Traceback: A Proposed Framework to Increase Identification and Genetic Counseling of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers Through Family-Based Outreach

Goli Samimi, Marcus Q Bernardini, Lawrence C Brody, Charlisse F Caga-Anan, Ian G Campbell, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Fergus J Couch, Michael Dean, Joanne A de Hullu, Susan M Domchek, Ronny Drapkin, Heather Spencer Feigelson, Michael Friedlander, Mia M Gaudet, Marline G Harmsen, Karen Hurley, Paul A James, Janice S Kwon, Felicitas Lacbawan, Stephanie Lheureux, Phuong L Mai, Leah E Mechanic, Lori M Minasian, Evan R Myers, Mark E Robson, Susan J Ramus, Lisa F Rezende, Patricia A Shaw, Thomas P Slavin, Elizabeth M Swisher, Masataka Takenaka, David D Bowtell, Mark E Sherman, Goli Samimi, Marcus Q Bernardini, Lawrence C Brody, Charlisse F Caga-Anan, Ian G Campbell, Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Fergus J Couch, Michael Dean, Joanne A de Hullu, Susan M Domchek, Ronny Drapkin, Heather Spencer Feigelson, Michael Friedlander, Mia M Gaudet, Marline G Harmsen, Karen Hurley, Paul A James, Janice S Kwon, Felicitas Lacbawan, Stephanie Lheureux, Phuong L Mai, Leah E Mechanic, Lori M Minasian, Evan R Myers, Mark E Robson, Susan J Ramus, Lisa F Rezende, Patricia A Shaw, Thomas P Slavin, Elizabeth M Swisher, Masataka Takenaka, David D Bowtell, Mark E Sherman

Abstract

In May 2016, the Division of Cancer Prevention and the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, convened a workshop to discuss a conceptual framework for identifying and genetically testing previously diagnosed but unreferred patients with ovarian cancer and other unrecognized BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers to improve the detection of families at risk for breast or ovarian cancer. The concept, designated Traceback, was prompted by the recognition that although BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are frequent in women with ovarian cancer, many such women have not been tested, especially if their diagnosis predated changes in testing guidelines. The failure to identify mutation carriers among probands represents a lost opportunity to prevent cancer in unsuspecting relatives through risk-reduction intervention in mutation carriers and to provide appropriate reassurances to noncarriers. The Traceback program could provide an important opportunity to reach families from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups who historically have not sought or been offered genetic counseling and testing and thereby contribute to a reduction in health disparities in women with germline BRCA mutations. To achieve an interdisciplinary perspective, the workshop assembled international experts in genetics, medical and gynecologic oncology, clinical psychology, epidemiology, genomics, cost-effectiveness modeling, pathology, bioethics, and patient advocacy to identify factors to consider when undertaking a Traceback program. This report highlights the workshop deliberations with the goal of stimulating research and providing a framework for pilot studies to assess the feasibility and ethical and logistical considerations related to the development of best practices for implementation of Traceback studies.

Figures

Fig 1.
Fig 1.
Three phases of Traceback. Phase I: potential previously diagnosed, unreferred probands are identified through searches of pathology or tumor registry records or through self-referral. Phase II: consent is obtained for BRCA1/2 genetic testing according to method used to identify potential probands. If proband is living and contactable, direct consent is obtained, and blood is tested in a clinically and molecularly certified laboratory. If archived pathology specimen is used to test potential proband because individual is deceased or cannot be contacted, consent is sought from next of kin (which also allows investigators to determine whether family members have already been tested). Phase III: variants of unknown significance are by definition not clinically actionable and, thus, should not be considered with respect to decision making. As such, a Traceback approach to genetic testing should only return pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. If the potential proband is confirmed to have a BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation, cooperation of the proband or next of kin is enlisted to reach relatives to offer education, counseling, and testing. If potential proband is not found to carry a BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutation or is found to have a variant of unknown significance, participants are informed about residual familial empirical and genetic risk. If a variant of unknown significance is later reclassified as a pathogenic mutation, relatives are contacted to offer education, counseling, and testing.

References

    1. Daly MB, Axilbund JE, Buys S, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: Breast and ovarian. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8:562–594.
    1. Alsop K, Fereday S, Meldrum C, et al. BRCA mutation frequency and patterns of treatment response in BRCA mutation-positive women with ovarian cancer: A report from the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2654–2663.
    1. Karakasis K, Burnier JV, Bowering V, et al. Ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 testing: Opportunities to improve clinical care and disease prevention. Front Oncol. 2016;6:119.
    1. Eccles DM, Balmaña J, Clune J, et al. Selecting patients with ovarian cancer for germline BRCA mutation testing: Findings from guidelines and a systematic literature review. Adv Ther. 2016;33:129–150.
    1. Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, et al. Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1616–1622.
    1. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010;304:967–975.
    1. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, et al. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: Results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:812–822.
    1. Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1329–1333.
    1. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: A combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:1117–1130.
    1. Norquist BM, Harrell MI, Brady MF, et al. Inherited mutations in women with ovarian carcinoma. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:482–490.
    1. Hall MJ, Reid JE, Burbidge LA, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women of different ethnicities undergoing testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:2222–2233.
    1. Dean M, Boland J, Yeager M, et al. Addressing health disparities in Hispanic breast cancer: Accurate and inexpensive sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Gigascience. 2015;4:50.
    1. Armstrong K, Calzone K, Stopfer J, et al. Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:1251–1254.
    1. Lee SC, Bernhardt BA, Helzlsouer KJ. Utilization of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in the clinical setting: Report from a single institution. Cancer. 2002;94:1876–1885.
    1. Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Brogan B, et al. Utilization of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1003–1007.
    1. Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, et al. Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA. 2005;293:1729–1736.
    1. Metcalfe KA, Fan I, McLaughlin J, et al. Uptake of clinical genetic testing for ovarian cancer in Ontario: A population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:68–72.
    1. Meyer LA, Anderson ME, Lacour RA, et al. Evaluating women with ovarian cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: Missed opportunities. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:945–952.
    1. Levy DE, Byfield SD, Comstock CB, et al. Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: Black and Hispanic women particularly at risk. Genet Med. 2011;13:349–355.
    1. Powell CB, Littell R, Hoodfar E, et al. Does the diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer trigger referral to genetic counseling? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013;23:431–436.
    1. Petzel SV, Vogel RI, Bensend T, et al. Genetic risk assessment for women with epithelial ovarian cancer: Referral patterns and outcomes in a university gynecologic oncology clinic. J Genet Couns. 2013;22:662–673.
    1. Demsky R, McCuaig J, Maganti M, et al. Keeping it simple: Genetics referrals for all invasive serous ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:329–333.
    1. Stuckey A, Febbraro T, Laprise J, et al: Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for referral of women with breast cancer to genetics professionals. Am J Clin Oncol 39:363-367, 2016.
    1. Febbraro T, Robison K, Wilbur JS, et al. Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for referral to cancer genetic professionals. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:109–114.
    1. Rosenberg SM, Ruddy KJ, Tamimi RM, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in young women with breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:730–736.
    1. Drohan B, Roche CA, Cusack JC, Jr, et al. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and other hereditary syndromes: Using technology to identify carriers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1732–1737.
    1. Hampel H. Genetic counseling and cascade genetic testing in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2016;15:423–427.
    1. McCarthy AM, Bristol M, Domchek SM, et al. Health care segregation, physician recommendation, and racial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2610–2618.
    1. Forman AD, Hall MJ. Influence of race/ethnicity on genetic counseling and testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Breast J. 2009;15(suppl 1):S56–S62.
    1. Simon MS, Petrucelli N. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome: The impact of race on uptake of genetic counseling and testing. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;471:487–500.
    1. Randall TC, Armstrong K. Health care disparities in hereditary ovarian cancer: Are we reaching the underserved population? Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016;17:39.
    1. Lindor NM, Goldgar DE, Tavtigian SV, et al. BRCA1/2 sequence variants of uncertain significance: A primer for providers to assist in discussions and in medical management. Oncologist. 2013;18:518–524.
    1. Mafficini A, Simbolo M, Parisi A, et al. BRCA somatic and germline mutation detection in paraffin embedded ovarian cancers by next-generation sequencing. Oncotarget. 2016;7:1076–1083.
    1. Petersen AH, Aagaard MM, Nielsen HR, et al. Post-mortem testing; germline BRCA1/2 variant detection using archival FFPE non-tumor tissue. A new paradigm in genetic counseling. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:1104–1111.
    1. Crum CP, Drapkin R, Kindelberger D, et al. Lessons from BRCA: The tubal fimbria emerges as an origin for pelvic serous cancer. Clin Med Res. 2007;5:35–44.
    1. Kurman RJ, Shih IeM. The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis: Revisited, revised, and expanded. Am J Pathol. 2016;186:733–747.
    1. Medeiros F, Muto MG, Lee Y, et al. The tubal fimbria is a preferred site for early adenocarcinoma in women with familial ovarian cancer syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:230–236.
    1. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: Evidence for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:161–169.
    1. Madore J, Ren F, Filali-Mouhim A, et al. Characterization of the molecular differences between ovarian endometrioid carcinoma and ovarian serous carcinoma. J Pathol. 2010;220:392–400.
    1. Song H, Dicks E, Ramus SJ, et al. Contribution of germline mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D genes to ovarian cancer in the population. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2901–2907.
    1. Ramus SJ, Song H, Dicks E, et al. Germline mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN genes in women with ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv214.
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN clinical guidelines in oncology: Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: Breast and ovarian, version 1.2016. .
    1. Desmond A, Kurian AW, Gabree M, et al. Clinical actionability of multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:943–951.
    1. Kurian AW, Kingham KE, Ford JM. Next-generation sequencing for hereditary breast and gynecologic cancer risk assessment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:23–33.
    1. Axilbund JE. Panel testing is not a panacea. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1433–1435.
    1. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: A joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405–424.
    1. Balmaña J, Digiovanni L, Gaddam P, et al. Conflicting interpretation of genetic variants and cancer risk by commercial laboratories as assessed by the prospective registry of multiplex testing. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:4071–4078.
    1. Tung N, Domchek SM, Stadler Z, et al. Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:581–588.
    1. Mavaddat N, Pharoah PD, Michailidou K, et al. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv036.
    1. Eccles DM, Mitchell G, Monteiro AN, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:2057–2065.
    1. Wolf SM, Branum R, Koenig BA, et al. Returning a research participant’s genomic results to relatives: Analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43:440–463.
    1. Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:80–87.
    1. Zeps N, Iacopetta BJ, Schofield L, et al. Waiver of individual patient consent in research: When do potential benefits to the community outweigh private rights? Med J Aust. 2007;186:88–90.
    1. National Health and Medical Research Council: National statement on ethical conduct in human research (2007) - updated May 2015. .
    1. Public Hospitals Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 965, ss.20(2)3, 31(1), 31(2)
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans, 2010. .
    1. Lagos VI, Perez MA, Ricker CN, et al. Social-cognitive aspects of underserved Latinas preparing to undergo genetic cancer risk assessment for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Psychooncology. 2008;17:774–782.
    1. Ramirez AG, Chalela P, Gallion KJ, et al. Attitudes toward breast cancer genetic testing in five special population groups. J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2015;8:124–135.
    1. Sheppard VB, Mays D, LaVeist T, et al. Medical mistrust influences black women’s level of engagement in BRCA 1/2 genetic counseling and testing. J Natl Med Assoc. 2013;105:17–22.
    1. Shaw JL, Robinson R, Starks H, et al. Risk, reward, and the double-edged sword: Perspectives on pharmacogenetic research and clinical testing among Alaska Native people. Am J Public Health. 2013;103:2220–2225.
    1. Otlowski M, Taylor S, Bombard Y. Genetic discrimination: International perspectives. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012;13:433–454.
    1. Wauters A, Van Hoyweghen I. Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: A systematic literature review. J Hum Genet. 2016;61:275–282.
    1. Green RC, Lautenbach D, McGuire AL. GINA, genetic discrimination, and genomic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:397–399.
    1. George R, Kovak K, Cox SL. Aligning policy to promote cascade genetic screening for prevention and early diagnosis of heritable diseases. J Genet Couns. 2015;24:388–399.
    1. Department of Health and Human Services: 45 CFR 164.510 - Uses and disclosures requiring an opportunity for the individual to agree or to object. .
    1. Department of Health and Human Services: Personal representatives: 45 CFR 164.502(g). .
    1. Amendola LM, Horike-Pyne M, Trinidad SB, et al. Patients’ choices for return of exome sequencing results to relatives in the event of their death. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43:476–485.
    1. Beskow LM, O’Rourke PP. Return of genetic research results to participants and families: IRB perspectives and roles. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43:502–513.
    1. FORCE: Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered: Your experiences talking to family members about the inherited mutation in your family: Results from the ABOUT Network Family Communication Survey, .
    1. Breitkopf CR, Petersen GM, Wolf SM, et al. Preferences regarding return of genomic results to relatives of research participants, including after participant death: Empirical results from a cancer biobank. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43:464–475.
    1. Li S-T, Yuen J, Zhou K, et al: Impact of subsidies on cancer genetic testing uptake in Singapore. J Med Genet, [epub ahead of print on October 25, 2016]
    1. Gabai-Kapara E, Lahad A, Kaufman B, et al. Population-based screening for breast and ovarian cancer risk due to BRCA1 and BRCA2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:14205–14210.
    1. King MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA. 2014;312:1091–1092.
    1. Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel Report 2016. .

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe