Lab Med Online.  2018 Jul;8(3):107-113. 10.3343/lmo.2018.8.3.107.

Status of BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Practices in Korea (2014)

• Lee K
• Jang JH
• Lee ST
• Yoon KA
• Lee ES
• Kim JW
• Kong SY

• KMID: 2414132
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2018.8.3.107

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to investigate the status of BRCA1/2 genetic testing practices in Korea in 2014.
METHODS
A structured questionnaire was provided to the specialist in charge of BRCA1/2 genetic testing via e-mail between 28 July and 10 August 2015. A total of 11 genetic testing professionals from 14 organizations responded to the survey that asked about the status of BRCA1/2 genetic testing in the year 2014.
RESULTS
The average number of BRCA1/2 genetic tests executed was 192; 6 organizations had executed less than 100 tests, and 5 organizations had conducted more than 100 tests. The primary testing method used was Sanger sequencing (100%), and 2 institutes performed multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). The analysis software differed across the various organizations, with Sequencher (81.81%), Seqscape (27.27%), and Codoncode Aligner (9.09%) reported as utilized. We found that the guidelines for the interpretation of the genetic tests were different at each institution.
CONCLUSIONS
Although this study only examined the status of the 2014 BRCA1/2 genetic testing practices of 11 institutions, it illustrates the necessity for standardized genetic testing or interpretation guidelines in Korea.

Keyword

Genes; BRCA1; BRCA2; Questionnaires and Surveys; Genetic testing; Standardization

MeSH Terms

Academies and Institutes
Electronic Mail
Genetic Testing*
Korea*
Methods
Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
Specialization
Surveys and Questionnaires

Reference

1.Jung KW., Won YJ., Oh CM., Kong HJ., Lee DH., Lee KH. Community of Population-Based Regional Cancer Registries. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2014. Cancer Res Treat. 2017. 49:292–305.

2.Kang E., Park SK., Lee JW., Kim Z., Noh WC., Jung Y, et al. KOHBRA BRCA risk calculator (KOHCal): a model for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Korean breast cancer patients. J Hum Genet. 2016. 61:365–71.

3.Kang E., Seong MW., Park SK., Lee JW., Lee J., Kim LS, et al. Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study Group. The prevalence and spectrum of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Korean population: recent update of the Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer (KOHBRA) study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015. 151:157–68.

4.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.

5.Genomes Project Consortium. Abecasis GR., Altshuler D., Auton A., Brooks LD., Durbin RM, et al. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature. 2010. 467:1061–73.

6.Genomes Project Consortium. Abecasis GR., Auton A., Brooks LD., DePristo MA., Durbin RM, et al. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature. 2012. 491:56–65.

7.Resource ITIGS. [Available from:. http://www.internationalgenome.org/.

8.Information NCfB. The International HapMap Project 2014 [Available from:. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/probe/docs/projhapmap/.

9.Adzhubei IA., Schmidt S., Peshkin L., Ramensky VE., Gerasimova A., Bork P, et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods. 2010. 7:248–9.

10.Adzhubei I., Jordan DM., Sunyaev SR. Predicting functional effect of human missense mutations using PolyPhen-2. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2013. Chapter 7: Unit7 20.

11.Ramensky V., Bork P., Sunyaev S. Human non-synonymous SNPs: server and survey. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002. 30:3894–900.

12.Sunyaev SR., Eisenhaber F., Rodchenkov IV., Eisenhaber B., Tumanyan VG., Kuznetsov EN. PSIC: profle extraction from sequence alignments with position-specifc counts of independent observations. Protein Eng. 1999. 12:387–94.

13.Kumar P., Henikoff S., Ng PC. Predicting the effects of coding non-synonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm. Nat Protoc. 2009. 4:1073–81.

14.Ng PC., Henikoff S. Predicting the effects of amino acid substitutions on protein function. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2006. 7:61–80.

15.Ng PC., Henikoff S. SIFT: Predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003. 31:3812–4. 16. Ng PC and Henikoff S. Accounting for human polymorphisms predicted to affect protein function. Genome Res 2002;12: 436-46. 17. Ng PC and Henikoff S. Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions. Genome Res 2001;11: 863-74.

16.Ng PC., Henikoff S. Accounting for human polymorphisms predicted to affect protein function. Genome Res. 2002. 12:436–46.

17.Ng PC., Henikoff S. Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions. Genome Res. 2001. 11:863–74. 18. Mathe E, Olivier M, Kato S, Ishioka C, Hainaut P, Tavtigian SV. Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34: 1317-25.

18.Mathe E., Olivier M., Kato S., Ishioka C., Hainaut P., Tavtigian SV. Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006. 34:1317–25. 19. Loser H, Heydt C, Buttner R, Markiefka B. BRCA diagnostics of ovarian cancer: Molecular tumor testing since the introduction of PARP inhibitor therapy. Pathologe 2017;38: 117-26.

19.Loser H., Heydt C., Buttner R., Markiefka B. BRCA diagnostics of ovarian cancer: Molecular tumor testing since the introduction of PARP inhibitor therapy. Pathologe. 2017. 38:117–26.

20.Park JS., Nam EJ., Park HS., Han JW., Lee JY., Kim J, et al. Identifcation of a novel BRCA1 pathogenic mutation in Korean patients following re-classifcation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants According to the ACMG standards and guidelines using relevant ethnic controls. Cancer Res Treat. 2017. 49:1012–21.

21.Park KS., Cho EY., Nam SJ., Ki CS., Kim JW. Comparative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain signifcance in patients with breast cancer: a multifactorial probability-based model versus ACMG standards and guidelines for interpreting sequence variants. Genet Med. 2016. 18:1250–7.