PURPOSE: Genetic testing for cancer risk has expanded rapidly. We examined clinical genetic testing and results among population-based patients with breast and ovarian cancer. METHODS: The study included all women 20 years of age or older diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2014 and reported to the SEER registries covering the entire state populations. SEER data were linked to results from four laboratories that performed nearly all germline cancer genetic testing. Testing use and results were analyzed at the gene level. RESULTS: There were 77,085 patients with breast cancer and 6,001 with ovarian cancer. Nearly one quarter of those with breast cancer (24.1%) and one third of those with ovarian cancer (30.9%) had genetic test results. Among patients with ovarian cancer, testing was lower in blacks (21.6%; 95% CI, 18.1% to 25.4%; v whites, 33.8%; 95% CI, 32.3% to 35.3%) and uninsured patients (20.8%; 95% CI, 15.5% to 26.9%; v insured patients, 35.3%; 95% CI, 33.8% to 36.9%). Prevalent pathogenic variants in patients with breast cancer were BRCA1 (3.2%), BRCA2 (3.1%), CHEK 2 (1.6%), PALB2 (1.0%), ATM (0.7%), and NBN (0.4%); in patients with ovarian cancer, prevalent pathogenic variants were BRCA1 (8.7%), BRCA2 (5.8%), CHEK2 (1.4%), BRIP1 (0.9%), MSH2 (0.8%), and ATM (0.6%). Racial/ethnic differences in pathogenic variants included BRCA1 (ovarian cancer: whites, 7.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 8.8%; v Hispanics, 16.1%; 95% CI, 11.8% to 21.2%) and CHEK2 (breast cancer: whites, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%; v blacks, 0.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 0.8%). When tested for all genes that current guidelines designate as associated with their cancer type, 7.8% of patients with breast cancer and 14.5% of patients with ovarian cancer had pathogenic variants. CONCLUSION: Clinically-tested patients with breast and ovarian cancer in two large, diverse states had 8% to 15% prevalence of actionable pathogenic variants. Substantial testing gaps and disparities among patients with ovarian cancer are targets for improvement.
PURPOSE: Genetic testing for cancer risk has expanded rapidly. We examined clinical genetic testing and results among population-based patients with breast and ovarian cancer. METHODS: The study included all women 20 years of age or older diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2014 and reported to the SEER registries covering the entire state populations. SEER data were linked to results from four laboratories that performed nearly all germline cancer genetic testing. Testing use and results were analyzed at the gene level. RESULTS: There were 77,085 patients with breast cancer and 6,001 with ovarian cancer. Nearly one quarter of those with breast cancer (24.1%) and one third of those with ovarian cancer (30.9%) had genetic test results. Among patients with ovarian cancer, testing was lower in blacks (21.6%; 95% CI, 18.1% to 25.4%; v whites, 33.8%; 95% CI, 32.3% to 35.3%) and uninsured patients (20.8%; 95% CI, 15.5% to 26.9%; v insured patients, 35.3%; 95% CI, 33.8% to 36.9%). Prevalent pathogenic variants in patients with breast cancer were BRCA1 (3.2%), BRCA2 (3.1%), CHEK 2 (1.6%), PALB2 (1.0%), ATM (0.7%), and NBN (0.4%); in patients with ovarian cancer, prevalent pathogenic variants were BRCA1 (8.7%), BRCA2 (5.8%), CHEK2 (1.4%), BRIP1 (0.9%), MSH2 (0.8%), and ATM (0.6%). Racial/ethnic differences in pathogenic variants included BRCA1 (ovarian cancer: whites, 7.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 8.8%; v Hispanics, 16.1%; 95% CI, 11.8% to 21.2%) and CHEK2 (breast cancer: whites, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%; v blacks, 0.1%; 95% CI, 0% to 0.8%). When tested for all genes that current guidelines designate as associated with their cancer type, 7.8% of patients with breast cancer and 14.5% of patients with ovarian cancer had pathogenic variants. CONCLUSION: Clinically-tested patients with breast and ovarian cancer in two large, diverse states had 8% to 15% prevalence of actionable pathogenic variants. Substantial testing gaps and disparities among patients with ovarian cancer are targets for improvement.
Authors: Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Ans van den Ouweland; Jan Klijn; Marijke Wasielewski; Anja de Snoo; Rogier Oldenburg; Antoinette Hollestelle; Mark Houben; Ellen Crepin; Monique van Veghel-Plandsoen; Fons Elstrodt; Cornelia van Duijn; Carina Bartels; Carel Meijers; Mieke Schutte; Lesley McGuffog; Deborah Thompson; Douglas Easton; Nayanta Sodha; Sheila Seal; Rita Barfoot; Jon Mangion; Jenny Chang-Claude; Diana Eccles; Rosalind Eeles; D Gareth Evans; Richard Houlston; Victoria Murday; Steven Narod; Tamara Peretz; Julian Peto; Catherine Phelan; Hong Xiang Zhang; Csilla Szabo; Peter Devilee; David Goldgar; P Andrew Futreal; Katherine L Nathanson; Barbara Weber; Nazneen Rahman; Michael R Stratton Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2002-04-22 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Esther M John; Alexander Miron; Gail Gong; Amanda I Phipps; Anna Felberg; Frederick P Li; Dee W West; Alice S Whittemore Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kenneth Offit; Angela Bradbury; Courtney Storm; Jon F Merz; Kevin E Noonan; Rebecca Spence Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Emily E Hare; Meredith A Mills; Kerry E Kingham; Lisa McPherson; Alice S Whittemore; Valerie McGuire; Uri Ladabaum; Yuya Kobayashi; Stephen E Lincoln; Michele Cargill; James M Ford Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Hall; Julia E Reid; Lynn A Burbidge; Dmitry Pruss; Amie M Deffenbaugh; Cynthia Frye; Richard J Wenstrup; Brian E Ward; Thomas A Scholl; Walter W Noll Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Adrianne R Mallen; Claire C Conley; Mary K Townsend; Ali Wells; Bernadette M Boac; Sarah Todd; Anjalika Gandhi; Michelle Kuznicki; Bianca M Augusto; McKenzie McIntyre; Brooke L Fridley; Shelley S Tworoger; Robert M Wenham; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Kara N Maxwell; Brandon M Wenz; Abha Kulkarni; Bradley Wubbenhorst; Kurt D'Andrea; Benita Weathers; Noah Goodman; Joseph Vijai; Jenna Lilyquist; Steven N Hart; Thomas P Slavin; Kasmintan A Schrader; Vignesh Ravichandran; Tinu Thomas; Chunling Hu; Mark E Robson; Paolo Peterlongo; Bernardo Bonanni; James M Ford; Judy E Garber; Susan L Neuhausen; Payal D Shah; Angela R Bradbury; Angela M DeMichele; Kenneth Offit; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Fergus J Couch; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2020-08-19
Authors: Arnethea L Sutton; Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; John Quillin; Lisa Rubinsak; Sarah M Temkin; Tamas Gal; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Mara Tynan; Beth N Peshkin; Claudine Isaacs; Shawna Willey; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Rachel Nusbaum; Gillian Hooker; Suzanne C O'Neill; Lina Jandorf; Scott P Kelly; Jessica Heinzmann; Sarah Kelleher; Elizabeth Poggi; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Melina Claussnitzer; Judy H Cho; Rory Collins; Nancy J Cox; Emmanouil T Dermitzakis; Matthew E Hurles; Sekar Kathiresan; Eimear E Kenny; Cecilia M Lindgren; Daniel G MacArthur; Kathryn N North; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Neil Risch; Charles N Rotimi; Jay Shendure; Nicole Soranzo; Mark I McCarthy Journal: Nature Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Panagiotis A Konstantinopoulos; Barbara Norquist; Christina Lacchetti; Deborah Armstrong; Rachel N Grisham; Paul J Goodfellow; Elise C Kohn; Douglas A Levine; Joyce F Liu; Karen H Lu; Dorinda Sparacio; Christina M Annunziata Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 44.544