BACKGROUND: In women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer, the identification of a mutation in breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 has important implications for screening and prevention counseling. Uncertainty regarding the role of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high‐risk women from diverse ancestral backgrounds exists because of variability in prevalence estimates of deleterious (disease‐associated) mutations in non‐white populations. In this study, the authors examined the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in an ethnically diverse group of women who were referred for genetic testing.METHODS: In this cross‐sectional analysis, the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations was assessed in a group of non‐Ashkenazi Jewish women who underwent genetic testing.RESULTS: From 1996 to 2006, 46,276 women who met study criteria underwent DNA full‐sequence analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Deleterious mutations were identified in 12.5% of women, and recurrent deleterious mutations (prevalence >2%) were identified in all ancestral groups. Women of non‐European descent were younger (mean age, 45.9 years; standard deviation [SD], 11.6 years) than European women (mean age, 50 years; SD, 11.9 years; P < .001). Women of African (15.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.3 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.1‐1.5]) and Latin American (14.8%; OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1‐1.4]) ancestries had a significantly higher prevalence of deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations compared with women of Western European ancestry (12.1%), primarily because of an increased prevalence of BRCA1 mutations in those 2 groups. Non‐European ethnicity was associated strongly with having a variant of uncertain significance; however, reclassification decreased variant reporting (from 12.8%→5.9%), and women of African ancestry experienced the largest decline (58%).CONCLUSIONS: Mutation prevalence was found to be high among women who were referred for clinical BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing, and the risk was similar across diverse ethnicities. BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing is integral to cancer risk assessment in all high‐risk women. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: The phase III POLO study demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit for active olaparib maintenance therapy versus placebo for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA mutation. Here, we report the final analysis of overall survival (OS) and other secondary end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA mutation whose disease had not progressed after ≥ 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:2 to active maintenance olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was PFS; secondary end points included OS, time to second disease progression or death, time to first and second subsequent cancer therapies or death, time to discontinuation of study treatment or death, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: In total, 154 patients were randomly assigned (olaparib, n = 92; placebo, n = 62). No statistically significant OS benefit was observed (median 19.0 v 19.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.22; P = .3487). Kaplan-Meier OS curves separated at approximately 24 months, and the estimated 3-year survival after random assignment was 33.9% versus 17.8%, respectively. Median time to first subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < .0001), time to second subsequent cancer therapy or death (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.89; P = .0111), and time to discontinuation of study treatment or death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.63; P < .0001) significantly favored olaparib. The HR for second disease progression or death favored olaparib without reaching statistical significance (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.02; P = .0613). Olaparib was well tolerated with no new safety signals. CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant OS benefit was observed, the HR numerically favored olaparib, which also conferred clinically meaningful benefits including increased time off chemotherapy and long-term survival in a subset of patients.

Pathogenic variants (PVs) in ATM are relatively common, but the scope and magnitude of risk remains uncertain. This study aimed to estimate ATM PV cancer risks independent of family cancer history. This analysis included patients referred for hereditary cancer testing with a multi-gene panel (N = 627,742). Cancer risks for ATM PV carriers (N = 4,607) were adjusted for family history using multivariable logistic regression and reported as ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subanalyses of the c.7271T>G missense PV were conducted. Moderate-to-high risks for pancreatic (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 3.24–5.47), prostate (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.93–3.44), gastric (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.66–5.31), and invasive ductal breast (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.89–2.19) cancers were estimated for ATM PV carriers. Notably, c.7271T>G was associated with higher invasive ductal breast cancer risk (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 2.76–5.12) than other missense and truncating ATM PVs. Low-to-moderate risks were seen for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.61–2.02), male breast cancer (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.08–2.75), ovarian cancer (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.35–1.83), colorectal cancer (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24–1.79), and melanoma (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.81). ATM PVs are associated with multiple cancer risks and, while professional society guidelines support that carriers are eligible for increased breast and pancreatic cancer screening, increased screening for prostate and gastric cancer may also be warranted. c.7271T>G is associated with high risk for breast cancer, with a 3- to 4-fold risk increase that supports consideration of strategies for prevention and/or early detection.Prevention Relevance: This study estimated risks for multiple cancers associated with ATM pathogenic variants independent of family history. These results indicate that some common variants may be associated with higher breast cancer risks than previously appreciated and increased screening for prostate and gastric cancer may be warranted for carriers of ATM pathogenic variants.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 ( online only) for more. PURPOSE: To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer. METHODS: An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing. RESULTS: Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines .