Bove, Betsy

Context.— Clinical laboratories are increasingly implementing pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. Although PGx is similar to genetic testing for other indications, there are unique aspects that laboratories should consider. Objective.— To aid clinical laboratories that are implementing clinical PGx testing by describing characteristics of PGx test design and validation, as well as approaches to reporting. Resources that are useful for clinical laboratories performing PGx testing will be highlighted. Design.— The College of American Pathologists formed a workgroup composed of laboratorians with expertise in clinical PGx testing. The workgroup included representatives from the Association for Molecular Pathology and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The workgroup reviewed pertinent literature, as well as experience from proficiency testing and from members’ laboratories. Results.— The workgroup recommends that laboratories implementing PGx consider the following concepts: testing platform, test design (ie, selection of pharmacogenes and variants/alleles), use of reference materials during test development and as controls during clinical runs, star allele and standard nomenclature systems, translations from genotype to predicted phenotype, and considerations for result reporting including making medication recommendations. The workgroup provides considerations when using report vendors, emphasizing the clinical laboratory’s role and responsibility when implementing such reporting tools from vendors. Conclusions.— Clinical laboratories should be familiar with the fundamentals of PGx, ensure that PGx testing meets the applicable regulatory requirements for all aspects of the clinical laboratory testing process, and follow recommendations for standardization of nomenclature and reporting.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3). Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.