Literature DB >> 24756768

The evolution of cancer risk assessment in the era of next generation sequencing.

Heather Fecteau1, Kristen J Vogel, Kristen Hanson, Shannon Morrill-Cornelius.   

Abstract

Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24756768     DOI: 10.1007/s10897-014-9714-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.537


  28 in total

1.  Next-generation sequencing for cancer diagnostics: a practical perspective.

Authors:  Cliff Meldrum; Maria A Doyle; Richard W Tothill
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2011-11

2.  Multiplex genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: out on the high wire without a net?

Authors:  Susan M Domchek; Angela Bradbury; Judy E Garber; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Anita Villani; Uri Tabori; Joshua Schiffman; Adam Shlien; Joseph Beyene; Harriet Druker; Ana Novokmet; Jonathan Finlay; David Malkin
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Mutations in BRIP1 confer high risk of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Thorunn Rafnar; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Patrick Sulem; Aslaug Jonasdottir; Asgeir Sigurdsson; Adalbjorg Jonasdottir; Soren Besenbacher; Pär Lundin; Simon N Stacey; Julius Gudmundsson; Olafur T Magnusson; Louise le Roux; Gudbjorg Orlygsdottir; Hafdis T Helgadottir; Hrefna Johannsdottir; Arnaldur Gylfason; Laufey Tryggvadottir; Jon G Jonasson; Ana de Juan; Eugenia Ortega; Jose M Ramon-Cajal; Maria D García-Prats; Carlos Mayordomo; Angeles Panadero; Fernando Rivera; Katja K H Aben; Anne M van Altena; Leon F A G Massuger; Mervi Aavikko; Paula M Kujala; Synnöve Staff; Lauri A Aaltonen; Kristrun Olafsdottir; Johannes Bjornsson; Augustine Kong; Anna Salvarsdottir; Hafsteinn Saemundsson; Karl Olafsson; Kristrun R Benediktsdottir; Jeffrey Gulcher; Gisli Masson; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Jose I Mayordomo; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Kari Stefansson
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2011-10-02       Impact factor: 38.330

5.  A recurrent mutation in PALB2 in Finnish cancer families.

Authors:  Hannele Erkko; Bing Xia; Jenni Nikkilä; Johanna Schleutker; Kirsi Syrjäkoski; Arto Mannermaa; Anne Kallioniemi; Katri Pylkäs; Sanna-Maria Karppinen; Katrin Rapakko; Alexander Miron; Qing Sheng; Guilan Li; Henna Mattila; Daphne W Bell; Daniel A Haber; Mervi Grip; Mervi Reiman; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Aki Mustonen; Juha Kere; Lauri A Aaltonen; Veli-Matti Kosma; Vesa Kataja; Ylermi Soini; Ronny I Drapkin; David M Livingston; Robert Winqvist
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-02-07       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Summaries for patients. Assessing the genetic risk for BRCA-related breast or ovarian cancer in women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations.

Authors:  Kelly D Gonzalez; Katie A Noltner; Carolyn H Buzin; Dongqing Gu; Cindy Y Wen-Fong; Vu Q Nguyen; Jennifer H Han; Katrina Lowstuter; Jeffrey Longmate; Steve S Sommer; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Truncating mutations in the Fanconi anemia J gene BRIP1 are low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles.

Authors:  Sheila Seal; Deborah Thompson; Anthony Renwick; Anna Elliott; Patrick Kelly; Rita Barfoot; Tasnim Chagtai; Hiran Jayatilake; Munaza Ahmed; Katarina Spanova; Bernard North; Lesley McGuffog; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Douglas F Easton; Michael R Stratton; Nazneen Rahman
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2006-10-08       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  PALB2, which encodes a BRCA2-interacting protein, is a breast cancer susceptibility gene.

Authors:  Nazneen Rahman; Sheila Seal; Deborah Thompson; Patrick Kelly; Anthony Renwick; Anna Elliott; Sarah Reid; Katarina Spanova; Rita Barfoot; Tasnim Chagtai; Hiran Jayatilake; Lesley McGuffog; Sandra Hanks; D Gareth Evans; Diana Eccles; Douglas F Easton; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2006-12-31       Impact factor: 38.330

10.  Indications for genetic referral: a guide for healthcare providers.

Authors:  Beth A Pletcher; Helga V Toriello; Sarah J Noblin; Laurie H Seaver; Deborah A Driscoll; Robin L Bennett; Susan J Gross
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  30 in total

1.  Challenges to clinical utilization of hereditary cancer gene panel testing: perspectives from the front lines.

Authors:  Rebecca K Marcus; Jennifer L Geurts; Jessica A Grzybowski; Kiran K Turaga; T Clark Gamblin; Kimberly A Strong; Fabian M Johnston
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Carlos J Gallego; Brian H Shirts; Caroline S Bennette; Greg Guzauskas; Laura M Amendola; Martha Horike-Pyne; Fuki M Hisama; Colin C Pritchard; William M Grady; Wylie Burke; Gail P Jarvik; David L Veenstra
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Cancer genetic testing panels for inherited cancer susceptibility: the clinical experience of a large adult genetics practice.

Authors:  Christina G Selkirk; Kristen J Vogel; Anna C Newlin; Scott M Weissman; Shelly M Weiss; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Peter J Hulick
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Evaluation of laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels.

Authors:  Jessica Stoll; Scott M Weissman; Nicole Hook; Christina Selkirk; Amy Knight Johnson; Anna Newlin; Kristen J Vogel Postula
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 5.  Care delivery considerations for widespread and equitable implementation of inherited cancer predisposition testing.

Authors:  Deborah Cragun; Anita Y Kinney; Tuya Pal
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 5.225

6.  Factors Influencing Clinical Follow-Up for Individuals with a Personal History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer and Previous Uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing.

Authors:  Sarah E Chadwell; Hua He; Sara Knapke; Jaime Lewis; Rebecca Sisson; Jennifer Hopper
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Cancer Genetic Counseling and Testing in an Era of Rapid Change.

Authors:  Gillian W Hooker; Keelia Rhoads Clemens; John Quillin; Kristen J Vogel Postula; Pia Summerour; Rebecca Nagy; Adam H Buchanan
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Issues Arising in Psychological Consultations to Help Parents Talk to Minor and Young Adult Children about their Cancer Genetic Test Result: a Guide to Providers.

Authors:  Andrea Farkas Patenaude; Katherine A Schneider
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Next Generation Sequencing in the Clinic: a Patterns of Care Study in a Retrospective Cohort of Subjects Referred to a Genetic Medicine Clinic for Suspected Lynch Syndrome.

Authors:  Carlos J Gallego; Matthew L Perez; Amber Burt; Laura M Amendola; Brian H Shirts; Colin C Pritchard; Fuki M Hisama; Robin L Bennett; David L Veenstra; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-12-05       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex breast cancer susceptibility testing.

Authors:  Angela R Bradbury; Linda J Patrick-Miller; Brian L Egleston; Laura DiGiovanni; Jamie Brower; Diana Harris; Evelyn M Stevens; Kara N Maxwell; Abha Kulkarni; Tyler Chavez; Amanda Brandt; Jessica M Long; Jacquelyn Powers; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Susan M Domchek
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.