Posted by on June 19, 2013 - 8:56am

Geneticists, researchers, and patients joined in celebration over last week’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling involving the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, colloquially referred to as the “breast cancer genes.”  The Supreme Court ruled that Myriad Genetics could not patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence of genes, because patents cannot be placed on that which is created organically in nature.  This decision opens the door for researchers outside of Myriad Genetics to study these genes, providing more opportunities to discover early signs of breast cancer susceptibility.  Karuna Jaggar, Breast Cancer Action’s Executive Director reported that this ruling was, “a tremendous victory for women with a known or suspected inherited risk of breast cancer. Today, the Court righted a wrong and has put patients’ health before corporate profits.”

Prior to this ruling, bio-tech conglomerate, Myriad Genetics, held patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, monopolizing the research that can be done on these genes, which are strong indicators of susceptibility to breast cancer. Myriad had used their patents to come up with its BRACAnalysis test, which searches for specific mutations in these cancer predisposition genes.  Women who show these mutations have a three to seven times greater risk of developing breast cancer.  Myriad’s previously established patents on these genes gave them exclusive rights to use this genetic test on these genes.  Now that the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are open to outside researchers, scientists can use these genes to determine increased risks of patients who may develop breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and other cancers that these genes may help indicate.

Angelina Jolie recently made headlines for deciding to voluntarily undergo a double mastectomy after learning of her own BRCA genes' mutations.  Jolie had paid a high price for this test, since Myriad had a monopoly on the market, driving up the cost.  So what does this mean for the average, non-Angelina Jolie woman? Well, now this test will be widely available for more women at a more affordable price (we don’t all have as deep of pockets as Jolie).  This ruling will not only open the door for more opportunities for preventative screenings for breast cancer, but it will set a precedent for the scientific community to collaborate on research towards the common good.

For more information on this court ruling, please refer to this posts's sources found here and here.

 

Posted by on September 17, 2011 - 9:41am

The following blog is excerpted from a Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC)  blog and raises important issues regarding genomic (genetic) testing.

Campaigns against public spitting in the 19th century were largely driven by concerns about the spread of tuberculosis. However, at the beginning of the 21st century, spitting seems to be making a comeback since it is a common source of DNA for testing.  Over the past few years, several companies have begun offering personal genomic tests online to the public. There have been famous images of “spit parties”, where celebrities are seen filling tubes with saliva to ship for DNA testing. Getting information on one’s genes has been promoted as fun, as part of social networking, and as a basis for improving health and preventing disease.

When it comes to spitting to improve one’s health, we say: think before you spit.  Our knowledge of the potential benefits and harms of these tests is incomplete at best.  Despite exciting research advances in genomics of common diseases, there is still much to learn about what this information means and how to use it to prevent disease. A little bit of incomplete or inaccurate information may even be harmful.

There are at least 2 key questions to consider when deciding whether personal genomic tests are worth your spit. First, how well can these tests detect or predict particular health conditions?  Most common diseases, such as diabetes, cancers, and heart disease, are caused by multiple genes and interactions with environment and behavior. Therefore, a risk estimate based only on genes is bound to be uncertain and can rapidly change based on new information. Different companies may even arrive at different interpretations of the same information. In 2010, a special undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that tests by different companies of the same samples gave contradictory results. Second, can the test provide additional information that leads to better health? If the test indicates increased or decreased risk for a disease, what can be done about it? Will the test tell us more than what we know to do already?

Many interventions for reducing one’s risk for common diseases–such as smoking cessation, weight loss, increased physical activity, and blood pressure control–are beneficial regardless of a person’s genetic background. In the words of one consumer who responded to the CDC podcast on personal genomics in 2010:  “…seems one should just assume you have many health risks, then take really good care of yourself to lessen risks. Pretend you did the tests. Get ‘pretend-scared’ straight! You can then motivate yourself to keep healthy weight, exercise, reduce stress, get enough rest, consume healthy foods, avoid unhealthy habits,  enjoy hobbies & keep mind active, build friendships & family bonds…” In fact, new data from CDC  show that people who engaged in four healthy behaviors — not smoking, eating a healthy diet, getting regular physical activity, and limiting alcohol consumption- had much lower likelihoods of dying (over an 18 year period) from cancer, cardiovascular disease and other causes than those who did not engage in all four healthy behaviors.  Not smoking provides the most protection from dying early from all causes.

Several scientific studies designed to evaluate the potential impact of personal genomic information on health behavior and outcomes have been published and more are under way. Recommendations for setting scientific standards and a research agenda for personal genomics were published in 2009 by a panel convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health.  Those recommendations for scientific evaluation still hold today.

In 2008, Dr Kari Stefansson, a leading scientist in the genetics community and founder of one of the companies that offer personal genomic tests said: “I am convinced that within five years every college-educated person in America is going to have a [genomic] profile like this. You cannot afford not having this.”  While this prediction may or may not be fulfilled based on the evolving scientific evidence, when a valid and useful test becomes available, the public health imperative is to have such tests widely available,  regardless of educational levels or other socioeconomic factors. For example, a recent national survey found that BRCA1/2 testing for breast and ovarian cancer—which is clearly beneficial for some women at high risk—is underutilized, especially among black and Hispanic women.

A very informative and inexpensive “genomic test” is available right now: family health history. An accurate, updated family health history can help healthcare providers assess the presence of many genetic conditions and whether patients and their relatives may have an increased risk for specific diseases. Family history also captures shared genetic, environmental and cultural disease risk factors.

Posted by on February 9, 2010 - 11:01am

I have noticed that recently there have been a lot of commercials on television about getting your BRACAnalysis®.  You might be wondering what a BRAC analysis is? Or maybe you are wondering if you should get one?  The BRAC test is a genetic test that will test your genome for the presence of two genes that have been correlated with certain types of breast and ovarian cancer.

Mutations in these genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are strongly associated with 7% of breast cancers and 11-15% of ovarian cancers (1).  In most people, the BRCA genes are tumor suppressors, meaning they encode proteins that help regulate cell growth.   When these genes are mutated, they can lose their ability to control cell growth, and cancer can thus develop.  However, it is important to realize that not every woman who has a mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene will develop cancer.  About 12% of the general population of women will develop breast cancer; while approximately 60% of women with a BRCA mutation will develop breast cancer.  Similarly, about 1.4% of women will develop ovarian cancer, compared to 15-40% of women with a BRCA mutation.  However, since these two genes are only associated with certain types of breast and ovarian cancer, a negative test (no mutation) does not guarantee that you will not develop cancer at some point in your lifetime (2).

Because the genes are located on the autosomal chromosomes (as opposed to the sex chromosomes), the mutation can be inherited from either your mother or your father.  Most women who decide to undergo genetic BRCA testing have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer.  However, there are no current medical guidelines for recommending BRCA tests.   Also, having a family member with the mutation does not necessarily mean you will have it to.  Once a woman tests positive for either BRCA1 or BRCA2, she has several options to help reduce her risk.  The most conservative options would be to monitor the breast and ovarian tissue with frequent screenings such as mammography or ultrasound.  More drastic options include removing the breast tissue and/or ovaries before cancer has a chance to develop, or taking chemotherapeutic drugs to help prevent cancer (clinical trials have demonstrated some success of these drugs in prevention of breast cancer).

A BRAC analysis test usually involves collection of a blood sample, and could cost you anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars, and it may not be covered by your insurance company.  The good news however, is that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prevents discrimination from insurance companies or employers against people who have undergone genetic testing.  With personalized medicine on the rise, many individuals are concerned that their genetic information might be sold to employers and insurance providers and used to exclude them from employment or health coverage.  This law is meant to protect an individual’s right to privacy with his or her genetic information.

Ultimately it is your decision if you would like to undergo genetic testing.  It is important, however, to think about the emotional stress of undergoing such a test and receiving your results.  You might want to think beforehand about what you would do with the information.  If your test is positive, would you elect for preventative surgery?  Will your insurance cover early screening if you think you need it?  Knowing your risk can be both empowering and daunting.  I recently watched a wonderful documentary by filmmaker Joanna Rudnick, titled In the Family, that explores her own emotional struggle with genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer.  View the trailer below:

To learn more about the film click here.

1.  Claus EB, Schildkrauten JM, Thompson WD, Risch NJ, et al. The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1996;77:2318-2324.

2.  National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet on BRCA1 and BRCA 2. http://www.cancer.gov/templates/doc.aspx?viewid=ABCB7812-A132-4E78-A532-F002C92FA9B9