Lindsey E Minion1, Jill S Dolinsky2, Dana M Chase3, Charles L Dunlop2, Elizabeth C Chao4, Bradley J Monk5. 1. Dignity Health St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States. 2. Department of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, United States. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center at Dignity Health St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States. 4. Department of Clinical Diagnostics, Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA, United States; Division of Genetics and Genomics, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, United States. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Arizona Cancer Center at Dignity Health St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, United States. Electronic address: Bradley.monk@chw.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer is well documented. With the advent of next generation sequencing, hereditary panel testing provides an efficient method for evaluating multiple genes simultaneously. Therefore, we sought to investigate the contribution of 19 genes identified in the literature as increasing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative population of patients with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer by means of a hereditary cancer panel. METHODS: Subjects were referred for multi-gene panel testing between February 2012 and March 2014. Clinical data was ascertained from requisition forms. The incidence of pathogenic mutations (including likely pathogenic), and variant of unknown significance were then calculated for each gene and/or patient cohort. RESULTS: In this cohort of 911 subjects, panel testing identified 67 mutations. With 7.4% of subjects harboring a mutation on this multi-gene panel, the diagnostic yield was increased, compared to testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations alone. In the ovarian cancer probands, the most frequently mutated genes were BRIP1 (n=8; 1.72%) and MSH6 (n=6; 1.29%). In the breast cancer probands, mutations were most commonly observed in CHEK2 (n=9; 2.54%), ATM (n=3; 0.85%), and TP53 (n=3; 0.85%). CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies are needed to clarify the exact management of patients with a mutation in each gene, this study highlights information that can be captured with panel testing and provides support for incorporation of panel testing into clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer is well documented. With the advent of next generation sequencing, hereditary panel testing provides an efficient method for evaluating multiple genes simultaneously. Therefore, we sought to investigate the contribution of 19 genes identified in the literature as increasing the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in a BRCA1 and BRCA2 negative population of patients with a personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer by means of a hereditary cancer panel. METHODS: Subjects were referred for multi-gene panel testing between February 2012 and March 2014. Clinical data was ascertained from requisition forms. The incidence of pathogenic mutations (including likely pathogenic), and variant of unknown significance were then calculated for each gene and/or patient cohort. RESULTS: In this cohort of 911 subjects, panel testing identified 67 mutations. With 7.4% of subjects harboring a mutation on this multi-gene panel, the diagnostic yield was increased, compared to testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations alone. In the ovarian cancer probands, the most frequently mutated genes were BRIP1 (n=8; 1.72%) and MSH6 (n=6; 1.29%). In the breast cancer probands, mutations were most commonly observed in CHEK2 (n=9; 2.54%), ATM (n=3; 0.85%), and TP53 (n=3; 0.85%). CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies are needed to clarify the exact management of patients with a mutation in each gene, this study highlights information that can be captured with panel testing and provides support for incorporation of panel testing into clinical practice.
Authors: Bryce A Seifert; Julianne M O'Daniel; Krunal Amin; Daniel S Marchuk; Nirali M Patel; Joel S Parker; Alan P Hoyle; Lisle E Mose; Andrew Marron; Michele C Hayward; Christopher Bizon; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; James P Evans; H Shelton Earp; Norman E Sharpless; D Neil Hayes; Jonathan S Berg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David A Barrington; Macie L Champion; Teresa K L Boitano; Christen L Walters-Haygood; Meagan B Farmer; Ronald D Alvarez; Jacob M Estes; Charles A Leath Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jun Li; Huong Meeks; Bing-Jian Feng; Sue Healey; Heather Thorne; Igor Makunin; Jonathan Ellis; Ian Campbell; Melissa Southey; Gillian Mitchell; David Clouston; Judy Kirk; David Goldgar; Georgia Chenevix-Trench Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 6.318