Genetic counselling and consent for tumour testing in HNPCC

Molecular pathological tests are performed on stored tumour material in order to identify individuals with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. We have previously identified that there is widespread use of this testing and now describe what counselling occurs prior to testing and the approaches in seeking consent. A respondent from every cancer genetic centre in UK offering microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry testing (n= 20, response rate = 100%) was interviewed in order to ascertain pre-test counselling and consent protocols. Individuals providing consent are not always seen in person prior to providing consent but few services had supporting written information. Nine (of 19) consent forms documented consent to perform genetic testing, while the majority (14/19) sought consent to release pathology samples to the genetic service. Less than half of the services routinely seek consent to test samples from a deceased individual. Concerns were raised about spousal consent when the implications of results are for blood relatives. The differences identified between genetic counselling for testing of tumour tissue and for germ-line genetic testing suggest that counselling protocols specific for somatic testing should be developed. The results are discussed in the context of a changing legal environment and anticipated growing demand for testing.     

Genetic susceptibility to non-polyposis colorectal cancer

Familial colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health problem by virtue of its relatively high frequency. Some 15-20% of all CRCs are familial. Among these, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), caused by germline mutations in the APC gene, accounts for less than 1%. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), also called Lynch syndrome, accounts for approximately 5-8% of all CRC patients. Among these, some 3% are mutation positive, that is, caused by germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes that have so far been implicated (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS1, and PMS2). Most of the remaining patients belonging to HNPCC or HNPCC-like families are still molecularly unexplained. Among the remaining familial CRCs, a large proportion is probably caused by gene mutations and polymorphisms of low penetrance, of which the I1307K polymorphism in the APC gene is a prime example.Molecular genetic findings have enabled hereditary CRC to be divided into two groups: (1) tumours that show microsatellite instability (MSI), occur more frequently in the right colon, have diploid DNA, harbour characteristic mutations such as transforming growth factor beta type II receptor and BAX, and behave indolently, of which HNPCC is an example; and (2) tumours with chromosomal instability (CIN), which tend to be left sided, show aneuploid DNA, harbour characteristic mutations such as K-ras, APC, and p53, and behave aggressively, of which FAP is an example. This review focuses most heavily on the clinical features, pathology, molecular genetics, surveillance, and management including prophylactic surgery in HNPCC. Because of the difficulty in diagnosing HNPCC, a detailed differential diagnosis of the several hereditary CRC variants is provided. The extant genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity in CRC leads to the conclusion that it is no longer appropriate to discuss the genetics of CRC without defining the specific hereditary CRC syndrome of concern. Therefore, it is important to ascertain cancer of all anatomical sites, as well as non-cancer phenotypic stigmata (such as the perioral and mucosal pigmentations in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome), when taking a family cancer history.     

The impact of CpG island methylator phenotype and microsatellite instability on tumour budding in colorectal cancer

Zlobec I, Bihl M P, Foerster A, Rufle A & Lugli A
(2012) Histopathology  61, 777–787 The impact of CpG island methylator phenotype and microsatellite instability on tumour budding in colorectal cancer Aims: In colorectal cancer, tumour budding, a process likened to epithelial mesenchymal transition, is an adverse prognostic factor which is rarely found in tumours with high‐level microsatellite instability (MSI‐H). Cases with MSI‐H or high‐level CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP‐H) have similar histomorphological features, yet seemingly opposite prognosis. We hypothesized that tumour budding is related to CIMP, thus partially explaining this prognostic difference. Methods and results: MSI, KRAS, BRAF, CIMP and 0⁶‐methylguanine‐DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) were investigated in tissues from 127 colorectal cancer patients. Tumour budding was scored using pan‐cytokeratin‐stained whole tissue sections within the densest area of buds (×40). Tumour budding was not associated with KRAS, BRAF, MGMT or CIMP, but was correlated inversely with MSI‐H (P = 0.0049). Multivariate survival time analysis revealed that tumour budding was independent of all five molecular features and was predicted by MSI status [odds ratio (OR): 4.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–12.1; P = 0.006)], but not CIMP (OR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.3–2.5; P = 0.714). Conclusions: These findings underline that MSI, rather than CIMP, plays a role in conferring a tumour budding phenotype. Budding retains its unfavourable prognostic effect independently of these five molecular features. Continued efforts to standardize the assessment of tumour budding are necessary to integrate this feature into daily diagnostic routine.     

Sequencing‐based microsatellite instability testing using as few as six markers for high‐throughput clinical diagnostics

Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing of colorectal cancers (CRCs) is used to screen for Lynch syndrome (LS), a hereditary cancer‐predisposition, and can be used to predict response to immunotherapy. Here, we present a single‐molecule molecular inversion probe and sequencing‐based MSI assay and demonstrate its clinical validity according to existing guidelines. We amplified 24 microsatellites in multiplex and trained a classifier using 98 CRCs, which accommodates marker specific sensitivities to MSI. Sample classification achieved 100% concordance with the MSI Analysis System v1.2 (Promega) in three independent cohorts, totaling 220 CRCs. Backward–forward stepwise selection was used to identify a 6‐marker subset of equal accuracy to the 24‐marker panel. Assessment of assay detection limits showed that the 24‐marker panel is marginally more robust to sample variables than the 6‐marker subset, detecting as little as 3% high levels of MSI DNA in sample mixtures, and requiring a minimum of 10 template molecules to be sequenced per marker for >95% accuracy. BRAF c.1799 mutation analysis was also included to streamline LS testing, with all c.1799T>A variants being correctly identified. The assay, therefore, provides a cheap, robust, automatable, and scalable MSI test with internal quality controls, suitable for clinical cancer diagnostics.     

Routine testing for mismatch repair deficiency in sporadic colorectal cancer is justified

This study prospectively examines the accuracy of immunohistochemical staining in the identification of mismatch repair defective (MMRD) colorectal cancer in routine clinical practice. The potential impact of this information on decisions regarding adjuvant treatment and germline testing were quantified. A consecutive series of fresh tissue (836 cancers) was obtained from 786 individuals undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer at one institution. As part of normal practice, each tumour was screened for the expression of MLH1 and MSH2 by immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and relevant clinicopathological details were documented. Microsatellite instability (MSI) was assessed using standard markers. Overall, 108 (13%) tumours showed loss of staining for either MLH1 (92 tumours) or MSH2 (16 tumours). The positive predictive value of mismatch repair IHC when used alone in the detection of MSI tumours was 88%, and the negative predictive value was 97%. Specificity and positive predictive value were improved by correlation with microsatellite status. Tumour stage (HR 3.5, 95% CI 2.0-6.0), vascular space invasion (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0) and mismatch repair deficiency (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.87) were independent prognostic factors in stages II and III disease. Screening by mismatch repair IHC could reasonably have been expected to prevent ineffective treatment in 3.6% of stage II and 7.6% of stage III patients. The frequency of germline mismatch repair mutations was 0.8%, representing six unsuspected hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) cases. Routine screening of colorectal cancers by mismatch repair IHC identifies individuals at low risk of relapse, and can prevent unnecessary adjuvant treatments in a significant number of individuals. Abnormal immunohistochemistry should be confirmed by microsatellite testing to ensure that false-positive results do not adversely impact on treatment decisions.     

Molecular assessment of colorectal cancer through Lynch syndrome screening

Since 2017, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended molecular testing of all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) to identify those with suspected Lynch syndrome who should be referred to clinical genetics for germline testing. The pathway involves firstly determining the mismatch repair (MMR) expression status by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or performing microsatellite instability testing. This may be followed by BRAF V600E mutation testing and then MLH1 promoter hypermethylation analysis depending on the result. This approach identifies patients that are most likely to have underlying germline mutations in the MMR genes as opposed to somatic causes of deficient MMR. Here we demonstrate a case with loss of MLH1 protein expression and discuss the subsequent testing strategy according to NICE guidance.     

Yield of routine molecular analyses in colorectal cancer patients ≤70 years to detect underlying Lynch syndrome

Although early detection of Lynch syndrome (LS) is important, a considerable proportion of patients with LS remains unrecognized. We aimed to study the yield of LS detection by routine molecular analyses in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients until 70 years of age. We prospectively included consecutive CRC patients ≤70 years. Tumour specimens were analysed for microsatellite instability (MSI), immunohistochemical mismatch-repair protein expression and MLH1-promoter methylation. Tumours were classified as either: (a) likely caused by LS; (b) sporadic microsatellite-unstable (MSI-H); or (c) microsatellite-stable (MSS). Predictors of LS were determined by multivariable logistic regression. A total of 1117 CRC patients (57% males, median age 61 years) were included. Fifty patients (4.5%, 95% CI 3.4-5.9) were likely to have LS, and 71 had a sporadic MSI-H tumour (6.4%, 95% CI 5.1-8.0). Thirty-five patients likely to have LS (70%) were aged > 50 years. A molecular profile compatible with LS was detected in 10% (15/144) of patients aged ≤50, in 4% (15/377) of those aged 51-60 and in 3% (20/596) of patients > 61 years. Compared to MSS cases, patients likely to have LS were significantly younger (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.7-8.7) and more often had right-sided CRCs (OR 14, 95% CI 6.0-34). In conclusion, molecular screening for LS in CRC patients ≤70 years leads to identification of a molecular profile compatible with LS in 4.5% of patients, with most of them not fulfilling the age criterion (≤50 years) routinely used for LS assessment. Routine use of MSI testing may be considered in CRC patients up to the age of 70 years, with a central role for the pathologist in the selection of patients.     

dbCPCO: a database of genetic markers tested for their predictive and prognostic value in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer with a 5‐year survival rate of 30–65%. A portion of the interpatient variability in its clinical outcome is attributed to inherited and somatic genetic factors. Although numerous research articles have investigated these factors in colorectal cancer, there has not been a central resource, such as a public database, that compiles these findings. Here we describe the dbCPCO, a database of genetic variations tested for association with colorectal cancer prognosis and clinical outcome. dbCPCO curates the results of research articles on colorectal cancer that investigate the possible correlation of genetic factors with various patient and tumor characteristics. Literature reports are retrieved from PubMed. The data that meet the inclusion criteria are compiled in a relational database and posted in a dedicated Website. The genetic factors include inherited genetic polymorphisms, and somatic and germline mutations in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. As of March 2010, the dbCPCO Website posts 778 scientific findings on 456 polymorphisms, somatic and germline mutations from 189 genes, and genetic loci tested for correlation with clinicopathological features and/or clinical outcome in colorectal cancer. The dbCPCO is periodically updated and freely available for the scientific and medical community at http://www.med.mun.ca/cpco. Hum Mutat 31:1–7, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Why do women attend familial breast cancer clinics?

The increasing demand for genetic assessment for familial breast cancer has necessitated the development of cancer genetics services. However, little is known about the factors motivating the client population likely to approach these services. A cross sectional questionnaire survey of 1000 women with a family history of breast cancer was conducted to identify self-reported reasons for attending a familial breast cancer clinic and possible differences in the characteristics of women who were attending for diverse reasons. Before attendance at clinic, 833 women completed a baseline questionnaire (83% response rate). Women who gave personal risk (n=188), awareness of a family history (n=120), risk to family members (n=84), reassurance (n=69), genetic testing (n=65), breast screening (n=46), or prevention (n=39) as their main reason for attending were compared on demographic and medical variables, and on psychological variables including general anxiety, cancer worry, perceived risk, and attitudes towards prophylactic surgery and genetic testing. Important differences in the psychological characteristics of these groups were found, which were unrelated to reported family history. In particular, women who primarily wanted genetic testing felt extremely vulnerable to developing breast cancer, were more likely to be considering prophylactic surgery, and perceived fewer limitations of testing. Those who primarily wanted reassurance were highly anxious about the disease. We recommend that cancer genetics services take into consideration the informational and psychological needs and concerns of their client group.     

Molecular classification and genetic pathways in hyperplastic polyposis syndrome

Hyperplastic Polyposis (HPPS) is a poorly characterized syndrome that increases colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. We aimed to provide a molecular classification of HPPS. We obtained 282 tumours from 32 putative HPPS patients with >or= 10 hyperplastic polyps (HPs); some patients also had adenomas and CRCs. We found no good evidence of microsatellite instability (MSI) in our samples. The epithelium of HPs was monoclonal. Somatic BRAF mutations occurred in two-thirds of our patients' HPs, and KRAS2 mutations in 10%; both mutations were more common in younger cases. The respective mutation frequencies in a set of 'sporadic' HPs were 18% and 10%. Importantly, the putative HPPS patients generally fell into two readily defined groups, one set whose polyps had BRAF mutations, and another set whose polyps had KRAS2 mutations. The most plausible explanation for this observation is that there exist different forms of inherited predisposition to HPPS, and that these determine whether polyps follow a BRAF or KRAS2 pathway. Most adenomas and CRCs from our putative HPPS patients had 'classical' morphology and few of these lesions had BRAF or KRAS2 mutations. These findings suggest that tumourigenesis in HPPS does not necessarily follow the 'serrated' pathway. Although current definitions of HPPS are sub-optimal, we suggest that diagnosis could benefit from molecular analysis. Specifically, testing BRAF and KRAS2 mutations, and perhaps MSI, in multiple polyps could help to distinguish HPPS from sporadic HPs. We propose a specific model which would have diagnosed five more of our cases as HPPS compared with the WHO clinical criteria.     

L'instabilité des microsatellites dans les cancers du côlon

Characteristics of microsatellites instability (MSI) is abnormal variation of the number of repeated sequences in DNA from the tumor compared to DNA of healthy tissue from the same individual. MSI has been first described in a rare hereditary colon cancer Lynch syndrome or HNPCC syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer) caused by MMR (mismatch repair) genes defects. Later, MSI was described in 15% of sporadic colon cancer. To confirm the diagnosis of MSI, a panel of five markers are used, amplified by multiplex PCR. MSI associated with clinical criteria (Amsterdam or Bethesda criteria) are recommended for MMR genes molecular testing to confirm HNPCC. Genetic counselling, familial investigation and possibly prophylactic measures are then taken. In sporadic cancers, MSI is the consequence of MLH1 silencing by epimutation in the promotor and is correlated with a better prognosis and maybe a resistance to fluorouracile, an adjuvant chemotherapy of colon cancer.     

Pre‐test genetic counseling services for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer delivered by non‐genetics professionals in the state of Florida

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer now includes practitioners from multiple healthcare professions, specialties, and settings. This study examined whether non‐genetics professionals (NGPs) perform guideline‐based patient intake and informed consent before genetic testing. NGPs offering BRCA testing services in Florida (n = 386) were surveyed about clinical practices. Among 81 respondents (response rate = 22%), approximately half reported: sometimes scheduling a separate session for pre‐test counseling lasting 11–30 min prior to testing, discussing familial implications of testing, benefits and limitations of risk management options, and discussing the potential psychological impact and insurance‐related issues. Few constructed a three‐generation pedigree, discussed alternative hereditary cancer syndromes, or the meaning of a variant result. This lack of adherence to guideline‐based practice may result in direct harm to patients and their family members. NGPs who are unable to deliver guideline adherent cancer genetics services should focus on identification and referral of at‐risk patients to in person or telephone services provided by genetics professionals.     

Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: a large-scale survey of clinical genetics clients

We report first results from the Australian Genetic Discrimination Project of clinical genetics services clients' perceptions and experiences regarding alleged differential treatment associated with having genetic information. Adults (n = 2667) who had presented from 1998 to 2003 regarding predictive or presymptomatic testing for designated mature-onset conditions were surveyed; 951/1185 respondents met inclusion criteria for current asymptomatic status. Neurological conditions and familial cancers were primary relevant conditions for 87% of asymptomatic respondents. Specific incidents of alleged negative treatment, reported by 10% (n = 93) of respondents, occurred in life insurance (42%), employment (5%), family (22%), social (11%) and health (20%) domains. Respondents where neuro-degenerative conditions were relevant were more likely overall to report incidents and significantly more likely to report incidents in the social domain. Most incidents in the post-test period occurred in the first year after testing. Only 15% of respondents knew where to complain officially if treated negatively because of genetics issues. Recommendations include the need for increased community and clinical education regarding genetic discrimination, for extended clinical genetics sector engagement and for co-ordinated monitoring, research and policy development at national levels in order for the full benefits of genetic testing technology to be realised.     

BAT-26 identifies sporadic colorectal cancers with mutator phenotype: a correlative study with clinico-pathological features and mutations in mismatch repair genes

Microsatellite instability (MSI) is present in most colorectal cancers (CRC) associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). MSI testing in so-called sporadic forms of CRC may become a useful tool in identifying new HNPCC kindred. The aim of this study was to analyse the utility of BAT-26 as a marker to identify CRCs with MSI and to investigate whether sporadic CRCs with MSI have a phenotypic expression similar to HNPCC cases. MSI was detected using two methods, an association of 7 poly(CA) repeats and a poly(A) repeat alone, BAT-26, in a series of 62 patients with apparently sporadic forms of CRC. Germ-line and somatic mutations in the hMSH2, hMLH1, and hMSH6 genes were analysed in patients with MSI+ tumours. Patients with MSI+ at poly(CA) loci and at BAT-26 were younger (p = 0·024 and p = 0·002), had tumours more frequently right sided (p = 0·017 and p = 0·0001) and more often mucinous (p = 0·037 and p = 0·005, respectively) than patients with MSI negative tumours. Mutation analysis allowed the identification of two patients carrying germ-line mutations in the hMLH1 gene (both were BAT-26+) and two other patients who had somatic mutation in the hMSH2 and in hMLH1 genes. In conclusion, the detection of MSI using poly(CA) repeats or BAT-26 alone allowed the identification of a subset of patients with clinico-pathological characteristics similar to those associated to HNPCC. BAT-26 has the advantage of being a simple and less expensive method that might be used as a screening procedure before mutation analysis. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

DNA mismatch repair deficiency in sporadic colorectal cancer and Lynch syndrome

Poulogiannis G, Frayling I M & Arends M J
(2010) Histopathology 56, 167–179 DNA mismatch repair deficiency in sporadic colorectal cancer and Lynch syndrome DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is one of the best understood forms of genetic instability in colorectal cancer (CRC), and is characterized by the loss of function of the MMR pathway. Failure to repair replication‐associated errors due to a defective MMR system allows persistence of mismatch mutations all over the genome, but especially in regions of repetitive DNA known as microsatellites, giving rise to the phenomenon of microsatellite instability (MSI). A high frequency of instability at microsatellites (MSI‐H) is the hallmark of the most common form of hereditary susceptibility to CRC, known as Lynch syndrome (LS) (previously known as hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome), but is also observed in ～15–20% of sporadic colonic cancers (and rarely in rectal cancers). Tumour analysis by both MMR protein immunohistochemistry and DNA testing for MSI is necessary to provide a comprehensive picture of molecular abnormality, for use in conjunction with family history data and other clinicopathological features, in order to distinguish LS from sporadic MMR‐deficient CRC. Identification of the gene targets that become mutated in MMR‐deficient tumours may explain, at least in part, some of the clinical, pathological and biological features of MSI‐H CRCs and holds promise for developing novel therapeutics.     

Genetic pathways in colorectal cancer

The model of colorectal tumorigenesis put forward by Fearon and Vogelstein has had great influence on molecular oncology. They proposed that a series of mutations occur in the progression from normal cells to colorectal cancer and that these mutations are associated with the histological features of such tumours. Several postulates of the model appear to be correct, particularly its emphasis on the stepwise accumulation of genetic changes and the inclusion of mutations at the adenomatous polyposis coli ( APC ) and TP53 loci. Since the publication of the original model, however, mutations at other loci have been identified which may be alternatives or additions. There is also evidence to suggest that some colorectal cancers develop along a different genetic pathway. In this review, we discuss how tumour development can occur as Darwinian evolution through selection of advantageous somatic mutations. The non-random nature of mutation selection gives rise to genetic pathways of tumorigenesis. In addition, we consider the Fearon and Vogelstein model, its shortcomings and possible additions to it. The evidence suggests that not all colorectal cancers follow the same genetic pathway during carcinogenesis.     

Mononucleotide precedes dinucleotide repeat instability during colorectal tumour development in Lynch syndrome patients

A progressive accumulation of genetic alterations underlies the adenoma–carcinoma sequence of colorectal cancer. This accumulation of mutations is driven by genetic instability, of which there are different types. Microsatellite instability (MSI) is the predominant type present in the tumours of Lynch syndrome patients and in a subset of sporadic tumours. It is generally accepted that MSI can be found in the early stages of tumour progression, such as adenomas; however, the frequencies reported vary widely among studies. Moreover, data on the qualitative differences between adenomas and carcinomas, or between tumours of hereditary and sporadic origin, are scarce. We compared MSI in samples of colorectal adenoma and colorectal carcinoma in order to identify possible differences along the adenoma–carcinoma sequence. We compared germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation carriers and non‐carriers, to address possible differences of instability patterns between Lynch syndrome patients and patients with sporadic tumours. We found a comparable relative frequency of mono‐ and dinucleotide instability in sporadic colorectal adenomas and carcinomas, dinucleotide instability being observed most frequently in these sporadic tumours. In MMR gene truncating mutation carriers, the profile was different: colorectal adenomas showed predominantly mononucleotide instability and in colorectal carcinomas, also more mononucleotide than dinucleotide instability was detected. We conclude that MSI profiles differ between sporadic and Lynch syndrome tumours, and that mononucleotide marker instability precedes dinucleotide marker instability during colorectal tumour development in Lynch syndrome patients. As mononucleotide MSI proves to be highly sensitive for detecting mutation carriers, we propose the use of mononucleotide markers for the identification of possible Lynch syndrome patients. Copyright © 2009 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A mononucleotide markers panel to identify hMLH1/hMSH2 germline mutations

Hereditary NonPolyposis Colorectal Cancer (Lynch syndrome) is an autosomal dominant disease caused by germline mutations in a class of genes deputed to maintain genomic integrity during cell replication, mutations result in a generalized genomic instability, particularly evident at microsatellite loci (Microsatellite Instability, MSI). MSI is present in 85-90% of colorectal cancers that occur in Lynch Syndrome. To standardize the molecular diagnosis of MSI, a panel of 5 microsatellite markers was proposed (known as the "Bethesda panel"). Aim of our study is to evaluate if MSI testing with two mononucleotide markers, such as BAT25 and BAT26, was sufficient to identify patients with hMLH1/hMSH2 germline mutations. We tested 105 tumours for MSI using both the Bethesda markers and the two mononucleotide markers BAT25 and BAT26. Moreover, immunohistochemical evaluation of MLH1 and MSH2 proteins was executed on the tumours with at least one unstable microsatellite, whereas germline hMLH1/hMSH2 mutations were searched for all cases showing two or more unstable microsatellites. The Bethesda panel detected more MSI(+) tumors than the mononucleotide panel (49.5% and 28.6%, respectively). However, the mononucleotide panel was more efficient to detect MSI(+) tumours with lack of expression of Mismatch Repair proteins (93% vs 54%). Germline mutations were detected in almost all patients whose tumours showed MSI and no expression of MLH1/MSH2 proteins. No germline mutations were found in patients with MSI(+) tumour defined only through dinucleotide markers. In conclusion, the proposed mononucleotide markers panel seems to have a higher predictive value to identify hMLH1 and hMSH2 mutation-positive patients with Lynch syndrome. Moreover, this panel showed increased specificity, thus improving the cost/effectiveness ratio of the biomolecular analyses.     

Knowledge About Genetic Risk for Breast Cancer and Perceptions of Genetic Testing in a Sociodemographically Diverse Sample

Informed consent for genetic testing for breast–ovarian cancer susceptibility requires that women understand basic concepts about the inheritance of cancer susceptibility and the benefits and risks associated with genetic testing. Women awaiting routine medical services (N = 220) were surveyed about their knowledge of breast cancer and cancer genetics and their perceptions of genetic testing and personal risk. There were no racial differences in median income or mean level of education. Compared to Caucasian women, African American women knew significantly less about breast cancer and about genetic risk for breast cancer. African American women had different psychological, social, and economic concerns as evidenced by how they weighted the benefits and risks of genetic testing. This study is the first to assess several dimensions of informed consent for genetic testing among a sociodemographically diverse group. The findings should enable health professionals to target the African American and lower-income populations with the appropriate education and counseling.     

A classification system for clinical relevance of somatic variants identified in molecular profiling of cancer

PurposeInterpretation systems for clinical laboratory reporting of genetic variants for inherited conditions have been widely published. By contrast, there are no existing systems for interpretation and classification of somatic variants found from molecular testing of cancer.MethodsWe designed an assessment protocol and classification system for somatic variants identified through next-generation sequencing molecular profiling of tumor-derived samples and applied these to a pilot dataset of somatic variants found by next-generation sequencing profiling of 158 tumor samples derived from advanced cancer patients examined at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.ResultsWe present a classification system to interpret the significance of genetic variants in molecular analysis of cancer, including the following key factors: (i) known or predicted pathogenicity of the variant; (ii) primary site and tumor histology in which the variant is found; (iii) recurrence of the variant; and (iv) evidence of clinical actionability. We used these factors to develop a five-category somatic variant classification for simplified reporting of variant interpretations to treating oncologists.ConclusionOur somatic variant classification can be of practical value to other clinical molecular laboratories performing cancer genetic profiling by promoting consistent reporting of somatic variants and permitting harmonization of variant data among laboratories and clinical studies.