Women at high inherited risk of ovarian cancer are offered risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) from age 35 to 45 years. Although potentially life-saving, RRSO may induce symptoms that negatively affect quality of life and impair long-term health. Clinical care following RRSO is often suboptimal. This scoping review describes how RRSO affects short- and long-term health and provides evidence-based international consensus recommendations for care from preoperative counselling to long-term disease prevention. This includes the efficacy and safety of hormonal and non-hormonal treatments for vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbance and sexual dysfunction and effective approaches to prevent bone and cardiovascular disease.

In the context of cancer predisposition syndromes, it is widely known that the correct interpretation of germline variants identified in multigene panel testing is essential for adequate genetic counseling and clinical decision making, in which variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are not considered actionable findings. Thus, their periodic re-evaluation using appropriate guidelines is notably important. In the present study, we compared the performance of the main variant classification guidelines (ACMG, Sherloc and ENIGMA) in variant reassessment, using as input a BRCA1/2 VUS case series (retrospective analysis) from Brazil, an ethnically diverse and admixed country with substantial challenges in VUS reclassification. As main findings, two of the 15 VUS analyzed were reclassified as likely pathogenic by the 3 guidelines, BRCA1 c.4987-3C > G (rs397509213) and BRCA2 c.7868A > G (rs80359012). Moreover, challenges in variant classification and reassessment are described and additional in silico data about structural impact of the variant BRCA2 c.7868A > G are provided. We hypothesize that the establishment of a framework to reassess VUS could improve this process in health centers that have not yet implemented this practice. Results of this study underscore that periodic monitoring of the functional, clinical, and bioinformatics data of a VUS by a multidisciplinary team are of utmost importance in clinical practice. When there is a specific guideline for a given gene, such as ENIGMA for BRCA1/2, it should be considered the first option for variant assessment. Finally, recruitment of VUS carriers and their relatives to participate in variant segregation studies and publication of VUS reclassification results in the international scientific literature should be encouraged.

UNASSIGNED: Genetic testing for at-risk patients with breast cancer should be routinely offered. Knowledge generated may influence both treatment decisions and cancer prevention strategies among the patients themselves and their relatives. In this study, we report on the prevalence and patterns of germline mutations, using commercially available next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multi-gene panels (MGP).
UNASSIGNED: Consecutive at-risk breast cancer patients, as determined by international guidelines, were offered germline genetic testing using a 20-gene NGS-based panel at a reference lab. Samples of peripheral blood were obtained for DNA extraction and genetic variants were classified as benign/likely benign (negative), pathogenic/likely pathogenic (positive) or variants of uncertain significance (VUS).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 1310 patients, median age (range) 43 (19-82) years, were enrolled. Age ≤45 years (n = 800, 61.1%) was the most common indication for testing. Positive family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancers, and triple-negative disease were among the common indications. Among the whole group, 184 (14.0%) patients had pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants; only 90 (48.9%) were in BRCA1 or BRCA2, while 94 (51.9%) others had pathogenic variants in other genes; mostly in APC, TP53, CHEK2 and PALB2. Mutation rates were significantly higher among patients with positive family history (p = 0.009); especially if they were 50 years or younger at the time of breast cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001). Patients with triple-negative disease had relatively higher rate (17.5%), and mostly in BRCA1/2 genes (71.4%). Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were reported in 559 (42.7%) patients; majority (90.7%) were in genes other than BRCA1 or BRCA2.
UNASSIGNED: Pathogenic mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2 are relatively common and could have been missed if genetic testing was restricted to BRCA1/2. The significantly high rate of VUS associated with multi-gene panel testing can be disturbing.

UNASSIGNED: The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has established a multigene panel (TruRisk®) for the analysis of risk genes for familial breast and ovarian cancer.
UNASSIGNED: An interdisciplinary team of experts from the GC-HBOC has evaluated the available data on risk modification in the presence of pathogenic mutations in these genes based on a structured literature search and through a formal consensus process.
UNASSIGNED: The goal of this work is to better assess individual disease risk and, on this basis, to derive clinical recommendations for patient counseling and care at the centers of the GC-HBOC from the initial consultation prior to genetic testing to the use of individual risk-adapted preventive/therapeutic measures.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is a syndrome defined by an increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer most commonly due to germline disease-causing variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but also other causative genes such as PALB2, ATM and CHEK2. As genetic testing becomes more prevalent and new clinical data emerge, updates of national guidelines are required to incorporate these advances in our knowledge. The aim of this work is to review the guidelines for HBOC genetic testing and clinical surveillance across European countries, mostly affiliated to the European Reference Network (ERN) for Genetic Tumor Risk Syndroms (GENTURIS). Young onset breast cancer (BC), triple negative phenotype, or bilateral BC are considered as criteria for genetic testing in all, with differences in age limits. Testing of invasive epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer is also universally accepted. While breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is consistently recommended in high-risk individuals, age of onset for mammograms differ between 30 and 40 years. Risk-reducing mastectomy is commonly offered as an option, while risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is universally recommended. The largest differences are observed with respect to ovarian surveillance prior to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and in breast surveillance for carriers of non-BRCA1/2 genes. These differences in national guidelines reflect the variations in clinical consensus that may be reached in the absence of consistent evidence for some recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of international guidelines on screening and management of patients with BRCA-mutated breast cancer (BC).
METHODS: Major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase; N=8) and gray literature sources were searched (January 2007 to February 2018). Latest guideline recommendations on genetic screening, counseling, and BC treatment of BRCA mutation carriers were summarized. Guidelines specific to germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation were captured where available.
RESULTS: A total of 3,775 records were retrieved and 32 guidelines were included; Europe (n=16), USA (n=11), Canada (n=3), Australia (n=1), and Japan (n=1) were included. Across and within guidelines, genetic counseling was recommended at multiple points in the care pathway, though the format was not always clearly defined. US guidelines emphasized that BRCA mutation testing should occur after specialized genetic counseling; other European guidelines are less prescriptive. BRCA testing eligibility criteria differed, with some guidelines being less restrictive; US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) BC guidelines specified that HER2-negative BC patients eligible for single-agent therapy are eligible for gBRCA testing. Fast-track BRCA testing is recommended in the Netherlands if treatment choice will affect survival, but in the UK only as part of clinical trials. More recent European (European School of Oncology-European Society for Medical Oncology 3rd International Consensus Guidelines for Breast Cancer in Young Women 2017, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie 2017 in Germany) and US (NCCN) guidelines have updated recommendations regarding gBRCA-targeted poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in BC.
CONCLUSIONS: Regional and organizational guidelines differ for genetic screening, counseling, and treatment of patients with BRCA-mutated BC. Guideline harmonization would optimize identification and management of these patients.

An international panel of experts representing 17 European countries and Israel convened to discuss current needs and future developments in BRCA testing and counselling and to issue consensus recommendations. The experts agreed that, with the increasing availability of high-throughput testing platforms and the registration of poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors, the need for genetic counselling and testing will rapidly increase in the near future. Consequently, the already existing shortage of genetic counsellors is expected to worsen and to compromise the quality of care particularly in individuals and families with suspected or proven hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Increasing educational efforts within the breast cancer caregiver community may alleviate this limitation by enabling all involved specialities to perform genetic counselling. In the therapeutic setting, for patients with a clinical suspicion of genetic susceptibility and if the results may have an immediate impact on the therapeutic strategy, the majority voted that BRCA1/2 testing should be performed after histological diagnosis of breast cancer, regardless of oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Experts also agreed that, in the predictive and therapeutic setting, genetic testing should be limited to individuals with a personal or family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant and should also include high-risk actionable genes beyond BRCA1/2. Of high-risk actionable genes, all pathological variants (i.e. class IV and V) should be reported; class III variants of unknown significance, should be reported provided that the current lack of clinical utility of the variant is expressly stated. Genetic counselling should always address the possibility that already tested individuals might be re-contacted in case new information on a particular variant results in a re-classification.

Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutation carriers with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) may benefit from precision therapies and their relatives should undergo tailored cancer prevention. In this study, we compared strategies to identify BRCA carriers with PDAC. Incident cases of PDAC were prospectively recruited for BRCA sequencing. Probands were evaluated using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) guidelines. The probability of each proband carrying a mutation was estimated by surveying genetic counselors and using BRCAPRO. BRCA mutations were detected in 22/484 (4.5%) probands. 152/484 (31.2%) and 16/484 (3.3%) probands met the NCCN and MOHLTC guidelines, respectively. The NCCN guidelines had higher sensitivity than the MOHLTC guidelines (0.864 versus 0.227, P < 0.001) but lower specificity (0.712 versus 0.976, P < 0.001). One hundred and nineteen genetic counselors completed the survey. Discrimination was similar between genetic counselors and BRCAPRO (area-under-the-curve: 0.755 and 0.775, respectively, P = 0.702). Genetic counselors generally overestimated (P = 0.008), whereas BRCAPRO severely underestimated (P < 0.001), the probability that each proband carried a mutation. Our results indicate that the NCCN guidelines and genetic counselors accurately identify BRCA mutations in PDAC, while the MOHLTC guidelines and BRCAPRO should be updated to account for the association between BRCA and PDAC.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of variant frequencies in the general population has become an essential part of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guidelines for interpreting sequence variants. We determined the optimal number of relevant ethnic controls that should be used to accurately calculate the odds ratio (OR) of genetic variants.
METHODS: Using the ACMG guidelines, we reclassified BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and variants of unknown significance in 745 Korean patients susceptible to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer compared with 1,314 Korean population controls.
RESULTS: We observed that the ORs were falsely inflated when we analyzed several variants using non-Korean population data. Our simulation indicated that the number of controls needed for the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval to exceed 1.0 varied according to the frequency of the variant in each patient group, with more than 820 controls needed for a variant existing in 1% of cases. Using a sufficient number of relevant population data, we could efficiently classify variants and identified the BRCA1 p.Leu1780Pro mutation as a possible pathogenic founder mutation in Korean patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that BRCA1 p.Leu1780Pro is a novel pathogenic mutation found in Korean patients. We also determined the optimal number of relevant ethnic controls needed for accurate variant classification according to the ACMG guidelines.

Splicing assays are commonly undertaken in the clinical setting to assess the clinical relevance of sequence variants in disease predisposition genes. A 5-tier classification system incorporating both bioinformatic and splicing assay information was previously proposed as a method to provide consistent clinical classification of such variants. Members of the ENIGMA Consortium Splicing Working Group undertook a study to assess the applicability of the scheme to published assay results, and the consistency of classifications across multiple reviewers. Splicing assay data were identified for 235 BRCA1 and 176 BRCA2 unique variants, from 77 publications. At least six independent reviewers from research and/or clinical settings comprehensively examined splicing assay methods and data reported for 22 variant assays of 21 variants in four publications, and classified the variants using the 5-tier classification scheme. Inconsistencies in variant classification occurred between reviewers for 17 of the variant assays. These could be attributed to a combination of ambiguity in presentation of the classification criteria, differences in interpretation of the data provided, nonstandardized reporting of results, and the lack of quantitative data for the aberrant transcripts. We propose suggestions for minimum reporting guidelines for splicing assays, and improvements to the 5-tier splicing classification system to allow future evaluation of its performance as a clinical tool.