4.6 Article

Racial/ethnic differences in multiple-gene sequencing results for hereditary cancer risk

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 234-239

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.96

Keywords

hereditary cancer panel; multiple-gene panel testing; next-generation sequencing; race/ethnicity; variants of unknown significance

Funding

  1. Suzanne Pride Bryan Fund for Breast Cancer Research
  2. Jan Weimer Junior Faculty Chair in Breast Oncology
  3. Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  4. BRCA Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We examined racial/ethnic differences in the usage and results of germ-line multiple-gene sequencing (MGS) panels to evaluate hereditary cancer risk. Methods: We collected genetic testing results and clinical information from 1,483 patients who underwent MGS at Stanford University between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. Results: Asians and Hispanics presented for MGS at younger ages than whites (48 and 47 vs. 55; P = 5E-16 and 5E-14). Across all panels, the rate of pathogenic variants (15%) did not differ significantly between racial groups. Rates by gene did differ: in particular, a higher percentage of whites than nonwhites carried pathogenic CHEK2 variants (3.8% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.002). The rate of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result was higher in nonwhites than whites (36% vs. 27%; P = 2E-4). The probability of a VUS increased with increasing number of genes tested; this effect was more pronounced for nonwhites than for whites (1.1% absolute difference in VUS rates testing BRCA1/2 vs. 8% testing 13 genes vs. 14% testing 28 genes), worsening the disparity. Conclusion: In this diverse cohort undergoing MGS testing, pathogenic variant rates were similar between racial/ethnic groups. By contrast, VUS results were more frequent among nonwhites, with potential significance for the impact of MGS testing by race/ethnicity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available