Mary E Velthuizen1, Rob B van der Luijt1,2, Beja J de Vries1, Marco J Koudijs1, Eveline M A Bleiker2,3,4, Margreet G E M Ausems5. 1. Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.G.E.M.Ausems@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients' experiences with this approach. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4-27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients' experiences with our approach. RESULTS: In total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene.
BACKGROUND:CHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients' experiences with this approach. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4-27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients' experiences with our approach. RESULTS: In total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer risk; CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant; Recontacting; Uptake testing
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: Kirsten F L Douma; Neil K Aaronson; Hans F A Vasen; Miranda A Gerritsma; Chad M Gundy; Esther P A Janssen; Annette H J T Vriends; Annemieke Cats; Senno Verhoef; Eveline M A Bleiker Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Muriel A Adank; Frederik J Hes; Wendy A G van Zelst-Stams; M Petrousjka van den Tol; Caroline Seynaeve; Jan C Oosterwijk Journal: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd Date: 2015
Authors: G H de Bock; M Schutte; E M M Krol-Warmerdam; C Seynaeve; J Blom; C T M Brekelmans; H Meijers-Heijboer; C J van Asperen; C J Cornelisse; P Devilee; R A E M Tollenaar; J G M Klijn Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Douglas F Easton; Paul D P Pharoah; Antonis C Antoniou; Marc Tischkowitz; Sean V Tavtigian; Katherine L Nathanson; Peter Devilee; Alfons Meindl; Fergus J Couch; Melissa Southey; David E Goldgar; D Gareth R Evans; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Nazneen Rahman; Mark Robson; Susan M Domchek; William D Foulkes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Taru A Muranen; Dario Greco; Carl Blomqvist; Kristiina Aittomäki; Sofia Khan; Frans Hogervorst; Senno Verhoef; Paul D P Pharoah; Alison M Dunning; Mitul Shah; Robert Luben; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Minouk Schoemaker; Anthony Swerdlow; Montserrat García-Closas; Jonine Figueroa; Thilo Dörk; Natalia V Bogdanova; Per Hall; Jingmei Li; Elza Khusnutdinova; Marina Bermisheva; Vessela Kristensen; Anne-Lise Borresen-Dale; Julian Peto; Isabel Dos Santos Silva; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; Peter Hillemans; Tjoung-Won Park-Simon; Hiltrud Brauch; Ute Hamann; Barbara Burwinkel; Frederik Marme; Alfons Meindl; Rita K Schmutzler; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Diether Lambrechts; Matthieu Moisse; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Antoinette Hollestelle; John W M Martens; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Hermann Brenner; Volker Arndt; Arto Mannermaa; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Peter Devilee; Caroline Seynaeve; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Esther M John; Alice S Whittemore; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Kyriaki Michailidou; Joe Dennis; Douglas F Easton; Marjanka K Schmidt; Heli Nevanlinna Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 8.822