Abstract PS8-14: Pathogenic variants in hereditary cancer syndrome genes are prevalent among breast cancer patients not meeting various ex-U.S. genetic testing guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background:Therapeutic and risk management options have expanded for patients harboring pathogenic variants (PVs) in cancer predisposition genes. Historically, testing costs and clinical implementation challenges led to restrictive testing guidelines in many countries. Increasing evidence demonstrates that narrow criteria will miss patients with potentially actionable PVs and broader testing is a cost-effective way to identify patients (and their family members) with PVs. Here we assess the efficacy of multiple international testing guidelines in identifying breast cancer patients with clinically actionable PVs. Methods:We reanalyzed a prospective cohort of breast cancer (BC) patients referred by their providers for multigene germline genetic testing (PMID: 30526229) 50% of which met U.S. testing criteria, by design. The is a cohort of U.S.-based patients, primarily Caucasian of Northern European ancestry. We applied testing guidelines from Australia, U.K. and 2 Canadian provinces (Ontario, British Columbia) to this cohort to determine their efficacy in selecting patients with PVs. These countries were chosen because of their single-payer healthcare model and their similar ethnic distribution to the U.S. Analysis focused on yield of PVs in high risk (>4x risk compared to general population) breast/ovarian (BC/OV) cancer genes. Results:Table 1 displays the distribution of in criteria (IC) vs. out of criteria (OOC) patients by country/testing criteria. Over 75% of patients in each country/province analyzed were OOC. Rates of PVs were similar between IC and OOC patients across countries. Existing Canadian, Australian and U.K. criteria missed up to 30% of patients with high risk PVs (Table 1). The majority (>80%) of PVs in OOC patients were in genes with published management guidelines. Conclusions:In our cohort, select ex-U.S. testing criteria identified <30% of patients with PVs, while almost half of OOC patients harbored clinically relevant, potentially actionable mutations. These data suggest expanding certain international testing criteria would allow better identification and improved management for many patients diagnosed with breast cancer across the globe, and their families via cascade testing. This study also suggests additional research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of additional provincial and international criteria, including cost-effectiveness analyses, to inform future guideline updates. Table 1. Findings in IC vs. OOC patientsOverallIn criteria Out of criteriaCountry/providenceGuidelineTotal n of cohortIC (% of total cohort)OOC (% of total cohort)Total PV IC (% of IC cohort)Total PV OOC (% of OOC cohort)High risk^ PVs (% of total PVs)High risk^ PVs (% of total PVs)U.S.NCCN953473 (49.6)480 (50.4)43 (9.1)40 (8.3)22 (26.5)8 (9.6)OntarioMOHLTC953210 (22.0)743 (78.0)18 (8.6)65 (8.7)5 (6.0)25 (30.1)B.C.BCHCP953203 (21.3)750 (78.7)24 (11.8)59 (7.9)9 (10.8)19 (22.9)AustraliaeviQ953180 (18.9)773 (81.1)19 (10.6)64 (8.3)12 (14.5)18 (21.7)U.K.NICE*826**127 (14.7)736 (85.3)11 (8.7)64 (8.7)6 (7.2)22 (26.5)US, United States; B.C., British Columbia; UK, United KingdomNCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network v. 2017MOHLTC, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care BCHCP, BC Provincial Health Services Authority Hereditary Cancer Program NICE, National Institute for Health Care Excellence*testing eligibility requires >10% BRCA mutation detection rate, typically assessed by BOADICEA model in the UK but for this cohort risk estimates were only available via BRCAPro ** BRCAPro scores were not available for the full cohort ^Includes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, TP53, RAD51C, RAD51D, MSH6 Citation Format: Sarah M Nielsen, Peter Beitsch, Pat Whitworth, Emily Decker, Natalie Rickers, Hana Sroka, Alekhya Narravula, Ed D Esplin, Robert L. Nussbaum. Pathogenic variants in hereditary cancer syndrome genes are prevalent among breast cancer patients not meeting various ex-U.S. genetic testing guidelines [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS8-14.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".