| Literature DB >> 30089825 |
Pascal Pujol1,2, Pierre Vande Perre3,4, Laurence Faivre5, Damien Sanlaville6,7,8, Carole Corsini3, Bernard Baertschi9,10, Michèle Anahory11, Dominique Vaur12,13, Sylviane Olschwang14,15,16, Nadem Soufir17,18, Noëlle Bastide19, Sarah Amar11, Michèle Vintraud20, Olivier Ingster21, Stéphane Richard22, Pierre Le Coz23, Jean-Philippe Spano24, Olivier Caron25, Pascal Hammel26, Elisabeth Luporsi27, Alain Toledano20, Xavier Rebillard28,29, Anne Cambon-Thomsen30,31, Olivier Putois32, Jean-Marc Rey33,34, Christian Hervé35, Caroline Zorn36, Karen Baudry3, Virginie Galibert3, Joseph Gligorov37, David Azria38, Brigitte Bressac-de Paillerets39, Nelly Burnichon25,34,40,41, Marc Spielmann42, Daniel Zarca42, Isabelle Coupier3,43, Olivier Cussenot44,45, Anne-Paule Gimenez-Roqueplo25,34,40,41, Sophie Giraud34,46, Anne-Sophie Lapointe47, Patricia Niccoli48, Isabelle Raingeard49, Muriel Le Bidan50, Thierry Frebourg51, Arash Rafii52,53, David Geneviève54,55.
Abstract
In oncology, the expanding use of multi-gene panels to explore familial cancer predisposition and tumor genome analysis has led to increased secondary findings discoveries (SFs) and has given rise to important medical, ethical, and legal issues. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a policy statement for managing SFs for a list of genes, including 25 cancer-related genes. Currently, there are few recommendations in Europe. From June 2016 to May 2017, the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine (SFMPP) established a working group of 47 experts to elaborate guidelines for managing information given on the SFs for genes related to cancers. A subgroup of ethicists, lawyers, patients' representatives, and psychologists provided ethical reflection, information guidelines, and materials (written consent form and video). A subgroup with medical expertise, including oncologists and clinical and molecular geneticists, provided independent evaluation and classification of 60 genes. The main criteria were the "actionability" of the genes (available screening or prevention strategies), the risk evaluation (severity, penetrance, and age of disease onset), and the level of evidence from published data. Genes were divided into three classes: for class 1 genes (n = 36), delivering the information on SFs was recommended; for class 2 genes (n = 5), delivering the information remained questionable because of insufficient data from the literature and/or level of evidence; and for class 3 genes (n = 19), delivering the information on SFs was not recommended. These guidelines for managing SFs for cancer-predisposing genes provide new insights for clinicians and laboratories to standardize clinical practices.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30089825 PMCID: PMC6244405 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0224-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Hum Genet ISSN: 1018-4813 Impact factor: 4.246