Dataset Information

Clinical usefulness of NGS multi-gene panel testing in hereditary cancer analysis.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: A considerable number of families with pedigrees suggestive of a Mendelian form of Breast Cancer (BC), Ovarian Cancer (OC), or Pancreatic Cancer (PC) do not show detectable BRCA1/2 mutations after genetic testing. The use of multi-gene hereditary cancer panels increases the possibility to identify individuals with cancer predisposing gene variants. Our study was aimed to evaluate the increase in the detection rate of pathogenic mutations in BC, OC, and PC patients when using a multi-gene panel. Methods: 546 patients affected by BC (423), PC (64), or OC (59) entered the study from January 2020 to December 2021. For BC patients, inclusion criteria were i) positive cancer family background, ii) early onset, and iii) triple negative BC. PC patients were enrolled when affected by metastatic cancer, while OC patients were all submitted to genetic testing without selection. The patients were tested using a Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) panel containing 25 genes in addition to BRCA1/2. Results: Forty-four out of 546 patients (8%) carried germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV) on BRCA1/2 genes, and 46 (8%) presented PV or LPV in other susceptibility genes. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate the utility of expanded panel testing in patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes, since this approach increased the mutation detection rate of 15% in PC, 8% in BC and 5% in OC cases. In absence of multi-gene panel analysis, a considerable percentage of mutations would have been lost.

SUBMITTER: Anaclerio F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10104445 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical usefulness of NGS multi-gene panel testing in hereditary cancer analysis.

Anaclerio Federico F Pilenzi Lucrezia L Dell'Elice Anastasia A Ferrante Rossella R Grossi Simona S Ferlito Luca Maria LM Marinelli Camilla C Gildetti Simona S Calabrese Giuseppe G Stuppia Liborio L Antonucci Ivana I

Frontiers in genetics 20230201

<b>Introduction:</b> A considerable number of families with pedigrees suggestive of a Mendelian form of Breast Cancer (BC), Ovarian Cancer (OC), or Pancreatic Cancer (PC) do not show detectable <i>BRCA</i>1/2 mutations after genetic testing. The use of multi-gene hereditary cancer panels increases the possibility to identify individuals with cancer predisposing gene variants. Our study was aimed to evaluate the increase in the detection rate of pathogenic mutations in BC, OC, and PC patients whe ...[more]

PMID: 37065479

Similar Datasets

Project description:Advances in our understanding of the genetic landscape of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have led to the clinical adoption of multi-gene panel testing. Panel testing introduces new sources of genetic uncertainty secondary to the inclusion of moderate- and low-penetrance genes, as well as the increased likelihood of identifying a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). This cross-sectional study explored the post-test psychological functioning of women who underwent multi-gene panel testing for HBOC susceptibility genes. Two hundred and ninety-five women who underwent panel testing within the previous 2 years completed a study questionnaire to measure levels of cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress using the Impact of Events Scale (IES) and the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), respectively. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between genetic test results and levels of psychological distress captured by the IES and MICRA. In this cohort, a pathogenic variant (PV) was identified in 41 (14%) of participants, and 77 (26%) participants were found to have a VUS. In the multi-variate model, higher mean levels of genetic testing-related distress were observed in individuals with a PV (p < 0.001) or a VUS (p = 0.007) compared to those with a negative result. Furthermore, participants with a PV in a moderate-penetrance gene were found to have higher levels of genetic testing-related distress compared to those with a PV in a high-risk gene (p = 0.03). Overall, participants were highly satisfied with their genetic testing experience, with 92% of individuals reporting they would recommend testing to others. Our findings highlight differences in psychological outcomes based on both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance, which contribute to our understanding of the impact of panel testing and sources of both cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress secondary to testing.

Project description:Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Dataset Information

Clinical usefulness of NGS multi-gene panel testing in hereditary cancer analysis.

Publications

Clinical usefulness of NGS multi-gene panel testing in hereditary cancer analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets