Search

PURPOSE To determine the contribution of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in hereditary cancer testing panel genes to invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study included 2,999 women with ILC from a population-based cohort and 3,796 women with ILC undergoing clinical multigene panel testing (clinical cohort). Frequencies of germline PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes ( ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) were compared between women with ILC and unaffected female controls and between women with ILC and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). RESULTS The frequency of PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes among women with ILC was 6.5% in the clinical cohort and 5.2% in the population-based cohort. In case-control analysis, CDH1 and BRCA2 PVs were associated with high risks of ILC (odds ratio [OR] > 4) and CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PVs were associated with moderate (OR = 2-4) risks. BRCA1 PVs and CHEK2 p.Ile157Thr were not associated with clinically relevant risks (OR < 2) of ILC. Compared with IDC, CDH1 PVs were > 10-fold enriched, whereas PVs in BRCA1 were substantially reduced in ILC. CONCLUSION The study establishes that PVs in ATM, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, and PALB2 are associated with an increased risk of ILC, whereas BRCA1 PVs are not. The similar overall PV frequencies for ILC and IDC suggest that cancer histology should not influence the decision to proceed with genetic testing. Similar to IDC, multigene panel testing may be appropriate for women with ILC, but CDH1 should be specifically discussed because of low prevalence and gastric cancer risk.

PURPOSE The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in established breast cancer predisposition genes in women in the general population over age 65 years is not well-defined. However, testing guidelines suggest that women diagnosed with breast cancer over age 65 years might have < 2.5% likelihood of a PV in a high-penetrance gene. This study aimed to establish the frequency of PVs and remaining risks of breast cancer for each gene in women over age 65 years. METHODS A total of 26,707 women over age 65 years from population-based studies (51.5% with breast cancer and 48.5% unaffected) were tested for PVs in germline predisposition gene. Frequencies of PVs and associations between PVs in each gene and breast cancer were assessed, and remaining lifetime breast cancer risks were estimated for non-Hispanic White women with PVs. RESULTS The frequency of PVs in predisposition genes was 3.18% for women with breast cancer and 1.48% for unaffected women over age 65 years. PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were found in 3.42% of women diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)–negative, 1.0% with ER-positive, and 3.01% with triple-negative breast cancer. Frequencies of PVs were lower among women with no first-degree relatives with breast cancer. PVs in CHEK2, PALB2, BRCA2, and BRCA1 were associated with increased risks (odds ratio = 2.9-4.0) of breast cancer. Remaining lifetime risks of breast cancer were ≥ 15% for those with PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2. CONCLUSION This study suggests that all women diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer or ER-negative breast cancer should receive genetic testing and that women over age 65 years with BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs and perhaps with PALB2 and CHEK2 PVs should be considered for magnetic resonance imaging screening.

Background: DNA genetic testing is commonly used to inform treatment decisions for breast cancer patients. In recent years, RNA genetic testing has shown promise for increasing the detection of disease-causing variants and decreasing inconclusive results. Here we describe the impact of concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing on identifying breast cancer patients with germline cancer predisposition who may have been missed by DNA-only testing. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of breast cancer patients who received concurrent DNA and RNA hereditary cancer panel testing between March 2019 and February 2020 at Ambry Genetics. Patients underwent DNA and RNA genetic testing of up to 18 hereditary cancer genes at the discretion of the ordering healthcare provider (APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NF1, PALB2, PMS2 exons 1-10, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53). Breast cancer patients with positive results, defined as the presence of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in any of these 18 genes, were selected for inclusion in this study (n=946). Results: Concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing led to the identification of 23 breast cancer patients with positive results who would have otherwise received inconclusive or negative results with DNA-only testing. These cases represented 2.4% of all positive results reported in the 18 genes studied (n=23/946). The majority of RNA-related positive results occurred in either ATM (n=14) or BRCA1/2 (n=7). The remaining two cases involved alterations in NF1 and PMS2. Guidelines for risk-reducing breast surgery (BRCA1/2) and breast imaging surveillance (ATM, BRCA1/2, NF1) were relevant for 30.4% and 95.7% of patients with RNA-dependent positive results, respectively. In addition, treatment options such as PARP inhibitors or clinical trial eligibility were potentially implicated for 91.3% of RNA-dependent positives (BRCA1/2, ATM). In 16 of the 23 cases, variants would have been detected by DNA-only testing but would have remained inconclusive without supporting RNA data. In the remaining 7 cases, abnormal RNA results led to the identification of pathogenic/likely pathogenic intronic variants beyond the analytical range of DNA testing. Thus, these seven patients would have received negative results from DNA-only testing. Four of these cases involved pathogenic/likely pathogenic intronic variants in ATM and three involved pathogenic intronic variants in BRCA1. Conclusions: One in 41 breast cancer patients who test positive on concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing would have received negative or inconclusive results from DNA-only testing. These findings demonstrate the impact of a comprehensive diagnostic testing approach that includes concurrent DNA and RNA analysis and highlights the important implications for the personalized management of these breast cancer patients including potential missed opportunities for early detection and prevention of additional cancer and familial testing in the absence of RGT. Citation Format: Holly LaDuca, Lily Hoang, Carolyn Horton, Jessica Profato, Tameron Harvell, Jill S Dolinsky, Tina Pesaran, Rachid Karam. Rna genetic testing improves detection of patients with hereditary breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD10-07.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing is routinely incorporated into clinical care for breast cancer patients to inform management decisions and reduce risk for developing subsequent cancers. While the diagnostic yield of cancer genetic testing has increased over the years due to adoption of multigene panels, a substantial portion of breast cancer patients remain without a molecular diagnosis yet are suspected to have a genetic mutation that could not be detected and/or classified with standard DNA testing techniques. We assessed the ability of a novel genetic testing approach involving simultaneous DNA and RNA analysis to increase the diagnostic yield and decrease the number of variants of unknown significance (VUS). METHODS: Women with a personal history of breast cancer were ascertained from a larger cohort of patients referred for concurrent RNA sequencing alongside DNA hereditary cancer panel testing by ordering clinicians from 18 collaborating medical centers across the United States. Test result classifications were evaluated for women whose testing included sixteen clinically-actionable hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC) genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53). RESULTS: In this cohort of 746 breast cancer patients, the addition of RNA sequencing increased the pathogenic variant detection rate from 8% to 9% across sixteen HBOC genes. These RNA-related positive results included two pathogenic variants in BRCA1 occurring outside the standard analytical range of DNA testing and three VUS (one each in ATM, BRCA2, and PMS2) that were reclassified as likely pathogenic as a result of additional information provided by RNA sequencing. In addition, two VUS were reclassified to benign/likely benign (one each in MSH2 and BRCA2). Together, these five variant reclassifications contributed to a 3% relative decrease in the number of unique VUS classifications (reduced from 182 to 177 unique VUS). In addition, 31 previously-tested patients received reclassification reports. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing has shown immediate promise in this pilot study, leading to the identification of five breast cancer patients with mutations in clinically actionable genes that would otherwise have received inconclusive or negative results with DNA testing alone. By increasing the detection of germline pathogenic variants and reducing VUS classifications, concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing increases the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of hereditary cancer testing for breast cancer patients. Citation Format: Holly LaDuca, Lily Hoang, Jill Dolinsky, Jessica Profato, Amal Yussuf, Carolyn Horton, Cara Dresbold, Cassie Garcia, Catherine Koptiuch, Danielle Dondanville, Danielle McKenna, Danielle Menashe, Deborah Wham, Deepika Nathan, Diane Samad, Elizabeth Hoodfar, Gayle Patel, Jen Moore, Jennifer Geurts, John Lee, Kara Milliron, Khateriaa Pyrtel, Meagan Farmer, Meredith Seidel, Morgan Depas, Nichole Morman, Olivia Tan, Rebekah Krukenberg, Rob Pilarski, Samantha Stachowiak, Sandra Jenkinson, Sara Pirzadeh-Miller, Shraddha Gaonkar, Tiffani Demarco, Brigette Tippin Davis, Elizabeth C Chao, Rachid Karam. Concurrent DNA and RNA genetic testing identifies more patients with hereditary breast cancer than DNA testing alone [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-08.

The identification of the substrate of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the absence of structural heart disease or electrocardiographic changes remains a challenge for patient management and family counseling. The availability of expanded genetic testing panels and clinical exome screening has not led to a significant increase in the identification of genetic causes of these events, as shown by recent reports.1, 2 Indeed, the majority of studies detected only a small number of genetic variants1, 2 that could explain a sudden cardiac arrest event. Additionally, most variants still remain classified as “of unknown significance” and do not provide information useful for mechanistic understanding and cascade screening. Variants of unknown significance (VUS) of particular complex adjudication are those located at, and possibly altering, RNA splicing sites. RNA testing is thus critical in characterizing splicing alterations and could provide more precise insights compared to in silico prediction algorithms alone. We present here a case of idiopathic VF where RNA studies on the patient’s blood cells helped revise the adjudication of a VUS, providing valuable insights and implications for cascade screening.

Clinical interpretation of missense variants is challenging because the majority identified by genetic testing are rare and their functional effects are unknown. Consequently, most variants are of uncertain significance and cannot be used for clinical diagnosis or management. Although not much can be done to ameliorate variant rarity, multiplexed assays of variant effect (MAVEs), where thousands of single-nucleotide variant effects are simultaneously measured experimentally, provide functional evidence that can help resolve variants of unknown significance (VUSs). However, a rigorous assessment of the clinical value of multiplexed functional data for variant interpretation is lacking. Thus, we systematically combined previously published BRCA1, TP53, and PTEN multiplexed functional data with phenotype and family history data for 324 VUSs identified by a single diagnostic testing laboratory. We curated 49,281 variant functional scores from MAVEs for these three genes and integrated four different TP53 multiplexed functional datasets into a single functional prediction for each variant by using machine learning. We then determined the strength of evidence provided by each multiplexed functional dataset and reevaluated 324 VUSs. Multiplexed functional data were effective in driving variant reclassification when combined with clinical data, eliminating 49% of VUSs for BRCA1, 69% for TP53, and 15% for PTEN. Thus, multiplexed functional data, which are being generated for numerous genes, are poised to have a major impact on clinical variant interpretation.

Germline variants in tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) can result in RNA mis-splicing and predisposition to cancer. However, identification of variants that impact splicing remains a challenge, contributing to a substantial proportion of patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes remaining without a molecular diagnosis. To address this, we used capture RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) to generate a splicing profile of 18 TSGs (APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NF1, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, and TP53) in 345 whole-blood samples from healthy donors. We subsequently demonstrated that this approach can detect mis-splicing by comparing splicing profiles from the control dataset to profiles generated from whole blood of individuals previously identified with pathogenic germline splicing variants in these genes. To assess the utility of our TSG splicing profile to prospectively identify pathogenic splicing variants, we performed concurrent capture DNA and RNA-seq in a cohort of 1000 patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. This approach improved the diagnostic yield in this cohort, resulting in a 9.1% relative increase in the detection of pathogenic variants, demonstrating the utility of performing simultaneous DNA and RNA genetic testing in a clinical context.

The ClinGen PTEN Expert Panel was organized by the ClinGen Hereditary Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group to assemble clinicians, researchers, and molecular diagnosticians with PTEN expertise to develop specifications to the 2015 ACMG/AMP Sequence Variant Interpretation Guidelines for PTEN variant interpretation. We describe finalized PTEN-specific variant classification criteria and outcomes from pilot testing of 42 variants with benign/likely benign (BEN/LBEN), pathogenic/likely pathogenic (PATH/LPATH), uncertain significance (VUS), and conflicting (CONF) ClinVar assertions. Utilizing these rules, classifications concordant with ClinVar assertions were achieved for 14/15 (93.3%) BEN/LBEN and 16/16 (100%) PATH/LPATH ClinVar consensus variants for an overall concordance of 96.8% (30/31). The variant where agreement was not reached was a synonymous variant near a splice donor with non-canonical sequence for which in silico models cannot predict the native site. Applying these rules to six VUS and five CONF variants, adding shared internal laboratory data enabled one VUS to be classified as LBEN and two CONF variants to be as classified as PATH and LPATH. This study highlights the benefit of gene-specific criteria and the value of sharing internal laboratory data for variant interpretation. Our PTEN-specific criteria and expertly reviewed assertions should prove helpful for laboratories and others curating PTEN variants.

Importance Performing DNA genetic testing (DGT) for hereditary cancer genes is now a well-accepted clinical practice; however, the interpretation of DNA variation remains a challenge for laboratories and clinicians. Adding RNA genetic testing (RGT) enhances DGT by clarifying the clinical actionability of hereditary cancer gene variants, thus improving clinicians’ ability to accurately apply strategies for cancer risk reduction and treatment. Objective To evaluate whether RGT is associated with improvement in the diagnostic outcome of DGT and in the delivery of personalized cancer risk management for patients with hereditary cancer predisposition. Design, Setting, and Participants Diagnostic study in which patients and/or families with inconclusive variants detected by DGT in genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer sent blood samples for RGT from March 2016 to April 2018. Clinicians who ordered genetic testing and received a reclassification report for these variants were surveyed to assess whether RGT-related variant reclassifications changed clinical management of these patients. To quantify the potential number of tested individuals who could benefit from RGT, a cohort of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT for hereditary cancer were separately queried to identify variants predicted to affect splicing. Data analysis was conducted from March 2016 and September 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures Variant reclassification outcomes following RGT, clinical management changes associated with RGT-related variant reclassifications, and the proportion of patients who would likely be affected by a concurrent DGT and RGT multigene panel testing approach. Results In total, 93 if 909 eligible families (10.2%) submitted samples for RGT. Evidence from RGT clarified the interpretation of 49 of 56 inconclusive cases (88%) studied; 26 (47%) were reclassified as clinically actionable and 23 (41%) were clarified as benign. Variant reclassifications based on RGT results changed clinical management recommendations for 8 of 18 patients (44%) and 14 of 18 families (78%), based on responses from 18 of 45 clinicians (40%) surveyed. A total of 7265 of 307 812 patients who underwent DGT had likely pathogenic variants or variants of uncertain significance potentially affecting splicing, indicating that approximately 1 in 43 individuals could benefit from RGT. Conclusions and Relevance In this diagnostic study, conducting RNA testing resolved a substantial proportion of variants of uncertain significance in a cohort of individuals previously tested for cancer predisposition by DGT. Performing RGT might change the diagnostic outcome of at least 1 in 43 patients if performed in all individuals undergoing genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer.

An appreciable number of patients with gastric cancer have an underlying hereditary cancer susceptibility syndrome as the cause of their gastric cancer, particularly those with early onset gastric cancer or a family history of gastric or other cancers. Pathogenic germline variants in specific genes account for the known gastric cancer predisposition syndromes. Germline genetic testing can identify individuals and their family members who carry inherited pathogenic gene variants, and thus have increased risk of developing gastric or other cancers. Ideally, germline pathogenic variants can be identified in family members before the onset of disease, when early detection or prevention strategies can be implemented most effectively to decrease gastric cancer- related morbidity and mortality. This article reviews some of the currently known gastric cancer predisposition syndromes and their associated cancer risks. We also discuss current research and advances in the field of genetic gastric cancer susceptibility.

Inherited pathogenic variants in genes that confer moderate to high risk of breast cancer may explain up to 50% of familial breast cancer. This study aimed at identifying inherited pathogenic variants in breast cancer cases from Puerto Rico that were not linked to BRCA1 or BRCA2. Forty-eight breast cancer patients that met the clinical criteria for BRCA testing but had received a negative BRCA1/2 result were recruited. Fifty-three genes previously implicated in hereditary cancer predisposition were captured using the BROCA Agilent cancer risk panel followed by massively parallel sequencing. Missense variants of uncertain clinical significance in CHEK2 were evaluated using an in vitro kinase assays to determine their impact on function. Pathogenic variants were identified in CHEK2, MUTYH, and RAD51B in four breast cancer patients, which represented 8.3% of the cohort. We identified three rare missense variants of uncertain significance in CHEK2 and two variants (p.Pro484Leu and p.Glu239Lys) showed markedly decreased kinase activity in vitro comparable to a known pathogenic variant. Interestingly, the local ancestry at the RAD51B locus in the carrier of p.Arg47* was predicted to be of African origin. In this cohort, 12.5% of the BRCA-negative breast cancer patients were found to carry a known pathogenic variant or a variant affecting protein activity. This study reveals an unmet clinical need of genetic testing that could benefit a significant proportion of at-risk Latinas. It also highlights the complexity of Hispanic populations as pathogenic factors may originate from any of the ancestral populations that make up their genetic backgrounds.

Clinical genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is becoming widespread. However, the interpretation of variants of unknown significance (VUS) in HBOC genes, such as the clinically actionable genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, remain a challenge. Among the variants that are frequently classified as VUS are those with unclear effects on splicing. In order to address this issue we developed a high-throughput RNA-massively parallel sequencing assay—CloneSeq—capable to perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of transcripts in cell lines and HBOC patients. This assay is based on cloning of RT-PCR products followed by massive parallel sequencing of the cloned transcripts. To validate this assay we compared it to the RNA splicing assays recommended by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. This comparison was performed using well-characterized lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) generated from carriers of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline variants that have been previously described to be associated with splicing defects. CloneSeq was able to replicate the ENIGMA results, in addition to providing quantitative characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline splicing alterations in a high-throughput fashion. Furthermore, CloneSeq was used to analyze blood samples obtained from carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline sequence variants, including the novel uncharacterized alteration BRCA1 c.5152+5G>T, which was identified in a HBOC family. CloneSeq provided a high-resolution picture of all the transcripts induced by BRCA1 c.5152+5G>T, indicating it results in significant levels of exon skipping. This analysis proved to be important for the classification of BRCA1 c.5152+5G>T as a clinically actionable likely pathogenic variant. Reclassifications such as these are fundamental in order to offer preventive measures, targeted treatment, and pre-symptomatic screening to the correct individuals.

Purpose Structural variation (SV) is associated with inherited diseases. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is an efficient method for SV detection because of its high-throughput, low cost, and base-pair resolution. However, due to lack of standard NGS protocols and a limited number of clinical samples with pathogenic SVs, comprehensive standards for SV detection, interpretation, and reporting are to be established. Methods We performed SV assessment on 60,000 clinical samples tested with hereditary cancer NGS panels spanning 48 genes. To evaluate NGS results, NGS and orthogonal methods were used separately in a blinded fashion for SV detection in all samples. Results A total of 1,037 SVs in coding sequence (CDS) or untranslated regions (UTRs) and 30,847 SVs in introns were detected and validated. Across all variant types, NGS shows 100% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity. Overall, 64% of CDS/UTR SVs were classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic, and five deletions/duplications were reclassified as pathogenic using breakpoint information from NGS. Conclusion The SVs presented here can be used as a valuable resource for clinical research and diagnostics. The data illustrate NGS as a powerful tool for SV detection. Application of NGS and confirmation technologies in genetic testing ensures delivering accurate and reliable results for diagnosis and patient care.

The variant curation guidelines published in 2015 by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) provided the genetics community with a framework to assess variant pathogenicity; however, these rules are not gene-specific. Germline pathogenic variants in the CDH1 gene cause hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and lobular breast cancer, a clinically challenging cancer predisposition syndrome that often requires a multidisciplinary team of experts to be properly managed. Given this challenge, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Hereditary Cancer Domain prioritized the development of the CDH1 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) to develop and implement rules for CDH1 variant classifications. Here we describe the CDH1 specifications of the ACMG/AMP guidelines, which were developed and validated after a systematic evaluation of variants obtained from a cohort of clinical laboratory data encompassing ~827,000 CDH1 sequenced alleles. Comparing previously reported germline variants that were classified using the 2015 ACMG/AMP guidelines to the CDH1 VCEP recommendations resulted in reduced variants of uncertain significance and facilitated resolution of variants with conflicted assertions in ClinVar. Overall, the ClinGen CDH1 VCEP recommends the use of these CDH1-specific guidelines for the assessment and classification of variants identified in this clinically actionable gene.

Genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer is an integral part of individualized care in the new era of precision medicine. The accuracy of an assay is reliant on not only the technology and bioinformatics analysis utilized but also the experience and infrastructure required to correctly classify genetic variants as disease-causing. Interpreting the clinical significance of germline variants identified by hereditary cancer testing is complex and has a significant impact on the management of patients who are at increased cancer risk. In this review we give an overview of our clinical laboratory’s integrated approach to variant assessment. We discuss some of the nuances that should be considered in the assessment of genomic variants. In addition, we highlight lines of evidence such as functional assays and structural analysis that can be useful in the assessment of rare and complex variants.

Recent studies have reported germline CDH1 mutations in cases of lobular breast cancer (LBC) not associated with the classical hereditary diffuse gastric cancer syndrome. A multidisciplinary workgroup discussed genetic susceptibility, pathophysiology and clinical management of hereditary LBC (HLBC). The team has established the clinical criteria for CDH1 screening and results’ interpretation, and created consensus guidelines regarding genetic counselling, breast surveillance and imaging techniques, clinicopathological findings, psychological and decisional support, as well as prophylactic surgery and plastic reconstruction. Based on a review of current evidence for the identification of HLBC cases/families, CDH1 genetic testing is recommended in patients fulfilling the following criteria: (A) bilateral LBC with or without family history of LBC, with age at onset CDH1 asymptomatic mutant carriers, breast surveillance with clinical examination, yearly mammography, contrast-enhanced breast MRI and breast ultrasonography (US) with 6-month interval between the US and the MRI should be implemented as a first approach. In selected cases with personal history, family history of LBC and CDH1 mutations, prophylactic mastectomy could be discussed with an integrative group of clinical experts. Psychodecisional support also plays a pivotal role in the management of individuals with or without CDH1 germline alterations. Ultimately, the definition of a specific protocol for CDH1 genetic screening and ongoing coordinated management of patients with HLBC is crucial for the effective surveillance and early detection of LBC.