Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations
Background Although management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2‐fold to 5‐fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial. Methods De‐identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic vari...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer 2020-02, Vol.126 (3), p.549-558 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 558 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 549 |
container_title | Cancer |
container_volume | 126 |
creator | Vysotskaia, Valentina Kaseniit, K. Eerik Bucheit, Leslie Ready, Kaylene Price, Kristin Johansen Taber, Katherine |
description | Background
Although management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2‐fold to 5‐fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial.
Methods
De‐identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic variants (PVs) in PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and/or RAD51D were analyzed for pretest and post‐test candidacy for guideline‐recommended management of cancer risk. These individuals were invited to complete a survey about provider recommendations and their adherence.
Results
Twenty‐four percent of CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, or NBN PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of annual breast magnetic resonance imaging screening before genetic testing, with the remaining 76% appropriate only after testing. No BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy before genetic testing; 100% were appropriate only after testing. Seventeen percent of CHEK2 PV carriers were appropriate for earlier and more frequent colonoscopy before genetic testing, with the remaining 83% appropriate only after testing. Provider recommendations for annual breast magnetic resonance imaging, consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy, and earlier and more frequent colonoscopy were reported by 42%, 26%, and 66% of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk PV carriers, respectively, before genetic testing, versus 82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively, after testing. Nearly all respondents had planned or undertaken provider‐recommended management.
Conclusions
Testing for PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D changed management for those carrying PVs. Provider recommendations were aligned with guidelines, and patients adhered to recommendations, both of which are critical for reducing both long‐term cancer morbidity and mortality.
The utility of testing for several cancer risk genes is assessed by determining guideline‐recommended management for patients with pathogenic variants, alignment of recommended management to guidelines, and patient adherence to recommendations. The study indicates that management changes for a majority of pathogenic variant carriers, that provider recommendations are aligned with guidelines for most patients, and that nearly all patients adhere to recommendations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cncr.32572 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7003834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2338985322</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-a731b3043bd7efaf3fc83ee538a42bf9b49b38d55b562c3fb950c79049d32ead3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks9u1DAYxC0EokvhwgMgS1wQSor_xE3CAWk3LXTFslSrInGzHMfZunLsYCdF-2Y8Hg4pFXDg5M_yz-PxaAB4jtEJRoi8kVb6E0pYTh6ABUZlniKckYdggRAqUpbRr0fgSQg3cZsTRh-DI4pPC4IQW4AfldFWS2HgOGijhwN0LbxWXjV6EP4ApbBSedgLqwwcVBi03b-F664XcpjQy-VmRRK4vPqUwOri_GOct6ttAle79SVO4G55xnCVQGGbeT6DXoXRDAE6G1UHrewAO2HFXnXTOIGimQzEd-HgYO_drW6iBa-k6yLTxEvOhqfgUStMUM_u1mPw5f35VXWRbj5_WFfLTSqzrCCpyCmuKcpo3eSqFS1tZUGVYrQQGanbss7KmhYNYzU7JZK2dcmQzEuUlQ0lSjT0GLybdfux7lQjo0kvDO-97mI-3AnN_z6x-prv3S3PEaIFzaLAqzsB776NMUHe6SCVMTFSNwZOKMYloTliEX35D3rjRm_j9yJFi7JglJBIvZ4p6V0IXrX3ZjDiUyH4VAj-qxARfvGn_Xv0dwMigGfguzbq8B8pXm2r3Sz6E9rZv_U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2338985322</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Vysotskaia, Valentina ; Kaseniit, K. Eerik ; Bucheit, Leslie ; Ready, Kaylene ; Price, Kristin ; Johansen Taber, Katherine</creator><creatorcontrib>Vysotskaia, Valentina ; Kaseniit, K. Eerik ; Bucheit, Leslie ; Ready, Kaylene ; Price, Kristin ; Johansen Taber, Katherine</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Although management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2‐fold to 5‐fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial.
Methods
De‐identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic variants (PVs) in PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and/or RAD51D were analyzed for pretest and post‐test candidacy for guideline‐recommended management of cancer risk. These individuals were invited to complete a survey about provider recommendations and their adherence.
Results
Twenty‐four percent of CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, or NBN PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of annual breast magnetic resonance imaging screening before genetic testing, with the remaining 76% appropriate only after testing. No BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy before genetic testing; 100% were appropriate only after testing. Seventeen percent of CHEK2 PV carriers were appropriate for earlier and more frequent colonoscopy before genetic testing, with the remaining 83% appropriate only after testing. Provider recommendations for annual breast magnetic resonance imaging, consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy, and earlier and more frequent colonoscopy were reported by 42%, 26%, and 66% of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk PV carriers, respectively, before genetic testing, versus 82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively, after testing. Nearly all respondents had planned or undertaken provider‐recommended management.
Conclusions
Testing for PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D changed management for those carrying PVs. Provider recommendations were aligned with guidelines, and patients adhered to recommendations, both of which are critical for reducing both long‐term cancer morbidity and mortality.
The utility of testing for several cancer risk genes is assessed by determining guideline‐recommended management for patients with pathogenic variants, alignment of recommended management to guidelines, and patient adherence to recommendations. The study indicates that management changes for a majority of pathogenic variant carriers, that provider recommendations are aligned with guidelines for most patients, and that nearly all patients adhere to recommendations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32572</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31682005</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Breast ; Breast cancer ; Cancer ; cancer risk ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal carcinoma ; Genetic screening ; Genetics ; Guidelines ; Health risks ; hereditary cancer ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Management ; Medical imaging ; Morbidity ; Oncology ; Original ; Ovarian cancer ; Ovariectomy ; Resonance ; Risk ; Risk management</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2020-02, Vol.126 (3), p.549-558</ispartof><rights>2019 Myriad Genetics, Inc. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.</rights><rights>2019 Myriad Genetics, Inc. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.</rights><rights>2020 American Cancer Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-a731b3043bd7efaf3fc83ee538a42bf9b49b38d55b562c3fb950c79049d32ead3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-a731b3043bd7efaf3fc83ee538a42bf9b49b38d55b562c3fb950c79049d32ead3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3051-2667</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcncr.32572$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcncr.32572$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682005$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vysotskaia, Valentina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaseniit, K. Eerik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucheit, Leslie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ready, Kaylene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansen Taber, Katherine</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description>Background
Although management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2‐fold to 5‐fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial.
Methods
De‐identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic variants (PVs) in PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and/or RAD51D were analyzed for pretest and post‐test candidacy for guideline‐recommended management of cancer risk. These individuals were invited to complete a survey about provider recommendations and their adherence.
Results
Twenty‐four percent of CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, or NBN PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of annual breast magnetic resonance imaging screening before genetic testing, with the remaining 76% appropriate only after testing. No BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy before genetic testing; 100% were appropriate only after testing. Seventeen percent of CHEK2 PV carriers were appropriate for earlier and more frequent colonoscopy before genetic testing, with the remaining 83% appropriate only after testing. Provider recommendations for annual breast magnetic resonance imaging, consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy, and earlier and more frequent colonoscopy were reported by 42%, 26%, and 66% of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk PV carriers, respectively, before genetic testing, versus 82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively, after testing. Nearly all respondents had planned or undertaken provider‐recommended management.
Conclusions
Testing for PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D changed management for those carrying PVs. Provider recommendations were aligned with guidelines, and patients adhered to recommendations, both of which are critical for reducing both long‐term cancer morbidity and mortality.
The utility of testing for several cancer risk genes is assessed by determining guideline‐recommended management for patients with pathogenic variants, alignment of recommended management to guidelines, and patient adherence to recommendations. The study indicates that management changes for a majority of pathogenic variant carriers, that provider recommendations are aligned with guidelines for most patients, and that nearly all patients adhere to recommendations.</description><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>cancer risk</subject><subject>Colonoscopy</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal carcinoma</subject><subject>Genetic screening</subject><subject>Genetics</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>hereditary cancer</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Ovarian cancer</subject><subject>Ovariectomy</subject><subject>Resonance</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks9u1DAYxC0EokvhwgMgS1wQSor_xE3CAWk3LXTFslSrInGzHMfZunLsYCdF-2Y8Hg4pFXDg5M_yz-PxaAB4jtEJRoi8kVb6E0pYTh6ABUZlniKckYdggRAqUpbRr0fgSQg3cZsTRh-DI4pPC4IQW4AfldFWS2HgOGijhwN0LbxWXjV6EP4ApbBSedgLqwwcVBi03b-F664XcpjQy-VmRRK4vPqUwOri_GOct6ttAle79SVO4G55xnCVQGGbeT6DXoXRDAE6G1UHrewAO2HFXnXTOIGimQzEd-HgYO_drW6iBa-k6yLTxEvOhqfgUStMUM_u1mPw5f35VXWRbj5_WFfLTSqzrCCpyCmuKcpo3eSqFS1tZUGVYrQQGanbss7KmhYNYzU7JZK2dcmQzEuUlQ0lSjT0GLybdfux7lQjo0kvDO-97mI-3AnN_z6x-prv3S3PEaIFzaLAqzsB776NMUHe6SCVMTFSNwZOKMYloTliEX35D3rjRm_j9yJFi7JglJBIvZ4p6V0IXrX3ZjDiUyH4VAj-qxARfvGn_Xv0dwMigGfguzbq8B8pXm2r3Sz6E9rZv_U</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>Vysotskaia, Valentina</creator><creator>Kaseniit, K. Eerik</creator><creator>Bucheit, Leslie</creator><creator>Ready, Kaylene</creator><creator>Price, Kristin</creator><creator>Johansen Taber, Katherine</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3051-2667</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations</title><author>Vysotskaia, Valentina ; Kaseniit, K. Eerik ; Bucheit, Leslie ; Ready, Kaylene ; Price, Kristin ; Johansen Taber, Katherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4482-a731b3043bd7efaf3fc83ee538a42bf9b49b38d55b562c3fb950c79049d32ead3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>cancer risk</topic><topic>Colonoscopy</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal carcinoma</topic><topic>Genetic screening</topic><topic>Genetics</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>hereditary cancer</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Ovarian cancer</topic><topic>Ovariectomy</topic><topic>Resonance</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vysotskaia, Valentina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaseniit, K. Eerik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bucheit, Leslie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ready, Kaylene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansen Taber, Katherine</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vysotskaia, Valentina</au><au>Kaseniit, K. Eerik</au><au>Bucheit, Leslie</au><au>Ready, Kaylene</au><au>Price, Kristin</au><au>Johansen Taber, Katherine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>549</spage><epage>558</epage><pages>549-558</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><abstract>Background
Although management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2‐fold to 5‐fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial.
Methods
De‐identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic variants (PVs) in PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and/or RAD51D were analyzed for pretest and post‐test candidacy for guideline‐recommended management of cancer risk. These individuals were invited to complete a survey about provider recommendations and their adherence.
Results
Twenty‐four percent of CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, or NBN PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of annual breast magnetic resonance imaging screening before genetic testing, with the remaining 76% appropriate only after testing. No BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy before genetic testing; 100% were appropriate only after testing. Seventeen percent of CHEK2 PV carriers were appropriate for earlier and more frequent colonoscopy before genetic testing, with the remaining 83% appropriate only after testing. Provider recommendations for annual breast magnetic resonance imaging, consideration of risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy, and earlier and more frequent colonoscopy were reported by 42%, 26%, and 66% of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk PV carriers, respectively, before genetic testing, versus 82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively, after testing. Nearly all respondents had planned or undertaken provider‐recommended management.
Conclusions
Testing for PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D changed management for those carrying PVs. Provider recommendations were aligned with guidelines, and patients adhered to recommendations, both of which are critical for reducing both long‐term cancer morbidity and mortality.
The utility of testing for several cancer risk genes is assessed by determining guideline‐recommended management for patients with pathogenic variants, alignment of recommended management to guidelines, and patient adherence to recommendations. The study indicates that management changes for a majority of pathogenic variant carriers, that provider recommendations are aligned with guidelines for most patients, and that nearly all patients adhere to recommendations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>31682005</pmid><doi>10.1002/cncr.32572</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3051-2667</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0008-543X |
ispartof | Cancer, 2020-02, Vol.126 (3), p.549-558 |
issn | 0008-543X 1097-0142 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7003834 |
source | Wiley Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Breast Breast cancer Cancer cancer risk Colonoscopy Colorectal cancer Colorectal carcinoma Genetic screening Genetics Guidelines Health risks hereditary cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Management Medical imaging Morbidity Oncology Original Ovarian cancer Ovariectomy Resonance Risk Risk management |
title | Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T13%3A11%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20utility%20of%20hereditary%20cancer%20panel%20testing:%20Impact%20of%20PALB2,%20ATM,%20CHEK2,%20NBN,%20BRIP1,%20RAD51C,%20and%20RAD51D%20results%20on%20patient%20management%20and%20adherence%20to%20provider%20recommendations&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=Vysotskaia,%20Valentina&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=549&rft.epage=558&rft.pages=549-558&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cncr.32572&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2338985322%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2338985322&rft_id=info:pmid/31682005&rfr_iscdi=true |