeek; the Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study Group members (Janos Papp, Aniko Bozsik, Zoltan Matrai, Miklos Kasler, Judit Franko, Maria Balogh, Gabriella Domokos, Judit Ferenczi, Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary) and the clinicians and patients for their contributions to this study; HVH (University Hospital Vall d’Hebron) the authors acknowledge the Oncogenetics Group (VHIO) and the High Risk and Cancer Prevention Unit of the University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Miguel Servet Progam (CP10/00617), and the Cellex Foundation for providing research facilities and equipment; the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Dr. Gabriel Capella; the ICO Hereditary Cancer Program team led by Dr. Gabriel Capella; Dr Martine Dumont for sample management and skillful assistance; Catarina Santos and Pedro Pinto; members of the Center of Molecular Diagnosis, Oncogenetics Department and Molecular Oncology Research Center of Barretos Cancer Hospital; Heather Thorne, Eveline Niedermayr, all the kConFab investigators, research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study (which has received funding from the NHMRC, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Cancer Australia, and the National Institute of Health (USA)) for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab; the investigators of the Australia New Zealand NRG Oncology group; members and participants in the Ontario Cancer Genetics Network; Kevin Sweet, Caroline Craven, Julia Cooper, Amber Aielts, and Michelle O’Conor; Christina Selkirk; Helena Jernström, Karin Henriksson, Katja Harbst, Maria Soller, Ulf Kristoffersson; from Gothenburg Sahlgrenska University Hospital: Anna Öfverholm, Margareta Nordling, Per Karlsson, Zakaria Einbeigi; from Stockholm and Karolinska University Hospital: Anna von Wachenfeldt, Annelie Liljegren, Annika Lindblom, Brita Arver, Gisela Barbany Bustinza; from Umeå University Hospital: Beatrice Melin, Christina Edwinsdotter Ardnor, Monica Emanuelsson; from Uppsala University: Hans Ehrencrona, Maritta Hellström Pigg, Richard Rosenquist; from Linköping University Hospital: Marie Stenmark-Askmalm, Sigrun Liedgren; Cecilia Zvocec, Qun Niu; Joyce Seldon and Lorna Kwan; Dr. Robert Nussbaum, Beth Crawford, Kate Loranger, Julie Mak, Nicola Stewart, Robin Lee, Amie Blanco and Peggy Conrad and Salina Chan; Carole Pye, Patricia Harrington and Eva Wozniak. OSUCCG thanks Kevin Sweet, Caroline Craven, Julia Cooper, Michelle O’Conor and Amber Aeilts. BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A16563, C1287/A10118], the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant numbers 634935 and 633784 for BRIDGES and B-CAST respectively), and by the European Community´s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/A16563 and the PERSPECTIVE project supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant GPH-129344) and, the Ministère de l’Économie, Science et Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec and the PSRSIIRI-701 grant, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. The Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS) was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia) and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow. M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The ABCS study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grants NKI 2007-3839; 2009 4363]. The Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Cancer Institute NSW and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The AHS study is supported by the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute (grant number Z01-CP010119), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number Z01-ES049030). The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). The BCEES was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and the Cancer Council Western Australia. For the BCFR-NY, BCFR-PA, BCFR-UT this work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BCINIS study was funded by the BCRF (The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, USA). The BREast Oncology GAlician Network (BREOGAN) is funded by Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS PI12/02125/Cofinanciado FEDER; Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136); Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur. Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Grant 10CSA012E, Consellería de Industria Programa Sectorial de Investigación Aplicada, PEME I + D e I + D Suma del Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica de la Consellería de Industria de la Xunta de Galicia, Spain; Grant EC11-192. Fomento de la Investigación Clínica Independiente, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Spain; and Grant FEDER-Innterconecta. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Xunta de Galicia, Spain. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). Sample collection and processing was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI R01CA120120 and K24CA169004). CBCS is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 313404) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CCGP is supported by funding from the University of Crete. The CECILE study was supported by Fondation de France, Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire, de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (ANSES), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council, and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the CPS-II cohort. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398, K05 CA136967, UM1 CA164917, and U01 CA199277). Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. The University of Westminster curates the DietCompLyf database funded by Against Breast Cancer Registered Charity No. 1121258 and the NCRN. The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC-Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). FHRISK is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The GC-HBOC (German Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne). This work was also funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, the Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, as well as the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany. The GEPARSIXTO study was conducted by the German Breast Group GmbH. The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The HABCS study was supported by the Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society, and by the Rudolf Bartling Foundation. The HEBCS was financially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HMBCS was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Do 761/10-1). The HUBCS was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (RUS08/017), and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations for support the Bioresource collections and RFBR grants 14-04-97088, 17-29-06014 and 17-44-020498. E.K was supported by the program for support the bioresource collections №007-030164/2 and study was performed as part of the assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russian Federation (№АААА-А16-116020350032-1). Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Cancer Society, The Gustav V Jubilee foundation and Bert von Kantzows foundation. The KARMA study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. The KBCP was financially supported by the special Government Funding (EVO) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. LMBC is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’. DL is supported by the FWO. The MABCS study is funded by the Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology “Georgi D. Efremov” and supported by the German Academic Exchange Program, DAAD. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419, 110826, 110828], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated the 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects “5 × 1000”). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants CA192393, CA116167, CA176785 an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057 and 396414, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The MEC was support by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839 and CA164973. The MISS study is supported by funding from ERC-2011-294576 Advanced grant, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Local hospital funds, Berta Kamprad Foundation, Gunnar Nilsson. The MMHS study was supported by NIH grants CA97396, CA128931, CA116201, CA140286 and CA177150. MSKCC is supported by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR) and Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry (OFBCR) were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study was funded by Komen Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (P50 CA058223, U54 CA156733, U01 CA179715), and the North Carolina University Cancer Research Fund. The NHS was supported by NIH grants P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, and U19 CA148065. The NHS2 was supported by NIH grants UM1 CA176726 and U19 CA148065. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997-1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NL CP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. Genotyping for PLCO was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NCI, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The PLCO is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The POSH study is funded by Cancer Research UK (grants C1275/A11699, C1275/C22524, C1275/A19187, C1275/A15956 and Breast Cancer Campaign 2010PR62, 2013PR044. PROCAS is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). SEARCH is funded by Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124, C490/A16561] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. The Sister Study (SISTER) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033). The Two Sister Study (2SISTER) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES102245), and, also by a grant from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, grant FAS0703856. SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SMC is funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Research Council [grant 2017-00644 for the Swedish Infrastructure for Medical Population-based Life-course Environmental Research (SIMPLER)]. The SZBCS is financially supported under the program of Minister of Science and Higher Education “Regional Initiative of Excellence” in years 2019-2022, Grant No 002/RID/2018/19. The TNBCC was supported by: a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. The UCIBCS component of this research was supported by the NIH [CA58860, CA92044] and the Lon V Smith Foundation [LVS39420]. The UKBGS is funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The USRT Study was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. CIMBA CIMBA: The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research – UK grants C12292/A20861, C12292/A11174. ACA is a Cancer Research -UK Senior Cancer Research Fellow. GCT and ABS are NHMRC Research Fellows. The PERSPECTIVE project was supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy, Science and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. BCFR: UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. BFBOCC: Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015 and Nr. P-MIP-19-164. BIDMC: Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BMBSA: Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). CNIO: Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by FEDER funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). COH-CCGCRN: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under grant number R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. CONSIT TEAM: Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 no.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5 × 1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5 × 1000’) to S. Manoukian. UNIROMA1: Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC; grant no. 21389) to L. Ottini. DFKZ: German Cancer Research Center. EMBRACE: Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester (IS-BRC-1215-20007). The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden 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. FCCC: NIH/NCI grant P30-CA006927. The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. was funded by R0 1CA140323, R01 CA214545, and by the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professorship. Ana Vega is supported by the Spanish Health Research Foundation, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), partially supported by FEDER funds through Research Activity Intensification Program (contract grant numbers: INT15/00070, INT16/00154, INT17/00133), and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enferemdades Raras CIBERER (ACCI 2016: ER17P1AC7112/2018); Autonomous Government of Galicia (Consolidation and structuring program: IN607B), and by the Fundación Mutua Madrileña (call 2018). 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 numbers 713-241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, 14575/2470). 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, the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa) (grants AOR 01 082, 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015) and the Fondation ARC pour la recherche sur le cancer (grant PJA 20151203365). GEORGETOWN: the Survey, Recruitment and Biospecimen Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008) and the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research. HCSC: Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. HEBCS: Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. 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 BBMRI grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HUNBOCS: Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. HVH (University Hospital Vall d’Hebron) This work was supported by Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) funding, an initiative of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER Funds: FIS PI12/02585 and PI15/00355. 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 “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563, P18/01029, and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338, 2017SGR449, and PERIS Project MedPerCan), and CERCA program. IHCC: PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. ILUH: Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INHERIT: Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. IOVHBOCS: Ministero della Salute and “5 × 1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. IPOBCS: Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. 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. 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: 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). 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). NCI: the Intramural Research Program of the US National Cancer Institute, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. NNPIO: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-45012). 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. OSUCCG: was funded by the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. PBCS: Italian Association of Cancer Research (AIRC) [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. SMC: the Israeli Cancer Association. SWE-BRCA: the Swedish Cancer Society. 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. UCSF: UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UKFOCR: Cancer Researc h UK. UPENN: National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855; Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. UPITT/MWH: Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. VFCTG: Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. WCP: Dr Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
48. Genetic counselling and consent for tumour testing in HNPCC
- Author
-
Gaff, C L, Rogers, M T, and Frayling, I M
- Published
- 2007
49. Variability and inequity in testing of somatic tissue for hereditary cancer: a survey of UK clinical practice
- Author
-
Gaff, C L, Rogers, M T, and Frayling, I M
- Published
- 2006
50. Exome sequencing enhances the diagnostic rate of perinatal autopsy: A prospective multicenter clinical utility trial with implications for prenatal diagnosis.
- Author
-
Gaff C., Martyn M., Chong B., Lunke S., Collet J., McGillivray G., Chan F., Yeung A., Vasudevan A., Stark Z., Prystupa S., Chan Y., Leong T., Ireland-Jenkins K., Fawcett S., Graetz M., Rose K., Ayres S., Jarmolowicz A., Brett G., Prower Y., Chalinor H., Dao C., Davis T., Hui L., Teoh M., Rowlands S., Walker S., Lynch E., Gaff C., Martyn M., Chong B., Lunke S., Collet J., McGillivray G., Chan F., Yeung A., Vasudevan A., Stark Z., Prystupa S., Chan Y., Leong T., Ireland-Jenkins K., Fawcett S., Graetz M., Rose K., Ayres S., Jarmolowicz A., Brett G., Prower Y., Chalinor H., Dao C., Davis T., Hui L., Teoh M., Rowlands S., Walker S., and Lynch E.
- Abstract
Exome sequencing (WES) enhances the diagnostic rate of perinatal autopsy: A prospective clinical utility trial with implications for prenatal diagnosis. Objective(s): (1) To determine the utility of WES in perinatal post mortem for congenital anomalies. (2) To model the outcome of WES as a prenatal test. Method(s): Probands with congenital anomalies were referred by pathologists. They were enrolled for sequencing if their microarray was negative and their anomalies were considered to have a monogenic cause. WES was performed as an adjunct to routine perinatal autopsy and the diagnostic outcomes were compared. A geneticist reviewed the probands' antenatal imaging findings and recommended a gene list to model the clinical utility of prenatal WES. Result(s): The referred cohort numbered 131. Forty-nine (37%) were unsuitable for inclusion. The parents of 5 (4%) declined enrolment and 10 (8%) could not be consented. Sixty-seven probands (52%) were enrolled. Results are available for 65 probands (32 singletons and 33 trios). Autopsy identified specific diagnoses in 11 cases (17%). WES identified specific diagnoses ('pathogenic'or 'likely pathogenic'variants) in 23 cases - a diagnostic rate of 35%. The combined diagnostic was 38%. VUS were reported in 13 cases (20%). The rate of diagnostic or suspicious variants was 42%. Genomic diagnoses were obtained from 34% of singleton exomes and 36% of trio exomes. Antenatal sequencing in this cohort would have identified a diagnosis in 18 of 23 cases diagnosed by sequencing (78%). Conclusion(s): WES doubles the diagnostic rate of autopsy for congenital anomalies and supports the prenatal use of genomic sequencing.
- Published
- 2019
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.