Citations

Importance Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is an effective option to prevent ovarian cancer in high-risk individuals, but adverse effects from premature menopause are a barrier to uptake. Interval salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy (ISDO) may be an effective alternative. Objective To evaluate the association of ISDO vs RRSO and sexual function and menopausal symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized (patient preference) clinical trial was performed among Women Choosing Surgical Prevention participants with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variant conferring an increased risk for ovarian cancer. Patients from 9 US centers were enrolled from June 2, 2016, to October 28, 2020; chose ISDO or RRSO; and were followed up for 24 months. The analysis was performed on November 13, 2024. Interventions Participant-selected RRSO or ISDO. Main Outcomes and Measures Changes in sexual function and menopausal symptoms from baseline to 6, 12, and 24 months. Inverse probability weighting was applied to achieve covariate balance across groups. Results The analytic sample included 334 female participants (mean [95% CI] age at consent, 39.2 [38.7-.9.7] years) who underwent RRSO (n = 165) or ISDO (n = 169) and completed 6-month questionnaires. Significantly more participants experienced clinically meaningful worsening of sexual function at 6 months compared with baseline after RRSO vs ISDO (33.1% [39 of 118] vs 16.8% [17 of 101], respectively; odds ratio, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.20-3.35]) and at 12 months (39.2% [38 of 97] vs 18.3% [17 of 93], respectively; odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.09-2.63]). This finding was no longer significant at 24 months. When restricted to the RRSO group who took hormone replacement therapy, there was no significant worsening of total sexual function scores or menopausal symptoms compared with baseline. No interval ovarian cancers were reported. Conclusions and Relevance This nonrandomized clinical trial comparing RRSO with ISDO found that ISDO was less likely to impair sexual function, which addresses an important barrier to surgical prevention in high-risk patients in premenopause. After RRSO, use of hormone replacement therapy mitigated menopausal symptoms and prevented decline in sexual function. More information is needed about the safety of ISDO. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02760849

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate are intended to serve as a resource for health care providers to identify individuals who may benefit from cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling and testing; help guide decisions related to genetic testing; and facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the comprehensive care of individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer. The current guidelines focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants associated with increased risk of these cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s most recent recommendations regarding screening for prostate cancer and pancreas cancer, as well as testing criteria for nonepithelial ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer. METHODS An ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process. RESULTS Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS BRCA1/ 2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/ 2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/ 2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/ 2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer, including BRCA1 , BRCA2 , CDH1 , PALB2 , PTEN , and TP53 , and recommended approaches to genetic counseling/testing and care strategies in individuals with these P/LP variants. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize important updates regarding: (1) a new section for transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse people who have a hereditary predisposition to cancer focused on risk reduction strategies for ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, prostate cancer, and breast cancer; and (2) testing criteria and management associated with TP53 P/LP variants and Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Importance Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068

PURPOSE The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed a guideline on testing for mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) for patients considered for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. ASCO has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS The CAP guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Endorsement Panel subsequently reviewed the content and the recommendations. RESULTS The ASCO Endorsement Panel determined that the recommendations from the CAP guideline, published on August 3, 2022, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorses Mismatch Repair and Microsatellite Instability Testing for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the Association for Molecular Pathology and Fight Colorectal Cancer. RECOMMENDATIONS Within the guideline, MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), MSI polymerase chain reaction, and MSI next-generation sequencing are all recommended testing options for colorectal cancer, MMR-IHC and MSI-polymerase chain reaction for gastroesophageal and small bowel cancer, and only MMR-IHC for endometrial cancer. No recommendation in favor of any testing method over another could be made for any other cancer. Tumor mutational burden was not recommended as a surrogate for DNA MMR deficiency. If MMR deficiency consistent with Lynch syndrome is detected, it should be communicated to the treating physician. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines .

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.

1506 Background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is preventable when genetic risk is identified. We aimed to test whether pre and/or post-test genetic counseling is needed to optimally deliver online accessible genetic testing. Methods: MAGENTA (Making GENetic Testing Accessible) is a four-arm non-inferiority trial evaluating electronic genetic education and results delivery alone or combined with pre-test only, or post-test only telephone genetic counseling compared to mandatory pre- and post-test counseling (control arm) in women at risk of HBOC (NCT02993068). Regardless of assigned arm, all subjects with a pathogenic mutation received post-test telephone counseling. All subjects were enrolled electronically as part of either a family history cohort (FHC) or a cascade cohort (CC, known familial mutation). The primary outcome was cancer risk distress at 3 months and the trial was powered for the FHC. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing (i.e., received results), anxiety, depression, quality of life, and decisional regret, all measured by standardized scales. Results: Enrollment is complete and a total of 3,822 participants were randomized, 3,111 in FHC and 711 in CC. Participants were enrolled from all 50 states, but most were white/non-Hispanic (88%). Among participants that completed genetic testing, 173 (7.2%) had a mutation in a breast or ovarian cancer gene, with 114 (5.7%) of FHC and 59 (14.2%) of CC. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis of FHC, each of the three experimental arms was non-inferior to the control arm for distress at 3 months (p < 0.025/3 = 0.0083). In the CC, no and pre-test only counseling were also non-inferior (p < 0.025/3 = 0.0083). Distress was lowest in the arm with neither pre nor post-test counseling. Overall, 318 (18%) participants had very high distress at three month follow-up, and this rate was not significantly different across arms. Anxiety, depression and decisional regret did not have statistically significant differences across arms at follow-up. Test completion was highest in the no counseling arm (86.4%) and lowest in the control arm (60.6%). Conclusions: Electronic genetic education and results release without genetic counseling was non-inferior with regard to patient distress and was associated with higher test completion and lower distress. These results support use of a genetic testing paradigm providing individualized genetic counseling only for patients with positive test results. Clinical trial information: NCT02993068.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes, and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with syndromes associated with an increased risk of these cancers. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments, examine relevant new data, and reevaluate and update recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussion and most recent recommendations regarding criteria for high-penetrance genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer beyond BRCA1/2 , pancreas screening and genes associated with pancreatic cancer, genetic testing for the purpose of systemic therapy decision-making, and testing for people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

Abstract Purpose: We hypothesized that mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 improve outcomes for ovarian carcinoma patients treated with platinum therapy and would impact the relative benefit of adding prolonged bevacizumab. Experimental Design: We sequenced DNA from blood and/or neoplasm from 1,195 women enrolled in GOG-0218, a randomized phase III trial in advanced ovarian carcinoma of bevacizumab added to carboplatin and paclitaxel. Defects in HRR were defined as damaging mutations in 16 genes. Proportional hazards models were used to estimate relative hazards for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 1,195 women with ovarian carcinoma, HRR mutations were identified in 307 (25.7%). Adjusted hazards for progression and death compared with those without mutations were lower for women with non-BRCA HRR mutations [HR = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57–0.94; P = 0.01 for PFS; HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50–0.90; P = 0.007 for OS] and BRCA1 mutations (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.97; P = 0.02 for PFS; HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59–0.94; P = 0.01 for OS) and were lowest for BRCA2 mutations (HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40–0.67; P &lt; 0.0001 for PFS; HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25–0.53; P &lt; 0.0001 for OS). A test of interaction showed no difference in the effect of bevacizumab on PFS between cases with and without mutations. Conclusions: HRR mutations, including non-BRCA genes, significantly prolong PFS and OS in ovarian carcinoma and should be stratified for in clinical trials. The benefit of adding bevacizumab was not significantly modified by mutation status. Clin Cancer Res; 24(4); 777–83. ©2017 AACR.