The Yale Breast Center, affiliated with the Yale Cancer Center, it is the first National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Northeast to get a full three-year accreditation by the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers.
What does all this mean?
Dr. Anees Chagpar, director of the Breast Center, was very happy to explain it all.
Click on the above light blue link to read more! Read more!
Click on the above light blue link to be directed to "Yale Cancer Answers" website. Search the "Program Archives by date" and scroll to November 13, 2011 "BRCA is not the only cancer gene. And other controversies in cancer genetic counseling and testing" to listen to Ellen Matloff's recent interview! Read more!
By Cindy Mindell ~
STAMFORD – The Jewish Genetic Disease Consortium counts no fewer than 19 Jewish genetic diseases more common in people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent; one in five Ashkenazi Jews is a carrier for at least one of these diseases. Among them, breast cancer has attained a high level of public awareness and engagement, especially regarding the BRCA (breast cancer) gene and genetic testing that can detect the mutation. But there are more considerations and options to be aware of.
The program will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 30, 9-10:30 a.m. at the Stamford JCC
“Living in Our Genes: Jewish Genes and Breast Cancer” will explore options and issues surrounding the disease. Co-sponsored by the United Jewish Federation (Stamford) Bureau of Jewish Education, Stamford JCC Center Women, and Stamford Hadassah, the panel will include genetic counselor Danielle Bonadies; psychologist Marni Amsellem; and breast-cancer survivors Aimee Elsner and Marlene Gatz, one of whom tested positive for the BRCA gene. The program will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 30, 9-10:30 a.m. at the Stamford JCC.
Genetic counselor Danielle Bonadies is the assistant director of the Yale Cancer Center Genetic Counseling Program Team. There are three specific mutations within the BRCA1 and BRCA2 two genes that are more common in individuals with Jewish Ashkenazi ancestry, she says.
“We all have the two genes, whose job is to provide protection against the development of specific kinds of cancer – breast, male breast, ovarian, and prostate,” she says. “When someone has a change or mutation in one of these genes, it affects the amount of protection they have, which means that the chance of their developing cancer is higher. When someone has the mutation, it’s inherited – not something they can acquire.”
The genetic predisposition to develop cancer is known as a cancer syndrome or hereditary cancer syndrome. There are between 25 and 30 hereditary cancer syndromes, Bonadies says, and while genetic testing can detect the mutation, it is important to pursue the appropriate test.
“Today, when genetics is being targeted and directed at the consumer by large laboratories – specifically, BRCA testing – it’s very important to have your personal and family history evaluated by a genetics professional to make sure you get the right testing,” Bonadies says. “Breast cancer is most widely believed to be related to the BRCA genes, but because there are also other genes linked to the disease, a genetic counselor should get three and four generations of family history.”
Genetic counselors have always taken a full family history to determine appropriate genetic testing, Bonadies says. “But what’s new is the marketing of genetic testing to the average consumer,” she says. “So now, BRCA testing is a household name, but most people don’t know about the other 25 cancer syndromes, and that’s because one consumer lab has the patent on BRCA testing.”
While beneficial to expand awareness, Bonadies says that patients then request that testing, which may be appropriate. “But they take that request to their healthcare providers, who are also being targeted by the same labs,” she says. “The healthcare providers then order the test without knowing the family history and the appropriate test.”
Joining Bonadies on the Nov. 30 panel is Marni Amsellem, a clinical psychologist who specializes in health psychology, and how psychological factors influence adherence to cancer-screening recommendations. A fellow and contractor at the National Cancer Institute (National Institutes of Health) from 2004 to 2009, Amsellem is a consultant with the Cancer Support Community, an international not-for-profit organization that provides free education and support services to cancer patients and their families. She is involved in the Mind Affects the Physical (MAP) project, a longitudinal survey and online community of breast-cancer survivors to determine ongoing needs and concerns. She also provides clinical services to cancer patients and their family members in outpatient and community settings, including Gilda’s Club in Westchester, N.Y.
An excerpt from CNN.com
Imagine going in for a cancer screening, and the technician turns to you and says, "We're finished, but if I push this button over here, the machine can detect even smaller cancers. But here's the hitch: You have to pay $700 if you want me to push this button."
"You'd be enraged," says Ellen Matloff, director of cancer genetic counseling at Yale University Cancer Center. "You'd want to know why you have to pay extra to push that button. Why didn't they just do it right the first time?"
Click the above light blue link to read the full article at cnn.com Read more!
See the above light blue link for the full article and more information. Read more!
From FORCE's Fall 2011 Newsletter
by Sue Friedman
2011 Spirit of Empowerment Award for Advocacy
Ellen Matloff is Director of the Cancer Genetic Counseling Program at Yale Cancer Center. She’s been a member of FORCE’s Scientific Advisory Board since 2002, helping us develop educational materials and draft position statements on key topics. Ellen has been a strong outspoken advocate for the importance of genetic counseling for people concerned about hereditary cancer. As lead plaintiff in the ACLU gene patenting lawsuit, she strives to improve patient access to testing. Read more!
By Kevin E. Noonan --
ACLU Yesterday, the Federal Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In their petition, counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees asserted two grounds for rehearing, of points of law and fact overlooked or apprehended by the Court (see "Plaintiff(s) File Petition for Rehearing in AMP v. USPTO"). First, the petition contended that the Court "failed to consider whether the DNA fragments claimed in these patents are products of nature." Second, the Court was alleged to have erred by not finding that two other named Plaintiffs, the American College of Medical Genetics and specifically named plaintiff Ellen Matloff, satisfied the standards for standing enunciated by the Court.
Myriad The Court did not address Defendants' petition for panel rehearing. That petition asked the Court to review the standing issue based on their allegation that Dr. Harry Ostrer, the only plaintiff found to have standing, no longer has the capacity for "immediately begin[ning] to perform BRCA 1/2-related genetic testing" upon invalidation of the Myriad patents.
The one certain consequence of the filing of Plaintiffs' petition is that any petition for certiorari will be delayed, making it likely that the Supreme Court will decide the Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services case before reaching the invalidated method claims in Myriad. Read more!
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – Plaintiffs and defendants in a suit seeking to overturn Myriad Genetics' BRCA patents have filed separate briefs with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking a rehearing of the case.
The appeals court in early August overturned a lower court's decision and ruled that isolated gene sequences claimed in Myriad's patents are not products of nature and are therefore patentable. The court also determined, however, that several of the company's method claims that describe "comparing" and "analyzing" gene sequences were invalid.
In response, both plaintiffs and defendants in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. US Patent and Trademark Office et al., have requested a rehearing by the three judges of the appeals court.
Last week, plaintiffs — including AMP, the American College of Medical Genetics, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, the College of American Pathologists, and other organizations and individuals — filed a petition for a panel rehearing on the grounds that the appeals court failed to consider whether the DNA fragments claimed in Myriad's patents are products of nature.
Specifically, the petition, filed by the plaintiffs' legal representatives at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation, claims that the appeals court "erred" in deciding that gene fragments described in Myriad's patents are "markedly different" from what exists in nature and therefore patentable because it failed to consider two points: "that the language of the patents defines the function, not the structure, of the patented genes and gene fragments;" and that "gene fragments with the altered chemical structure identified by the court exist in nature."
The brief argues that the composition claims in Myriad's patents are "not defined by chemical structure," but are instead "defined by function" — namely, they encode a particular protein or fragment of a protein. That function, the plaintiffs state, is "created by nature, not by Myriad."
Secondly, the petition notes that "DNA fragments identical to those claimed in the patents appear in the body," citing as examples the fact that DNA fragments are created "every time gametes are produced during the normal process of meiotic recombination as well as during the cellular process by which cells make copies of themselves." They also cite the fact that fragments of fetal genomes have been shown to be present in maternal plasma, and that DNA fragments, including fragments of BRCA genes, can be found in the blood of cancer patients.
The petition also charges that the court wrongly denied standing to two of the plaintiffs in the case — ACMG and Ellen Matloff, a genetic counselor at Yale.
Myriad's petition, filed on Aug. 29, also raises the issue of standing, but argues the opposite point — that none of the plaintiffs have standing to sue, including Harry Ostrer, the only plaintiff that the appeals court found to have standing in the case.
The defendants' argument is based on Ostrer's recent move from New York University to Montefiore Hospital and the Albert Einstein School of Medicine of Yeshiva University, which "eliminates his asserted controversy with Myriad" because Ostrer's new employer does not have a dispute with the company over the BRCA patents, the brief states.
While Myriad's lawyers claim that the appeal should be dismissed as "moot" due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, they request that the panel uphold its decision on the patentability of isolated DNA.
Myriad's petition does not address the appeals court's invalidation of its method claims.
Read more!
Posts
All Comments
