Christopher Arnell

OBJECTIVE: Hereditary cancer testing guidelines are based on the premise that the common hereditary cancer syndromes have distinct, recognizable phenotypes. However, many syndromes present with overlapping cancers. The aim of this analysis was to identify the proportion of patients tested for Lynch syndrome (LS) or hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) who met testing criteria for the other syndrome. METHOD: We analyzed a commercial laboratory database of patients tested for LS and HBOC in a clinical setting from 2006 to 2013. Patient cancer histories were analyzed using the 2012 NCCN criteria for LS and the 2013 NCCN criteria for HBOC. RESULTS: In all, 7% of the patients tested for HBOC met criteria for LS testing. The majority of these patients had a family history of colorectal (30.9%) and/or endometrial cancer (22.7%). Conversely, 29.5% of the patients tested for LS met criteria for HBOC testing. In this group, 30.5% of the patients had a personal history of breast cancer, and 12.6% had a personal history of ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate a substantial phenotypic overlap among patients for multiple common inherited cancer syndromes, which likely complicates diagnosis and test selection. This supports the value of multigene panels to identify pathogenic mutations in the absence of a clinically specific phenotype.

Genetic testing has the potential to guide the prevention and treatment of disease in a variety of settings, and recent technical advances have greatly increased our ability to acquire large amounts of genetic data. The interpretation of this data remains challenging, as the clinical significance of genetic variation detected in the laboratory is not always clear. Although regulatory agencies and professional societies provide some guidance regarding the classification, reporting, and long-term follow-up of variants, few protocols for the implementation of these guidelines have been described. Because the primary aim of clinical testing is to provide results to inform medical management, a variant classification program that offers timely, accurate, confident and cost-effective interpretation of variants should be an integral component of the laboratory process. Here we describe the components of our laboratory's current variant classification program (VCP), based on 20 years of experience and over one million samples tested, using the BRCA1/2 genes as a model. Our VCP has lowered the percentage of tests in which one or more BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are detected to 2.1% in the absence of a pathogenic mutation, demonstrating how the coordinated application of resources toward classification and reclassification significantly impacts the clinical utility of testing.

BACKGROUND: Current estimates of the contribution of large rearrangement (LR) mutations in the BRCA1 (breast cancer 1, early onset) and BRCA2 (breast cancer 2, early onset) genes responsible for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer are based on limited studies of relatively homogeneous patient populations. The prevalence of BRCA1/2 LRs was investigated in 48,456 patients with diverse clinical histories and ancestries, referred for clinical molecular testing for suspicion of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. METHODS: Sanger sequencing analysis was performed for BRCA1/2 and LR testing for deletions and duplications using a quantitative multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay. Prevalence data were analyzed for patients from different risk and ethnic groups between July 2007 and April 2011. Patients were designated as "high-risk" if their clinical history predicted a high prior probability, wherein LR testing was performed automatically in conjunction with sequencing. "Elective" patients did not meet the high-risk criteria, but underwent LR testing as ordered by the referring health care provider. RESULTS: Overall BRCA1/2 mutation prevalence among high-risk patients was 23.8% versus 8.2% for the elective group. The mutation profile for high-risk patients was 90.1% sequencing mutations versus 9.9% LRs, and for elective patients, 94.1% sequencing versus 5.9% LRs. This difference may reflect the bias in high-risk patients to carry mutations in BRCA1, which has a higher penetrance and frequency of LRs compared with BRCA2. There were significant differences in the prevalence and types of LRs in patients of different ancestries. LR mutations were significantly more common in Latin American/Caribbean patients. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive LR testing in conjunction with full gene sequencing is an appropriate strategy for clinical BRCA1/2 analysis.

BACKGROUND: With increased demand for hereditary cancer genetic testing, some large national health-care insurance payers (LNHPs) have implemented policies to minimize inappropriate testing by mandating consultation with a geneticist or genetic counselor (GC). We hypothesized such a restriction would reduce access and appropriate testing. METHODS: Test cancellation rates (ie, tests ordered that did not result in a reported test result), mutation-positive rates, and turnaround times for comprehensive BRCA1/2 testing for a study LNHP that implemented a GC-mandate policy were determined over the 12 months before and after policy implementation (excluding a 4-month transition period). Cancellation rates were evaluated based on the reason for cancellation, National Comprehensive Cancer Network testing criteria, and self-identified ancestry. A control LNHP was evaluated over the same period for comparison. RESULTS: The study LNHP cancellation rate increased from 13.3% to 42.1% ( P < .001) after policy implementation. This increase was also observed when only individuals who met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing were considered (9.5% to 37.7%; P < .001). Cancellation rates increased after policy introduction for all ancestries; however, this was more pronounced among individuals of African or Latin American ancestry, for whom cancellation rates rose to 48.9% and 49.6%, respectively, compared with 33.9% for individuals of European ancestry. Over this same time period, control LNHP cancellation rates decreased or stayed the same for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that a GC-mandate policy implemented by a LNHP substantially decreased access to appropriate genetic testing, disproportionately impacting minority populations without any evidence that inappropriate testing was decreased.