L Moreno1, C Linossi1, I Esteban1, N Gadea1, E Carrasco1, S Bonache2, S Gutiérrez-Enríquez2, C Cruz1, O Díez2,3, J Balmaña4. 1. High Risk and Cancer Prevention Unit, Medical Oncology Department, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Oncogenetics Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO) and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Clinical and Molecular Genetics Area, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. 4. High Risk and Cancer Prevention Unit, Medical Oncology Department, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. jbalmana@vhio.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Originally, BRCA testing was used for risk assessment and prevention strategies for breast and ovarian cancer. Nowadays, BRCA status may influence therapeutic decision making at cancer diagnosis. Our objective was to analyze whether the medical advances have changed the burden and pattern of referral, and the pathogenic mutation detection rate. METHODS: We included 969 probands from our hereditary cancer registry who undertook a full BRCA analysis between 2006 and 2014. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: The number of genetic tests have raised from 28 to 170, representing a sixfold increase. In 2006, we tested 1.6 relatives/proband while this proportion was four in 2014. Overall, 20 % harbored a deleterious mutation and 11 % had a variant of unknown significance (VUS). There has been a downward trend in the detection rate of VUS. Testing patients with breast cancer during neoadjuvancy has raised from 4 to 25 % (p = 0.002), while testing them during remission has decreased from 79 to 29 % (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients assessed during the first 6 months after their cancer diagnosis has increased from 3 to 34 % (p = 0.001). Risk reducing mastectomy and salpingoophorectomy have raised from 0 to 24 %, and from 36 to 65 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA testing has experienced a sixfold increase, the number of relatives being tested has doubled, and the test is being performed at earlier phases of the disease. It is necessary to adequate the health resources to preserve the BRCA genetic counseling quality while incorporating BRCA testing for therapeutic decision making.
PURPOSE: Originally, BRCA testing was used for risk assessment and prevention strategies for breast and ovarian cancer. Nowadays, BRCA status may influence therapeutic decision making at cancer diagnosis. Our objective was to analyze whether the medical advances have changed the burden and pattern of referral, and the pathogenic mutation detection rate. METHODS: We included 969 probands from our hereditary cancer registry who undertook a full BRCA analysis between 2006 and 2014. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables. RESULTS: The number of genetic tests have raised from 28 to 170, representing a sixfold increase. In 2006, we tested 1.6 relatives/proband while this proportion was four in 2014. Overall, 20 % harbored a deleterious mutation and 11 % had a variant of unknown significance (VUS). There has been a downward trend in the detection rate of VUS. Testing patients with breast cancer during neoadjuvancy has raised from 4 to 25 % (p = 0.002), while testing them during remission has decreased from 79 to 29 % (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients assessed during the first 6 months after their cancer diagnosis has increased from 3 to 34 % (p = 0.001). Risk reducing mastectomy and salpingoophorectomy have raised from 0 to 24 %, and from 36 to 65 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:BRCA testing has experienced a sixfold increase, the number of relatives being tested has doubled, and the test is being performed at earlier phases of the disease. It is necessary to adequate the health resources to preserve the BRCA genetic counseling quality while incorporating BRCA testing for therapeutic decision making.
Authors: Orland Diez; Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez; Miriam Masas; Anna Tenés; Carme Yagüe; Angels Arcusa; Gemma Llort Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Susan M Domchek; Tara M Friebel; Christian F Singer; D Gareth Evans; Henry T Lynch; Claudine Isaacs; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Ellen Matloff; Rosalind Eeles; Gabriella Pichert; Laura Van t'veer; Nadine Tung; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Wendy S Rubinstein; Patricia A Ganz; Mary B Daly; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gail Tomlinson; Joellen Schildkraut; Joanne L Blum; Timothy R Rebbeck Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; Steve Ellis; Radka Platte; Elena Fineberg; D Gareth Evans; Louise Izatt; Rosalind A Eeles; Julian Adlard; Rosemarie Davidson; Diana Eccles; Trevor Cole; Jackie Cook; Carole Brewer; Marc Tischkowitz; Fiona Douglas; Shirley Hodgson; Lisa Walker; Mary E Porteous; Patrick J Morrison; Lucy E Side; M John Kennedy; Catherine Houghton; Alan Donaldson; Mark T Rogers; Huw Dorkins; Zosia Miedzybrodzka; Helen Gregory; Jacqueline Eason; Julian Barwell; Emma McCann; Alex Murray; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kathryn Alsop; Sian Fereday; Cliff Meldrum; Anna deFazio; Catherine Emmanuel; Joshy George; Alexander Dobrovic; Michael J Birrer; Penelope M Webb; Colin Stewart; Michael Friedlander; Stephen Fox; David Bowtell; Gillian Mitchell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Noah D Kauff; Jaya M Satagopan; Mark E Robson; Lauren Scheuer; Martee Hensley; Clifford A Hudis; Nathan A Ellis; Jeff Boyd; Patrick I Borgen; Richard R Barakat; Larry Norton; Mercedes Castiel; Khedoudja Nafa; Kenneth Offit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amanda B Spurdle; Sue Healey; Andrew Devereau; Frans B L Hogervorst; Alvaro N A Monteiro; Katherine L Nathanson; Paolo Radice; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sean Tavtigian; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Fergus J Couch; David E Goldgar Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Yun Li; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Sarah T Hawley; Monica Morrow; M Chandler McLeod; Reshma Jagsi; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Alejandro Moles-Fernández; Laura Duran-Lozano; Gemma Montalban; Sandra Bonache; Irene López-Perolio; Mireia Menéndez; Marta Santamariña; Raquel Behar; Ana Blanco; Estela Carrasco; Adrià López-Fernández; Neda Stjepanovic; Judith Balmaña; Gabriel Capellá; Marta Pineda; Ana Vega; Conxi Lázaro; Miguel de la Hoya; Orland Diez; Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez Journal: Front Genet Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.599