Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2014

01.10.2014 | Breast Oncology

Genetic Testing Today

verfasst von: David Euhus, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 10/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The commercial introduction of next-generation sequencing has made it possible to test for mutations in all known or suspected breast cancer predisposition genes in one panel, at one time, for about the same cost as a BRCA gene test. Clinicians are increasingly presented with the challenge of advising patients with mutations in rare breast cancer predisposition genes.

Methods

Literature review and personal experience with panel tests.

Results

Panel tests are more likely to identify a variant of uncertain clinical significance than a deleterious mutation. In addition, not all of the genes included in panel tests are unequivocally linked to increased breast cancer risk, and for most genes the penetrance is highly variable, making it difficult to translate a specific mutation into an absolute breast cancer risk. The three-generation cancer family history should be used to select truly high-risk families for panel testing, and then referred to again when the results are received in order to guide risk-management decisions. Knowing a breast cancer patient’s mutation status can influence decisions about local–regional and systemic therapy, but turnaround times for many tests are still too long to incorporate them into the initial evaluation of a new breast cancer.

Conclusion

The commercialization of next-generation sequencing has the potential to greatly enhance the identification and management of individuals with an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. A period of uncertainty is anticipated before the full potential of this new technology is realized.
Literatur
1.
Lebert H. Traite Pratique des Maladies Cancereuses. Paris: Librarie de L’Academie Nationale de Medecine;1851:134–135.
2.
Broca P. Traité des tumeurs. Paris: P. Asselin; 1866: pp. 150–152.
3.
Mendel G. Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden Verh Naturforsch Ver Brünn. 1865;4:3–47.
4.
Miescher F. Ueber die chemische Zusammensetzung der Eiterzellen. Med Chem Unters. 1871;4:441–460.
5.
Avery OT, MacLeod CM, McCarty M. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types: induction of transformation by a desoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type III. J Exp Med. 1944;79:137–158.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
6.
Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, et al. Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase. Science. 1988;239(4839):487–491.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Hall JM, Lee MK, Newman B, et al. Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science. 1990;250:1684–1690.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Solomon E, Ledbetter DH. Report of the Committee on the Genetic Constitution of Chromosome 17. Cytogenet Cell Genet. 1991;58:686–738.CrossRef
9.
Schmutz J, Wheeler J, Grimwood J, et al. Quality assessment of the human genome sequence. Nature. 2004;429(6990):365–368.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al. A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science. 1994;266(5182):66–71.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Wooster R, Neuhausen SL, Mangion J, et al. Localization of a breast cancer susceptibility gene, BRCA2, to chromosome 13q12-13. Science. 1994;265(5181):2088–2090.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J, et al. Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. Nature. 1995;378:7897–7892.CrossRef
13.
Tavtigian SV, Simard J, Rommens J, et al. The complete BRCA2 gene and mutations in chromosome 13q-linked kindreds. Nat Genet. 1996;12:333–337.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Baker SG, Lichtenstein P, Kaprio J, Holm N. Genetic susceptibility to prostate, breast, and colorectal cancer among Nordic twins. Biometrics. 2005;61(1):55–63.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Locatelli I, Lichtenstein P, Yashin AI. The heritability of breast cancer: a Bayesian correlated frailty model applied to Swedish twins data. Twin Res. 2004;7(2):182–191.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer: analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(2):78–85.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Risch N. The genetic epidemiology of cancer: interpreting family and twin studies and their implications for molecular genetic approaches. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10(7):733–741.PubMed
18.
Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer: implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994;73(3):643–651.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Gracia-Aznarez FJ, Fernandez V, Pita G, et al. Whole exome sequencing suggests much of non-BRCA1/BRCA2 familial breast cancer is due to moderate and low penetrance susceptibility alleles. PloS One. 2013;8(2):e55681.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
20.
Foulkes WD. Inherited susceptibility to common cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(20):2143–2153.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Litim N, Labrie Y, Desjardins S, et al. Polymorphic variations in the FANCA gene in high-risk non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer individuals from the French Canadian population. Mole Oncol. 2013;7(1):85–100.CrossRef
22.
Meindl A, Hellebrand H, Wiek C, et al. Germline mutations in breast and ovarian cancer pedigrees establish RAD51C as a human cancer susceptibility gene. Nat Genet. 2010;42(5):410–414.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Snape K, Eccles D, Evans C, et al. Germline RAD51C mutations confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2012;44(5):475–476.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Panchal S, Bordeleau L, Poll A, et al. Does family history predict the age at onset of new breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation-positive families? Clin Genet. 2010;77(3):273–279.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, et al. Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:227–238.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, McMullan G, et al. A comprehensive model for familial breast cancer incorporating BRCA1, BRCA2 and other genes. Br J Cancer. 2002;86(1):76–83.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
27.
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors [published erratum appears in Stat Med. 2005;24(1):156]. Stat Med. 2004;23(7):1111–1130.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Mauer CB, Pirzadeh-Miller SM, Robinson LD, Euhus DM. The integration of next-generation sequencing panels in the clinical cancer genetics practice: an institutional experience. Genet Med. 2014;16(5):407–412.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Riley BD, Culver JO, Skrzynia C, et al. Essential elements of genetic cancer risk assessment, counseling, and testing: updated recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2012;21:151–161.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Cybulski C, Wokolorczyk D, Jakubowska A, et al. Risk of breast cancer in women with a CHEK2 mutation with and without a family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(28):3747–3752.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Byrd PJ, Srinivasan V, Last JI, et al. Severe reaction to radiotherapy for breast cancer as the presenting feature of ataxia telangiectasia. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(2):262–268.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
33.
Tanteles GA, Murray RJ, Mills J, et al. Variation in telangiectasia predisposing genes is associated with overall radiation toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84(4):1031–1036.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Pierce LJ, Haffty BG. Radiotherapy in the treatment of hereditary breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011;21(1):43–50.PubMedCrossRef
35.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.1.2014. Vol 1. Fort Washington (PA): NCCN; 2014.
36.
King MC, Marks JH, Mandell JB. Breast and ovarian cancer risks due to inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Science. 2003;302:643–646.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Kotsopoulos J, Olopado OI, Ghadirian P, et al. Changes in body weight and the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7(5):R833–843.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
38.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography [published erratum appears in CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(3):185]. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;57(2):75–89.CrossRef
39.
Gronwald J, Pijpe A, Byrski T, et al. Early radiation exposures and BRCA1-associated breast cancer in young women from Poland. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112(3):581–584.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF, et al. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). BMJ. 2012;345:e5660.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
41.
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Visvanathan K, Robson M. Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(3):205–209.CrossRef
42.
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(18):1371–1388.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: preventing breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(6):696–706.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
44.
Goss PE, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(25):2381–2391.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Cuzick J, Sestak I, Forbes JF, et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9922):1041–1048.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Phillips KA, Milne RL, Rookus MA, et al. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(25):3091–3099.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
47.
Gronwald J, Tung N, Foulkes WD, et al. Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: an update. Int J Cancer. 2006;118(9):2281–2284.PubMedCrossRef
48.
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(9):967–975.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
49.
Kauff ND, Domchek SM, Friebel TM, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: a multicenter, prospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(8):1331–1337.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
50.
Finch AP, Lubinski J, Moller P, et al. Impact of oophorectomy on cancer incidence and mortality in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(15):1547–53.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Sitzmann JV, Wiebke EA. Risk-reducing appendectomy and the elimination of BRCA1-associated intraperitoneal cancer. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(3):285–291; discussion 291.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Brekelmans CT, Menke-Pluymers MB, et al. Prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and women at risk of hereditary breast cancer: long-term experiences at the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(12):3335–3344.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
53.
Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL, et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(3):159–164.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(2):77–84.PubMedCrossRef
55.
56.
Liebens FP, Carly B, Pastijn A, Rozenberg S. Management of BRCA1/2 associated breast cancer: a systematic qualitative review of the state of knowledge in 2006. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(2):238–257.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Pierce LJ, Phillips KA, Griffith KA, et al. Local therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with operable breast cancer: comparison of breast conservation and mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121(2):389–398.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
58.
Evans DG, Ingham SL, Baildam A, et al. Contralateral mastectomy improves survival in women with BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(1):135–142.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Ghadirian P, et al. Contralateral mastectomy and survival after breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g226.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
60.
Wysocki PJ, Korski K, Lamperska K, Zaluski J, Mackiewicz A. Primary resistance to docetaxel-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients correlates with a high frequency of BRCA1 mutations. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14(7):SC7-10.PubMed
61.
Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, et al. Response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(2):289–296.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Stordal B, Pavlakis N, Davey R. A systematic review of platinum and taxane resistance from bench to clinic: an inverse relationship. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33:688–703.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Fedier A, Steiner RA, Schwarz VA, Lenherr L, Haller Z, Fink D. The effect of loss of BRCA1 on the sensitivity to anticancer agents in p53-deficient cells. Int J Oncol. 2003;22:1169–1173.PubMed
64.
Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, et al. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):375–379.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy with cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):359–363.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Pennington KP, Walsh T, Harrell MI, et al. Germline and somatic mutations in homologous recombination genes predict platinum response and survival in ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(3):764–775.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):123–134.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Tutt A, Robson M, Garber JE, et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9737):235–244.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Min A, Im SA, Yoon YK, et al. RAD51C-deficient cancer cells are highly sensitive to the PARP inhibitor olaparib. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12(6):865–877.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Genetic Testing Today
verfasst von
David Euhus, MD
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2014
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 10/2014
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3906-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2014

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Breast Oncology

Reasons for Re-Excision After Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: Insight from the American Society of Breast Surgeons MasterySM Database

Breast Oncology

Tumor Response Ratio Predicts Overall Survival in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Breast Oncology

Screening Mammography Following Autologous Breast Reconstruction: An Unnecessary Effort

Breast Oncology

Increasing Mastectomy Rates—The Effect of Environmental Factors on the Choice for Mastectomy: A Comparative Analysis Between Canada and the United States

Breast Oncology

Chemosensitivity Predicted by BluePrint 80-Gene Functional Subtype and MammaPrint in the Prospective Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST)

Breast Oncology

Incremental Risk Associated with Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and the Effect on Adjuvant Therapy

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.
Bildnachweise