BackgroundPathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) lead to increased risk of breast, ovarian, and other cancers, but most variant-positive individuals in the general population are unaware of their risk, and little is known about prevalence in non-European populations. We investigated BRCA1/2 prevalence and impact in the electronic health record (EHR)-linked BioMe Biobank in New York City.MethodsExome sequence data from 30,223 adult BioMe participants were evaluated for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2. Prevalence estimates were made in population groups defined by genetic ancestry and self-report. EHR data were used to evaluate clinical characteristics of variant-positive individuals.ResultsThere were 218 (0.7%) individuals harboring expected pathogenic variants, resulting in an overall prevalence of 1 in 139. The highest prevalence was in individuals with Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ; 1 in 49), Filipino and other Southeast Asian (1 in 81), and non-AJ European (1 in 103) ancestry. Among 218 variant-positive individuals, 112 (51.4%) harbored known founder variants: 80 had AJ founder variants (BRCA1 c.5266dupC and c.68_69delAG, and BRCA2 c.5946delT), 8 had a Puerto Rican founder variant (BRCA2 c.3922G>T), and 24 had one of 19 other founder variants. Non-European populations were more likely to harbor BRCA1/2 variants that were not classified in ClinVar or that had uncertain or conflicting evidence for pathogenicity (uncertain/conflicting). Within mixed ancestry populations, such as Hispanic/Latinos with genetic ancestry from Africa, Europe, and the Americas, there was a strong correlation between the proportion of African genetic ancestry and the likelihood of harboring an uncertain/conflicting variant. Approximately 28% of variant-positive individuals had a personal history, and 45% had a personal or family history of BRCA1/2-associated cancers. Approximately 27% of variant-positive individuals had prior clinical genetic testing for BRCA1/2. However, individuals with AJ founder variants were twice as likely to have had a clinical test (39%) than those with other pathogenic variants (20%).ConclusionsThese findings deepen our knowledge about BRCA1/2 variants and associated cancer risk in diverse populations, indicate a gap in knowledge about potential cancer-related variants in non-European populations, and suggest that genomic screening in diverse patient populations may be an effective tool to identify at-risk individuals.

Highlights d Genomic data linked to health records capture demography in health systems d Genetic networks reveal recent common ancestry in diverse populations d Evidence of many founder populations in New York City d Fine-scale population structure impacts genetic risk predictions

Background Population-based genomic screening has the predicted ability to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with medically actionable conditions. However, much research is needed to develop standards for genomic screening and to understand the perspectives of people offered this new testing modality. This is particularly true for non-European ancestry populations who are vastly underrepresented in genomic medicine research. Therefore, we implemented a pilot genomic screening program in the BioMe Biobank in New York City, where the majority of participants are of non-European ancestry. Methods We initiated genomic screening for well-established genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). We evaluated and included an additional gene (TTR) associated with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis (hATTR), which has a common founder variant in African ancestry populations. We evaluated the characteristics of 74 participants who received results associated with these conditions. We also assessed the preferences of 7461 newly enrolled BioMe participants to receive genomic results. Results In the pilot genomic screening program, 74 consented participants received results related to HBOC (N = 26), LS (N = 6), FH (N = 8), and hATTR (N = 34). Thirty-three of 34 (97.1%) participants who received a result related to hATTR were self-reported African American/African (AA) or Hispanic/Latinx (HL), compared to 14 of 40 (35.0%) participants who received a result related to HBOC, LS, or FH. Among the 7461 participants enrolled after the BioMe protocol modification to allow the return of genomic results, 93.4% indicated that they would want to receive results. Younger participants, women, and HL participants were more likely to opt to receive results. Conclusions The addition of TTR to a pilot genomic screening program meant that we returned results to a higher proportion of AA and HL participants, in comparison with genes traditionally included in genomic screening programs in the USA. We found that the majority of participants in a multi-ethnic biobank are interested in receiving genomic results for medically actionable conditions. These findings increase knowledge about the perspectives of diverse research participants on receiving genomic results and inform the broader implementation of genomic medicine in underrepresented patient populations.

Purpose: CTNNA1 is a potential diffuse gastric cancer risk gene, however CTNNA1 testing on multigene panel testing (MGPT) remains unstudied. Methods: De-identified data from 151,425 individuals who underwent CTNNA1 testing at a commercial laboratory between October 2015 and July 2019 were reviewed. Tissue α-E-catenin immunohistochemistry was performed on CTNNA1 c.1351C>T (p. Arg451*) carriers. Results: Fifty-two individuals (0.03% tested) had CTNNA1 loss-offunction (LOF) variants and 1057 individuals (0.7% tested) had a total of 302 distinct missense variants of uncertain significance. Detailed history was available on 33 CTNNA1 LOF carriers, with 21 unique CTNNA1 LOF variants. Four (12%) individuals had diffuse gastric cancer and 22 (67%) had breast cancer. Six (21%) and 24 (83%) of the 29 families reported a history of gastric or breast cancer, respectively. The CTNNA1 c.1351C>T nonsense variant was identified in three separate families with early-onset diffuse gastric cancer or breast cancer. Immunohistochemistry showed decreased α-E-catenin expression in gastric cancers. Conclusion: CTNNA1 LOF variants are detected on MGPT with a majority of these individuals having gastric or breast cancer. The overall risk of gastric cancer for CTNNA1 LOF carriers may be lower than expected. Given the uncertain phenotype and penetrance, management of individuals with CTNNA1 LOF variants remains challenging.

PURPOSE Limited data are available on the prevalence and clinical impact of Lynch syndrome (LS)–associated genomic variants in non-European ancestry populations. We identified and characterized individuals harboring LS-associated variants in the ancestrally diverse Bio Me Biobank in New York City. PATIENTS AND METHODS Exome sequence data from 30,223 adult Bio Me participants were evaluated for pathogenic, likely pathogenic, and predicted loss-of-function variants in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Survey and electronic health record data from variant-positive individuals were reviewed for personal and family cancer histories. RESULTS We identified 70 individuals (0.2%) harboring LS-associated variants in MLH1 (n = 12; 17%), MSH2 (n = 13; 19%), MSH6 (n = 16; 23%), and PMS2 (n = 29; 41%). The overall prevalence was 1 in 432, with higher prevalence among individuals of self-reported African ancestry (1 in 299) than among Hispanic/Latinx (1 in 654) or European (1 in 518) ancestries. Thirteen variant-positive individuals (19%) had a personal history, and 19 (27%) had a family history of an LS-related cancer. LS-related cancer rates were highest in individuals with MSH6 variants (31%) and lowest in those with PMS2 variants (7%). LS-associated variants were associated with increased risk of colorectal (odds ratio [OR], 5.0; P = .02) and endometrial (OR, 30.1; P = 8.5 × 10−9) cancers in Bio Me. Only 2 variant-positive individuals (3%) had a documented diagnosis of LS. CONCLUSION We found a higher prevalence of LS-associated variants among individuals of African ancestry in New York City. Although cancer risk is significantly increased among variant-positive individuals, the majority do not harbor a clinical diagnosis of LS, suggesting underrecognition of this disease.

Word Count: 340 Manuscript Word Count: 4214Abstract Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) lead to increased risk of breast, ovarian, and other cancers, but most variant positive individuals in the general population are unaware of their risk, and little is known about the prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in non-European populations.We investigated BRCA1/2 prevalence and impact using exome sequencing and electronic health record (EHR) data from 30,223 adult participants of the BioMe Biobank in New York City. There were 218 (0.7%) individuals harboring expected pathogenic variants, resulting in an overall prevalence of 1 in 139. In subpopulations defined by genetic ancestry, the highest prevalence was in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ; 1 in 49), Filipino and Southeast Asian (1 in 81), and Non-AJ European (1 in 103) descent. Among 218 variant positive individuals, 112 (51.4%) harbored known founder variants: 80 had AJ founder variants (BRCA1 c.5266dupC and c.68_69delAG, and BRCA2 c.5946delT), 7 had a Puerto Rican founder variant (BRCA2 c.3922G>T), and 25 had one of 19 other founder variants. Non-European populations were more likely to harbor BRCA1/2 variants that were not classified in ClinVar, or that had uncertain or conflicting evidence for pathogenicity. Within mixed ancestry populations, such as Hispanic/Latinos with genetic ancestry from Africa, Europe, and the Americas, there was a strong correlation between the proportion African genetic ancestry and the likelihood of harboring a BRCA1/2 variant with uncertain or conflicting evidence for pathogenicity. Based on EHR and participant questionnaire data, ~28% of variant positive individuals had a personal history, and ~45% a personal or family history of BRCA1/2-associated cancers.Approximately 27% of variant positive individuals had evidence of prior clinical genetic testing for BRCA1/2. However, individuals with AJ founder variants were twice as likely to have had a clinical test (38%) than those with other pathogenic variants (19%). These findings deepen our knowledge about BRCA1/2 variants and associated cancer risk in diverse populations, indicate a gap in knowledge about potential cancer-related variants in non-European populations, and suggest that genomic screening in diverse patient populations may be an effective tool to identify at-risk individuals.

Genetic counseling for patients who are pursuing genetic testing in the absence of a medical indication, referred to as elective genomic testing (EGT), is becoming more common. This type of testing has the potential to detect genetic conditions before there is a significant health impact permitting earlier management and/or treatment.Pre-and post-test counseling for EGT is similar to indication-based genetic testing.Both require a complete family and medical history when ordering a test or interpreting a result. However, EGT counseling has some special considerations including greater uncertainties around penetrance and clinical utility and a lack of published guidelines. While certain considerations in the selection of a high-quality genetic testing laboratory are universal, there are some considerations that are unique to the selection of a laboratory performing EGT. This practice resource intends to provide guidance for genetic counselors and other healthcare providers caring for adults seeking pre-or post-test counseling for EGT. Genetic counselors and other genetics trained healthcare providers are the ideal medical professionals to supply accurate

BackgroundPopulation-based genomic screening has the predicted ability to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with medically actionable conditions. However, much research is needed to develop standards for genomic screening, and to understand the perspectives of people offered this new testing modality. This is particularly true for non-European ancestry populations who are vastly underrepresented in genomic medicine research. Therefore, we implemented a pilot genomic screening program in the BioMe Biobank in New York City, where the majority of participants are of non-European ancestry.MethodsWe initiated genomic screening for well-established genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). We evaluated and included an additional gene (TTR) associated with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis (hATTR), which has a common founder variant in African ancestry populations. We evaluated the characteristics of 74 participants who received results associated with these conditions. We also assessed the preferences of 7,461 newly enrolled BioMe participants to receive genomic results.ResultsIn the pilot genomic screening program, 74 consented participants received results related to HBOC (N=26), LS (N=6), FH (N=8), and hATTR (N=34). Thirty-three of 34 (97.1%) participants who received a result related to hATTR were self-reported African/African American (AA) or Hispanic/Latinx (HL), compared to 14 of 40 (35.0%) participants who received a result related to HBOC, LS, or FH. Among 7,461 participants enrolled after the BioMe protocol modification to allow the return of genomic results, 93.4% indicated that they would want to receive results. Younger participants, women, and HL participants were more likely to opt to receive results.ConclusionsThe addition of TTR to a pilot genomic screening program meant that we returned results to a higher proportion of AA and HL participants, in comparison with genes traditionally included in genomic screening programs in the U.S. We found that the majority of participants in a multi-ethnic biobank are interested in receiving genomic results for medically actionable conditions. These findings increase knowledge about the perspectives of diverse research participants on receiving genomic results, and inform the broader implementation of genomic medicine in underrepresented patient populations.