The Evolution of Cancer Risk Assessment in the Era of Next Generation Sequencing
- 1.2k Downloads
Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.
KeywordsGenetic counseling Neoplastic syndromes Hereditary Genetics Medical Next generation sequencing Genetic testing panels
Conflict of Interest
Heather Fecteau MS, CGC, Kristen Vogel MS, CGC, Kristen Hanson MS, CGC, and Shannon Morrill-Cornelius MS, CGC declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
No animal or human studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
- Ackerman, M. J., Priori, S. G., Willems, S., Berul, C., Brugada, R., Calkins, H., et al. (2011). HRS/EHRA expert consensus statement on the state of genetic testing for the channelopathies and cardiomyopathies this document was developed as a partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Heart Rhythm, 8(8), 1308–1339. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2011.05.020.Google Scholar
- Ambry Lab. (2013). Retrived from https://doi.org/www.ambrygen.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACMG%20shared%20slides.pdf.
- Casadei, S., Norquist, B. M., Walsh, T., Stray, S., Mandell, J. B., Lee, M. K., et al. (2011). Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Research, 71(6), 2222–2229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-3958.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Chompret, A., Brugieres, L., Ronsin, M., Gardes, M., Dessarps-Freichey, F., Abel, A., et al. (2000). P53 germline mutations in childhood cancers and cancer risk for carrier individuals. British Journal of Cancer, 82(12), 1932–1937. doi: https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1167.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Gonzalez, K. D., Noltner, K. A., Buzin, C. H., Gu, D., Wen-Fong, C. Y., Nguyen, V. Q., et al. (2009). Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(8), 1250–1256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.16.6959.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Halbert, C. H., Stopfer, J. E., McDonald, J., Weathers, B., Collier, A., Troxel, A. B., et al. (2011). Long-term reactions to genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: does time heal women’s concerns? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(32), 4302–4306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.33.1561.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, “Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian,” 2013, https://doi.org/www.nccn.org/index.asp.
- Meldrum, C., Doyle, M. A., & Tothill, R. W. (2011). Next-generation sequencing for cancer diagnostics: a practical perspective. Clinical Biochemistry Reviews, 32(4), 177–195.Google Scholar
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2014). Assessing the genetic risk for BRCA-related breast or ovarian cancer in women: Recommendations From the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine 160 (4), I-16-16.Google Scholar
- Seal, S., Thompson, D., Renwick, A., Elliott, A., Kelly, P., Barfoot, R., et al. (2006). Truncating mutations in the Fanconi anemia J gene BRIP1 are low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nature Genetics, 38(11), 1239–1241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1902.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Villani, A., Tabori, U., Schiffman, J., Shlien, A., Beyene, J., Druker, H., et al. (2011). Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni syndrome: a prospective observational study. The Lancet Oncology, 12(6), 559–567. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70119-x.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Walsh, T., Casadei, S., Lee, M. K., Pennil, C. C., Nord, A. S., Thornton, A. M., et al. (2011). Mutations in 12 genes for inherited ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma identified by massively parallel sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(44), 18032–18037. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115052108.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar