NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Abstract

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian provide recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for hereditary cancer syndromes and risk management recommendations for patients who are diagnosed with a syndrome. Guidelines focus on syndromes associated with an increased risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. The NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding risk management for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer.

NCCN: Continuing Education

Target Audience: This activity is designed to meet the educational needs of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists involved in the management of patients with cancer.

Accreditation Statement

Physicians: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

NCCN designates this journal-based CE activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Nurses: NCCN is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center‘s Commission on Accreditation.

NCCN designates this educational activity for a maximum of 1.0 contact hour.

Pharmacists: National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. NCCN designates this knowledge-based continuing education activity for 1.0 contact hour (0.1 CEUs) of continuing education credit. UAN: 0836-0000-17-001-H01-P

All clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CE activity: 1) review the educational content; 2) take the posttest with a 66% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://education.nccn.org/node/80284; and 3) view/print certificate. Fees: There are no fees associated with participation in this activity.

Release date: January 3, 2017; Expiration date: January 3, 2018

Learning Objectives:

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  • Integrate into professional practice the updates to NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian

  • Describe the rationale behind the decision-making process for developing the NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian

F1

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

Version 2.2017 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2017, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15, 1; 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0003

NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus

Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.

All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.

Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.

Overview

Hereditary cancers are often characterized by mutations associated with increased risk for certain cancers (ie, a high penetrance phenotype) and transmission to offspring through the mother and/or father.1,2 An individual suspected of being at risk for hereditary cancer should be offered genetic counseling.3,4 The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian were developed with the intent to (1) serve as a resource for healthcare providers to identify individuals who may benefit from cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling; (2) provide genetic counselors with an updated tool for the assessment of individual breast and ovarian cancer risk and to guide decisions related to genetic testing; and (3) facilitate a multidisciplinary approach in the management of individuals at increased risk for hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer.

Advances in molecular genetics have identified a number of genes associated with inherited susceptibility to breast and/or ovarian cancers (eg, BRCA1/2, TP53,

F2

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

Version 2.2017 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2017, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15, 1; 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0003

CDH1) and provided a means of characterizing the specific gene mutation or mutations present in certain individuals and families exhibiting an increased risk for cancer. The recent introduction of multigene testing for hereditary forms of cancer has rapidly altered the clinical approach to testing at-risk patients and their families. Multigene testing should focus on identifying a mutation known to be clinically actionable; that is, whether the management of an individual patient is altered based on the presence or absence of a mutation. For some of the genes included as part of multigene testing, especially some low- to moderate-risk genes, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding proper risk management strategies that should follow testing.5

Risk Management Recommendations for Moderate-Penetrance Genes Associated With Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer

Penetrance, as it applies to genetic mutations, refers to the probability of a clinical condition, such as breast or ovarian cancer, developing in the presence of a specific genotype. In the NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, the panel primarily focuses on assessment of known high-penetrance mutations (ie, BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN) and recommendations for genetic testing, counseling, and management strategies in individuals with these mutations. The following sections include a description of moderate-penetrance genes that the panel argues warrant additional screening beyond what is recommended in the general population (ie, those without the specific gene mutation). These include mutations for ATM, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and STK11. Risk management for genetic mutations associated with Lynch syndrome and neurofibromatosis type 1 are also described. During the 2017 guidelines update meeting, the panel extensively revised their risk management recommendations for these moderate-penetrance genes (see GENE-2, GENE-3, GENE-4, pages 11–13)

F3

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

Version 2.2017 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2017, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 15, 1; 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0003

The question of when to initiate risk management in mutation carriers of moderate-penetrance genes was discussed at length during the panel meeting for the 2017 update. This included consideration and adoption of an absolute-risk approach as proposed by Tung et al.6 Specifically, these investigators posited that, for carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations (ie, ATM, CHEK2, NBN), screening with mammography should begin when the estimated 5-year risk of developing breast cancer exceeds 1%, consistent with recommendations for the average-risk population. Likewise, breast MRI screening in these carriers should begin when the estimated 5-year risk of developing breast cancer exceeds 2.2%. However, they also noted that, for practical reasons, it is reasonable to begin MRI and mammographic screening at the same time. It is important to note that the age at which breast screening is recommended may be impacted by the presence of risk factors such as family history of breast cancer, especially early-onset breast cancer.6 There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend risk-reducing mastectomy in carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations,6 although this option may be considered and discussed in the context of a personal or family history of breast cancer.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific age at which risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) should be considered in carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with ovarian cancer (ie, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D). The decision to perform RRSO should not be made lightly, given the impact of premature menopause. Therefore, Tung et al,6 who performed an analysis of ovarian cancer risk in carriers of moderately penetrant genetic mutations, argued that RRSO should not be considered until a woman's expected lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer exceeds 2.6%, which is the expected lifetime risk of a woman with a BRCA-negative family history of ovarian cancer. A discussion about risk-reducing surgery may be initiated earlier if there is a family history of early-onset ovarian cancer.

Lower penetrance genes that may be included as part of multigene testing, but for which there is currently insufficient evidence of an association with breast and/or ovarian cancer, include: BARD1, FANCC, MRE11A, MUTYH heterozygotes, REQL, RAD50, RET1, SLX4, SMARCA4, and XRCC2. Risk management recommendations for these genes should take into account family history and other clinical factors.

ATM Mutations

Mutations in the ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia mutated) gene may increase the risk for breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 3 cohort studies of relatives with ataxia-telangiectasia showed an estimated relative risk of 2.8 (90% CI, 2.2–3.7; P<.001).7 In a sample of 488 women with nonmetastatic breast cancer, 1% had an ATM mutation.8 An analysis of 82 Dutch patients with early-onset breast cancer showed that 8.5% (n=7) of the patients had a detected ATM mutation.9

The association between specific types of ATM genetic variants and breast cancer susceptibility is less clear,1012 with some evidence showing that certain missense mutations may act in a dominant-negative fashion to increase cancer risk, relative to truncating mutations.10,11 A meta-analysis including 5 studies showed that ATM mutation carriers have a 38% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, with carriers of the c.7271T>G missense mutation having a 69% risk of developing breast cancer by age 70 years.13 An analysis of 27 families in which pathogenic ATM variants were identified showed an association between the c.7271T>G variant and increased risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 8.0; 95% CI, 2.3–27.4; P<.001).14

Results of the case-control WECARE study suggested that radiation exposure may be associated with increased risk of contralateral breast cancer in women who are carriers of rare ATM missense variants predicted to be deleterious.15 However, a meta-analysis including 5 studies showed that radiation therapy (with conventional dosing) is not contraindicated in patients with a heterozygous ATM mutation.13 Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend against radiation therapy in women who are carriers diagnosed with cancer.

The panel recommends annual mammogram for women with a mutated ATM gene beginning at age 40 years, with consideration of annual breast MRI. Risk-reducing mastectomy may also be considered based on family history. Given the association between ATM and development of the autosomal recessive condition ataxia telangiectasia, counseling for carriers of ATM mutations should include a discussion of reproductive options.

BRIP1 Mutations

In an observational study including 1,915 unselected ovarian cancer cases, 1.4% of patients had a mutation in the BRCA1 interaction protein C-terminal helicase 1 gene (BRIP1),16 which is a Fanconi anemia gene. An analysis of 3,236 women with epithelial ovarian cancer, 3,431 controls, and 2,000 unaffected high-risk women from an ovarian cancer screening trial (UKFOCSS) showed that BRIP1 is associated with an increased risk for ovarian cancer (P<.001), with the relative risk (RR) for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer being 11.22 (95% CI, 3.22–34.10; P<.001) and 14.09 for high-grade serous disease (95% CI, 4.04–45.02; P<.001).17 An analysis of an Icelandic population (656 ovarian cancer cases, 3,913 controls) also showed an association between BRIP1 and increased risk of ovarian cancer (odds ratio [OR], 8.13; 95% CI, 4.74–13.95; P<.001).18 The cumulative lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer by age 80 years in BRIP1 mutation carriers is estimated to be 5.8% (95% CI, 3.6–9.1).17

Tung et al6 argued that RRSO should not be considered in these mutation carriers until their cumulative risk exceeds that of a woman with a first-degree relative with a non–BRCA-related ovarian cancer (≈2.64%). For BRIP1 mutation carriers, this would be around age 50 to 55 years. However, some women may have additive risk factors (eg, multiple family members with ovarian cancer, lack of parity),19 and delaying the discussion of RRSO until age 50 years may miss some cases of early-onset ovarian cancer. Therefore, the panel recommends that RRSO in BRIP1 mutation carriers be considered beginning at age 45 to 50 years. Ultimately, large prospective trials are needed to make a firm age recommendation regarding when a discussion about RRSO should begin in these mutation carriers.

BRIP1 is not believed to be significantly associated with increased risk of breast cancer, and no single truncating variant has been found to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer.20 BRIP1 is associated with Fanconi anemia, inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. Therefore, counseling for carriers of BRIP1 mutations should include a discussion of reproductive options.

CDH1 Mutations

Germline mutations in CDH1 are associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer, and studies have reported a cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer of 39% to 52%.21,22 Given the considerable risk for lobular breast cancer in women with a CDH1 mutation, the panel recommends screening with annual mammogram (or consideration of breast MRI) beginning at age 30 years. Screening may be considered earlier in patients with a family history of early-onset breast cancer. The option of risk-reducing mastectomy should be discussed for these carriers.

CHEK2 Mutations

Another breast cancer susceptibility gene that has been identified is CHEK2 (cell cycle checkpoint kinase 2). In a study of BRCA-negative patients with breast cancer who have a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer, a CHEK2 mutation was detected in 5%.23 Deleterious CHEK2 mutations have been reported to occur with a higher frequency in Northern and Eastern European countries compared with North America.2426 The cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer in women with CHEK2 mutations and familial breast cancer has been estimated to range from approximately 28% to 37%, and is higher in women with stronger family histories of breast cancer than those without.27,28 The estimated relative risk of breast cancer, based on data from 2 large case-control studies, was 3.0 (90% CI, 2.6–3.5).7

Studies investigating the association between breast cancer risk and specific CHEK2 variants have primarily been based on the truncating variant 1100delC. An analysis from the Copenhagen General Population Study (N=86,975) showed that CHEK2 1100delC heterozygotes had an increased risk of breast cancer when analyses were stratified by age and sex (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.51–2.85).29 A case-control study (10,860 cases and 9,065 controls) performed by the CHEK2 Breast Cancer Case-Control Consortium of Europe and Australia showed that the 1100delC variant is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, even in women unselected for family history (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.72–3.20; P<.001).30 Another case-control study (44,777 cases and 42,997 controls) showed that heterozygous 1100delC carriers have a significantly increased risk of developing estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.10–3.10; P<.001), but not ER-negative breast cancer (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.93–1.88; P=.12).31 Results from a meta-analysis including 18 case-control studies (26,336 cases and 44,219 controls) showed that the missense variant I157T is associated with increased risk of breast cancer (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.42–1.75; P<.001).32

The panel recommends annual mammogram beginning at age 40 years for women with a mutated CHEK2 gene, with consideration of annual breast MRI. Forty years was chosen by the panel as the age at which to begin breast screening, taking into account the average 5-year risk of breast cancer in CHEK2 mutation carriers (see “ATM Mutations,” opposite page), based on risk data that only takes into account frameshift mutations such as 1100delC.6 There are no data on the benefit of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with CHEK2 mutations,6 but this procedure may be considered based on family history.

MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM Mutations

Women with Lynch syndrome are at increased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers (up to 60% and 24%, respectively).3336 Total abdominal hysterectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are options that may be considered for risk reduction in women who have completed childbearing and carry a MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM mutation.3742 No clear evidence supports routine screening for gynecologic cancers in these mutation carriers. Annual endometrial sampling may be considered, but the benefit is uncertain.37,4246 Routine transvaginal ultrasound and serum CA-125 testing are not endorsed because they have not been shown to be sufficiently sensitive or specific,37,4347 but there may be circumstances in which these tests may be helpful.

Some studies have suggested that female MLH1 mutation carriers may be at increased risk for breast cancer, with one study estimating an 18.6% cumulative risk to age 70 years (95% CI, 11.3–25.9).48 However, not enough evidence currently exists for the panel to recommend breast screening for women with Lynch syndrome beyond that which is recommended for the average-risk population.

More information regarding risk management recommendations for Lynch syndrome can be found in the NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal (available at www.NCCN.org).

NBN Mutations

The NBN gene is responsible for producing the protein nibrin. Women with heterozygous NBN mutations are at increased risk of developing breast cancer (OR, 3.1, 95% CI, 1.4–6.6; P=.004).49 A meta-analysis including 7 studies showed a significant association between the variant 657del5 and breast cancer risk (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.54–3.80).50 An analysis of women with breast cancer in Poland (N=562) showed that this founder mutation is associated with early-onset breast cancer (OR, 8.36; 95% CI, 2.57–27.27; P<.001).51 The panel recommends annual mammogram for women with a mutated NBN gene beginning at age 40 years, with consideration of annual breast MRI. Forty years was chosen by the panel as the age at which to begin breast screening, taking into account the average 5-year risk of breast cancer in these mutation carriers (see earlier discussion).6 This recommendation is based primarily on data derived from the Slavic truncating mutation 657del5.4952 There are no data on the benefit of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with NBN mutations. Therefore, risk-reducing mastectomy is not recommended in these mutation carriers, but this procedure may be considered based on family history. The NBN gene is associated with development of the autosomal recessive condition Nijmegen breakage syndrome. Therefore, counselling for carriers of NBN mutations should include a discussion of reproductive options.

NF1 Mutations

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome that is caused by an NF1 mutation. NF1 is associated with increased risk of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, other central nervous system tumors, and gastrointestinal stromal tumors.5356 A population-based study in Finland of 1,404 patients with NF1 showed an estimated lifetime cancer risk of 59.6%.53 This study showed a significant association between NF1 and an increased risk of breast cancer (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 3.04; 95% CI, 2.06–4.31; P<.001). Among patients with breast cancer, NF1 was associated with poorer survival, with 5-year survival rates of 67.9% compared with 87.8% in patients without NF1. Excess incidence was highest in women younger than age 40 years (SIR, 11.10; 95% CI, 5.56–19.50; P<.001). A population-based study in England of 848 patients with NF1 also showed an increased risk of breast cancer (SIR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.9–5.9), especially among women younger than 50 years (SIR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.4–8.8).57 Cumulative lifetime risk of developing breast cancer by age 50 years was 8.4% in this sample.

Given the increased risk of early-onset breast cancer in these mutation carriers, annual breast screening with mammography should begin at age 30 years.58 Screening with breast MRI could also be considered. A prospective study of patients with NF1 from the United Kingdom (N=448) showed that breast cancer risk in these mutation carriers is not significantly increased at age 50 years and beyond.56 Case-control analyses of women with NF1 from England showed that RR estimates for women aged 30 to 39 years was 6.5 (95% CI, 2.6–13.5) and 4.4 for women aged 40 to 49 years (95% CI, 2.5–7.0).59 RR estimates then decrease for women aged 50 to 59 years (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5–4.2), and continue to decrease as age increases (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0–3.3 for age 60–69 years, and RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.2–2.2 for age 70–79 years). These studies show that, beginning at age 50 years, breast cancer risk in women with NF1 may not significantly differ from that of women in the general population. Therefore, breast MRI screening in patients with NF1 may be discontinued at age 50 years. There are no data regarding the benefit of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with NF1 mutations. Therefore, risk-reducing mastectomy is not recommended in these patients, but this procedure may be considered based on family history. Complications related to NF1 may appear early in life, and these have the potential to be severe.60 Therefore, referral to a neurofibromatosis specialist for management is recommended.

PALB2 Mutations

PALB2 (partner and localizer of BRCA2) is a Fanconi anemia gene. Mutations in this gene are associated with increased risk for breast cancer, with studies of women with breast cancer showing that 1% to 3% harbor a pathogenic PALB2 mutation.6164 A meta-analysis of 3 studies estimated a relative risk of 5.3 (90% CI, 3.0–9.4).7 Breast cancer risk increases with age in women with a PALB2 mutation, with a 14% lifetime risk by age 50 years and a 35% lifetime risk by age 70 years.65 The risk also increases with increasing number of relatives affected with breast cancer. Breast cancer risk by age 70 years for those with no first-degree relative with breast cancer was 33% compared with 58% in those with 2 first-degree relatives.65 In a recently published Polish study of patients with breast cancer who underwent genetic testing, contralateral breast cancer was reported in 10% of PALB2 carriers.64 This study also showed that the 10-year survival rate among PALB2 carriers with breast cancer was 48%, compared with 72% in BRCA1 mutation carriers and 75% in noncarriers (P<.001). Further, 10-year survival among those with tumors ≥2 cm was substantially worse (32.4%) than those with tumors <2 cm (82.4%; HR, 7.04; 95% CI, 2.47–20.07; P<.001).

The panel recommends annual mammogram for PALB2 mutation carriers beginning at age 30 years, because this is the age when the average 5-year risk of breast cancer in these mutation carriers exceeds 1%.6,65 Breast MRI screening may also be considered, as well as risk-reducing mastectomy. Though some studies suggest that there may be an association between PALB2 and increased ovarian cancer risk,16,66 there is currently insufficient evidence to consider RRSO in these mutation carriers. PALB2 is associated with Fanconi anemia, inherited in an autosomal recessive manner.67 Therefore, counseling for carriers of PALB2 mutations should include a discussion of reproductive options.

RAD51C and RAD51D Mutations

Genes in the RAD51 protein family are involved in homologous recombination and DNA repair. RAD51C and RAD51D have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. In an observational study including 1,915 unselected ovarian cancer cases, 1.1% of patients had either a RAD51C or RAD51D mutation.16 In a comparison of 1,132 probands with a family history of ovarian cancer and 1,156 controls, RAD51C was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer (RR, 5.88; 95% CI, 2.91–11.88; P<.001).68 Analyses from the same trial (911 probands and 1,060 controls) also showed an association between RAD51D and an increased risk of ovarian cancer (RR, 6.30; 95% CI, 2.86–13.85; P<.011).69 In a case-control analysis of 3,429 women with epithelial ovarian cancer and 2,772 controls, both RAD51C (OR, 5.2; 95% CI, 1.1–24; P=.035) and RAD51D (OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 1.5–90; P=.019) were associated with an increased risk for ovarian cancer.70

The cumulative risk of developing ovarian cancer in carriers of a RAD51C mutation does not approach 2.6% (ie, the expected lifetime risk of a woman with a first-degree relative with ovarian cancer) until age 60 to 64 years, with a cumulative risk of 1.5% between the ages of 55 and 59 years.6,70 In carriers of a RAD51D mutation, the cumulative risk approaches 2.6% around age 50 to 54 years. As with carriers of a BRIP1 mutation, there may be the presence of additive risk factors that may increase the risk of early-onset ovarian cancer. Therefore, the panel recommends that RRSO in RAD51C and RAD51D mutation carriers be considered beginning at age 45 to 50 years. As with BRIP1 mutations, large prospective trials are needed to make a firm age recommendation regarding when a discussion about RRSO should begin in RAD51C and RAD51D mutation carriers.

There is currently insufficient evidence that mutations in RAD51C and RAD51D are associated with increased risk of breast cancer. Therefore, carriers of these gene mutations are advised to follow guidelines for women at average risk of developing breast cancer. RAD51C is associated with Fanconi anemia, inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. Therefore, counseling for carriers of RAD51C mutations should include a discussion of reproductive options.

STK11 Mutations

Germline mutations in STK11 are associated with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by gastrointestinal polyps, mucocutaneous pigmentation, and elevated risk for gastrointestinal cancers as well as breast or nonepithelial ovarian cancers. Breast cancer risk in women with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is 8% at age 40 years, 13% at age 50 years, 31% at age 60 years, and 45% at age 70 years.71 There are no data on the benefit of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with STK11 mutations. Therefore, risk-reducing mastectomy is not recommended in these patients, but this procedure may be considered based on family history. Information regarding screening for patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome can be found in the NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal (available at www.NCCN.org).

Summary and Conclusions

During the panel meeting for the 2017 update, members discussed a number of important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, including principles of multigene testing and risk management recommendations for moderately penetrant genetic mutations associated with breast and/or ovarian cancer. In the guidelines, risk management recommendations are described for carriers of the following mutations: ATM, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and STK11. Recommendations for genetic mutations associated with Lynch syndrome and NF1 are also described. Multigene testing should be offered in the context of professional genetic counseling. Carriers of a genetic mutation should be encouraged to participate in clinical trials or genetic registries. The evidence supporting risk management recommendations for mutations in genes of moderate, low, and uncertain penetrance is continuing to evolve, and it is important for these recommendations to reflect the current evidence base.

References

  • 1.

    LynchHTWatsonPConwayTALynchJF. Clinical/genetic features in hereditary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat1990;15:6371.

  • 2.

    PharoahPDDayNEDuffyS. Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer1997;71:800809.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    LancasterJMPowellCBChenLMRichardsonDL. Society of Gynecologic Oncology statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol2015;136:37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    ShiovitzSKordeLA. Genetics of breast cancer: a topic in evolution. Ann Oncol2015;26:12911299.

  • 5.

    AxilbundJE. Panel testing is not a panacea. J Clin Oncol2016;34:14331435.

  • 6.

    TungNDomchekSMStadlerZ. Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol2016;13:581588.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    EastonDFPharoahPDAntoniouAC. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med2015;372:22432257.

  • 8.

    TungNLinNUKiddJ. Frequency of germline mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in a sequential series of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2016;34:14601468.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    BroeksAUrbanusJHFlooreAN. ATM-heterozygous germline mutations contribute to breast cancer-susceptibility. Am J Hum Genet2000;66:494500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    BrunetJGutierrez-EnriquezSTorresA. ATM germline mutations in Spanish early-onset breast cancer patients negative for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. Clin Genet2008;73:465473.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    HeikkinenKRapakkoKKarppinenSM. Association of common ATM polymorphism with bilateral breast cancer. Int J Cancer2005;116:6972.

  • 12.

    TommiskaJJansenLKilpivaaraO. ATM variants and cancer risk in breast cancer patients from Southern Finland. BMC Cancer2006;6:209.

  • 13.

    van OsNJRoeleveldNWeemaesCM. Health risks for ataxia-telangiectasia mutated heterozygotes: a systematic review, meta-analysis and evidence-based guideline. Clin Genet2016;90:105117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    GoldgarDEHealeySDowtyJG. Rare variants in the ATM gene and risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res2011;13:R73.

  • 15.

    BernsteinJLHaileRWStovallM. Radiation exposure, the ATM Gene, and contralateral breast cancer in the women's environmental cancer and radiation epidemiology study. J Natl Cancer Inst2010;102:475483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    NorquistBMHarrellMIBradyMF. Inherited mutations in women with ovarian carcinoma. JAMA Oncol2015;2:19.

  • 17.

    RamusSJSongHDicksE. Germline mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN genes in women with ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst2015;107:pii: djv214.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    RafnarTGudbjartssonDFSulemP. Mutations in BRIP1 confer high risk of ovarian cancer. Nat Genet2011;43:11041107.

  • 19.

    FlemingGFSeidmanJLengyelE. Epithelial ovarian cancer. In: BarakatRRMarkmanMRandallME eds. Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology6th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013:757847.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    EastonDFLesueurFDeckerB. No evidence that protein truncating variants in BRIP1 are associated with breast cancer risk: implications for gene panel testing. J Med Genet2016;53:298309.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    KaurahPMacMillanABoydN. Founder and recurrent CDH1 mutations in families with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. JAMA2007;297:23602372.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    PharoahPDGuilfordPCaldasC. Incidence of gastric cancer and breast cancer in CDH1 (E-cadherin) mutation carriers from hereditary diffuse gastric cancer families. Gastroenterology2001;121:13481353.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    WalshTCasadeiSCoatsKH. Spectrum of mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in families at high risk of breast cancer. JAMA2006;295:13791388.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    ApostolouPFostiraF. Hereditary breast cancer: the era of new susceptibility genes. Biomed Res Int2013;2013:747318.

  • 25.

    IniestaMDGorinMAChienLC. Absence of CHEK2*1100delC mutation in families with hereditary breast cancer in North America. Cancer Genet Cytogenet2010;202:136140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    KuusistoKMBebelAVihinenM. Screening for BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BRIP1, RAD50, and CDH1 mutations in high-risk Finnish BRCA1/2-founder mutation-negative breast and/or ovarian cancer individuals. Breast Cancer Res2011;13:R20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    CybulskiCWokolorczykDJakubowskaA. Risk of breast cancer in women with a CHEK2 mutation with and without a family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2011;29:37473752.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    WeischerMBojesenSEEllervikC. CHEK2*1100delC genotyping for clinical assessment of breast cancer risk: meta-analyses of 26,000 patient cases and 27,000 controls. J Clin Oncol2008;26:542548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Naslund-KochCNordestgaardBGBojesenSE. Increased risk for other cancers in addition to breast cancer for CHEK2*1100delC heterozygotes estimated from the Copenhagen General Population Study. J Clin Oncol2016;34:12081216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    CHEK2*1100delC and susceptibility to breast cancer: a collaborative analysis involving 10,860 breast cancer cases and 9,065 controls from 10 studies. Am J Hum Genet2004;74:11751182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    SchmidtMKHogervorstFvan HienR. Age- and tumor subtype-specific breast cancer risk estimates for CHEK2*1100delC carriers. J Clin Oncol2016;34:27502760.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    HanFFGuoCLLiuLH. The effect of CHEK2 variant I157T on cancer susceptibility: evidence from a meta-analysis. DNA Cell Biol2013;32:329335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    BonadonaVBonaitiBOlschwangS. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA2011;305:23042310.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    KohlmannWGruberS. Lynch Syndrome. In: {agonRAAdamMPArdingerHH eds. GeneReviews [Internet]Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    LindorNMPetersenGMHadleyDW. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA2006;296:15071517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    WatsonPVasenHFMecklinJP. The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer2008;123:444449.

  • 37.

    ChenLMYangKYLittleSE. Gynecologic cancer prevention in Lynch syndrome/hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. Obstet Gynecol2007;110:1825.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    SchmelerKMLynchHTChenLM. Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med2006;354:261269.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    StucklessSGreenJDawsonL. Impact of gynecological screening in Lynch syndrome carriers with an MSH2 mutation. Clin Genet2013;83:359364.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    SyngalSBrandREChurchJM. ACG clinical guideline: Genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol2015;110:223262; quiz 263.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    StoffelEMManguPBGruberSB. Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement of the familial risk-colorectal cancer: European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Clin Oncol2015;33:209217.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 147: Lynch syndrome. Obstet Gynecol2014;124:10421054.

  • 43.

    AuranenAJoutsiniemiT. A systematic review of gynecological cancer surveillance in women belonging to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) families. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand2011;90:437444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    JarvinenHJRenkonen-SinisaloLAktan-CollanK. Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol2009;27:47934797.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Renkonen-SinisaloLButzowRLeminenA. Surveillance for endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Int J Cancer2007;120:821824.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    RijckenFEMouritsMJKleibeukerJH. Gynecologic screening in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol2003;91:7480.

  • 47.

    Dove-EdwinIBoksDGoffS. The outcome of endometrial carcinoma surveillance by ultrasound scan in women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma and familial colorectal carcinoma. Cancer2002;94:17081712.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    HarknessEFBarrowENewtonK. Lynch syndrome caused by MLH1 mutations is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer: a cohort study. J Med Genet2015;52:553556.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    BogdanovaNFeshchenkoSSchurmannP. Nijmegen Breakage Syndrome mutations and risk of breast cancer. Int J Cancer2008;122:802806.

  • 50.

    ZhangBBeeghly-FadielALongJZhengW. Genetic variants associated with breast-cancer risk: comprehensive research synopsis, meta-analysis, and epidemiological evidence. Lancet Oncol2011;12:477488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51.

    SteffenJNowakowskaDNiwinskaA. Germline mutations 657del5 of the NBS1 gene contribute significantly to the incidence of breast cancer in Central Poland. Int J Cancer2006;119:472475.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52.

    ZhangGZengYLiuZWeiW. Significant association between Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 657del5 polymorphism and breast cancer risk. Tumour Biol2013;34:27532757.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    UusitaloERantanenMKallionpaaRA. Distinctive cancer associations in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. J Clin Oncol2016;34:19781986.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 54.

    RosenfeldAListernickRCharrowJGoldmanS. Neurofibromatosis type 1 and high-grade tumors of the central nervous system. Childs Nerv Syst2010;26:663667.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55.

    NishidaTTsujimotoMTakahashiT. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors in Japanese patients with neurofibromatosis type I. J Gastroenterol2016;51:571578.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56.

    WalkerLThompsonDEastonD. A prospective study of neurofibromatosis type 1 cancer incidence in the UK. Br J Cancer2006;95:233238.

  • 57.

    SharifSMoranAHusonSM. Women with neurofibromatosis 1 are at a moderately increased risk of developing breast cancer and should be considered for early screening. J Med Genet2007;44:481484.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58.

    EvansDG. Are we ready for targeted early breast cancer detection strategies in women with NF1 aged 30-49 years?Am J Med Genet A2012;158a:30543055.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59.

    SeminogOOGoldacreMJ. Age-specific risk of breast cancer in women with neurofibromatosis type 1. Br J Cancer2015;112:15461548.

  • 60.

    FernerREHusonSMThomasN. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of individuals with neurofibromatosis 1. J Med Genet2007;44:8188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61.

    ThompsonERRowleySMLiN. Panel testing for familial breast cancer: calibrating the tension between research and clinical care. J Clin Oncol2016;34:14551459.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62.

    CasadeiSNorquistBMWalshT. Contribution of inherited mutations in the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 to familial breast cancer. Cancer Res2011;71:22222229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63.

    CouchFJHartSNSharmaP. Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol2015;33:304311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64.

    CybulskiCKluzniakWHuzarskiT. Clinical outcomes in women with breast cancer and a PALB2 mutation: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet Oncol2015;16:638644.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 65.

    AntoniouACCasadeiSHeikkinenT. Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N Engl J Med2014;371:497506.

  • 66.

    KanchiKLJohnsonKJLuC. Integrated analysis of germline and somatic variants in ovarian cancer. Nat Commun2014;5:3156.

  • 67.

    TischkowitzMXiaB. PALB2/FANCN: recombining cancer and Fanconi anemia. Cancer Res2010;70:73537359.

  • 68.

    LovedayCTurnbullCRuarkE. Germline RAD51C mutations confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet2012;44:475476; author reply 476.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69.

    LovedayCTurnbullCRamsayE. Germline mutations in RAD51D confer susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet2011;43:879882.

  • 70.

    SongHDicksERamusSJ. Contribution of germline mutations in the RAD51B, RAD51C, and RAD51D genes to ovarian cancer in the population. J Clin Oncol2015;33:29012907.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71.

    HearleNSchumacherVMenkoFH. Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res2006;12:32093215.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Provided content development and/or authorship assistance.

Downloadable materials

Article Sections

Figures

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

    Version 2.2017 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2017, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

    Version 2.2017 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2017, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery

    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian, Version 2.2017

    Version 2.2017 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2017, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Article Information

PubMed

Google Scholar

Related Articles

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1011 1011 238
PDF Downloads 250 250 66
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0