How Have Multigene Panels Changed the Clinical Practice of Genetic Counseling and Testing
- 6 January 2021
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Harborside Press, LLC in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
- Vol. 19 (1), 103-108
- https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2020.7674
Abstract
Historically, genetic testing (and billing) for hereditary cancer risk was essentially performed gene by gene, with clinicians ordering testing only for the genes most likely to explain a patient’s or family’s cancer presentation, with laboratories typically charging $1,000 to $1,500 for each gene that was sequenced. Given the expense, only patients at high risk of having a hereditary syndrome were offered testing. With the introduction of next-generation sequencing technologies, however, laboratories are able to test for multiple genes at the same time with greater efficiency, significantly decreased costs, and relatively little increased expense when adding additional genes. This has drastically altered clinical practice so that clinicians now typically order testing for a panel of multiple genes for most patients. Although this approach has streamlined the diagnostic odyssey, it has introduced several problems, as well, including difficulties in choosing the appropriate panel test for a given patient, assessing the significance of identified genetic variants (including variants of uncertain significance [VUS]), and understanding the disease risks and management associated with pathogenic variants in a given gene. Many laboratories offer testing for genes that have limited data supporting their associated cancer risks, which then leads to an inability to set management guidelines based on that gene. In addition, testing larger numbers of genes increases the likelihood of finding one or more VUS, which introduce their own management issues. Thus, although panel testing has certainly moved clinical practice forward in many ways, it has also raised its own set of problems that increase the complexity of genetic counseling and highlight the need for education of community practitioners on the complexities and nuances of this testing. Whenever possible, testing should be performed by, or in consultation with, cancer genetics professionals.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Revised American Thyroid Association Guidelines for the Management of Medullary Thyroid CarcinomaThyroid®, 2015
- Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated clinical guidelines with an emphasis on germlineCDH1mutation carriersJournal of Medical Genetics, 2015
- Candidate Genetic Modifiers for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation CarriersCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2015
- Modes of delivery of genetic testing services and the uptake of cancer risk management strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriersClinical Genetics, 2013
- HOXB13 is a susceptibility gene for prostate cancer: results from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG)Human Genetics, 2012
- Detection of inherited mutations for breast and ovarian cancer using genomic capture and massively parallel sequencingProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010
- Clinically Guided Genetic Screening in a Large Cohort of Italian Patients with Pheochromocytomas and/or Functional or Nonfunctional ParagangliomasJournal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2009
- Cancer risks in first-degree relatives of CHEK2 mutation carriers: effects of mutation type and cancer site in probandBritish Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Spectrum of Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and TP53 in Families at High Risk of Breast CancerJAMA, 2006
- CHEK2 variant I157T may be associated with increased breast cancer riskInternational Journal of Cancer, 2004