Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

BMJ Open Access logoLink to BMJ Open Access
. 2018 Apr 16;55(6):1–6. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-105188

Consensus for genes to be included on cancer panel tests offered by UK genetics services: guidelines of the UK Cancer Genetics Group

Amy Taylor 1, Angela F Brady 2, Ian M Frayling 3,4, Helen Hanson 5, Marc Tischkowitz 1,6, Clare Turnbull 7,8,9, Lucy Side 10, on behalf of the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UK-CGG)
PMCID: PMC5992364  PMID: 29661970

Abstract

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer predisposition has evolved rapidly in recent years with the discovery of new genes, but there is much debate over the clinical utility of testing genes for which there are currently limited data regarding the degree of associated cancer risk. To address the discrepancies that have arisen in the provision of these tests across the UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group facilitated a 1-day workshop with representation from the majority of National Health Service (NHS) clinical genetics services. Using a preworkshop survey followed by focused discussion of genes without prior majority agreement for inclusion, we achieved consensus for panels of cancer genes with sufficient evidence for clinical utility, to be adopted by all NHS genetics services. To support consistency in the delivery of these tests and advice given to families across the country, we also developed management proposals for individuals who are found to have pathogenic mutations in these genes. However, we fully acknowledge that the decision regarding what test is most appropriate for an individual family rests with the clinician, and will depend on factors including specific phenotypic features and the family structure.

Keywords: clinical genetics, cancer: breast, cancer: colon, diagnostics tests, genetic screening/counselling

Background

National Health Service (NHS) clinical genetics services have in recent years taken advantage of the discovery of new genes and emerging evidence for associated cancer predisposition to carry out more extensive genetic testing via cancer gene panels, aiming to provide information and tailored management for more families with a hereditary cancer predisposition. However, there is much debate over the utility of testing genes for which there exist limited data regarding impact on cancer risk,1 and the gradual evolution of these panels has led to discrepancies in the genes tested by different laboratories. This has resulted in differences between what is offered to patients, as well as difficulty in managing families where relatives are located in different parts of the country. For example, a relative may find that testing for the gene identified in their family is not offered in their region, or may be given different advice about risk management from that given to a relative with the same genetic variant.

To address this, the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UK-CGG), supported by the UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN), facilitated a 1-day workshop to achieve consensus for panels of cancer genes with clear clinical utility, to be adopted by all NHS genetics services. In addition, consensus guidelines for the management of individuals with pathogenic variants in these genes were subsequently developed.

Methods

Scope

The workshop focused on panels of genes for breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer and polyposis. These were selected as the most commonly used panels and also those with the largest discrepancies regarding inclusion of genes.

Participants

Invitations were sent to the lead cancer clinicians at each of the 24 UK genetics services, and if unable to attend they were given the option to send a colleague in their place. All but two services were represented at the workshop. Also represented were clinical scientists from NHS genetics laboratories currently offering cancer panel tests, genetic counsellors with a specialist interest in cancer genetics, and representatives from UKGTN, UK-CGG and Genomics England.

Preworkshop survey

Lists of potential genes were compiled from panel tests currently on offer at both NHS and private laboratories. Workshop participants were surveyed for their opinions on the inclusion of each gene prior to the workshop, in order to focus discussion on genes where inclusion was most contentious. Genes were deemed to have majority agreement if >75% of participants said they should be included.

Presentation of evidence for and against inclusion of genes

Based on their survey responses, workshop participants were asked to present either for or against the inclusion of genes with <75% prior agreement. Those presenting in favour of inclusion were also asked to present management proposals for families where a pathogenic variant was identified (see online supplementary information 1).

Supplementary file 1

jmedgenet-2017-105188supp001.pdf (601KB, pdf)

Discussion groups

Participants were divided into three groups to discuss breast cancer, epithelial ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer/polyposis gene panels. Each group formulated a proposed panel based on the evidence presented, which was then presented to the full workshop, openly discussed and agreed. The focus of discussion was on the clinical utility of identifying pathogenic variants in each gene, but practical considerations of testing specific genes were also taken into account.

Meeting report

The agreed cancer panels were circulated to all attendees following the workshop and were presented at the UK-CGG Spring Meeting 2017 for further comment. The manuscript was also circulated to the attendees. It should be noted that this report is a summary of the workshop, and therefore does not necessarily represent the opinions of individual attendees or genetics services.

Results and discussion

Preworkshop survey

Responses were received from 78% (25/32) of the clinicians and clinical scientists who were invited to complete the survey (see online supplementary information 2). The survey asked separate questions about inclusion of genes on breast cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer and polyposis panels. The results for colorectal cancer and polyposis panels overlapped completely, reflecting the recognised overlap in phenotypes2 and indicating that this should be established as a single panel.

Supplementary file 2

jmedgenet-2017-105188supp002.pdf (824.5KB, pdf)

Genes with majority agreement (>75%) for each panel were as follows:

  • breast cancer: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53

  • ovarian cancer: BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, RAD51C, RAD51D

  • colorectal cancer/polyposis: APC, MUTYH, SMAD4, BMPR1A, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM (deletion of exons 8–9), POLE, POLD1, STK11.

Genes included or excluded following presentation of evidence and discussion

Breast cancer panel

It was agreed to include ATM and CHEK2, which both confer a moderately increased risk of breast cancer,1 3 but concerns about the interpretation of results for these genes led to the recommendation that only truncating variants should be reported,4 in addition to ATM c.7217T>G p.(Val2424Gly), which is recognised as conferring a higher risk of breast cancer.5 Insufficient evidence was found for a significant risk of breast cancer associated with NBN,6 BRIP1 7 or BARD1,6 so these were excluded from the panel. CDH1 was also excluded due to its relevance only in cases of lobular breast cancer, and the considerable difficulty presented by interpreting variants in families with no history of lobular breast cancer or diffuse gastric cancer.8 However, testing for CDH1 should be available for relevant cases and offered according to the current guidelines.9 It was noted that the inclusion of SNPs associated with breast cancer risk10 will need to be considered in future, but will be more relevant to predicting risk in unaffected individuals rather than genetic testing of individuals with cancer.11

Ovarian cancer panel

It was agreed to include BRIP1, which confers sufficient risk of ovarian cancer such that prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy is considered.12 Insufficient evidence was found for a significant risk of ovarian cancer associated with the EPCAM deletion,13 TP53 14 and also PMS2, which originally had majority agreement in the survey, but was excluded when new data were taken into account.15 STK11 was also excluded since mutations are associated only with a rare type of ovarian cancer—sex cord tumours with annular tubules—so testing on a gene panel primarily intended for individuals with epithelial ovarian cancer was not considered appropriate. For a review of genes to consider in rare non-epithelial ovarian neoplasms, see Foulkes et al.16

Colorectal cancer/polyposis panel

Only two genes did not secure majority agreement for inclusion—GREM1 (upstream duplication) and NTHL1—although the survey results suggested respondents were unsure about these genes rather than that they disagreed with their inclusion. Following discussion it was agreed that both these genes could be included, but this should be optional since the GREM1 upstream duplication has to date only been reported in individuals with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, and the frequency of pathogenic mutations in NTHL1 is low.17

A summary of the agreed panels is given in table 1.

Table 1.

Agreed panels

Breast cancer Ovarian cancer Colorectal cancer/polyposis
ATM*
BRCA1
BRCA2
CHEK2
PALB2
PTEN
STK11
TP53
BRCA1
BRCA2
BRIP1
MLH1
MSH2
MSH6
RAD51C
RAD51D
APC
BMPR1A
EPCAM (del exons 8–9)
GREM1 (upstream dup)‡
MLH1
MSH2
MSH6
MUTYH
NTHL1
PMS2
POLE
POLD1
PTEN
SMAD4
STK11

*Truncating variants plus ATM c.7271T>G, p.(Val2424Gly).

†Truncating variants.

‡Optional.

Expected standard of analysis

It is expected that analysis will include sequencing of the coding region and intron/exon boundaries of each gene, except for EPCAM and GREM1, where only the common del/dup need be tested for. It is expected that copy number analysis to detect exonic deletions and duplications from sequencing data will be possible in the near future, but in the meantime this analysis should be carried out separately for the key genes BRCA1, BRCA2, APC, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. For other genes, copy number analysis can be added where possible, but if not included this must be made clear on the report.

Management proposals

One of the key aims of this consultation was to improve consistency of service delivery across the UK, and it was recognised that this extends to the management of individuals found to have pathogenic variants, as well as which genes are included on each panel. Although the level of evidence for some of the included genes makes the establishment of firm guidelines challenging, it was agreed that pragmatic management proposals would be of benefit to the UK cancer genetics community. These are summarised in table 2.

Table 2.

Management proposals.

Breast cancer genes
Gene Breast cancer risk management References
ATM*† 12–18 monthly mammography from 40 to 50 depending on family history, then NHSBSP
For c.7271T>G consider BRCA-equivalent
Ataxia-telangiectasia in children: guidance on diagnosis and clinical care18
Protocols for the surveillance of women at higher risk of developing breast cancer, Public Health England19
BRCA1 As per national guidelines NICE CG16420
BRCA2 As per national guidelines NICE CG16420
CHEK2†‡ 12-monthly mammography from 40 to 50, then NHSBSP
For homozygotes consider BRCA-equivalent
Tung et al 21
PALB2 Consider BRCA-equivalent Tung et al 21
PTEN§ Consider BRCA-equivalent UK-CGG guidelines for management of tumour risk in PTEN hamartoma syndrome22
STK11 Consider BRCA-equivalent Beggs et al 23
TP53 As per national guidelines NICE CG16420
Ovarian cancer genes
Gene Ovarian cancer risk management References
BRCA1 As per national guidelines NICE CG16420
BRCA2 As per national guidelines NICE CG16420
BRIP1 Consider BSO at 45–50 years (and once family complete) Tung et al 21
MLH1 Consider TAH and BSO from 40 years (and once family complete) Vasen et al 25 and Daly et al 26
MSH2 Consider TAH and BSO from 40 years (and once family complete) Vasen et al 25 and Daly et al 26
MSH6 Consider TAH and BSO from 40 years (and once family complete) Vasen et al 25 and Daly et al 26
RAD51C Consider BSO at 45–50 years (and once family complete) Tung et al 21 and Daly et al 26
RAD51D Consider BSO at 45–50 years (and once family complete) Tung et al 21 and Daly et al 26
Colorectal cancer/polyposis genes
Syndrome Cancer risk management References
Lynch syndrome
Adenomatous polyposis syndromes
Peutz-Jeghers syndrome
Juvenile polyposis syndrome
PTEN-hamartomatous tumour syndromes
See International and European guidance as advised by InSiGHT, plus UK guidance on endoscopic colorectal surveillance issued by the British Society of Gastroenterology (due for revision).
Guidance on management of Lynch syndrome should be interpreted in the light of gene, gender, age and cancer history, as shown by the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database at http://www.lscarisk.org/.
The reference databases for interpretation of variants in MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM, APC, MUTYH, POLD1, POLE and STK11 are provided at http://www.insight-database.org/genes.
As listed under individual condition headings at  https://www.insight-group.org/, including the following:
Vasen et al 27
Cairns et al 28
Vasen et al 25
Møller et al 15 29

*The Ataxia Telangiectasia guidelines recommend 18-monthly mammography, but where ATM pathogenic variants are identified in the context of a significant family history of breast cancer it is reasonable to offer annual mammography, bringing this into line with CHEK2 mutation carriers who have a similar risk. The guidelines do not give specific recommendations for the c.7271T>G variant so this is pragmatic, based on the evidence indicating this variant confers a much higher risk.

†For ATM, CHEK2 and PALB2 consider using BOADICEA to guide risk management.24

‡These recommendations include mammography and/or breast MRI. Given that the risk for CHEK2 c.1100delC is well defined, it is reasonable to offer mammography rather than MRI. There is much weaker evidence for other CHEK2 variants, but it seems reasonable to use the same protocol for these until further data emerge.

§These recommendations include mammography and/or breast MRI. As there is good evidence that the PALB2 risk is influenced by other factors such as family history, it would be reasonable to offer BRCA-equivalent surveillance to those women ascertained via family history clinics (where there is a strong family history) but to consider less intense surveillance in those women with no significant family history (eg, an incidental finding).

BOADICEA, Breast  and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm; BSO, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; NHSBSP, National Health Service Breast Screening Programme; NICE,  National Institute for Health and Care Excellence;  TAH, total abdominal hysterectomy; UK-CGG, UK Cancer Genetics Group.

Conclusion

Consensus was achieved at the workshop for genes to be included on panel tests for breast cancer, ovarian cancer and colorectal cancer/polyposis. Clinical entry points and testing criteria have not been addressed here since these are currently being developed by NHS England. It was recognised that when resources are limited there is a tension between investing in panel tests as opposed to testing a smaller number of genes with wider testing criteria. However, the cost of panel testing is dropping rapidly so that in the near future it will likely become more efficient to carry out panel testing on all patients with selective analysis of genes according to testing indication. From a technical point of view, this will be most expedient when panel tests can reliably detect all large (exonic) deletions and duplications as well as sequence variants. It was also recognised that access to and funding for panel tests currently vary across the UK, but it is hoped that one of the outcomes of this consultation will be improved consistency, providing centres with a standard of testing to work towards. However, this aim for consistency is not intended to over-ride a clinician’s choice to target specific genes they consider most relevant to a particular family rather than offering a gene panel in every case.

One factor clinicians will take into account is that testing a larger number of genes will result in finding more variants of uncertain significance, which carries a cost in the time spent interpreting and explaining the results, and can leave families with more questions than answers. It is essential that these are collated centrally so that a shared understanding of their significance can be reached more rapidly and consistent information is conveyed to families. It is because of the current challenges in interpreting variants of uncertain significance that at present we have recommended the reporting of only truncating variants in ATM and CHEK2. However, as these genes become better understood, it will no doubt emerge that some missense variants also confer an increased risk of breast cancer, and it is possible that some could be higher penetrance alleles similar to ATM c.7271T>G.

Another factor is that particularly in breast cancer families, finding a pathogenic variant in a moderate risk gene in the context of a high-risk family history does not always aid clinical management, since the variant cannot be assumed to account for all of the genetic risks in the family. Hence offering testing to unaffected close relatives may not be informative in helping to advise them about their level of risk and guide decision-making around risk management. However, these variants can be used to identify more distantly related individuals (eg, those related via intervening unaffected women) who are at moderately increased risk and would not have previously been eligible for additional breast screening. Therefore the decision about whether to offer panel testing will often depend on the family structure and whether there are unaffected individuals to whom the information will be relevant.

It is important to note that this is a rapidly evolving field, and these recommendations will need to be revisited as further evidence emerges for inherited cancer risk. We plan to review the gene lists annually, and any updates will be posted on the UK-CGG website (http://www.ukcgg.org). In particular, the advent of routine tumour sequencing in cancer diagnosis and the move to whole genome sequencing and interrogation of virtual panels will change the contexts and capabilities of germline panel testing. As the technological barriers in sequencing are largely overcome, the importance of testing genes only where there is rigorous clinical evidence will become ever more critical.

Supplementary file 3

jmedgenet-2017-105188supp003.pdf (195.8KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The UK-CGG thanks all the workshop participants for their contributions. A full list of attendees is given in online supplementary information 3. We gratefully acknowledge UKGTN for funding the workshop.

Footnotes

Contributors: AT developed and administered the preworkshop survey and analysed the data. AT and AFB organised and chaired the workshop. MT, LS, IMF, HH and CT developed management proposals. AT drafted the manuscript. AFB, MT, LS, IMF, HH and CT reviewed and critically revised the manuscript. AT, AFB, MT, LS, IMF, HH and CT approved the final version for publication.

Funding: The UK Genetic Testing Network (UKGTN) funded the delegate fees for the workshop, which was held at Chilworth Manor, Southampton. The UK Cancer Genetics Group (UK-CGG) reimbursed travel expenses for participants who were not able to claim these locally.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient consent: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Collaborators: Dr Kai Ren Ong, Cancer Genetics Lead, West Midlands Genetics Service Dr Alan Donaldson, Cancer Genetics Lead, Bristol Genetics Service Dr Carole Brewer, Cancer Genetics Lead, Peninsula GeneticsService Dr Julian Adlard, Cancer Genetics Lead, Yorkshire Genetics Service Dr Julian Barwell, Cancer Genetics Lead, Leicester Genetics Service Dr Lynn Greenhalgh, Cancer Genetics Lead, Liverpool Genetics Service Dr Fiona Lalloo, Cancer Genetics Lead, Manchester Genetics Service Dr Rachel Harrison, Cancer Genetics Lead, Nottingham Genetics Service Dr Dorothy Halliday, Cancer Genetics Lead, Oxford Genetics Service >Dr Zoe Kemp, On behalf of Cancer Genetics Lead, Royal Marsden Genetics Service Prof Zofia Miedzybrodzka, Cancer Genetics Lead, Aberdeen Genetics Service Dr Mary Porteous, Cancer Genetics Lead, Edinburgh Genetics Service Dr Rosemarie Davidson, Cancer Genetics Lead, Glasgow Genetics Service Dr Jackie Cook, Cancer Genetics Lead, Sheffield Genetics Service Dr Diana Eccles, Cancer Genetics Lead, Wessex Genetics Service Dr Munaza Ahmed, Cancer Genetics Lead, NE Thames Genetics Service Dr Anju Kulkarni, Cancer Genetics Lead, SE Thames Genetics Service Dr Katie Snape, Cancer Genetics Lead, SW Thames Genetics Service Dr Alex Murray, Cancer Genetics Lead, All Wales Genetics Service Dr Rachel Robinson, Clinical Scientist, Yorkshire Genetics Service Dr James Drummond, Clinical Scientist, East Anglian Genetics Service Dr Yvonne Wallis, Clinical Scientist, West Midlands Genetics Service Dr Gill Crawford, Genetic Counsellor, Wessex Genetics Service Sarah Gibson, Genetic Counsellor, Glasgow Genetics Service Oonagh Claber, Genetic Counsellor, Northern Genetics Service Jacquie Westwood, UKGTN Director Jane Deller, UKGTN Programme Manager Dr Chris Patch, UKGTN Representative Dr Fiona MacDonald, UKGTN Scientific Advisor Dr Sandi Deans, UKGTN Representative Dr Mark Kroese, UKGTN Public Health Adviso Dr Louise Izatt, UK-CGG Steering Committee Prof Nazneen Rahman, Institute of Cancer Research Prof Clare Turnbull, Genomics England Dr Joyce Solomons, Oxford Genetics Service

References

  • 1. Easton DF, Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, Tischkowitz M, Tavtigian SV, Nathanson KL, Devilee P, Meindl A, Couch FJ, Southey M, Goldgar DE, Evans DG, Chenevix-Trench G, Rahman N, Robson M, Domchek SM, Foulkes WD. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2243–57. 10.1056/NEJMsr1501341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Rohlin A, Rambech E, Kvist A, Törngren T, Eiengård F, Lundstam U, Zagoras T, Gebre-Medhin S, Borg Å, Björk J, Nilbert M, Nordling M. Expanding the genotype-phenotype spectrum in hereditary colorectal cancer by gene panel testing. Fam Cancer 2017;16:195–203. 10.1007/s10689-016-9934-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Couch FJ, Shimelis H, Hu C, Hart SN, Polley EC, Na J, Hallberg E, Moore R, Thomas A, Lilyquist J, Feng B, McFarland R, Pesaran T, Huether R, LaDuca H, Chao EC, Goldgar DE, Dolinsky JS. Associations between cancer predisposition testing panel genes and breast cancer. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:1190 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Young EL, Feng BJ, Stark AW, Damiola F, Durand G, Forey N, Francy TC, Gammon A, Kohlmann WK, Kaphingst KA, McKay-Chopin S, Nguyen-Dumont T, Oliver J, Paquette AM, Pertesi M, Robinot N, Rosenthal JS, Vallee M, Voegele C, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Andrulis IL, John EM, Hashibe M, Gertz J, Le Calvez-Kelm F, Lesueur F, Goldgar DE, Tavtigian SV. Breast Cancer Family Registry. Multigene testing of moderate-risk genes: be mindful of the missense. J Med Genet 2016;53:366–76. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Goldgar DE, Healey S, Dowty JG, Da Silva L, Chen X, Spurdle AB, Terry MB, Daly MJ, Buys SM, Southey MC, Andrulis I, John EM, Khanna KK, Hopper JL, Oefner PJ, Lakhani S, Chenevix-Trench G. BCFR kConFab. Rare variants in the ATM gene and risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:R73 10.1186/bcr2919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Li J, Meeks H, Feng BJ, Healey S, Thorne H, Makunin I, Ellis J, Campbell I, Southey M, Mitchell G, Clouston D, Kirk J, Goldgar D, Chenevix-Trench G. kConFab Investigators. Targeted massively parallel sequencing of a panel of putative breast cancer susceptibility genes in a large cohort of multiple-case breast and ovarian cancer families. J Med Genet 2016;53:34–42. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103452 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Easton DF, Lesueur F, Decker B, Michailidou K, Li J, Allen J, Luccarini C, Pooley KA, Shah M, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Ahmad J, Thompson ER, Damiola F, Pertesi M, Voegele C, Mebirouk N, Robinot N, Durand G, Forey N, Luben RN, Ahmed S, Aittomäki K, Anton-Culver H, Arndt V, Baynes C, Beckman MW, Benitez J, Van Den Berg D, Blot WJ, Bogdanova NV, Bojesen SE, Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Chia KS, Choi JY, Conroy DM, Cox A, Cross SS, Czene K, Darabi H, Devilee P, Eriksson M, Fasching PA, Figueroa J, Flyger H, Fostira F, García-Closas M, Giles GG, Glendon G, González-Neira A, Guénel P, Haiman CA, Hall P, Hart SN, Hartman M, Hooning MJ, Hsiung CN, Ito H, Jakubowska A, James PA, John EM, Johnson N, Jones M, Kabisch M, Kang D, Kosma VM, Kristensen V, Lambrechts D, Li N, Lindblom A, Long J, Lophatananon A, Lubinski J, Mannermaa A, Manoukian S, Margolin S, Matsuo K, Meindl A, Mitchell G, Muir K, Nevelsteen I, van den Ouweland A, Peterlongo P, Phuah SY, Pylkäs K, Rowley SM, Sangrajrang S, Schmutzler RK, Shen CY, Shu XO, Southey MC, Surowy H, Swerdlow A, Teo SH, Tollenaar RA, Tomlinson I, Torres D, Truong T, Vachon C, Verhoef S, Wong-Brown M, Zheng W, Zheng Y, Nevanlinna H, Scott RJ, Andrulis IL, Wu AH, Hopper JL, Couch FJ, Winqvist R, Burwinkel B, Sawyer EJ, Schmidt MK, Rudolph A, Dörk T, Brauch H, Hamann U, Neuhausen SL, Milne RL, Fletcher O, Pharoah PD, Campbell IG, Dunning AM, Le Calvez-Kelm F, Goldgar DE, Tavtigian SV, Chenevix-Trench G. Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group kConFab Investigators Lifepool Investigators NBCS Investigators. No evidence that protein truncating variants in BRIP1 are associated with breast cancer risk: implications for gene panel testing. J Med Genet 2016;53:298–309. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Benusiglio PR. CDH1 germline mutations: different syndromes, same management? Genet Med 2017;19:965–6. 10.1038/gim.2017.24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. van der Post RS, Vogelaar IP, Carneiro F, Guilford P, Huntsman D, Hoogerbrugge N, Caldas C, Schreiber KE, Hardwick RH, Ausems MG, Bardram L, Benusiglio PR, Bisseling TM, Blair V, Bleiker E, Boussioutas A, Cats A, Coit D, DeGregorio L, Figueiredo J, Ford JM, Heijkoop E, Hermens R, Humar B, Kaurah P, Keller G, Lai J, Ligtenberg MJ, O’Donovan M, Oliveira C, Pinheiro H, Ragunath K, Rasenberg E, Richardson S, Roviello F, Schackert H, Seruca R, Taylor A, Ter Huurne A, Tischkowitz M, Joe ST, van Dijck B, van Grieken NC, van Hillegersberg R, van Sandick JW, Vehof R, van Krieken JH, Fitzgerald RC. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated clinical guidelines with an emphasis on germline CDH1 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 2015;52:361–74. 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Michailidou K, Beesley J, Lindstrom S, Canisius S, Dennis J, Lush MJ, Maranian MJ, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Shah M, Perkins BJ, Czene K, Eriksson M, Darabi H, Brand JS, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Flyger H, Nielsen SF, Rahman N, Turnbull C, Fletcher O, Peto J, Gibson L, dos-Santos-Silva I, Chang-Claude J, Flesch-Janys D, Rudolph A, Eilber U, Behrens S, Nevanlinna H, Muranen TA, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Khan S, Aaltonen K, Ahsan H, Kibriya MG, Whittemore AS, John EM, Malone KE, Gammon MD, Santella RM, Ursin G, Makalic E, Schmidt DF, Casey G, Hunter DJ, Gapstur SM, Gaudet MM, Diver WR, Haiman CA, Schumacher F, Henderson BE, Le Marchand L, Berg CD, Chanock SJ, Figueroa J, Hoover RN, Lambrechts D, Neven P, Wildiers H, van Limbergen E, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Verhoef S, Cornelissen S, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Hallberg E, Vachon C, Waisfisz Q, Meijers-Heijboer H, Adank MA, van der Luijt RB, Li J, Liu J, Humphreys K, Kang D, Choi JY, Park SK, Yoo KY, Matsuo K, Ito H, Iwata H, Tajima K, Guénel P, Truong T, Mulot C, Sanchez M, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Surowy H, Sohn C, Wu AH, Tseng CC, Van Den Berg D, Stram DO, González-Neira A, Benitez J, Zamora MP, Perez JI, Shu XO, Lu W, Gao YT, Cai H, Cox A, Cross SS, Reed MW, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Glendon G, Mulligan AM, Sawyer EJ, Tomlinson I, Kerin MJ, Miller N, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Teo SH, Yip CH, Taib NA, Tan GH, Hooning MJ, Hollestelle A, Martens JW, Collée JM, Blot W, Signorello LB, Cai Q, Hopper JL, Southey MC, Tsimiklis H, Apicella C, Shen CY, Hsiung CN, Wu PE, Hou MF, Kristensen VN, Nord S, Alnaes GI, Giles GG, Milne RL, McLean C, Canzian F, Trichopoulos D, Peeters P, Lund E, Sund M, Khaw KT, Gunter MJ, Palli D, Mortensen LM, Dossus L, Huerta JM, Meindl A, Schmutzler RK, Sutter C, Yang R, Muir K, Lophatananon A, Stewart-Brown S, Siriwanarangsan P, Hartman M, Miao H, Chia KS, Chan CW, Fasching PA, Hein A, Beckmann MW, Haeberle L, Brenner H, Dieffenbach AK, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Ashworth A, Orr N, Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Brinton L, Garcia-Closas M, Zheng W, Halverson SL, Shrubsole M, Long J, Goldberg MS, Labrèche F, Dumont M, Winqvist R, Pylkäs K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Brauch H, Hamann U, Brüning T, Radice P, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Bernard L, Bogdanova NV, Dörk T, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Devilee P, Tollenaar RA, Seynaeve C, Van Asperen CJ, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Jaworska K, Huzarski T, Sangrajrang S, Gaborieau V, Brennan P, McKay J, Slager S, Toland AE, Ambrosone CB, Yannoukakos D, Kabisch M, Torres D, Neuhausen SL, Anton-Culver H, Luccarini C, Baynes C, Ahmed S, Healey CS, Tessier DC, Vincent D, Bacot F, Pita G, Alonso MR, Álvarez N, Herrero D, Simard J, Pharoah PP, Kraft P, Dunning AM, Chenevix-Trench G, Hall P, Easton DF. BOCS kConFab Investigators AOCS Group NBCS GENICA Network. Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet 2015;47:373–80. 10.1038/ng.3242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Mavaddat N, Pharoah PD, Michailidou K, Tyrer J, Brook MN, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Dunning AM, Shah M, Luben R, Brown J, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard BG, Nielsen SF, Flyger H, Czene K, Darabi H, Eriksson M, Peto J, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Dudbridge F, Johnson N, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, Verhoef S, Rutgers EJ, Swerdlow A, Ashworth A, Orr N, Schoemaker MJ, Figueroa J, Chanock SJ, Brinton L, Lissowska J, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Vachon C, Pankratz VS, Lambrechts D, Wildiers H, Van Ongeval C, van Limbergen E, Kristensen V, Grenaker Alnæs G, Nord S, Borresen-Dale AL, Nevanlinna H, Muranen TA, Aittomäki K, Blomqvist C, Chang-Claude J, Rudolph A, Seibold P, Flesch-Janys D, Fasching PA, Haeberle L, Ekici AB, Beckmann MW, Burwinkel B, Marme F, Schneeweiss A, Sohn C, Trentham-Dietz A, Newcomb P, Titus L, Egan KM, Hunter DJ, Lindstrom S, Tamimi RM, Kraft P, Rahman N, Turnbull C, Renwick A, Seal S, Li J, Liu J, Humphreys K, Benitez J, Pilar Zamora M, Arias Perez JI, Menéndez P, Jakubowska A, Lubinski J, Jaworska-Bieniek K, Durda K, Bogdanova NV, Antonenkova NN, Dörk T, Anton-Culver H, Neuhausen SL, Ziogas A, Bernstein L, Devilee P, Tollenaar RA, Seynaeve C, van Asperen CJ, Cox A, Cross SS, Reed MW, Khusnutdinova E, Bermisheva M, Prokofyeva D, Takhirova Z, Meindl A, Schmutzler RK, Sutter C, Yang R, Schürmann P, Bremer M, Christiansen H, Park-Simon TW, Hillemanns P, Guénel P, Truong T, Menegaux F, Sanchez M, Radice P, Peterlongo P, Manoukian S, Pensotti V, Hopper JL, Tsimiklis H, Apicella C, Southey MC, Brauch H, Brüning T, Ko YD, Sigurdson AJ, Doody MM, Hamann U, Torres D, Ulmer HU, Försti A, Sawyer EJ, Tomlinson I, Kerin MJ, Miller N, Andrulis IL, Knight JA, Glendon G, Marie Mulligan A, Chenevix-Trench G, Balleine R, Giles GG, Milne RL, McLean C, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Haiman CA, Henderson BE, Schumacher F, Le Marchand L, Eilber U, Wang-Gohrke S, Hooning MJ, Hollestelle A, van den Ouweland AM, Koppert LB, Carpenter J, Clarke C, Scott R, Mannermaa A, Kataja V, Kosma VM, Hartikainen JM, Brenner H, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Karina Dieffenbach A, Winqvist R, Pylkäs K, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Grip M, Offit K, Vijai J, Robson M, Rau-Murthy R, Dwek M, Swann R, Annie Perkins K, Goldberg MS, Labrèche F, Dumont M, Eccles DM, Tapper WJ, Rafiq S, John EM, Whittemore AS, Slager S, Yannoukakos D, Toland AE, Yao S, Zheng W, Halverson SL, González-Neira A, Pita G, Rosario Alonso M, Álvarez N, Herrero D, Tessier DC, Vincent D, Bacot F, Luccarini C, Baynes C, Ahmed S, Maranian M, Healey CS, Simard J, Hall P, Easton DF, Garcia-Closas M. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107 10.1093/jnci/djv036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Ramus SJ, Song H, Dicks E, Tyrer JP, Rosenthal AN, Intermaggio MP, Fraser L, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hayward J, Philpott S, Anderson C, Edlund CK, Conti D, Harrington P, Barrowdale D, Bowtell DD, Alsop K, Mitchell G, Cicek MS, Cunningham JM, Fridley BL, Alsop J, Jimenez-Linan M, Poblete S, Lele S, Sucheston-Campbell L, Moysich KB, Sieh W, McGuire V, Lester J, Bogdanova N, Dürst M, Hillemanns P, Odunsi K, Whittemore AS, Karlan BY, Dörk T, Goode EL, Menon U, Jacobs IJ, Antoniou AC, Pharoah PD, Gayther SA. AOCS Study Group Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Germline Mutations in the BRIP1, BARD1, PALB2, and NBN genes in women with ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107 10.1093/jnci/djv214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Ligtenberg MJ, Kuiper RP, Geurts van Kessel A, Hoogerbrugge N. EPCAM deletion carriers constitute a unique subgroup of Lynch syndrome patients. Fam Cancer 2013;12:169–74. 10.1007/s10689-012-9591-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Ruijs MWG, Verhoef S, Rookus MA, Pruntel R, van der Hout AH, Hogervorst FBL, Kluijt I, Sijmons RH, Aalfs CM, Wagner A, Ausems MGEM, Hoogerbrugge N, van Asperen CJ, Gomez Garcia EB, Meijers-Heijboer H, ten Kate LP, Menko FH, van ’t Veer LJ. TP53 germline mutation testing in 180 families suspected of Li-Fraumeni syndrome: mutation detection rate and relative frequency of cancers in different familial phenotypes. J Med Genet 2010;47:421–8. 10.1136/jmg.2009.073429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Møller P, Seppälä TT, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Gareth Evans D, Lindblom A, Macrae F, Blanco I, Sijmons RH, Jeffries J, Vasen HFA, Burn J, Nakken S, Hovig E, Rødland EA, Tharmaratnam K, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Hill J, Wijnen JT, Jenkins MA, Green K, Lalloo F, Sunde L, Mints M, Bertario L, Pineda M, Navarro M, Morak M, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Valentin MD, Frayling IM, Plazzer JP, Pylvanainen K, Genuardi M, Mecklin JP, Moeslein G, Sampson JR, Capella G. Mallorca Group. Cancer risk and survival inpath_MMRcarriers by gene and gender up to 75 years of age: a report from the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database. Gut 2017. [Epub ahead of print 28 Jul 2017]. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Foulkes WD, Gore M, McCluggage WG. Rare non-epithelial ovarian neoplasms: Pathology, genetics and treatment. Gynecol Oncol 2016;142:190–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Broderick P, Dobbins SE, Chubb D, Kinnersley B, Dunlop MG, Tomlinson I, Houlston RS. Validation of recently proposed colorectal cancer susceptibility gene variants in an analysis of families and patients—a systematic review. Gastroenterology 2017;152:75–7. 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.09.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. The Ataxia-Telangiectasia Society. Ataxia-telangiectasia in children: Guidance on diagnosis and clinical care 2014. http://www.atsociety.org.uk/data/files/William/A-T_Clinical_Guidance_Document_Final.pdf
  • 19. Public Health England. Protocols for the surveillance of women at higher risk of developing breast cancer 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/breast-screening-higher-risk-women-surveillance-protocols2017
  • 20. NICE. Familial breast cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164/2017 [PubMed]
  • 21. Tung N, Domchek SM, Stadler Z, Nathanson KL, Couch F, Garber JE, Offit K, Robson ME. Counselling framework for moderate-penetrance cancer-susceptibility mutations. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13:581–8. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.90 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. UK Cancer Genetics Group. Guidelines for management of tumour risk in PTEN hamartoma syndrome. 2017. http://www.ukcgg.org/media/1099545/pten_management_-_cgg_4may2017.pdf.
  • 23. Beggs AD, Latchford AR, Vasen HFA, Moslein G, Alonso A, Aretz S, Bertario L, Blanco I, Bulow S, Burn J, Capella G, Colas C, Friedl W, Moller P, Hes FJ, Jarvinen H, Mecklin J-P, Nagengast FM, Parc Y, Phillips RKS, Hyer W, Ponz de Leon M, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Sampson JR, Stormorken A, Tejpar S, Thomas HJW, Wijnen JT, Clark SK, Hodgson SV. Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a systematic review and recommendations for management. Gut 2010;59:975–86. 10.1136/gut.2009.198499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Lee AJ, Cunningham AP, Tischkowitz M, Simard J, Pharoah PD, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Incorporating truncating variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM into the BOADICEA breast cancer risk model. Genetics in Medicine 2016;18:1190–8. 10.1038/gim.2016.31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K, Gopie JP, Alonso A, Aretz S, Bernstein I, Bertario L, Burn J, Capella G, Colas C, Engel C, Frayling IM, Genuardi M, Heinimann K, Hes FJ, Hodgson SV, Karagiannis JA, Lalloo F, Lindblom A, Mecklin JP, Møller P, Myrhoj T, Nagengast FM, Parc Y, Ponz de Leon M, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Sampson JR, Stormorken A, Sijmons RH, Tejpar S, Thomas HJ, Rahner N, Wijnen JT, Järvinen HJ, Möslein G. Mallorca group. Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 2013;62:812–23. 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Daly MB, Pilarski R, Berry M, Buys SS, Farmer M, Friedman S, Garber JE, Kauff ND, Khan S, Klein C, Kohlmann W, Kurian A, Litton JK, Madlensky L, Merajver SD, Offit K, Pal T, Reiser G, Shannon KM, Swisher E, Vinayak S, Voian NC, Weitzel JN, Wick MJ, Wiesner GL, Dwyer M, Darlow S. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast and ovarian, version 2.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017;15:9–20. 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Vasen HFA, Moslein G, Alonso A, Aretz S, Bernstein I, Bertario L, Blanco I, Bulow S, Burn J, Capella G, Colas C, Engel C, Frayling I, Friedl W, Hes FJ, Hodgson S, Jarvinen H, Mecklin J-P, Moller P, Myrhoi T, Nagengast FM, Parc Y, Phillips R, Clark SK, de Leon MP, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Sampson JR, Stormorken A, Tejpar S, Thomas HJW, Wijnen J. Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Gut 2008;57:704–13. 10.1136/gut.2007.136127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ, Dunlop MG, Thomas HJ, Evans GD, Eaden JA, Rutter MD, Atkin WP, Saunders BP, Lucassen A, Jenkins P, Fairclough PD, Woodhouse CR. British Society of Gastroenterology Association of Coloproctology for Great Britain and Ireland. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut 2010;59:666–89. 10.1136/gut.2009.179804 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Evans DG, Lindblom A, Macrae F, Blanco I, Sijmons R, Jeffries J, Vasen H, Burn J, Nakken S, Hovig E, Rødland EA, Tharmaratnam K, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Hill J, Wijnen J, Green K, Lalloo F, Sunde L, Mints M, Bertario L, Pineda M, Navarro M, Morak M, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Frayling IM, Plazzer JP, Pylvanainen K, Sampson JR, Capella G, Mecklin JP, Möslein G. Mallorca Group (http://mallorca-group.eu). Cancer incidence and survival in Lynch syndrome patients receiving colonoscopic and gynaecological surveillance: first report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut 2017;66:464–72. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file 1

jmedgenet-2017-105188supp001.pdf (601KB, pdf)

Supplementary file 2

jmedgenet-2017-105188supp002.pdf (824.5KB, pdf)

Supplementary file 3

jmedgenet-2017-105188supp003.pdf (195.8KB, pdf)


Articles from Journal of Medical Genetics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES