Colonoscopy use following mutation detection in Lynch syndrome: exploring a role for cancer screening in adaptation.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common inherited form of colorectal cancer. Mutation carriers can reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal cancer through colonoscopy. Theoretical models suggest that such health-related behaviors might also bring psychological benefits. This study assessed whether colonoscopy following mutation detection was associated with the levels of depressive symptoms. Data were obtained from a prospective family cohort study offering genetic services for LS. Participants completed questionnaires prior to the provision of services and 6 months post-receipt of mutation results. One hundred thirty-four (134) persons were identified to carry a mutation and completed both the questionnaires. Main outcome measures were depressive symptoms 6 months post-receipt of test results. Mutation carriers who did not complete a colonoscopy within the 6 months following receipt of results were six times (p < 0.01; odds ratio = 6.06) more likely to report depressive symptoms at a level of clinical importance post-receipt of test results compared to those who did undergo colonoscopy. Facilitating the expeditious use of colonoscopy following mutation detection may benefit newly identified mutation carriers by addressing the objective risks for cancer and moderating underlying emotional distress responses to genetic risk information. Furthermore, depressive symptoms may interfere with behavioral compliance in some patients, suggesting referral to mental health specialists.

Characterization of two novel BRCA1 germ-line mutations involving splice donor sites.

Deleterious BRCA1 mutations have significant clinical implications for the patients that carry them. Point mutations in critical functional domains and frameshift mutations that lead to early termination of protein translation are associated with a 60-80% risk of breast cancer and a 20-40% risk of ovarian cancer. In contrast, the significance of mutations located in intronic regions of BRCA1, even in the setting of a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, is not always clear. Some of these mutations occur in splice donor/acceptor consensus sites. These mutations can affect heteronuclear RNA (hnRNA) processing, leading to the loss of functional BRCA1 protein and thus may be disease-associated. However, it is important to verify the effect of these mutations, because splicing alterations cannot be predicted from genomic sequence alone. We report here the characterization of two novel BRCA1 mutations identified in families seen in our cancer risk evaluation clinic that alter splice donor sites of BRCA1. We show that both mutations alter transcript splicing and result in truncated BRCA1. IVS17 + 1G --> T leads to inclusion of part of intron 17 after the coding sequence of exon 17, resulting in early termination of BRCA1 protein following codon 1692. 252del5insT abolishes the splice donor site in exon 3, leading to the skipping of exon 5 and BRCA1 protein truncation following codon 45. Thus, both mutations result in loss of BRCA1 function, and carriers of these mutations should be counseled in the same manner as carriers of other truncating BRCA1 mutations.

Population frequencies of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in immuno-modulatory genes.

Inherited polymorphisms in immuno-modulatory genes may contribute to variations in immune function and genetic susceptibility for complex diseases, including cancer. We report results from a comprehensive study to discover novel single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and to estimate allelic frequency for both novel and known coding and regulatory region SNPs in genes encoding proteins that have been implicated in the immune response to tumors. We identified 12 novel nucleotide substitution variants and one deletion variant in 17 genes analyzed (TGFBETA;R, BETA;2M, IFNGAMMA;, TNFALPHA;, TNFALPHA;R, LTALPHA;, IL-6, IL-12, IL-2, IL-1ALPHA;, IL-1BETA;, IL-1RN, IL-10, CTLA4, CD40L, FAS and FASL). We determined the frequency of these novel polymorphisms, as well as 17 previously identified polymorphisms, in a control sample of 158 individuals, approximately half of which were Caucasian (n = 74) and half of which were African American (n = 84). Significant differences in allele frequencies were observed between the two racial groups for 13/17 genes tested. These allelic variations maybe associated with alterations in immune function and thus susceptibility to a number of complex disease states such as cancer.

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast-ovarian families from a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic.

PURPOSE: Data from the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium suggest that the proportion of familial breast and ovarian cancers linked to BRCA1 or BRCA2 may be as high as 98% depending on the characteristics of the families, suggesting that mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 may entirely account for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families. We sought to determine what proportion of families with both breast and ovarian cancers seen in a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic are accounted for by coding region germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 as compared to a linkage study group. We also evaluated what clinical parameters were predictive of mutation status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Affected women from 100 families with at least one case of breast cancer and at least one case of ovarian cancer in the same lineage were screened for germline mutations in the entire coding regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis, a polymerase chain reaction-based heteroduplex analysis, or direct sequencing. RESULTS: Unequivocal deleterious mutations were found in 55% (55 of 100) of the families studied. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 accounted for 80% and 20% of the mutations overall, respectively. Using multivariate analysis, the strongest predictors of detecting a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in this study group were the presence of a single family member with both breast and ovarian cancer (P <.0009; odds ratio [OR], 5.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.04 to 15.76) and a young average age at breast cancer diagnosis in the family (P <.0016; OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.38). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that at least half of breast/ovarian families evaluated in a high-risk cancer evaluation clinic may have germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Whether the remaining families have mutations in noncoding regions in BRCA1, mutations in other, as-yet-unidentified, low-penetrance susceptibility genes, or represent chance clustering remains to be determined.

Distress and psychiatric morbidity among women from high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families.

This study assessed psychological distress and psychiatric disorder in high-risk women enrolled in a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer registry, and it evaluated the concordance between self-report data and interview-based psychiatric diagnosis. A sample of 464 women completed the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and were interviewed using modules of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Level of psychological distress and the prevalence of psychiatric disorder were low and in the range that would be expected for a sample of community-residing women. Screening proved inefficient: Less than 10% of distressed women met criteria for a clinical disorder. High-risk women seeking genetic testing in research settings may not require extensive psychological screening and diagnostic assessment. Caution is expressed about possible self-selection biases in women enrolled in hereditary cancer registries.

Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

Testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 can provide important information about breast and ovarian cancer risk to a small but identifiable subgroup of women. Women who test positive for a BRCA1/2 mutation can pursue more aggressive cancer surveillance and prevention regimens. Among families with known mutations, women who test negative may avoid unnecessary interventions. Currently, little is known about the factors associated with the use of clinical BRCA1/2 testing. The objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing among women undergoing clinical BRCA1/2 counseling through a retrospective cohort study of women who participated in a university-based clinic offering breast cancer risk assessment, genetic counseling, and BRCA1/2 testing between January 1996 and April 1998. From the 251 eligible women who responded to a follow-up survey, 125 (50%) had undergone or were undergoing BRCA1/2 testing, 86 (34%) had decided not to undergo testing, and 40 (16%) were undecided about testing. After multivariate adjustment, we found that women who chose to undergo BRCA1/2 testing were more likely to have a known familial mutation [odds ratio (OR), 7.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97-62.16], more likely to be Ashkenazi Jewish (OR, 6.37; 95% CI, 2.68-15.12), more likely to want cancer risk information for family members (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.99-4.14), more likely to want information about ovarian cancer risk (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18-3.69), and less likely to be concerned about insurance or job discrimination (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.94). These associations were also found in the subgroup of women with a predicted probability of a BRCA1 mutation of 25%. Our study suggests that approximately half of eligible women choose to undergo clinical BRCA1/2 testing after participating in counseling. Women who have the highest risk of carrying a mutation, and thus the greatest probability of gaining some useful information from the test results, are most likely to undergo testing. Women who undergo testing are also more interested in ovarian cancer risk information and less concerned about job and insurance discrimination.

Screening for genomic rearrangements in families with breast and ovarian cancer identifies BRCA1 mutations previously missed by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis or sequencing.

The frequency of genomic rearrangements in BRCA1 was assessed in 42 American families with breast and ovarian cancer who were seeking genetic testing and who were subsequently found to be negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 coding-region mutations. An affected individual from each family was tested by PCR for the exon 13 duplication (Puget et al. 1999a) and by Southern blot analysis for novel genomic rearrangements. The exon 13 duplication was detected in one family, and four families had other genomic rearrangements. A total of 5 (11. 9%) of the 42 families with breast/ovarian cancer who did not have BRCA1 and BRCA2 coding-region mutations had mutations in BRCA1 that were missed by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis or sequencing. Four of five families with BRCA1 genomic rearrangements included at least one individual with both breast and ovarian cancer; therefore, 4 (30.8%) of 13 families with a case of multiple primary breast and ovarian cancer had a genomic rearrangement in BRCA1. Families with genomic rearrangements had prior probabilities of having a BRCA1 mutation, ranging from 33% to 97% (mean 70%) (Couch et al. 1997). In contrast, in families without rearrangements, prior probabilities of having a BRCA1 mutation ranged from 7% to 92% (mean 37%). Thus, the prior probability of detecting a BRCA1 mutation may be a useful predictor when considering the use of Southern blot analysis for families with breast/ovarian cancer who do not have detectable coding-region mutations.

Anticipated versus actual emotional reactions to disclosure of results of genetic tests for cancer susceptibility: findings from p53 and BRCA1 testing programs.

PURPOSE: We examined the ability of individuals undergoing genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in two structured research protocols to accurately anticipate emotional reactions to disclosure of their test result. We explored whether accuracy of emotional anticipation was associated with postdisclosure psychologic adjustment. METHODS: Data from 65 individuals were analyzed; 24 members of Li-Fraumeni cancer syndrome families were tested for p53 mutations (all 24 were unaffected), and 41 subjects with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility were tested for BRCA1 mutations (34 were unaffected and seven were affected). Subjects were from families in which a germline mutation had been previously identified. At the pretest session, subjects rated the extent to which they anticipated feeling each of six emotional states (relief, happiness, sadness, guilt, anger, and worry) after disclosure that they did or did not carry the familial mutation. After receiving their test result, they rated their feelings on the same scale of emotions for the appropriate condition. Extent of accuracy and association with psychologic distress at 6 months, as assessed with standardized measures, were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, mean levels of emotional reactions after receiving test results were not different from those anticipated before result disclosure. However, affected BRCA1 carriers experienced higher levels of anger and worry than they had anticipated. Underestimation of subsequent distress emotions related to test result was associated with a significant increase in general psychologic distress at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Unaffected individuals in cancer-predisposition testing programs are generally accurate in anticipating emotional reactions to test results. However, cancer patients may underestimate their distress after disclosure of positive results and could benefit from intervention strategies.

Breast conservation and prolonged chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: the University of Michigan experience.

PURPOSE: To determine whether breast conservation and prolonged neoadjuvant chemotherapy have efficacy in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC), as measured by survival and rate of breast conservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with stage III disease were enrolled at the University of Michigan (UM) onto a prospective nonrandomized trial. Patients received nine 21-day cycles of neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy that consisted of doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, conjugated estrogens 0.625 mg orally twice daily on days 6 to 8, methotrexate 40 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 intravenously on day 8, and tamoxifen 10 mg orally twice daily on days 9 to 14. Patients with a negative biopsy received radiation only, while those with residual disease underwent mastectomy and postoperative radiotherapy. Eight more cycles of chemohormonal therapy were administered after local-regional therapy. RESULTS: The clinical response rate to neoadjuvant therapy was 97%, 28% of patients had a complete pathologic response evaluated at biopsy. Five-year overall and disease-free survival probabilities were 54% and 44%, respectively. The median disease-free survival time was 2.4 years. The 5-year actuarial rates of local-regional control with local failure as only first failure were 82% and 78% following radiotherapy, and mastectomy and radiotherapy, respectively (P = .99). CONCLUSION: Prolonged neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy and biopsy-driven local therapy have efficacy in LABC, with 28% of patients being candidates for breast conservation and a 5-year overall survival rate of 54%.

Establishing a cancer risk evaluation program.

PURPOSE: Presymptomatic genetic testing for cancer susceptibility is a new practice arena that raises many complex issues. This article presents one model of a cancer risk evaluation program that specifically addresses the unique issues associated with genetic testing for cancer risk. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM: The Cancer Risk Evaluation Program is designed to care for any individual concerned about his or her risk for cancer, offering predisposition genetic testing if appropriate. The program includes clinical and psychosocial assessment, education, cancer risk analysis, and genetic counseling; it offers long-term screening and surveillance and provides a forum for ongoing genetic and clinical research. RESULTS: Program evaluations from participants have shown that the program is successfully meeting the needs of the participants. This program also ensures that the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center is delivering cancer genetic services consistent with the existing position statements on genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, which have included guidelines and indications for predisposition genetic testing and informed consent. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Researchers anticipate a substantial demand for predisposition genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. However, not all individuals interested in testing are eligible or willing to undergo direct gene analysis because of the potential risks. Therefore, clinical programs must address the complex issues surrounding presymptomatic genetic testing and incorporate cancer risk assessment strategies. Additionally, healthcare providers in this new practice arena should be fully informed and current in the state of the knowledge regarding cancer risk assessment; predisposition genetic testing; and the ethical, legal, and social issues pertaining to cancer risk assessment and management.

Genetic predisposition testing: clinical implications for oncology nurses.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe for oncology nurses the clinical implications of genetic predisposition testing for alterations in cancer susceptibility genes. DATA SOURCES: Published research and educational manuscripts, books, conference proceedings, and personal experiences. DATA SYNTHESIS: Genetic predisposition testing for inherited cancer risk has profound clinical implications that eventually will affect all areas of nursing practice. The provision of genetic information raises issues about cancer risk management, psychosocial sequelae, and legal and professional liability. CONCLUSION: Most healthcare professionals, including nurses, are not adequately prepared to manage the issues resulting from genetic predisposition testing. Furthermore, little data are available to guide practice. Unique educational strategies are needed to prepare providers in this practice arena. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Genetic predisposition testing is becoming more common in general oncology and primary care communities. Nurses will play a major role in the support, counseling, education, informed consent, and follow-up care of individuals who are considering undergoing or who have undergone testing. To meet the needs of patients and their families, oncology nurses must prepare themselves for this new area of practice.

Predisposition testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of breast cancer predisposition syndromes and the breast and Ovarian cancer susceptibility genes identified to date. To describe the clinical implications of genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. DATA SOURCES: Published research and educational manuscripts, books, conference proceedings, and personal experiences. CONCLUSION: Nurses must become knowledgeable of predisposition genetic testing for inherited breast cancer risk including: understanding of the gene being analyzed and associated cancer risks, indications for testing, the limitations of the test, the management options for mutation carriers, risks and benefits of testing, and the long-term psychosocial sequelae. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Predisposition testing for alterations in breast cancer susceptibility genes is rapidly moving into the general oncology and primary care community where nurses will play a major role in the provision of genetic services. The role of nursing in cancer genetics includes practice and education, nursing research, and policy initiatives.

BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To define the incidence of BRCA1 mutations among patients seen in clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer, we analyzed DNA samples from women seen in this setting and constructed probability tables to provide estimates of the likelihood of finding a BRCA1 mutation in individual families. METHODS: Clinical information, family histories, and blood for DNA analysis were obtained from 263 women with breast cancer. Conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis and DNA sequencing were used to identify BRCA1 mutations. RESULTS: BRCA1 mutations were identified in 16 percent of women with a family history of breast cancer. Only 7 percent of women from families with a history of breast cancer but not ovarian cancer had BRCA1 mutations. The rates were higher among women from families with a history of both breast and ovarian cancer. Among family members, an average age of less than 55 years at the diagnosis of breast cancer, the presence of ovarian cancer, the presence of breast and ovarian cancer in the same woman, and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry were all associated with an increased risk of detecting a BRCA1 mutation. No association was found between the presence of bilateral breast cancer or the number of breast cancers in a family and the detection of a BRCA1 mutation, or between the position of the mutation in the BRCA1 gene and the presence of ovarian cancer in a family. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with breast cancer and a family history of the disease, the percentage with BRCA1 coding-region mutations is less than the 45 percent predicted by genetic-linkage analysis. These results suggest that even in a referral clinic specializing in screening women from high-risk families, the majority of tests for BRCA1 mutations will be negative and therefore uninformative.

Genetic heterogeneity in hereditary breast cancer: role of BRCA1 and BRCA2.

The common hereditary forms of breast cancer have been largely attributed to the inheritance of mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. However, it is not yet clear what proportion of hereditary breast cancer is explained by BRCA1 and BRCA2 or by some other unidentified susceptibility gene(s). We describe the proportion of hereditary breast cancer explained by BRCA1 or BRCA2 in a sample of North American hereditary breast cancers and assess the evidence for additional susceptibility genes that may confer hereditary breast or ovarian cancer risk. Twenty-three families were identified through two high-risk breast cancer research programs. Genetic analysis was undertaken to establish linkage between the breast or ovarian cancer cases and markers on chromosomes 17q (BRCA1) and 13q (BRCA2). Mutation analysis in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes was also undertaken in all families. The pattern of hereditary cancer in 14 (61%) of the 23 families studied was attributed to BRCA1 by a combination of linkage and mutation analyses. No families were attributed to BRCA2. Five families (22%) provided evidence against linkage to both BRCA1 and BRCA2. No BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were detected in these five families. The BRCA1 or BRCA2 status of four families (17%) could not be determined. BRCA1 and BRCA2 probably explain the majority of hereditary breast cancer that exists in the North American population. However, one or more additional genes may yet be found that explain some proportion of hereditary breast cancer.