BackgroundMen with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations.ObjectiveTo report the first year's screening results for all men at enrolment in the study.Design, setting and participantsWe recruited men aged 40–69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrolment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.Results and limitationsWe recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%—double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.ConclusionsThe IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.Patient summaryIn this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.

BackgroundMutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations.ObjectiveTo report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.Design, setting, and participantsMen aged 40–69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisPSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.Results and limitationsA total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p =  0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p =  0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p =  0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).ConclusionsAfter 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.Patient summaryWe demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are the most important breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. Biallelic mutations in BRCA2 can lead to Fanconi Anemia and predisposition to cancers, while biallelic BRCA1 mutations have not been confirmed, presumably because one wild-type BRCA1 allele is required during embryogenesis. This study describes an individual who was diagnosed with ovarian carcinoma at age 28 and found to have one allele with a deleterious mutation in BRCA1, c.2457delC (p.Asp821Ilefs*25), and a second allele with a variant of unknown significance (VUS) in BRCA1, c.5207T>C (p.Val1736Ala). Medical records revealed short stature, microcephaly, developmental delay and significant toxicity from chemotherapy. BRCA1 p.Val1736Ala co-segregated with cancer in multiple families, associated tumors demonstrated loss of wild-type BRCA1, and BRCA1 p.Val1736Ala showed reduced DNA damage localization. These findings represent the first validated example of biallelic deleterious human BRCA1 mutations, and have implications for the interpretation of genetic test results.

Original research article INTRODUCTION Multiplex (i.e., multigene) panels including both high-and moderate-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes are currently being used in clinical practice despite questions regarding their clinical utility and no standard approach to genetic counseling and delivery. [1][2][3][4][5][6] The inclusion of genes with varying penetrance and clinical utility has raised concerns. 7 There are both advantages and disadvantages of multigene testing (as opposed to traditional phenotype-driven sequential testing), presenting challenges to patient education and informed decision making.3,7-10 The advantages and disadvantages of testing options must be shared with patients so they can make an informed decision regarding genetic testing. 8,[11][12][13][14] Traditional comprehensive models for pretest counseling and informed consent could be associated with information overload and poor informed decision making. 7,15 In addition, multiplex testing has the potential to increase anxiety, uncertainty, and the adoption of inappropriate screening procedures or risk-reducing surgeries. 3,7 Effective genetic education and counseling could minimize these risks and enhance adaptive responses to receiving multiplex results. 13This study has several aims. First, we sought to obtain patient feedback regarding the tiered-binned model for informed consent and counseling for multiplex testing among patients with a personal or family history of breast cancer. Second, we sought to begin to evaluate patient uptake of testing after pretest counseling and to evaluate informed decision making with the tiered-binned model. Third, we sought to begin to explore short-term cognitive and affective outcomes in clinical populations to better understand the potential risks, benefits, and utilities of incorporating multiplex genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility assessment in clinical care. Purpose: The risks, benefits, and utilities of multiplex panels for breast cancer susceptibility are unknown, and new counseling and informed consent models are needed. We sought to obtain patient feedback and early outcome data with a novel tiered-binned model for multiplex testing.Methods: BRCA1/2-negative and untested patients completed preand posttest counseling and surveys evaluating testing experiences and cognitive and affective responses to multiplex testing. Results:Of 73 patients, 49 (67%) completed pretest counseling. BRCA1/2-negative patients were more likely to proceed with multiplex testing (86%) than those untested for BRCA1/2 (43%; P < 0.01). Many patients declining testing reported concern for uncertainty and distress. Most patients would not change anything about their pre-(76%) or posttest (89%) counseling sessions. Thirtythree patients (72%) were classified as making an informed choice, including 81% of those who proceeded with multiplex testing. Knowledge increased significantly. Anxiety, depression, uncertainty, and cancer worry did not significantly increase with multiplex testing. Conclusion:Some pati...

PurposeClinical testing for germline variation in multiple cancer susceptibility genes is available using massively parallel sequencing. Limited information is available for pre-test genetic counseling regarding the spectrum of mutations and variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in defined patient populations.MethodsWe performed massively parallel sequencing using targeted capture of 22 cancer susceptibility genes in 278 BRCA1/2 negative patients with early onset breast cancer (diagnosed under age 40).ResultsThirty-one patients (11%) were found to have at least one deleterious or likely deleterious variant. Seven patients (2.5% overall) were found to have deleterious or likely deleterious variants in genes for which clinical guidelines exist for management, namely TP53 (4), CDKN2A (1) MSH2 (1), and MUTYH (double heterozygote). Twenty-four patients (8.6%) had deleterious or likely deleterious variants in a cancer susceptibility gene for which clinical guidelines are lacking, such as CHEK2 and ATM. Fifty-four patients (19%) had at least one VUS, and six patients were heterozygous for a variant in MUTYH.ConclusionThese data demonstrate that massively parallel sequencing identifies reportable variants in known cancer susceptibility genes in over 30% of patients with early onset breast cancer. However, only rare patients (2.5%) have definitively actionable mutations given current clinical management guidelines.

Even in the era of multigene panel testing, these data suggest that telephone disclosure of cancer genetic test results is as an alternative to in-person disclosure for interested patients after in-person pretest counseling with a genetic counselor.

Purpose Multiplex genetic testing, including both moderate- and high-penetrance genes for cancer susceptibility, is associated with greater uncertainty than traditional testing, presenting challenges to informed consent and genetic counseling. We sought to develop a new model for informed consent and genetic counseling for four ongoing studies. Methods Drawing from professional guidelines, literature, conceptual frameworks, and clinical experience, a multidisciplinary group developed a tiered-binned genetic counseling approach proposed to facilitate informed consent and improve outcomes of cancer susceptibility multiplex testing. Results In this model, tier 1 “indispensable” information is presented to all patients. More specific tier 2 information is provided to support variable informational needs among diverse patient populations. Clinically relevant information is “binned” into groups to minimize information overload, support informed decision making, and facilitate adaptive responses to testing. Seven essential elements of informed consent are provided to address the unique limitations, risks, and uncertainties of multiplex testing. Conclusion A tiered-binned model for informed consent and genetic counseling has the potential to address the challenges of multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility and to support informed decision making and adaptive responses to testing. Future prospective studies including patient-reported outcomes are needed to inform how to best incorporate multiplex testing for cancer susceptibility into clinical practice.

No abstract