Implication and Influence of Multigene Panel Testing with Genetic Counseling in Korean Patients with <i>BRCA1</i>/<i>2</i> Mutation-Negative Breast Cancer

Ji Soo Park; Saeam Shin; Yoon Jung Lee; Seung-Tae Lee; Eun Ji Nam; Jung Woo Han; Sun Hwa Lee; Tae Il Kim; Hyung Seok Park

doi:10.4143/crt.2021.978

Cancer Research and Treatment > Volume 54(4); 2022 > Article

Park, Shin, Lee, Lee, Nam, Han, Lee, Kim, and Park: Implication and Influence of Multigene Panel Testing with Genetic Counseling in Korean Patients with BRCA1/2 Mutation–Negative Breast Cancer

Original Article | Breast cancer

Cancer Res Treat. 2022; 54(4): 1099-1110.

Published online: November 17, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2021.978

Implication and Influence of Multigene Panel Testing with Genetic Counseling in Korean Patients with BRCA1/2 Mutation–Negative Breast Cancer

Ji Soo Park^1,²

, Saeam Shin^1,³, Yoon Jung Lee⁴, Seung-Tae Lee^1,³, Eun Ji Nam^1,⁵, Jung Woo Han^1,⁶, Sun Hwa Lee⁴, Tae Il Kim^1,⁷, Hyung Seok Park^1,⁸

¹Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Cancer Prevention Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Division of Nursing, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea

⁵Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women’s Life Medical Science, Women’s Cancer Clinic, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁷Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁸Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Hyung Seok Park, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea,
Tel: 82-2-2228-2100 Fax: 82-2-313-8289 E-mail: imgenius@yuhs.ac

Received August 30, 2021 Accepted November 15, 2021

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical implication of multigene panel testing of beyond BRCA genes in Korean patients with BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer.

Materials and Methods

Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 700 BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer patients received comprehensive multigene panel testing and genetic counseling. Among them, 347 patients completed a questionnaire about cancer worry, genetic knowledge, and preference for the method of genetic tests during pre- and post-genetic test counseling. The frequency of pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV) were analyzed.

Results

At least one PV/LPV of 26 genes was found in 76 out of 700 patients (10.9 %). The rate for PV/LPV was 3.4% for high-risk genes (17 PALB2, 6 TP53, and 1 PTEN). PV/LPVs of clinical actionable genes for breast cancer management, high-risk genes and other moderate-risk genes such as ATM, BARD1, BRIP, CHEK2, NF1, and RAD51D, were observed in 7.4%. Patients who completed the questionnaire showed decreased concerns about the risk of additional cancer development (average score, 4.21 to 3.94; p < 0.001), influence on mood (3.27 to 3.13; p < 0.001), influence on daily functioning (3.03 to 2.94; p=0.006); and increased knowledge about hereditary cancer syndrome (66.9 to 68.8; p=0.025) in post-test genetic counseling. High cancer worry scales (CWSs) were associated with age ≤ 40 years and the identification of PV/LPV. Low CWSs were related to the satisfaction of the counselee.

Conclusion

Comprehensive multigene panel test with genetic counseling is clinically applicable. It should be based on interpretable genetic information, consideration of potential psychological consequences, and proper preventive strategies.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, Genetic testing, Multigene panels, Beyond BRCA, Cancer worry

Introduction

With the discovery of breast cancer susceptibility genes and recognizing the significantly increased breast cancer risks in the carriers with pathogenic variant (PV) or likely pathogenic variant (LPV), clinical practice regarding hereditary or familial breast cancers has undergone considerable changes for several decades. The most well-known hereditary breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations result in cumulative risk of female breast cancer by the age of 80 of 57%–72% and 45%–69%, respectively [1–3]. Many current clinical guidelines recommend preventive strategies for carriers of BRCA mutations [4–7].

In addition, with the commercialization of multigene panel tests using next-generation sequencing, it has become more common to test germline mutations of other breast cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA using multigene panels. Despite the cost effectiveness and shortened turnaround time to test multiple genes, comprehensive multigene panel tests still have several limitations, including a high likelihood for detection of variants of unknown significance (VUS) or secondary findings, as well as limited information and preventive strategies especially for the carriers with low to moderate-penetrance cancer susceptibility genetic variants.

A recent study reported that multigene panel tests did not increase cancer worry in the patients with breast cancer, compared to those who underwent BRCA1/2-only testing [8]. However, because the results of multigene panel tests can provoke negative emotional effects exceeding potential preventive benefit for some patients, there is still the opinion that multigene panel tests should be carefully applied in accordance with phenotypical features of multiple hereditary cancer syndrome or limited to individuals without a known genetic mutation of a single syndrome [7,9]. Therefore, the use of comprehensive multigene panel testing requires discussion of clinical actionability and consideration of possible negative emotional effects.

In this study, we prospectively tested the germline genetic variants beyond BRCA in Korean BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer patients with high risk of hereditary cancer syndrome using a comprehensive multigene panel. Subsequently, we evaluated the frequency of PV/LPV in clinically actionable genes for breast cancer, cancer worry, genetic knowledge, and preference for the sequence and methods of multigene panel testing among the patients. In this manner, we considered clinical actionability and emotional effect of comprehensive multigene panel testing.

Materials and Methods

1. Study population

We enrolled Korean BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer patients with at least one high-risk factor for hereditary breast cancer syndrome. Risk factors of hereditary breast cancer were defined as follows: (1) at least one case of breast or ovarian cancer in first- or second-degree relatives; (2) a first diagnosis of breast cancer before age 40; (3) bilateral breast cancer; (4) male breast cancer and (5) co-diagnosis with breast and other cancers in the same patient. Between March 2016 and December 2019, 1,866 breast cancer patients with high-risk factors were tested for BRCA1/2 germline mutations, and 76 carriers with BRCA1 mutations and 119 carriers with BRCA2 mutations (one patient had both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations) were identified in Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Out of the patients without BRCA1/2 mutations, we conducted comprehensive multigene panel tests for 700 participants, and additionally evaluated cancer worry, genetic knowledge, and attitude toward the multigene panel tests for 374 participants who agreed to answer questionnaires before and after the genetic tests. A flowchart including study design and process is shown in S1 Fig.

2. Comprehensive multigene panel-based variant analysis

Genomic DNA was extracted from the patients’ peripheral blood samples. We used a customized targeted capture sequencing panel which included all coding sequences and intron-exon boundaries of the coding exon from 65 cancer predisposition genes (APC, ALK, ATM, AXIN1, AXIN2, BARD1, BLM, BMPR1A, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CDK4, CDKN2A, CHEK2, CTNNB1, EPCAM, EXO1, FANCM, FLCN, GALNT12, GPC3, GREM1, KIF1B, KRAS, LMO1, MEN1, MLH1, MLH3, MRE11A, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, NF1, NF2, NRAS, NTRK1, PALB2, PAX6, PHOX2B, PMS1, PMS2, POLD1, POLE, PPM1D, PRSS1, PTCH1, PTEN, RAD50, RAD51, RAD51C, RAD51D, RB1, RET, RUNX1, SDHA, SDHAF2, SDHB, SLX4, SMAD4, STK11, TP53, VHL, and WT1). Products with each capture reaction were sequenced by 151 base pair paired-end reads on a NextSeq 550Dx instrument (Illumina, San Diego, CA). High-quality sequencing data with an average depth of 500–1,000 fold was obtained.

We identified all single base pair substitutions, insertion-deletions, and copy number variants (CNVs) in each gene. All likely deleterious variants were validated by Sanger sequencing. Split-read-based detection of large insertions and deletions was conducted using the Pindel and Manta algorithms. CNVs detected by ExomeDepth software [10] were further crosschecked with a base-level read depth normalization algorithm implemented in the DxSeq Analyzer (Dxome, Seoul, Korea). All possible large rearrangements were confirmed by the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification method. Genetic variants were classified using a five-tier system following guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics [11], and PV/LPV was considered to be a mutation in the current study [12].

3. Clinical data collection

Sociodemographic factors (sex, current age, age at first diagnosis of breast cancer, education level, marital status, and the number of children) were obtained during the baseline interview prior to pre-test counseling. The family history of cancer within the third-degree relatives was assessed by drawing a pedigree for each family during the pre-test counseling. The characteristics of breast cancer (pathological diagnosis, laterality, and subtype) and presence of other primary malignancy were obtained by review of medical records with permission from each participant.

4. Definition of the genes of interest

Among the genes tested using the comprehensive multigene panel, 14 genes were defined as clinically actionable genes [13] for risk-reduction of breast cancer using recommended strategies according to the NCCN, ASCO, or ESMO guidelines [4,6,7]: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53. Considering the penetrance for hereditary breast cancer in the previous reports and guidelines, we defined BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, and TP53 as high-risk genes; ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, NF1, RAD51C, and RAD51D as moderate-risk genes; and other genes as unknown-risk genes for breast cancer [7,14–16].

5. Genetic counseling

For all the patients enrolled in this study, the researchers provided pre- and post-test counseling. Genetic counseling was conducted by a trained medical oncologist and two registered nurses. The three researchers had completed a genetic counseling program certified by the Korean Breast Cancer Society. The pre-test counseling included the significance and utility of genetic variants with information, possible discrimination in insurance and employment, and alternatives to genetic testing. Post-test counseling was regarding interpretation of the genetic tests results and recommendations based on the results. For the mutation carriers, we provided preventive strategies via a multidisciplinary clinic consisting of various cancer specialists. We also recommended familial disclosure of genetic test result, and provided familial genetic testing with counseling for the family members.

6. Questionnaires about cancer worry, genetic knowledge, and attitude to genetic tests

In this study, cancer worry and its influence on mood and daily functioning were measured using a five-point Likert scale from Lerman’s Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) [17], which was modified under Korean translation [18,19], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.853. Genetic knowledge was measured using a 12-item true-false scale test adapted from Erblich’s Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling Knowledge Questionnaire (BGKQ) [20], which was translated and applied to previous studies [21,22], with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.817 in this study. Total score of the test was calculated on a scale of 100 points. After a genetic test and post-test counseling, we assessed the patient’s satisfaction about the comprehensive multigene panel tests with counseling using the question, “How much were your questions regarding the possibility of hereditary breast cancer answered after the multigene panel test?” with answer choices using the five ordinal variables of “very satisfied,” “satisfied,” “neutral,” “dissatisfied,” and “very dissatisfied.” The second question was asked to assess the patient preference for the sequence of genetic tests, “You did multigene panel tests after confirmation of negative for BRCA1/2 mutation. If you can select the sequence for testing BRCA1/2 genes and other genetic variants beyond BRCA, which of the method would you prefer?” with four choices, “concurrent tests using multigene panel,” “multigene panel test only for BRCA1/2 negative patients,” “BRCA1/2 mutation tests only,” or “not sure.”

7. Statistical analysis

Correlation between each risk factor and identified PV/LPV was analyzed using a chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test if indicated. Differences between pre-test and post-test values of CWS and BGKQ were compared using paired t tests. Clinico-genetic factors associated with genetic test results and post-test cancer worry were analyzed using single and multiple linear logistic regression modeling. Multiple linear logistic regression modeling was conducted using the variables with a p-value < 0.2 in the simple linear logistic regression model. A p-value < 0.05 was designated as statistically significant and all tests were two-sided. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS ver. 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results

1. Overview of clinical characteristics of the patients accor-ding to the results of genetic tests

This study included a total of 700 BRCA1/2 mutation–negative breast cancer patients aged 18–83 years who had at least one high-risk factor for hereditary breast cancer syndrome. Among the patients, we identified at least one PV/LPV of 26 genes in 76 patients (10.9 %). The frequency and spectrum of genetic variants are shown in Fig. 1. Another 535 patients (76.4%) had at least one VUS of 63 genes. No mutation nor VUS was found in 89 patients (12.7%) in this study. The baseline characteristics of the patients according to the presence of PV/LPV are presented in Table 1.

Among the 76 patients with any PV/LPV, 24 patients (31.6% of the PV/LPV carriers, and 3.4% of the total participants) had PV/LPV in one of three high-risk genes: 17 in PALB2, six in TP53, and one in PTEN. Information on the genetic variants is shown in Table 2 with detailed clinicopathologic characteristics of the patients. PV/LPV in moderate-risk genes were identified in 28 patients (36.8% of the PV/LPV carriers, and 4% of the total participants) for six genes: 10 in ATM, seven in BRIP1, seven in RAD51D, two in CHEK2, one in BARD1, and one in NF1 (S2 Table). PV/LPV in unknown-risk genes were found in 24 patients (31.6% of the PV/LPV carriers, and 3.4% of the total participants) for 16 genes: seven in RAD50, two in PMS2, two in EXO1, two in MRE11A, one in ALK, one in BLM, one in CDKN2A, one in FANCM, one in MSH2, one in PPM1D, one in SDHB, one in VHL, one in both EPCAM and SDHA, one in both JAK2 and NTRK1, and one in both PMS2 and RAD50 (S3 Table).

Fifty-two patients with PV/LPV in clinically actionable genes beyond BRCA (68.4% of the PV/LPV carriers and 7.4% of the total participants) were more likely to have bilateral breast cancer compared to those without any PV/LPV and VUS (odds ratio, 5.619; 95% confidence interval, 1.623 to 19.455; p=0.006) (Table 3).

2. Cancer worry and genetic knowledge before and after multigene panel testing with genetic counseling

A total of 374 patients completed the questionnaires regarding cancer worry, its influence on mood and daily functioning, and genetic knowledge before and after genetic tests with counseling with a median time interval of 21 days between questionnaires (range, 14 to 85). After genetic tests with counseling about multigene panel, the patients showed decreased concern about the possibility of cancer in the future (average score of pre-test, 4.21±0.883 to post-test, 3.94±1.048; p < 0.001), decreased influence of cancer worry on mood (average score of pre-test, 3.27±0.645 to post-test, 3.13±0.694; p < 0.001), and decreased influence of cancer worry on daily functioning (average score of pre-test, 3.03±0.758 to post-test, 2.94±0.729; p=0.006). In addition, there was a slight but significant increase in the average score of knowledge about hereditary cancer (pre-test, 66.9±21.7 to post-test, 68.8±21.8; p=0.025) (Table 4).

3. Satisfaction and preference about comprehensive multigene panel tests beyond BRCA

Among the 374 patients who answered the survey about satisfaction after the comprehensive multigene panel tests with counseling, the answer about hereditary cancer risks were “very satisfied” for 173 patients (46.3%) and “satisfied” for 182 patients (48.7%). Another 11 patients (2.9%) were dissatisfied, and eight patients (2.1%) were neutral about the genetic tests with counseling (Fig. 2A). When the answers were converted to a five-point Likert score (from “very dissatisfied” as point 1, to “very satisfied” as point 5), the median point for satisfaction was 4 (range 2 to 5). Meanwhile, in the simple regression and multiple regression models, a high CWSs were associated with young patients (aged ≤ 40 years) and the identification of PV/LPV, and low CWSs were related to higher satisfaction regarding genetic test with counseling (Tables 5 and 6).

For the sequence of genetic tests, 176 patients (47.1%) preferred to simultaneously test BRCA1/2 and the genes beyond BRCA using comprehensive multigene panel, and 164 patients (43.9%) selected a sequential test including BRCA1/2 mutation tests followed by multigene panel testing beyond BRCA for the BRCA1/2 mutation-negative patients. Another three patients (0.8%) wanted to test BRCA1/2 mutations only, and 31 patients (8.3%) had no preference for the sequence or method of genetic tests (Fig. 2B).

Discussion

The current study demonstrated that one out of ten patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer and risk factors for hereditary breast cancer had PV or LPV of cancer predisposition genes. Considering the general rule of 10 for threshold of certain testing, multigene panel tests can be justified and applicable in clinical practice for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer and risk factors for hereditary breast cancer. For those with PV/LPV, clinical actionability and psychological influence should be considered in genetic counseling.

In this study, among the germline BRCA1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer patients, PV/LPV were identified in 3.4% of the subjects with high-risk genes, and a total of 7.4% of the subjects with clinically actionable genes with recommendations in the current clinical guidelines for hereditary breast cancer, which was consistent with 4.9%–11.4% frequency of PV/LPV beyond BRCA in the previous results of multigene panel tests [23–27]. We provided intensive screening using mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging to all of 52 patients with clinically actionable genetic mutations. No contralateral prophylactic mastectomy was conducted.

Among the high-risk genes, PV/LPV were most frequently identified in PALB2 gene (n=17). The carriers of PALB2 PV/LPV were diagnosed with the primary breast cancer at median 47.1 years of age (range, 28.2 to 62.7), and 11 of 17 (54.7%) carriers had family history of breast cancer (Table 2). Zhou et al. [28] reported that PALB2-related breast cancer showed clinical characteristics including a family history of cancer, larger tumor, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), lymph nodal positivity, and bilateral breast cancer. Although proportion of TNBC (29.4%), frequency of family history of breast and/or cancer (76.5%), and proportion of bilateral breast cancer (11.8%) in this study were slightly higher than those in the report, clinical significance could not be shown due to small number of the participants and control group. The second most frequent high-risk PV/LPV was found in TP53 (n=6). Among six carriers, five did not meet the criteria for the classic Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) [29], or those of Birch et al. [30], Eeles [31], and Bougeard et al. [32]. All PV/LPVs found in this study were missense variants (Table 2). Bougeard et al. [32] previously suggested early-onset breast cancer diagnosed before age 31 years as a novel criterion for TP53 genetic testing, based on the clinical findings of the carriers with missense variants in TP53, and tumor spectrum of the adult TP53 PV/LPV carriers. However, most of the carriers in our study had neither personal/family history of LFS tumors nor early-onset breast cancer. In addition, eight kinds of missense VUS were also identified (S4 Table). It is necessary to further investigate the clinical penetrance and tumor spectrum of the carriers with TP53 missense variants.

The present study additionally focused on the effect of genetic counseling after multigene panel tests. Among 374 patients who answered the questionnaire, 35 patients (9.4%) had PV/LPV in the genes beyond BRCA (S5 Table). Our results demonstrated that comprehensive multigene panel tests with genetic counseling can decrease the patients’ cancer worry and increase the patients’ knowledge about hereditary cancer syndrome. However, cancer worry of the PV/LPV carriers did not change after genetic tests with counseling (S6 Table), which was consistent with the previous study [33]. Decreased cancer worry was probably related to the psychologic relief of the patients with VUS or negative results. In a previous study regarding BRCA1/2 mutation tests, Richter et al. [34] reported that 36% of the VUS carriers failed to recall the clinical significance of their result, and their cancer worry and cancer preventive strategies were similar to those for patients without mutation. Otherwise, in a meta-analysis study including the results of 13 multigene panel tests and two exome sequencing tests of hereditary syndromes, the patients with VUS had higher genetic test-specific concerns compared to those with negative results, and lower concerns compared to those with positive results [35]. Katz et al. [8] suggested that the impact of cancer worry was not different by genetic test type or test results, but is rather influenced by ethnic and educational factors. In addition to the debate about the correlation between genetic testing result and cancer worry, the impact of the multigene panel testing result and clinical factors on cancer worry of Asian breast cancer patients has not been fully evaluated, since most previous studies were conducted in Western countries [8,34,35].

Genetic counseling is defined as a communication process which deals with human problems associated with the occurrence, or risk of occurrence, of a genetic disorder in a family [36]. Considering that one of the goals of genetic counseling is to facilitate the ability to use genetic information under the cognitive interpretation [37], we assessed the satisfaction level using the counselees’ subjective degree of interpretation of the genetic information to the possibility of hereditary breast cancer. Although the satisfaction of the counselee was distributed at lower scores in the carriers with PV/LPV (median, 4; range, 2 to 5) than in those with VUS (median, 4; range, 2 to 5; p < 0.001), or than in those with negative result (median, 5; range, 2 to 5; p=0.001), 85.7% of the patients answered that they were satisfied with the information gained by genetic testing with counseling, even among the carriers with PV/LPV (S7 Fig.).

Based on the results that clinically actionable PV/LPV were commonly identified in multigene panel tests and that cancer worry was decreased after multigene panel tests with genetic counseling, the authors suggest that multigene panel tests can be usefully applied in clinical practice. However, we are needed to embrace the potential discomfort of the patients who still prefer BRCA1/2 mutation tests prior to multigene panel tests beyond BRCA. In this study, the patients who preferred concurrent multigene panel tests were younger (median years of age, 39.8 vs. 44.6; p=0.004) and more highly educated (proportion of college or university graduated, 74.2% vs. 62.7%; p=0.029) than the patients who preferred sequential tests. Given that comprehensive multigene panel includes complex genetic information about multiple disease penetrance and diverse kinds of malignancy, well-structured genetic counseling will help to support comprehension and clinical decisions of the patients who have difficulties in getting multigene tests.

There are several limitations in this study. First, considering the frequency of PV/LPV in moderate- or low-penetrance genes beyond BRCA, a larger number of patients is needed to analyze an accurate incidence rate of each variant and clinical features of the carriers. Second, clinical actionability was assessed only based on the detection of genetic variant described in current clinical guidelines. Whether the identification of genetic mutation with counseling can actually improve a long-term preventive strategy and the survival outcome of the carriers is still controversial. Third, cancer worry and satisfaction of the patients with VUS and negative results could be influenced by miscomprehension about VUS and uninformative results, respectively. Despite the limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study simultaneously analyzed the potential actionability and psychological influence of comprehensive multigene panel tests in hereditary breast cancer.

Despite several debates, multigene panel tests are rapidly replacing the traditional single-gene direct sequencing methods. It is important for clinicians to improve the comprehensive multigene panel tests with genetic counseling programs based on the interpretable genetic information, consideration of potential psychological consequences, and proper preventive strategies for the carrier.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2021-978_S1_Fig.pdf

crt-2021-978_S2_Table.pdf

crt-2021-978_S3_Table.pdf

crt-2021-978_S4_Table.pdf

crt-2021-978_S5_Table.pdf

crt-2021-978_S6_Table.pdf

crt-2021-978_S7_Fig.pdf

Notes

Ethical Statement

The ethical principles for medical research established by the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki were followed throughout the study. The institutional review board at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea reviewed and approved this study (IRB approval number: 4-2015-0819 and 4-2018-0259). We obtained informed consent from all patients who participated in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Park JS, Park HS.

Collected the data: Park JS, Shin S, Lee YJ, Lee ST, Nam EJ, Han JW, Lee SH, Kim TI, Park HS.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Park JS, Shin S, Lee YJ, Lee ST, Nam EJ, Han JW, Lee SH, Kim TI, Park HS.

Performed the analysis: Park JS, Shin S, Lee YJ, Lee ST, Park HS.

Wrote the paper: Park JS, Park HS.

Administration support: Park HS.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgments

Some of the results of this study were presented as a poster presentation at the 2019 ESMO ASIA held on November 22–24, 2019, in Singapore, and as an E-poster presentation at the 13th Annual Meeting of Korean Society of Medical Oncology & 2020 International Conference held on September 3–4, 2020, in Republic of Korea.

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF-2018R1C1B6009449).

Fig. 1

Result of germline multigene panel tests in BRCA mutation-negative patients with high risk for hereditary breast cancer (n=700). (A) Proportion of the patients according to the results. (B) Frequency of likely pathogenic/pathogenic genetic variants (genes, n=26; patients, n=76)^a). VUS, variants of unknown significance. ^a)Three patients had two likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants simultaneously (RAD50 and PMS2, EPCAM and SDHA, and JAK2 and NTRK1).

Fig. 2

Result of the survey about genetic counseling on multigene panel testing (n=374). (A) Satisfaction about the information gained by genetic tests with counseling. (B) Preference of the sequence and method of genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutation test and multigene test beyond BRCA.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the patients according to the genetic results (n=700)

Clinicopathological variable	PV/LPV (n=76)	VUS or ND (n=624)	p-value
Age at first diagnosis of breast cancer (yr)	44 (25–82)	43 (17–83)	0.628
Sex
Male	2 (2.6)	5 (0.8)	0.171^a)
Female	74 (97.4)	619 (99.2)
Breast cancer, laterality
Unilateral	64 (84.2)	554 (88.8)	0.250^a)
Bilateral (metachronous)	6 (7.9)	24 (3.8)
Bilateral (synchronous)	6 (7.9)	46 (7.4)
Pathology
IDC	55 (72.4)	435 (69.7)	0.545^a)
ILC	5 (6.6)	18 (2.9)
DCIS	11 (14.5)	119 (19.1)
LCIS	1 (1.3)	10 (1.6)
Others	4 (5.2)	39 (6.3)
Unknown	0	3 (0.5)
Hormone receptor
Positive	51 (67.1)	156 (25.0)	0.255^a)
Negative	23 (30.3)	460 (73.7)
Unknown	2 (2.6)	8 (1.3)
TNBC
TNBC	15 (19.7)	98 (15.7)	0.367
Others	61 (80.3)	526 (84.3)
Education
University/College graduate	43 (56.6)	375 (60.1)	0.301^a)
High school graduate	24 (31.6)	161 (25.8)
Middle graduate	1 (1.3)	26 (4.2)
No/Elementary school graduate	3 (3.9)	9 (1.5)
Unknown	5 (6.6)	53 (8.5)
Family history of breast cancer
Yes	30 (39.5)	288 (46.2)	0.269
No	46 (60.5)	336 (53.8)
Family history of ovarian cancer
Yes	7 (9.2)	26 (4.2)	0.076^a)
No	69 (90.8)	598 (95.8)
Second cancer history (multi-selection)
Yes	19 (25.0)	86 (13.8)	0.010
Thyroid	9 (11.8)	40 (6.4)	0.080
Colorectal	4 (5.3)	10 (1.6)	0.055^a)
Lung	2 (2.6)	4 (0.6)	0.131^a)
Endometrium	1 (1.3)	6 (1.0)	0.554^a)
Ovary	2 (2.6)	3 (0.6)	0.131^a)
Pancreas	0	2 (0.3)	> 0.99^a)
Sarcoma	0	2 (0.3)	> 0.99^a)
Lymphoma	0	2 (0.3)	> 0.99^a)
Leukemia	0	1 (0.2)	> 0.99^a)
Kidney	0	4 (0.6)	> 0.99^a)
Urothelial	0	1 (0.2)	> 0.99^a)
Stomach	0	12 (1.9)	0.630^a)
Small bowel	1 (1.3)	1 (0.2)	0.205^a)
Paraganglioma	1 (1.3)	0	0.109^a)
Liver	0	3 (0.5)	> 0.99^a)
Uterine cervix	4 (5.3)	2 (0.3)	0.002^a)
No	57 (75.0)	538 (86.2)
Experience of full-term delivery
Yes	63 (82.9)	461 (73.9)	0.087
No	13 (17.1)	163 (26.1)

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%). DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; LCIS, lobular carcinoma in situ; LPV, likely pathogenic variant; ND, not detected; PV, pathogenic variant; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer; VUS, variant of unknown significance.

^a) These values were analyzed using Fisher exact tests.

Table 2

Characteristics of patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in high-risk genes for breast cancer beyond BRCA (n=24)

Case	Sex	Age at first diagnosis of breast cancer (yr)	Breast cancer Side/Path (subtype)	Family history kind (degree*n)	Second cancer	Affected genes	Nucleotide change	Amino acid change	Effect	Mode of inheritance	Zygosity	dbSNP
P027	F	34	Rt/IDC (TNBC)	CRC (2*1)	-	PALB2	c.1381C>G	p.Gln461Glu	MS	AD	Hetero	-
P030	F	38	Lt/ILC (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (11), Lung (11)	-	PALB2	c.1426delA	p.Arg476Glufs	FS	AD	Hetero	-
P041	F	50	Lt/DCIS (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (11), Lung (11)	-	PALB2	c.1426delA	p.Arg476Glufs	FS	AD	Hetero	-
P032	F	38	Lt/LCIS (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (2*2)	-	PALB2	c.1516C>T	p.Gln506Ter	NS	AD	Hetero	-
P036	F	47	Rt/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (11), Stomach (12)	AoV	PALB2	c.2257C>T	p.Arg753Ter	NS	AD	Hetero	-
P042	F	54	Lt/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (11), Kidney (11), Esophagus (1*1)	-	PALB2	c.228_229delAT	p.Ile76Metfs	FS	AD	Hetero	-
P048	F	44	Rt/DCIS (ER+/HER2−)	Stomach (2*1)	Ovary	PALB2	c.355C>T	p.Gln119Ter	NS	AD	Hetero	-
P005	F	28	Rt/DCIS (ER+/HER2−)	Stomach (21), Pros (21), Liver (2*1)	-	PALB2	c.2406_2407delTG	p.Cys802Ter	NS	AD	Hetero	-
P040	F	52	Lt/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Stomach (11), Skin (11)	Cervix	PALB2	c.2485C>T	p.Gln829Ter	NS	AD	Hetero	-
P014	F	25	Lt/Medullary (TNBC)	Breast (22), CRC (22)	-	PALB2	c.2748+1G>A	-	Splicing	AD	Hetero	rs753153576
P049	F	62	Lt/IDC (TNBC)	Breast (11), Stomach (12)	-	PALB2	c.2748+1G>A	-	Splicing	AD	Hetero	rs753153576
P063	F	45	Rt/ILC (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (21, 31)	-	PALB2	c.3256C>T	p.Arg1086Ter	NS	AD	Hetero	rs587776527
P101	F	60	Lt/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Ovary (1*1)	-	PALB2	c.3350+5G>A	-	Splicing	AD	Hetero	rs587782566
P102	F	38	Bil(syn)/IDC (ER+/HER2+)	Ovary (1*1)	-	PALB2	c.3350+5G>A	-	Splicing	AD	Hetero	rs587782566
P010	F	50	Rt/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (11), Stomach (11), Panc (21), Sarcoma (11)	-	PALB2	Exon 1_11 deletion	-	Exon deletion	AD	Hetero	-
P011	F	47	Bil(met)/IDC (TNBC)	Breast (1*2)	-	PALB2	Exon 11 deletion	-	Exon deletion	AD	Hetero	-
P059	F	47	Rt/IDC (TNBC)	Breast (22), CRC (11, 2*1), cervix	-	PALB2	Exon 8 deletion	-	Exon deletion	AD	Hetero	-
P070	F	47	Lt/mucinous (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (21), Lung (21), Leukemia (2*1)	-	TP53	c.542G>A	p.Arg181His	MS	AD	Hetero	rs397514495
P023	F	51	Lt/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Breast (12), Ovary (11)	-	TP53	c.542G>A	p.Arg181His	MS	AD	Hetero	rs397514495
P006	F	41	Bil(met)/DCIS (ER−/HER2+)	0	Lung, melanoma, sarcoma	TP53	c.646G>A	p.Val216Met	MS	AD	Hetero	rs730882025
P034	F	32	Bil(syn)/IDC (ER−/HER2+)	Stomach (11), Panc (11)	-	TP53	c.733G>A	p.Gly245Ser	MS	AD	Hetero	rs28934575
P025	F	38	Rt/DCIS (unknown)	0	-	TP53	c.743G>A	p.Arg248Gln	MS	AD	Hetero	rs11540652
P021	F	30	Rt/IDC (ER+/HER2+)	Stomach (22), Lung (21), Liver (21), Lymphoma (21)	-	TP53	c.824G>A	p.Cys275Tyr	MS	AD	Hetero	-
P062	F	37	Bil(syn)/IDC (ER+/HER2−)	Thyroid (1*1)	-	PTEN	c.813_815delinsCC	p.His272Profs	FS	AD	Hetero	-

AD, autosomal dominant; AoV, ampulla of Vater; Bil(met), bilateral breast cancer, metachronous; Bil(syn), bilateral breast cancer, synchronous; CRC, colorectal cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; ER, estrogen receptor; F, female; FS, frameshift; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; Lt, left; MS, missense; NS, nonsense; Panc, pancreas; Pros, prostate; Rt, right; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

Table 3

Risk factors with odds ratio related to the identification of clinically actionable ^a) genetic mutations for breast cancer beyond BRCA (n=52)

Clinicopathological risk factor	Mutation (n=52)	Vs. not detected (n=89)

		Simple regression			Multiple regression

		OR	95% CI	p-value	OR	95% CI	p-value
Age at first diagnosis of breast cancer ≤ 40 yr	21	0.758	0.379–1.516	0.433	-	-	-

Male breast cancer	0	N/A	-	-	N/A	-	-

Bilateral breast cancer	10	5.060	1.498–17.087	0.009	5.619	1.623–19.455	0.006

TNBC	10	1.175	0.485–2.847	0.722	-	-	-

Family history of breast cancer	23	0.741	0.373–1.474	0.393	-	-	-

Family history of ovarian cancer	5	4.628	0.864–24.775	0.073	5.470	0.980–30.545	0.053

Presence of other primary cancer	10	2.116	0.798–5.610	0.132	2.665	0.977–7.267	0.055

CI, confidence interval; N/A, not applicable; OR, odds ratio; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

^a) Genes with inheritance of increased breast cancer risk according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, or European Society of Medical Oncology guidelines: number of patients with mutation in each gene; ATM (10), BARD1 (1), BRIP1 (7), CHEK2 (2), NF1 (1), PALB2 (17), PTEN (1), RAD51D (7), TP53 (6).

Table 4

Difference in cancer worry scores (5-point Likert scale) and genetic knowledge between pre- and post-test (n=374)

	Pre-test	Post-test	p-value
Concern about the possibility of cancer in the future	4.21±0.883	3.94±1.048	< 0.001
Influence on mood	3.27±0.645	3.13±0.694	< 0.001
Influence on daily functioning	3.03±0.758	2.94±0.729	0.006
Knowledge about hereditary cancer (max. point 100)	66.9±21.7	68.8±21.8	0.025

Values are presented as average±standard deviation.

Table 5

Correlation between clinic-social factors and the cancer worry after multigene panel testing with counseling (simple regression analysis, n=374)

	Concern about the possibility of breast cancer in the future			Influence on mood			Influence on daily functioning

	B	95% CI	p-value	B	95% CI	p-value	B	95% CI	p-value
Age ≤ 40 yr	0.255	0.042 to 0.467	0.019	0.150	0.009 to 0.291	0.037	0.173	0.025 to 0.321	0.022

Bilateral breast cancer	−0.391	−0.716 to −0.065	0.019	−0.146	−0.363 to 0.071	0.187	−0.079	−0.307 to 0.150	0.498

TNBC	0.283	−0.005 to 0.570	0.054	0.140	−0.050 to 0.331	0.149	0.214	0.014 to 0.414	0.036

Family history of breast or ovarian cancer	−0.052	−0.266 to 0.161	0.630	0.031	−0.110 to 0.172	0.666	−0.016	−0.164 to 0.133	0.837

Highly educated (above college graduates)	0.002	−0.002 to 0.006	0.388	0.0005	−0.002 to 0.003	0.724	0.0003	−0.002 to 0.003	0.816

PV/LPV detected	0.503	0.140 to 0.866	0.007	0.142	−0.100 to 0.384	0.250	0.102	−0.152 to 0.357	0.477

Counselee’s satisfaction to genetic test with counseling	−0.176	−0.333 to −0.019	0.028	−0.125	−0.229 to −0.021	0.018	−0.134	−0.243 to −0.025	0.016

Stage IV breast cancer	0.396	−0.453 to 1.244	0.360	0.547	−0.013 to 1.107	0.055	0.235	−0.356 to 0.825	0.435

Genetic knowledge (post-test)	0.339	−0.150 to 0.829	0.174	0.049	−0.276 to 0.375	0.765	0.136	−0.206 to 0.477	0.435

B, beta regression coefficient value; CI, confidence interval; LPV, likely pathogenic variant; PV, pathogenic variant; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

Table 6

Correlation between clinic-social factors and the cancer worry after multigene panel testing with counseling (multiple regression analysis, n=374)

	Concern about the possibility of breast cancer in the future			Influence on mood			Influence on daily functioning

	B	95% CI	p-value	B	95% CI	p-value	B	95% CI	p-value
Age ≤ 40 yr	0.201	0.015 to 0.417	0.068	0.149	0.009 to 0.288	0.037	0.173	0.018 to 0.312	0.027

Bilateral breast cancer	−0.292	−0.624 to −0.040	0.085	-	-	-	-	-	-

TNBC	0.196	−0.090 to 0.481	0.179	-	-	-	0.181	−0.018 to 0.379	0.075

PV/LPV detected	0.427	0.057 to 0.797	0.024	-	-	-	-	-	-

Counselee’s satisfaction to genetic test with counseling	−0.117	−0.276 to 0.043	0.152	−0.125	−0.228 to −0.022	0.018	−0.125	−0.234 to −0.017	0.024

Stage IV breast cancer	-	-	-	0.535	−0.019 to 1.089	0.058	-	-	-

B, beta regression coefficient value; CI, confidence interval; LPV, likely pathogenic variant; PV, pathogenic variant; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

References

1. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402–16.

2. Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1329–33.

3. Mavaddat N, Peock S, Frost D, Ellis S, Platte R, Fineberg E, et al. Cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from prospective analysis of EMBRACE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:812–22.

4. Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Sessa C, Balmana J, Cardoso MJ, Gilbert F, et al. Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v103–v10.

5. US Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, Barry MJ, Cabana M, et al. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2019;322:652–65.

6. Tung NM, Boughey JC, Pierce LJ, Robson ME, Bedrosian I, Dietz JR, et al. Management of hereditary breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2080–106.

7. Daly MB, Pal T, Berry MP, Buys SS, Dickson P, Domchek SM, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19:77–102.

8. Katz SJ, Ward KC, Hamilton AS, Abrahamse P, Hawley ST, Kurian AW. Association of germline genetic test type and results with patient cancer worry after diagnosis of breast cancer. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2018:PO.18.00225

9. Obeid EI, Hall MJ, Daly MB. Multigene panel testing and breast cancer risk: is it time to scale down? JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1176–7.

10. Plagnol V, Curtis J, Epstein M, Mok KY, Stebbings E, Grigoriadou S, et al. A robust model for read count data in exome sequencing experiments and implications for copy number variant calling. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2747–54.

11. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405–24.

12. Plon SE, Eccles DM, Easton D, Foulkes WD, Genuardi M, Greenblatt MS, et al. Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat. 2008;29:1282–91.

13. Desmond A, Kurian AW, Gabree M, Mills MA, Anderson MJ, Kobayashi Y, et al. Clinical actionability of multigene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk assessment. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:943–51.

14. Foulkes WD. Inherited susceptibility to common cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2143–53.

15. Shiovitz S, Korde LA. Genetics of breast cancer: a topic in evolution. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1291–9.

16. Tung N, Domchek SM, Stadler Z, Nathanson KL, Couch F, Garber JE, et al. Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:581–8.

17. Lerman C, Daly M, Masny A, Balshem A. Attitudes about genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:843–50.

18. Choi E, Lee YY, Yoon HJ, Lee S, Suh M, Park B, et al. Relationship between cancer worry and stages of adoption for breast cancer screening among Korean women. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132351.

19. Tran AT, Hwang JH, Choi E, Lee YY, Suh M, Lee CW, et al. Impact of awareness of breast density on perceived risk, worry, and intentions for future breast cancer screening among Korean women. Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53:55–64.

20. Erblich J, Brown K, Kim Y, Valdimarsdottir HB, Livingston BE, Bovbjerg DH. Development and validation of a Breast Cancer Genetic Counseling Knowledge Questionnaire. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56:182–91.

21. Choi KS, Jun MH, So HS, Tae YS, Eun Y, Suh SR, et al. The knowledge of hereditary breast cancer in Korean nurses. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2006;12:272–9.

22. Lee SH, Lee H, Lim MC, Kim S. Knowledge and anxiety related to hereditary ovarian cancer in serous ovarian cancer patients. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2019;25:365–78.

23. Kurian AW, Hare EE, Mills MA, Kingham KE, McPherson L, Whittemore AS, et al. Clinical evaluation of a multiple-gene sequencing panel for hereditary cancer risk assessment. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2001–9.

24. Castera L, Harter V, Muller E, Krieger S, Goardon N, Ricou A, et al. Landscape of pathogenic variations in a panel of 34 genes and cancer risk estimation from 5131 HBOC families. Genet Med. 2018;20:1677–86.

25. Couch FJ, Shimelis H, Hu C, Hart SN, Polley EC, Na J, et al. Associations between cancer predisposition testing panel genes and breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1190–6.

26. Hauke J, Horvath J, Gross E, Gehrig A, Honisch E, Hackmann K, et al. Gene panel testing of 5589 BRCA1/2-negative index patients with breast cancer in a routine diagnostic setting: results of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Med. 2018;7:1349–58.

27. Hu C, Hart SN, Gnanaolivu R, Huang H, Lee KY, Na J, et al. A population-based study of genes previously implicated in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:440–51.

28. Zhou J, Wang H, Fu F, Li Z, Feng Q, Wu W, et al. Spectrum of PALB2 germline mutations and characteristics of PALB2-related breast cancer: screening of 16,501 unselected patients with breast cancer and 5890 controls by next-generation sequencing. Cancer. 2020;126:3202–8.

29. Li FP, Fraumeni JF Jr, Mulvihill JJ, Blattner WA, Dreyfus MG, Tucker MA, et al. A cancer family syndrome in twenty-four kindreds. Cancer Res. 1988;48:5358–62.

30. Birch JM, Hartley AL, Tricker KJ, Prosser J, Condie A, Kelsey AM, et al. Prevalence and diversity of constitutional mutations in the p53 gene among 21 Li-Fraumeni families. Cancer Res. 1994;54:1298–304.

31. Eeles RA. Germline mutations in the TP53 gene. Cancer Surv. 1995;25:101–24.

32. Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman JM, Charbonnier C, Fermey P, Belotti M, et al. Revisiting Li-Fraumeni syndrome from TP53 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2345–52.

33. Braithwaite D, Emery J, Walter F, Prevost AT, Sutton S. Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:122–33.

34. Richter S, Haroun I, Graham TC, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E. Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:Suppl 8viii69–74.

35. Mighton C, Shickh S, Uleryk E, Pechlivanoglou P, Bombard Y. Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Genet Med. 2021;23:22–33.

36. Fraser FC. Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet. 1974;26:636–59.

37. Biesecker BB. Goals of genetic counseling. Clin Genet. 2001;60:323–30.