This is, to our knowledge, the largest single report of diagnostic testing for germline p53 mutations, yielding practical mutation prevalence tables and suggesting clinical utility of classic LFS and Chompret criteria for identifying a subset of cancer-prone families with p53 germline mutations, with important implications for diagnosis and management.

Background: Large rearrangements account for 8% to 15% of deleterious BRCA mutations, although none have been characterized previously in individuals of Mexican ancestry. Methods: DNA from 106 Hispanic patients without an identifiable BRCA mutation by exonic sequence analysis was subjected to multiplexed quantitative differential PCR. One case of Native American and African American ancestry was identified via multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Long-range PCR was used to confirm deletion events and to clone and sequence genomic breakpoints. Splicing patterns were derived by sequencing cDNA from reverse transcription-PCR of lymphoblastoid cell line RNA. Haplotype analysis was conducted for recurrent mutations. Results: The same deletion of BRCA1 exons 9 through 12 was identified in five unrelated families. Long-range PCR and

ERMLINE BRCA1 OR BRCA2 gene mutations significantly increase a woman's risk of breast cancer (50%-85%) and ovarian cancer (16%-50%). 1-5 Identifying women who have had BRCAassociated breast cancer is important because the risk of a new primary breast cancer within 10 years following initial diagnosis is as high as 40% in the absence of oophorectomy or tamoxifen treatment. 6 The corresponding 10-year risk of ovarian cancer is also substantial (6%-12%). 7 Limited-stage breast cancer patients who carry a BRCA gene mutation are offered the option of riskreducing mastectomy, and oophorectomy is recommended. 8,9 Documented efficacy of screening and risk reduction interventions provides evidence for individualized risk management advice, making genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) a component of medically necessary care. 10,11 Identifying appropriate candidates for GCRA is challenging. The general consensus (eg, American College of Medical Genetics, National Comprehensive Cancer Network 11-14) is that BRCA testing is not appropriate for unaffected women in the general population, but there is less clarity in this re-For editorial comment see p 2637.

This study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability of cancer genetics services in this population, suggesting the potential to reduce cancer morbidity in underserved, high-risk families.

Concerns about genetic discrimination and knowledge deficits may be barriers to cancer genetics referrals. Clinician education may help promote access to cancer screening and prevention.

To assess multi-gene panel testing in an ethnically diverse clinical cancer genetics practice. We conducted a retrospective study of individuals with a personal or family history of cancer undergoing clinically indicated multi-gene panel tests of 6–110 genes, from six commercial laboratories. The 475 patients in the study included 228 Hispanics (47.6%), 166 non-Hispanic Whites (35.4%), 55 Asians (11.6%), 19 Blacks (4.0%), and seven others (1.5%). Panel testing found that 15.6% (74/475) of patients carried deleterious mutations for a total of 79 mutations identified. This included 7.4% (35/475) of patients who had a mutation identified that would not have been tested with a gene-by-gene approach. The identification of a panel-added mutation impacted clinical management for most of cases (69%, 24/35), and genetic testing was recommended for the first degree relatives of nearly all of them (91%, 32/35). Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) were identified in a higher proportion of tests performed in ethnic minorities. Multi-gene panel testing increases the yield of mutations detected and adds to the capability of providing individualized cancer risk assessment. VUSs represent an interpretive challenge due to less data available outside of White, non-Hispanic populations. Further studies are necessary to expand understanding of the implementation and utilization of panels across broad clinical settings and patient populations.

Purpose Multiplex gene panel testing (MGPT) allows for the simultaneous analysis of germline cancer susceptibility genes. This study describes the diagnostic yield and patient experiences of MGPT in diverse populations. Patients and Methods This multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled participants from three cancer genetics clinics—University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, and Stanford Cancer Institute—who met testing guidelines or had a 2.5% or greater probability of a pathogenic variant (N = 2,000). All patients underwent 25- or 28-gene MGPT and results were compared with differential genetic diagnoses generated by pretest expert clinical assessment. Post-test surveys on distress, uncertainty, and positive experiences were administered at 3 months (69% response rate) and 1 year (57% response rate). Results Of 2,000 participants, 81% were female, 41% were Hispanic, 26% were Spanish speaking only, and 30% completed high school or less education. A total of 242 participants (12%) carried one or more pathogenic variant (positive), 689 (34%) carried one or more variant of uncertain significance (VUS), and 1,069 (53%) carried no pathogenic variants or VUS (negative). More than one third of pathogenic variants (34%) were not included in the differential diagnosis. After testing, few patients (4%) had prophylactic surgery, most (92%) never regretted testing, and most (80%) wanted to know all results, even those of uncertain significance. Positive patients were twice as likely as negative/VUS patients (83% v 41%; P < .001) to encourage their relatives to be tested. Conclusion In a racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort, MGPT increased diagnostic yield. More than one third of identified pathogenic variants were not clinically anticipated. Patient regret and prophylactic surgery use were low, and patients appropriately encouraged relatives to be tested for clinically relevant results.

Purpose Mutations in the CDH1 gene confer up to an 80% lifetime risk of diffuse gastric cancer and up to a 60% lifetime risk of lobular breast cancer. Testing for CDH1 mutations is recommended for individuals who meet the International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium (IGCLC) guidelines. However, the interpretation of unexpected CDH1 mutations identified in patients who do not meet IGCLC criteria or do not have phenotypes suggestive of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is clinically challenging. This study aims to describe phenotypes of CDH1 mutation carriers identified through multigene panel testing (MGPT) and to offer informed recommendations for medical management. Patients and Methods This cross-sectional prevalence study included all patients who underwent MGPT between March 2012 and September 2014 from a commercial laboratory (n = 26,936) and an academic medical center cancer genetics clinic (n = 318) to estimate CDH1 mutation prevalence and associated clinical phenotypes. CDH1 mutation carriers were classified as IGCLC positive (met criteria), IGCLC partial phenotype, and IGCLC negative. Results In the laboratory cohort, 16 (0.06%) of 26,936 patients were identified as having a pathogenic CDH1 mutation. In the clinic cohort, four (1.26%) of 318 had a pathogenic CDH1 mutation. Overall, 65% of mutation carriers did not meet the revised testing criteria published in 2015. All three CDH1 mutation carriers who had risk-reducing gastrectomy had pathologic evidence of diffuse gastric cancer despite not having met IGCLC criteria. Conclusion The majority of CDH1 mutations identified on MGPT are unexpected and found in individuals who do not fit the accepted diagnostic testing criteria. These test results alter the medical management of CDH1-positive patients and families and provide opportunities for early detection and risk reduction.