Search

Inherited mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) confer very high risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic testing and counseling can reduce risk and death from these cancers if appropriate preventive strategies are applied, including risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) or risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM). However, some women who might benefit from these interventions do not take full advantage of them. We evaluated RRSO and RRM use in a prospective cohort of 1,499 women with inherited BRCA1/2 mutations from 20 centers who enrolled in the study without prior cancer or RRSO or RRM and were followed forward for the occurrence of these events. We estimated the age-specific usage of RRSO/RRM in this cohort using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Use of RRSO was 45% for BRCA1 and 34% for BRCA2 by age 40, and 86% for BRCA1 and 71% for BRCA2 by age 50. RRM usage was estimated to be 46% by age 70 in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. BRCA1 mutation carriers underwent RRSO more frequently than BRCA2 mutation carriers overall, but the uptake of RRSO in BRCA2 was similar after mutation testing and in women born since 1960. RRM uptake was similar for both BRCA1 and BRCA2. Childbearing influenced the use of RRSO and RRM in both BRCA1 and BRCA2. Uptake of RRSO is high, but some women are still diagnosed with ovarian cancer before undergoing RRSO. This suggests that research is needed to understand the optimal timing of RRSO to maximize risk reduction and limit potential adverse consequences of RRSO.

A study was conducted to estimate the risk and mortality reduction by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and prior cancer status. Results indicated that among women with BRCA1 or BRCA2, risk-reducing mastectomy was associated with a lower risk of breast cancer and cancer-related mortality.

The BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation prevalence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), unselected for age, family history, or ethnicity is estimated. The result concluded that ductal carcinoma in situ is a part of the breast/ovarian cancer syndromes defined by BRCA1 and BRCA2, with mutation rates similar to those found for invasive breast cancer.

Women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation who have their ovaries removed can reduce their risk of gynecologic, abdominal, and breast cancer, according to a study of 551 women. These two gene mutations increase a woman's risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Purpose: In this ongoing national case series, we document 25 new genetic testing cases in which tests were recommended, ordered, interpreted, or used incorrectly.Methods: An invitation to submit cases of adverse events in genetic testing was issued to the general National Society of Genetic Counselors Listserv, the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group members, private genetic counselor laboratory groups, and via social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). Examples highlighted in the invitation included errors in ordering, counseling, and/or interpretation of genetic testing and did not limit submissions to cases involving genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition. Clinical documentation, including pedigree, was requested. Twenty-six cases were accepted, and a thematic analysis was performed. Submitters were asked to approve the representation of their cases before manuscript submission.Results: All submitted cases took place in the United States and were from cancer, pediatric, preconception, and general adult settings and involved both medical-grade and direct-to-consumer genetic testing with raw data analysis. In 8 cases, providers ordered the wrong genetic test. In 2 cases, multiple errors were made when genetic testing was ordered. In 3 cases, patients received incorrect information from providers because genetic test results were misinterpreted or because of limitations in the provider's knowledge of genetics. In 3 cases, pathogenic genetic variants identified were incorrectly assumed to completely explain the suspicious family histories of cancer. In 2 cases, patients received inadequate or no information with respect to genetic test results. In 2 cases, result interpretation/documentation by the testing laboratories was erroneous. In 2 cases, genetic counselors reinterpreted the results of people who had undergone direct-to-consumer genetic testing and/or clarifying medical-grade testing was ordered.Discussion: As genetic testing continues to become more common and complex, it is clear that we must ensure that appropriate testing is ordered and that results are interpreted and used correctly. Access to certified genetic counselors continues to be an issue for some because of workforce limitations. Potential solutions involve action on multiple fronts: new genetic counseling delivery models, expanding the genetic counseling workforce, improving genetics and genomics education of nongenetics health care professionals, addressing health care policy barriers, and more. Genetic counselors have also positioned themselves in new roles to help patients and consumers as well as health care providers, systems, and payers adapt to new genetic testing technologies and models. The work to be done is significant, but so are the consequences of errors in genetic testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]