Clinical Utility of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2022
01 09 2022
Historique:
entrez:
22
9
2022
pubmed:
23
9
2022
medline:
28
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. To examine the implications of universal testing of patients with breast cancer with respect to clinical decision-making. 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. New and/or previous diagnosis of breast cancer. Disease management recommendations that were changed as a result of genetic testing results are reported. 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%]). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36136330
pii: 2796613
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.32787
pmc: PMC9500554
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2232787Références
J Clin Oncol. 1996 May;14(5):1730-6; discussion 1737-40
pubmed: 8622094
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Oct 15;19(10):1122-1132
pubmed: 34666312
Am J Public Health. 2010 Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S105-12
pubmed: 20147682
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022 Apr 8;8(1):47
pubmed: 35396508
JAMA. 2019 Aug 20;322(7):652-665
pubmed: 31429903
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Jul 1;7(7):1071-1072
pubmed: 34014282
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr 1;31(10):1267-70
pubmed: 23460708
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2021 Aug 23;22(10):85
pubmed: 34424438
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb 20;37(6):453-460
pubmed: 30526229
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):440-451
pubmed: 33471974
Cancers (Basel). 2022 May 13;14(10):
pubmed: 35626031
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20;37(24):2177-2178
pubmed: 31246531
JAMA. 2020 Mar 10;323(10):995-997
pubmed: 32154851
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Apr 1;6(4):e196400
pubmed: 32027353
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Feb 01;7(2):230-237
pubmed: 33126242
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;24(10):3060-3066
pubmed: 28766213
Ann Oncol. 2019 Apr 1;30(4):558-566
pubmed: 30689707
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 1;33(31):3660-7
pubmed: 26324357
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 24;384(25):2394-2405
pubmed: 34081848
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 23;379(8):753-763
pubmed: 30110579
Oncol Rev. 2021 Jun 24;15(1):544
pubmed: 34267891
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20;37(24):2175-2176
pubmed: 31246525
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jan;15(1):9-20
pubmed: 28040716
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 4;384(5):428-439
pubmed: 33471991
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 20;37(24):2178-2180
pubmed: 31246521
J Clin Oncol. 2020 May 1;38(13):1409-1418
pubmed: 32125938
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Jul 1;110(7):714-725
pubmed: 29361001
JCO Precis Oncol. 2021 Nov;5:1387-1396
pubmed: 34994636
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Nov 1;39(31):3415-3418
pubmed: 34491781
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Jun 1;20(11):2701-12
pubmed: 12039933
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;4(8):1066-1072
pubmed: 29801090
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 10;377(6):523-533
pubmed: 28578601
Cancer. 2021 Mar 15;127(6):828-833
pubmed: 33146899
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Oct;26(10):3025-3031
pubmed: 31342359
Eur J Hum Genet. 2020 Dec;28(12):1631-1644
pubmed: 32948847