Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 178, Issue 1, pp 151–159 | Cite as

Assessing the effectiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing guidelines in identifying African American breast cancer patients with deleterious genetic mutations

  • Foluso O. AdemuyiwaEmail author
  • Patricia Salyer
  • Yinjiao Ma
  • Sherri Fisher
  • Graham Colditz
  • Katherine Weilbaecher
  • Laura J. Bierut
Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose

Approximately, 10% of breast cancers are hereditary. Identifying women at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer allows for early detection, prevention, and individualized disease management for those diagnosed with breast cancer. There is limited data about breast cancer genetic risks among African Americans as the majority of the large studies have been conducted in European Americans. We examined the distribution of deleterious genetic mutations in African American breast cancer patients, and evaluated the effectiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for identifying African American women at high risk for deleterious genetic mutations.

Methods

African American participants with breast cancer underwent an interview regarding health and family history, and a 30-gene saliva test. Medical records were accessed to determine whether participants had received prior genetic testing as part of usual care, results of previous testing, and cancer characteristics.

Results

Two hundred and fifty participants were enrolled between February 2016 and May 2018. Twenty (8.0%) had a deleterious mutation in one of the 30 genes; BRCA2 had the highest frequency (40.0%). 187 (74.8%) met eligibility for testing based on NCCN guidelines. Only 110 (58.8%) of participants eligible for genetic testing, according to guidelines, had received prior testing as part of routine care. Using the 30-gene test, we identified deleterious mutations in 17 of 187 (9.1%) of those who met NCCN criteria for testing, and three of 63 (4.8%) of those who did not meet criteria for testing nonetheless had a deleterious mutation associated with breast cancer.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that a large proportion of African American breast cancer patients who meet criteria for genetic testing do not receive it as part of routine care. Even in women who do not meet testing guidelines, nearly 5% have a known deleterious mutation associated with breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer Genetics Deleterious mutation African American NCCN guidelines 

Abbreviations

NCCN

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

HBOC

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

TNBC

Triple-negative breast cancer

VUS

Variants of undetermined significance

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Foluso Ademuyiwa has served as an advisory board member for Eisai, Astra Zeneca, Jounce, Immunomedics, and QED Therapeutics. Foluso Ademuyiwa performs consulting for Cardinal Health, Best Doctors, Advance Medical Inc. Foluso Ademuyiwa has received institutional research funding from Polyphor, Pfizer, RNA Diagnostics, Immunomedics, Abbvie, and Seattle Genetics. Laura J. Bierut is listed as an inventor on Issued U.S. Patent 8,080,371,“Markers for Addiction” covering the use of certain SNPs in determining the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of addiction. Patricia Salyer, Yinjiao Ma, Sherri Fisher, Graham Colditz, and Katherine Weilbaecher declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10549_2019_5359_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (112 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 111 kb)
10549_2019_5359_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (63 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 63 kb)
10549_2019_5359_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (72 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 71 kb)
10549_2019_5359_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (79 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 78 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hall JM, Lee MK, Newman B, Morrow JE, Anderson LA, Huey B, King MC (1990) Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science 250(4988):1684–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D, Futreal PA, Harshman K, Tavtigian S, Liu Q, Cochran C, Bennett LM, Ding W et al (1994) A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science (New York, NY) 266(5182):66–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    King MC, Wieand S, Hale K, Lee M, Walsh T, Owens K, Tait J, Ford L, Dunn BK, Costantino J, Wickerham L, Wolmark N, Fisher B, National Surgical Adjuvant B, Bowel P (2001) Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP-P1) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. JAMA 286(18):2251–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duffy SW, Nixon RM (2002) Estimates of the likely prophylactic effect of tamoxifen in women with high risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Br J Cancer 86(2):218–221.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600064 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM (2009) Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(2):80–87.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn442 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, Moller P, Lynch HT, Offit K, Weber B, Rebbeck T, Neuhausen SL, Ghadirian P, Foulkes WD, Gershoni-Baruch R, Friedman E, Rennert G, Wagner T, Isaacs C, Kim-Sing C, Ainsworth P, Sun P, Narod SA (2005) Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol 23(30):7491–7496.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.7138 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metcalfe K, Gershman S, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, Tung N, Kim-Sing C, Olopade OI, Domchek S, McLennan J, Eisen A, Foulkes WD, Rosen B, Sun P, Narod SA (2011) Predictors of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Br J Cancer 104(9):1384–1392.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.120 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Foulkes WD, Tung N, Kim-Sing C, Olopade OI, Eisen A, Rosen B, Snyder C, Gershman S, Sun P, Narod SA (2015) Effect of oophorectomy on survival after breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA Oncol 1(3):306–313.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0658 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kotsopoulos J, Huzarski T, Gronwald J, Singer CF, Moller P, Lynch HT, Armel S, Karlan B, Foulkes WD, Neuhausen SL, Senter L, Tung N, Weitzel JN, Eisen A, Metcalfe K, Eng C, Pal T, Evans G, Sun P, Lubinski J, Narod SA, Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study G (2017) Bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(1):89.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Expert Panel on Breast I, Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, diFlorio RM, Green ED, Heller SL, Holbrook AI, Lee SJ, Lewin AA, Lourenco AP, Nance KJ, Niell BL, Slanetz PJ, Stuckey AR, Vincoff NS, Weinstein SP, Yepes MM, Newell MS (2017) ACR appropriateness criteria((R)) breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 14(11S):S383–S390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, Thickman D, Hylton N, Warner E, Pisano E, Schnitt SJ, Gatsonis C, Schnall M, DeAngelis GA, Stomper P, Rosen EL, O’Loughlin M, Harms S, Bluemke DA, International Breast MRICWG (2005) Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103(9):1898–1905.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20971 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, Kuhn W, Schild HH (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(33):8469–8476.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, Cutrara MR, DeBoer G, Yaffe MJ, Messner SJ, Meschino WS, Piron CA, Narod SA (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292(11):1317–1325.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.11.1317 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, Griebsch I, Hoff RJ, Kessar P, Lakhani SR, Moss SM, Nerurkar A, Padhani AR, Pointon LJ, Thompson D, Warren RM, group Ms (2005) Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365(9473):1769–1778.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Goncalves A, Lee KH, Fehrenbacher L, Yerushalmi R, Mina LA, Martin M, Roche H, Im YH, Quek RGW, Markova D, Tudor IC, Hannah AL, Eiermann W, Blum JL (2018) Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med 379(8):753–763.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1802905 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, Delaloge S, Li W, Tung N, Armstrong A, Wu W, Goessl C, Runswick S, Conte P (2017) Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med 377(6):523–533.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1706450 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bustamante CD, Burchard EG, De la Vega FM (2011) Genomics for the world. Nature 475(7355):163–165.  https://doi.org/10.1038/475163a CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collins FS, Manolio TA (2007) Merging and emerging cohorts: necessary but not sufficient. Nature 445(7125):259.  https://doi.org/10.1038/445259a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Need AC, Goldstein DB (2009) Next generation disparities in human genomics: concerns and remedies. Trends Genet 25(11):489–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.09.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    James RD, Yu JH, Henrikson NB, Bowen DJ, Fullerton SM, Health Disparities Working G (2008) Strategies and stakeholders: minority recruitment in cancer genetics research. Community Genet 11(4):241–249.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000116878 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, Karaca G, Troester MA, Tse CK, Edmiston S, Deming SL, Geradts J, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO, Moorman PG, Earp HS, Millikan RC (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295(21):2492–2502.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.21.2492 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ooi SL, Martinez ME, Li CI (2011) Disparities in breast cancer characteristics and outcomes by race/ethnicity. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(3):729–738.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1191-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeSantis CE, Ma J, Goding Sauer A, Newman LA, Jemal A (2017) Breast cancer statistics, 2017, racial disparity in mortality by state. CA Cancer J Clin 67(6):439–448.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21412 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ademuyiwa FO, Gao F, Hao L, Morgensztern D, Aft RL, Ma CX, Ellis MJ (2015) US breast cancer mortality trends in young women according to race. Cancer 121(9):1469–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29178 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M (2005) Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA 293(14):1729–1736.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.14.1729 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Churpek JE, Walsh T, Zheng Y, Moton Z, Thornton AM, Lee MK, Casadei S, Watts A, Neistadt B, Churpek MM, Huo D, Zvosec C, Liu F, Niu Q, Marquez R, Zhang J, Fackenthal J, King MC, Olopade OI (2015) Inherited predisposition to breast cancer among African American women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149(1):31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3195-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    States SCotU (2013) Association for molecular pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, inc., et al.. vol 12-398Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goodman LA (1961) Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat 32(1):148–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pal T, Bonner D, Kim J, Monteiro AN, Kessler L, Royer R, Narod SA, Vadaparampil ST (2013) Early onset breast cancer in a registry-based sample of African-american women: BRCA mutation prevalence, and other personal and system-level clinical characteristics. Breast J 19(2):189–192.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12083 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tung NM, Bobbili PJ, Olufade TO, DerSarkissian M, Bhak R, Reiff J, Briceno JM, Yu H, Shenolikar R, Duh MS (2018) Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for BRCA testing among breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 36(15_suppl):e13624–e13624.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.e13624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg A, Pasini B, Radice P, Manoukian S, Eccles DM, Tang N, Olah E, Anton-Culver H, Warner E, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Gorski B, Tulinius H, Thorlacius S, Eerola H, Nevanlinna H, Syrjakoski K, Kallioniemi OP, Thompson D, Evans C, Peto J, Lalloo F, Evans DG, Easton DF (2003) 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 72(5):1117–1130.  https://doi.org/10.1086/375033 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pharoah PD, Antoniou A, Bobrow M, Zimmern RL, Easton DF, Ponder BA (2002) Polygenic susceptibility to breast cancer and implications for prevention. Nat Genet 31(1):33–36.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ng853 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, Narod S, Goldgar D, Devilee P, Bishop DT, Weber B, Lenoir G, Chang-Claude J, Sobol H, Teare MD, Struewing J, Arason A, Scherneck S, Peto J, Rebbeck TR, Tonin P, Neuhausen S, Barkardottir R, Eyfjord J, Lynch H, Ponder BA, Gayther SA, Zelada-Hedman M et al (1998) Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62(3):676–689.  https://doi.org/10.1086/301749 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frank TS, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE, Hulick M, Ward BE, Lingenfelter B, Gumpper KL, Scholl T, Tavtigian SV, Pruss DR, Critchfield GC (2002) Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. J Clin Oncol 20(6):1480–1490.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.6.1480 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    King MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A (2014) Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA 312(11):1091–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12483 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Hughes K, Patel R, Rosen B, Compagnoni G, Baron P, Simmons R, Smith LA, Grady I, Kinney M, Coomer C, Barbosa K, Holmes DR, Brown E, Gold L, Clark P, Riley L, Lyons S, Ruiz A, Kahn S, MacDonald H, Curcio L, Hardwick MK, Yang S, Esplin ED, Nussbaum RL (2019) Underdiagnosis of hereditary breast cancer: are genetic testing guidelines a tool or an obstacle? J Clin Oncol 37(6):453–460.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01631 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Nanda R, Schumm LP, Cummings S, Fackenthal JD, Sveen L, Ademuyiwa F, Cobleigh M, Esserman L, Lindor NM, Neuhausen SL, Olopade OI (2005) Genetic testing in an ethnically diverse cohort of high-risk women: a comparative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in American families of European and African ancestry. JAMA 294(15):1925–1933.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.15.1925 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fackenthal JD, Olopade OI (2007) Breast cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in diverse populations. Nat Rev Cancer 7(12):937–948.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2054 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Newman B, Mu H, Butler LM, Millikan RC, Moorman PG, King MC (1998) Frequency of breast cancer attributable to BRCA1 in a population-based series of American women. JAMA 279(12):915–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haffty BG, Choi DH, Goyal S, Silber A, Ranieri K, Matloff E, Lee MH, Nissenblatt M, Toppmeyer D, Moran MS (2009) Breast cancer in young women (YBC): prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations and risk of secondary malignancies across diverse racial groups. Ann Oncol 20(10):1653–1659.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp051 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Division of Oncology, Department of MedicineWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations