Pat W Whitworth1,2, Peter D Beitsch2,3, Rakesh Patel2,3, Barry Rosen2, Gia Compagnoni4, Paul L Baron5, Rache Simmons6, Eric A Brown7, Linsey Gold7, Dennis Holmes8, Linda Ann Smith9, Michael Kinney10, Ian Grady11, Patricia Clark12, Karen Barbosa13, Samuel Lyons14, Lee Riley15, Cynara Coomer16, Lisa Curcio17, Antonio Ruiz18, Sadia Khan19, Heather MacDonald19, Kevin Hughes20, Mary Kay Hardwick2, Brandie Heald3, Sandra B Munro3, Sarah M Nielsen3, Edward D Esplin3. 1. Nashville Breast Center, Nashville, Tennesee. 2. TME Breast Care Network, Dallas, Texas. 3. Invitae, San Francisco, California. 4. Advanced Surgical Care of Northern Illinois, Barrington. 5. Northwell Health, New York, New York. 6. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 7. Comprehensive Breast Care, A Division of Michigan Healthcare Professionals, Troy. 8. Private practice, Los Angeles, California. 9. Breast Surgery Associates of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 10. Center for Advanced Breast Care, Arlington Heights, Illinois. 11. North Valley Breast Clinic, Redding, California. 12. Ironwood Cancer and Research Centers, Scottsdale, Arizona. 13. Alaska Breast Care Specialists, Anchorage. 14. Lyons Care Associates, Kahului, Hawaii. 15. St Luke's University Health Network, Easton, Pennsylvania. 16. Department of Surgery, Northwell Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, New York. 17. Breast Link, Laguna Hills, California. 18. Chesapeake Regional Medical Center, Chesapeake, Virginia. 19. Hoag Hospital Newport Beach, Newport Beach, California. 20. Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Abstract
Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.
Importance: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines currently recommend germline testing for high-risk genes in selected patients with breast cancer. The clinical utility of recommending testing all patients with breast cancer with multigene panels is currently under consideration. Objective: To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients from a previously reported cohort were assessed as in-criteria or out-of-criteria according to the 2017 guidelines and underwent testing with a multigene germline panel between 2017 to 2018. Patients were women and men aged 18 to 90 years, with a new and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer who had not undergone either single or multigene testing. Clinicians from 20 community and academic sites documented patient clinical information and changes to clinical recommendations made according to test findings. Association between prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and previously unreported clinical features, including scores generated by the BRCAPRO statistical model, was determined. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to May 2022. Exposure: New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. Results: Clinicians were asked to assess changes to clinical management as a result of germline genetic testing for 952 patients. Informative clinician-reported recommendations were provided for 939 (467 in-criteria and 472 out-of-criteria) of the patients with breast cancer (936 [99.7%] female; 702 [74.8%] White; mean [SD] age at initial diagnosis, 57.6 [11.5] years). One or more changes were reported for 31 of 37 (83.8%) in-criteria patients and 23 of 34 (67.6%) out-of-criteria patients with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Recommendations were changed as a result of testing results for 14 of 22 (63.6%) out-of-criteria patients who had a variant in a breast cancer predisposition gene. Clinicians considered testing beneficial for two-thirds of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and for one-third of patients with either negative results or variants of uncertain significance. There was no difference in variant rate between patients meeting the BRCAPRO threshold (≥10%) and those who did not (P = .86, Fisher exact test). No changes to clinical recommendations were made for most patients with negative results (345 of 349 patients [98.9%]) or variants of uncertain significance (492 of 509 patients [96.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, germline genetic testing was used by clinicians to direct treatment for most out-of-criteria patients with breast cancer with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants, including those with moderate-risk variants. Universal germline testing informs clinical decision-making and provides access to targeted treatments and clinical trials for all patients with breast cancer.
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Karina W Davidson; Alex H Krist; Michael J Barry; Michael Cabana; Aaron B Caughey; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Lori Pbert; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Angelica P Herrera; Shedra Amy Snipes; Denae W King; Isabel Torres-Vigil; Daniel S Goldberg; Armin D Weinberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Chunling Hu; Steven N Hart; Rohan Gnanaolivu; Hongyan Huang; Kun Y Lee; Jie Na; Chi Gao; Jenna Lilyquist; Siddhartha Yadav; Nicholas J Boddicker; Raed Samara; Josh Klebba; Christine B Ambrosone; Hoda Anton-Culver; Paul Auer; Elisa V Bandera; Leslie Bernstein; Kimberly A Bertrand; Elizabeth S Burnside; Brian D Carter; Heather Eliassen; Susan M Gapstur; Mia Gaudet; Christopher Haiman; James M Hodge; David J Hunter; Eric J Jacobs; Esther M John; Charles Kooperberg; Allison W Kurian; Loic Le Marchand; Sara Lindstroem; Tricia Lindstrom; Huiyan Ma; Susan Neuhausen; Polly A Newcomb; Katie M O'Brien; Janet E Olson; Irene M Ong; Tuya Pal; Julie R Palmer; Alpa V Patel; Sonya Reid; Lynn Rosenberg; Dale P Sandler; Christopher Scott; Rulla Tamimi; Jack A Taylor; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Celine M Vachon; Clarice Weinberg; Song Yao; Argyrios Ziogas; Jeffrey N Weitzel; David E Goldgar; Susan M Domchek; Katherine L Nathanson; Peter Kraft; Eric C Polley; Fergus J Couch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer M Weiss; Samir Gupta; Carol A Burke; Lisen Axell; Lee-May Chen; Daniel C Chung; Katherine M Clayback; Susan Dallas; Seth Felder; Olumide Gbolahan; Francis M Giardiello; William Grady; Michael J Hall; Heather Hampel; Rachel Hodan; Gregory Idos; Priyanka Kanth; Bryson Katona; Laura Lamps; Xavier Llor; Patrick M Lynch; Arnold J Markowitz; Sara Pirzadeh-Miller; Niloy Jewel Samadder; David Shibata; Benjamin J Swanson; Brittany M Szymaniak; Georgia L Wiesner; Andrew Wolf; Matthew B Yurgelun; Mae Zakhour; Susan D Darlow; Mary A Dwyer; Mallory Campbell Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Kevin Hughes; Rakesh Patel; Barry Rosen; Gia Compagnoni; Paul Baron; Rache Simmons; Linda Ann Smith; Ian Grady; Michael Kinney; Cynara Coomer; Karen Barbosa; Dennis R Holmes; Eric Brown; Linsey Gold; Patricia Clark; Lee Riley; Samuel Lyons; Antonio Ruiz; Sadia Kahn; Heather MacDonald; Lisa Curcio; Mary Kay Hardwick; Shan Yang; Ed D Esplin; Robert L Nussbaum Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544