Advertisement

Variant of Uncertain Significance-Related Uncertainty in Breast Cancer Genomics

  • Sukh MakhnoonEmail author
  • Susan K Peterson
Breast Cancer Genetics (B Arun, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Breast Cancer Genetics
  2. Topical Collection on Breast Cancer Genetics

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper considers the psychosocial implications of variant of uncertain significance (VUS)-derived uncertainty from the perspective of patients and providers and identifies potential uncertainty management strategies that can improve VUS-related clinical care.

Recent Findings

Based on the analysis of current research evidence around VUS-related medical management as well as provider and patient experiences of VUS-related uncertainty, we conclude that uncertainty around this new type of medical information is pervasive. Uncertainty appraisal varies across different contextual and situational factors—individual’s cancer diagnosis, provider’s experience with VUS, gene in which VUS has been identified, etc. Most importantly, strategies for uncertainty management that can address much of the VUS-related uncertainty also exist and offer hope for the thousands of VUS that will be returned to patients in genomic medicine clinics.

Summary

Uncertain sequencing results, when explained and relayed by experts in the presence of appropriate VUS-related reclassification and re-contact guidelines, increase the likelihood of maximal clinical and psychosocial benefit for patients without causing undue harm.

Keywords

Uncertainty Variants of uncertain significance VUS Breast cancer Genomics 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Hall MJ, Reid JE, Burbidge LA, Pruss D, Deffenbaugh AM, Frye C, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women of different ethnicities undergoing testing for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(10):2222–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maxwell KN, Hart SN, Vijai J, Schrader KA, Slavin TP, Thomas T, et al. Evaluation of ACMG-guideline-based variant classification of cancer susceptibility and non-cancer-associated genes in families affected by breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98(5):801–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tung N, Battelli C, Allen B, Kaldate R, Bhatnagar S, Bowles K, et al. Frequency of mutations in individuals with breast cancer referred for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing using next-generation sequencing with a 25-gene panel. Cancer. 2015;121(1):25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    LaDuca H, Stuenkel AJ, Dolinsky JS, Keiles S, Tandy S, Pesaran T, et al. Utilization of multigene panels in hereditary cancer predisposition testing: analysis of more than 2,000 patients. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2014;16(11):830–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shirts BH, Pritchard CC, Walsh T. Family-specific variants and the limits of human genetics. Trends Mol Med. 2016;22(11):925–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Selkirk CG, Vogel KJ, Newlin AC, Weissman SM, Weiss SM, Wang CH, et al. Cancer genetic testing panels for inherited cancer susceptibility: the clinical experience of a large adult genetics practice. Familial Cancer. 2014;13(4):527–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lincoln SE, Yang S, Cline MS, Kobayashi Y, Zhang C, Topper S, et al. Consistency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classifications among clinical diagnostic laboratories. JCO precision oncology. 2017;1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, Samocha KE, Banks E, Fennell T, O'Donnell-Luria AH, Ware JS, Hill AJ, Cummings BB, Tukiainen T, Birnbaum DP, Kosmicki JA, Duncan LE, Estrada K, Zhao F, Zou J, Pierce-Hoffman E, Berghout J, Cooper DN, Deflaux N, DePristo M, Do R, Flannick J, Fromer M, Gauthier L, Goldstein J, Gupta N, Howrigan D, Kiezun A, Kurki MI, Moonshine AL, Natarajan P, Orozco L, Peloso GM, Poplin R, Rivas MA, Ruano-Rubio V, Rose SA, Ruderfer DM, Shakir K, Stenson PD, Stevens C, Thomas BP, Tiao G, Tusie-Luna MT, Weisburd B, Won HH, Yu D, Altshuler DM, Ardissino D, Boehnke M, Danesh J, Donnelly S, Elosua R, Florez JC, Gabriel SB, Getz G, Glatt SJ, Hultman CM, Kathiresan S, Laakso M, McCarroll S, McCarthy M, McGovern D, McPherson R, Neale BM, Palotie A, Purcell SM, Saleheen D, Scharf JM, Sklar P, Sullivan PF, Tuomilehto J, Tsuang MT, Watkins HC, Wilson JG, Daly MJ, MacArthur D, Exome Aggregation Consortium. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536(7616):285–291.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank TS, Deffenbaugh AM, Reid JE, Hulick M, Ward BE, Lingenfelter B, et al. Clinical characteristics of individuals with germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: analysis of 10,000 individuals. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2002;20(6):1480–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weitzel JN, Lagos V, Blazer KR, Nelson R, Ricker C, Herzog J, et al. Prevalence of BRCA mutations and founder effect in high-risk Hispanic families. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2005;14(7):1666–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nanda R, Schumm LP, Cummings S, Fackenthal JD, Sveen L, Ademuyiwa F, et al. 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. 2005;294(15):1925–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Makhnoon S, Shirts BH, Bowen DJ, Fullerton SM. Hereditary cancer gene panel test reports: wide heterogeneity suggests need for standardization. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2018;20(11):1438–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amendola LM, Jarvik GP, Leo MC, McLaughlin HM, Akkari Y, Amaral MD, et al. Performance of ACMG-AMP variant-interpretation guidelines among nine laboratories in the clinical sequencing exploratory research consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;99(1):247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang J, Seng S, Yoo J, Equivel P, Lum SS. Clinical management of patients at risk for hereditary breast cancer with variants of uncertain significance in the era of multigene panel testing. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(10):3389–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Welsh JL, Hoskin TL, Day CN, Thomas AS, Cogswell JA, Couch FJ, et al. Clinical decision-making in patients with variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):3067–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elsayegh N, Webster RD, Gutierrez Barrera AM, Lin H, Kuerer HM, Litton JK, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rate and predictive factors among patients with breast cancer who underwent multigene panel testing for hereditary cancer. Cancer medicine. 2018;7(6):2718–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ready K, Gutierrez-Barrera AM, Amos C, Meric-Bernstam F, Lu K, Hortobagyi G, et al. Cancer risk management decisions of women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance. Breast J. 2011;17(2):210–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chern JY, Lee SS, Frey MK, Lee J, Blank SV. The influence of BRCA variants of unknown significance on cancer risk management decision-making. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30(4):e60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pederson HJ, Gopalakrishnan D, Noss R, Yanda C, Eng C, Grobmyer SR. Impact of multigene panel testing on surgical decision making in breast cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226(4):560–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kurian AW, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, Deapen DM, Abrahamse P, Bondarenko I, et al. Uptake, results, and outcomes of germline multiple-gene sequencing after diagnosis of breast cancer. JAMA oncology. 2018;4(8):1066–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garcia C, Wendt J, Lyon L, Jones J, Littell RD, Armstrong MA, et al. Risk management options elected by women after testing positive for a BRCA mutation. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(2):428–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurian AW, Li Y, Hamilton AS, Ward KC, Hawley ST, Morrow M, et al. Gaps in incorporating germline genetic testing into treatment decision-making for early-stage breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2017;35(20):2232–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morgan R, Brown A, Hamman KJ, Sampson J, Naik A, Massimino K. Risk management decisions in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Am J Surg. 2018;215(5):899–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petrucelli N, Lazebnik N, Huelsman KM, Lazebnik RS. Clinical interpretation and recommendations for patients with a variant of uncertain significance in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a survey of genetic counseling practice. Genet Test. 2002;6(2):107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Macklin SK, Jackson JL, Atwal PS, Hines SL. Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance. Familial Cancer. 2019;18(1):121–6. This paper reports differences in physicians' interpretation of VUS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scherr CL, Lindor NM, Malo TL, Couch FJ, Vadaparampil ST. A preliminary investigation of genetic counselors' information needs when receiving a variant of uncertain significance result: a mixed methods study. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2015;17(9):739–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eccles BK, Copson E, Maishman T, Abraham JE, Eccles DM. Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Makhnoon S, Garrett LT, Burke W, Bowen DJ, Shirts BH. Experiences of patients seeking to participate in variant of uncertain significance reclassification research. Journal of community genetics. 2019;10(2):189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Politi MC, Clark MA, Ombao H, Legare F. The impact of physicians' reactions to uncertainty on patients’ decision satisfaction. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):575–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vos J, Gomez-Garcia E, Oosterwijk JC, Menko FH, Stoel RD, van Asperen CJ, et al. Opening the psychological black box in genetic counseling. The psychological impact of DNA testing is predicted by the counselees’ perception, the medical impact by the pathogenic or uninformative BRCA1/2-result. Psycho-oncology. 2012;21(1):29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O'Neill SC, DeMarco T, Peshkin BN, Rogers S, Rispoli J, Brown K, et al. Tolerance for uncertainty and perceived risk among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 test results. American journal of medical genetics Part C, Seminars in medical genetics. 2006;142c(4):251–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Dijk S, Timmermans DR, Meijers-Heijboer H, Tibben A, van Asperen CJ, Otten W. Clinical characteristics affect the impact of an uninformative DNA test result: the course of worry and distress experienced by women who apply for genetic testing for breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2006;24(22):3672–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vos J, Otten W, van Asperen C, Jansen A, Menko F, Tibben A. The counsellees’ view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life. Psycho-oncology. 2008;17(8):822–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clift K, Macklin S, Halverson C, McCormick JB, Abu Dabrh AM, Hines S. Patients’ views on variants of uncertain significance across indications. Journal of community genetics. 2019.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lumish HS, Steinfeld H, Koval C, Russo D, Levinson E, Wynn J, et al. Impact of panel gene testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer on patients. J Genet Couns. 2017;26(5):1116–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Richter S, Haroun I, Graham TC, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E. Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2013;24 Suppl 8:viii69-viii74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    •• Makhnoon S, Shirts BH, Bowen DJ. Patients’ perspectives of variants of uncertain significance and strategies for uncertainty management. J Genet Couns. 2019. This paper outlines a provisional VUS-related uncertainty management strategy.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosenthal EA, Ranola JMO, Shirts BH. Power of pedigree likelihood analysis in extended pedigrees to classify rare variants of uncertain significance in cancer risk genes. Familial Cancer. 2017;16(4):611–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garrett LT, Hickman N, Jacobson A, Bennett RL, Amendola LM, Rosenthal EA, et al. Family studies for classification of variants of uncertain classification: current laboratory clinical practice and a new web-based educational tool. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(6):1146–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Berger SM, Chung WK, Burke W. Is there a duty to reinterpret genetic data? The ethical dimensions. Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 2019.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Findlay GM, Daza RM, Martin B, Zhang MD, Leith AP, Gasperini M, et al. Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing. Nature. 2018;562(7726):217–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioral ScienceUT MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations