The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice

Genotype-first approach to the detection of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk, and effects of risk disclosure to biobank participants

Genotype-first approach allows to systematically identify carriers of pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 genes conferring a high risk of familial breast and ovarian cancer. Participants of the Estonian biobank have expressed support for the disclosure of clinically significant findings. With an Estonian biobank cohort, we applied a genotype-first approach, contacted carriers, and offered return of results with genetic counseling. We evaluated participants' responses to and the clinical utility of the reporting of actionable genetic findings. Twenty-two of 40 contacted carriers of 17 pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants responded and chose to receive results. Eight of these 22 participants qualified for high-risk assessment based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. Twenty of 21 counseled participants appreciated being contacted. Relatives of 10 participants underwent cascade screening. Five of 16 eligible female BRCA1/2 variant carriers chose to undergo risk-reducing surgery, and 10 adhered to surveillance recommendations over the 30-month follow-up period. We recommend the return of results to population-based biobank participants; this approach could be viewed as a model for population-wide genetic testing. The genotype-first approach permits the identification of individuals at high risk who would not be identified by application of an approach based on personal and family histories only.

Interventions Facilitating Family Communication of Genetic Testing Results and Cascade Screening in Hereditary Breast/Ovarian Cancer or Lynch Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence-based guidelines recommend cascade genetic testing of blood relatives of known Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) or Lynch Syndrome (LS) cases, to inform individualized cancer screening and prevention plans. The study identified interventions designed to facilitate family communication of genetic testing results and/or cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that assessed intervention efficacy for these two outcomes. Additional outcomes were also recorded and synthesized when possible. Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis and 13 in the meta-analysis. Lack of participant blinding was the most common risk of bias. Interventions targeted HBOC (n = 5); both HBOC and LS (n = 4); LS (n = 3); or ovarian cancer (n = 2). All protocols (n = 14) included a psychoeducational and/or counseling component. Additional components were decision aids (n = 4), building communication skills (n = 4), or motivational interviewing (n = 1). The overall effect size for family communication was small (g = 0.085) and not significant (p = 0.344), while for cascade testing, it was small (g = 0.169) but significant (p = 0.014). Interventions show promise for improving cancer predisposition cascade genetic testing for HBOC and LS. Future studies should employ family-based approaches and include racially diverse samples.

Room for improvement: One third of Lynch syndrome patients presenting for genetic testing in a highly specialised centre in Stockholm already have cancer

Background

Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mutations in the mismatch repair genes and is characterised by a familial accumulation of colorectal and other cancers. Earlier identification of Lynch syndrome patients enables surveillance and might reduce the risk of cancer. It is important to explore whether today’s clinical care discovers patients with Lynch syndrome suitable for surveillance in time. This study aimed to describe what led to a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in the cohort referred to the Hereditary Gastrointestinal Cancer Unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden for gastrointestinal surveillance.

Methods

This was a descriptive study. Data from 1975 to 2018 were collected and compiled as a database. Age at diagnosis was calculated from the date when a pathogenic MMR gene mutation was confirmed, from the period June 1994–September 2018. Data were collected from patient protocols prospectively during patient consultations and medical records retrospectively. Criteria for inclusion were registration at the outpatient clinic and a confirmed mismatch repair gene mutation.

Results

A total of 305 patients were eligible for inclusion. Three major reasons for diagnosis were identified: 1. Predictive testing of a previously known mutation in the family (62%, mean age 37), 2. A family history of Lynch associated tumours (9%, mean age 37), 3. A diagnosis of cancer (29%, mean age 51). The proportion diagnosed due to cancer has not changed over time.

Conclusion

A high proportion of patients (29%) were identified with Lynch syndrome after they had been diagnosed with an associated cancer, which suggests that there is significant room for improvement in the diagnosis of patients with Lynch syndrome before cancer develops.

Challenges of Genomic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancers

Completion of genetic testing is increasingly important for the complex care of patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOC) and their at-risk family members. Identification of individuals with pathogenic variants has implications for targeted treatment recommendations, risk reduction strategies, increased surveillance recommendations, as well as the genetic testing of family members, known as cascade testing or screening. Due to advances in technology and decreasing costs, what was once single-gene genetic testing has evolved into large-scale multi-gene panel genomic testing. As germline genomic testing for HBOC becomes more and more available, it is important to identify the challenges that are associated with its use. In this manuscript, we review the current issues faced by germline genomic testing for HBOC which include effectively managing the marked increases in genetic referrals, interpreting the vast amount of information yielded by newer testing methods such as next generation sequencing (NGS), recognizing the need for better cascade screening strategies, potential exacerbation of health disparities and improving support for patients navigating the emotional impact related to positive, negative and indeterminate testing results.

Healthcare professionals' responsibility for informing relatives at risk of hereditary disease

Advances in genetic diagnostics lead to more patients being diagnosed with hereditary conditions. These findings are often relevant to patients' relatives. For example, the success of targeted cancer prevention is dependent on effective disclosure to relatives at risk. Without clear information, individuals cannot take advantage of predictive testing and preventive measures. Against this background, we argue that healthcare professionals have a duty to make actionable genetic information available to their patients' at-risk relatives. We do not try to settle the difficult question of how this duty should be balanced against other duties, such as the duty of confidentiality and a possible duty not to know one's genetic predisposition. Instead, we argue for the importance of recognising a general responsibility towards at-risk relatives, to be discharged as well as possible within the limits set by conflicting duties and practical considerations. According to a traditional and still dominant perspective, it is the patient's duty to inform his or her relatives, while healthcare professionals are only obliged to support their patients in discharging this duty. We argue that this perspective is a mistake and an anomaly. Healthcare professionals do not have a duty to ensure that their patients promote the health of third parties. It is often effective and desirable to engage patients in disseminating information to their relatives. However, healthcare professionals should not thereby deflect their own moral responsibility.

Family communication of genetic test results among women with inherited breast cancer genes

Identification of inherited breast cancer may guide care. These benefits can be amplified through communication of genetic test results with at-risk family members and subsequent family testing (FT). Females with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant in BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and/or ATM were surveyed about family communication (FC) of genetic test results and FT. Comparisons were made across genes. The 235 participants with P/LP variants (186 BRCA1/2, 28 PALB2, 15 CHEK2, and 6 ATM) had a median age of 54 and most were non-Hispanic whites (89%) with a prior breast cancer diagnosis (61%). When controlling for other variables, FC was higher among younger participants (p<.0001), those with high FC self-efficacy (p=.019), and those with P/LP variants in BRCA1/2 compared to PALB2 (p =.040) and ATM/CHEK2 (p =.032). Higher rates of FC and FT were also observed among female relatives and relatives of closer kinship. Overall 94% of participants would find one or more resources helpful with FC and 70% reported using FC resources when telling family members about their genetic test result. The three most commonly used resources included the following: (a) a family sharing letter (38%); (b) printed materials (30%); and (c) web-based information (23%). Among the 86% who spoke with a genetic counselor (GC), 93% were given at least one FC resource and the three most common resources GCs provided to participants overlapped with the resources participants would find helpful and those that were used. Our results suggest lower FC and FT rates among women with P/LP variants in genes other than BRCA1/2, the reasons for which should be evaluated in future studies. As more data to refine cancer risks and management are generated across these other inherited breast cancer genes, strategies to improve FC and FT are needed to amplify the benefits of genetic testing.

Long-Term Follow-Up Study on the Uptake of Genetic Counseling and Predictive DNA Testing in Inherited Cardiac Conditions

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Inherited cardiac conditions present with a wide range of symptoms and may even result in sudden cardiac death. Relatives of probands with a confirmed pathogenic genetic variant are advised predictive DNA testing to enable prevention and treatment. In 2 previous cohort studies of 115 probands with a pathogenic variant, family uptake of genetic counseling was assessed in the first year(s) after test result disclosure to the proband. This study assesses uptake in these cohorts in the 14 to 23 years following disclosure.

Genetic testing in families with hereditary colorectal cancer in British Columbia and Yukon: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer enables identification of people most likely to benefit from intensive screening and preventive measures; however, the uptake of testing in relatives (known as cascade carrier testing) for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes has been shown to be low. Our objective was to report rates of familial testing for hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes in a publicly funded hereditary cancer clinic in Canada.

METHODS

A cross-sectional retrospective database review was used to determine testing uptake between 1997 and 2016 for families served by the provincial Hereditary Cancer Program for British Columbia and Yukon. Analyses were conducted for genes associated with syndromes with an increased risk for colorectal cancer, including Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and EPCAM) and familial adenomatous polyposis (APC), and for additional moderate- to high-penetrance genes (STK11, TP53, SMAD4, MUTYH, PTEN and CHEK2). Descriptive statistics were used and all analyses were 2-tailed.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 245 index patients, with carrier testing performed in 382 relatives. The mean age at family member testing was 41.2 years, and most (61.0%) of the family members who underwent testing were women. The median time between disclosure of index cases and their family member's results was 8.3 months. Among eligible first-degree relatives, 32.6% (268/821) underwent testing in BC. Of 67 cancer diagnoses in family members, most (62.7%) occurred before genetic testing.

INTERPRETATION

A substantial proportion of people at risk for hereditary colorectal cancer do not undergo genetic testing. This gap highlights the need to explore barriers to testing and to consider interventions to promote uptake; more aggressive efforts by hereditary cancer programs are needed to reach this highest risk population.

Uptake and predictors of colonoscopy use in family members not participating in cascade genetic testing for Lynch syndrome

Cascade genetic testing provides a method to appropriately focus colonoscopy use in families with Lynch syndrome (LS). However, research suggests that up to two-thirds at risk to inherit LS don’t participate. Within the United States, no studies have assessed colonoscopy use within this elusive and high-risk subset. We set forth to (1) document colonoscopy use within those not undergoing genetic testing (NGT) and (2) identify factors associated with completing colonoscopy. Data came from a cross sectional survey of families with molecularly confirmed LS. One hundred seventy-six (176) adults participated; 47 of unknown variant status and 129 with variant status known (59 carriers/70 non-carriers). Despite a high level of awareness of LS (85%) and identical recommendations for colonoscopy, NGT reported significantly lower use of colonoscopy than carriers (47% vs. 73%; p = 0.003). Our results show that perceived risk to develop colon cancer (AOR = 1.99, p < 0.05) and physician recommendations (AOR = 7.64, p < 0.01) are significant predictors of colonoscopy use across all family members controlling for carrier status. Given these findings, health care providers, should assess patients’ perceived risk to develop cancer, assist them in adjusting risk perceptions and discuss recommendations for colonoscopy with all members in families with LS.

Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00004210.

Public support for healthcare-mediated disclosure of hereditary cancer risk information: Results from a population-based survey in Sweden

Background

Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public's opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information.

Methods

A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson's chi-square (χ²) test.

Results

Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%).

Conclusions

In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.

Evaluating the impact of universal Lynch syndrome screening in a publicly funded healthcare system

PURPOSE

Referrals for Lynch syndrome (LS) assessment have traditionally been based on personal and family medical history. The introduction of universal screening practices has allowed for referrals based on immunohistochemistry tests for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. This study aims to characterize the effect of universal screening in a publicly funded healthcare system with comparison to patients referred by traditional criteria, from January 2012 to March 2017.

METHODS

Patient files from the time of initiation of universal screening from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. Patients were sorted into two groups: (a) universally screened and (b) referred by traditional methods. Mutation detection rates, analysis of traditional testing criteria met, and cascade carrier testing were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mutation detection rate of the universal screening group was higher than the traditionally referred group (45/228 (19.7%) vs 50/390 (12.5%), P = .05), though each were able to identify unique patients. An analysis of testing criteria met by each patient showed that half of referred patients from the universal screening group could not meet any traditional testing criteria.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of universal screening in a publicly funded system will increase efficiency in detecting patients with LS. The resources available for genetic testing and counseling may be more limited in public systems, thus inclusion of secondary screening with BRAF and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is key to further optimizing efficiency.

Cascading After Peridiagnostic Cancer Genetic Testing: An Alternative to Population-Based Screening

PURPOSE

Despite advances in DNA sequencing technology and expanded medical guidelines, the vast majority of individuals carrying pathogenic variants of common cancer susceptibility genes have yet to be identified. An alternative to population-wide genetic screening of healthy individuals would exploit the trend for genetic testing at the time of cancer diagnosis to guide therapy and prevention, combined with augmented familial diffusion or "cascade" of genomic risk information.

METHODS

Using a multiple linear regression model, we derived the time interval to detect an estimated 3.9 million individuals in the United States with a pathogenic variant in 1 of 18 cancer susceptibility genes. We analyzed the impact of the proportion of incident patients sequenced, varying observed frequencies of pathogenic germline variants in patients with cancer, differential rates of diffusion of genetic information in families, and family size.

RESULTS

The time to detect inherited cancer predisposing variants in the population is affected by the extent of cascade to first-, second-, and third-degree relatives (FDR, SDR, TDR, respectively), family size, prevalence of mutations in patients with cancer, and the proportion of patients with cancer sequenced. In a representative scenario, assuming a 7% prevalence of pathogenic variants across cancer types, an average family size of 3 per generation, and 15% of incident patients with cancer in the United States undergoing germline testing, the time to detect all 3.9 million individuals with pathogenic variants in 18 cancer susceptibility genes would be 46.2, 22.3, 13.6, and 9.9 years if 10%, 25%, 50%, and 70%, respectively, of all FDR, SDR, and TDR were tested for familial mutations.

CONCLUSION

Peridiagnostic and cascade cancer genetic testing offers an alternative strategy to achieve population-wide identification of cancer susceptibility mutations.

Case report: Analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations in a hereditary ovarian cancer family

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 (BRCA1/2) is the most important susceptibility gene associated with hereditary ovarian cancer (HOC). We aimed to screen BRAC1 and BRAC2 gene mutations in a member of a hereditary ovarian cancer family in China, and to analyze the structure and function of the mutant protein.

METHODS

A typical HOC family was selected. Blood samples and pathological tissue samples were taken from the female members of the family. Blood samples from two patients with sporadic ovaries of the same pathological type were taken as a control group. After RNA extraction, PCR amplification was applied and the PCR products were directly sequenced and aligned, prediction and analysis of protein structure and molecular conformation that may be caused by BRCA1/2 mutation.

RESULTS

The whole gene analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in ovarian cancer patients in the family showed that there were 8 mutations in BRCA1 whole gene sequencing, including 3 nonsense mutations (2314C>T, 2543T>C, 4540T>C); two mutations have been recorded, which are associated with cervical cancer (2844C>T) and endometriosis (3345A>G); three newly discovered mutations (3780A>G, 5069A>G, 3326A>T). Among them, 3780A>G and 5069A>G caused amino acid changes, while 3326A>T mutation caused Arg mutation to stop codon. A total of 7 mutations were detected in BRCA2 whole-genome sequencing, including 5 non-significant mutations (3623A>G, 4034T>C, 4790A>G, 6740G>C, 7469A>G); one no-record mutation (1716T>A), and 1 recorded mutation (1342A>C), which was associated with breast cancer and ovarian cancer. BRCA1 (3326A>T) and BRCA2 (1342A>C) mutations were co-existing in patients (II1, II3, and II5) identified as serous adenocarcinoma grade II. Two cases of ovarian serous cystadenocarcinoma with no history of family tumors were normalized for BRCA1/2 gene sequencing. In the gene detection of III generation female, four females with BRCA2 (1342A>C) mutation were found, and one of them also carried the BRCA1 (3326A>T) mutation, who can be considered a high-risk group of HOC in this family. Online protein structure predictions revealed that BRCA1 (3326A>T) mutations mutated AGA at this site to TGA resulting in a translated Arg (arginine) mutation as a stop codon, while BRCA2 (1342A>C) mutated AAT at this site to CAT resulting in a translated Asn mutation to His.

CONCLUSION

The BRCA1 (3326A>T) and BRCA2 (1342A>C) were detected in the HOC family, which may be the susceptibility gene of the family's HOC. The BRCA1/2 gene screening may be possible to obtain high-risk populations in this family.

Genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes: patient recommendations for improved risk communication

Background

Multi‐gene panel testing is replacing single‐gene testing for patients with suspected hereditary cancer syndromes. The detection of a hereditary cancer syndrome allows tested individuals to initiate enhanced primary and secondary prevention efforts—where available—with a view to reduce disease burden. Current policy prevents testing programmes from communicating genetic test results with potentially affected family members, yet it is well documented that tested individuals face multiple challenges in initiating such discussions with relatives.

Objective

In response to this challenge, we sought patient recommendations about how to improve genetic risk communication to enhance interfamilial discussions about primary and secondary disease prevention.

Design

We conducted 25 semi‐structured interviews with individuals who received genetic testing through British Columbia’s Hereditary Cancer Program between 2017 and 2018. Interviews were professionally transcribed and analysed using a constant comparative approach.

Results

Participants described difficulty engaging in conversations with relatives who were resistant to receiving genetic risk information, when communicating with younger relatives and where participants reported strained familial relationships. Participants recommended that testing facilities provide a summary of results and implications and that resources be made available to prepare patients for challenging discussions with family members.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that individuals undergoing genetic testing for suspected hereditary cancer syndromes would benefit from additional supportive resources alongside genetic counselling. Providing this on‐going support will enhance the accurate and transparent communication of risk to facilitate the uptake of cascade testing and enhanced prevention strategies.

The uptake of predictive DNA testing in 40 families with a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variant. An evaluation of the proband-mediated procedure

When hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) due to a BRCA1/BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant is diagnosed, the proband will be asked to inform other at-risk family members. In the Netherlands, a guideline was introduced in 2012 which provided detailed recommendations regarding this proband-mediated procedure. We now evaluated the uptake of predictive BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in 40 consecutive HBOC families diagnosed in our centre in 2014. We performed a retrospective observational study of all 40 families in which a pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 germline variant was identified during 2014. We scored the uptake of predictive and confirmatory testing by the end of 2018 and explored factors associated with the level of uptake. Two families were excluded. In the remaining 38 families, among 239 family members ≥18 years at 50% risk of being a mutation carrier or at 25% risk if the family member at 50% risk was deceased, 102 (43%) were tested. Among 108 females 25-75 years of age at 50% risk, 59 (55%) underwent predictive or confirmatory testing, and among 43 males at 50% risk with daughters ≥18 years, 22 (51%) were tested. Factors which complicated cascade screening included family members living abroad, probands not wanting to share information and limited pedigree information. In conclusion, the standard proband-mediated procedure of informing relatives seems to be far from optimal. We suggest a tailored approach for each family, including the option of a direct approach to at-risk family members by the geneticist. In addition, we suggest detailed monitoring and follow-up of families.

How to inform at-risk relatives? Attitudes of 1379 Dutch patients, relatives, and members of the general population

The uptake of predictive DNA testing in families with a hereditary disease is <50%. Current practice often relies on the proband to inform relatives about the possibility of predictive DNA testing, but not all relatives are informed adequately. To enable informed decision-making concerning predictive DNA testing, the approach used to inform at-risk relatives needs to be optimized. This study investigated the preferences of patients, relatives, and the general population from the Netherlands on how to inform relatives at risk of autosomal dominant diseases. Online surveys were sent to people with autosomal dominant neuro-, onco-, or cardiogenetic diseases and their relatives via patient organizations (n = 379), and to members of the general population via a commercial panel (n = 1,000). Attitudes of the patient and population samples generally corresponded. A majority believed that initially only first-degree relatives should be informed, following the principles of a cascade screening approach. Most participants also thought that probands and healthcare professionals (HCPs) should be involved in informing relatives, and a large proportion believed that HCPs should contact relatives directly in cases where patients are unwilling to inform, both for untreatable and treatable conditions. Participants from the patient sample were of the opinion that HCPs should actively offer support. Our findings show that both patients and HCPs should be involved in informing at-risk relatives of autosomal dominant diseases and suggest that relatives' 'right to know' was considered a dominant issue by the majority of participants. Further research is needed on how to increase proactive support in informing of at-risk relatives.

Breast Cancer and Multiple Primary Malignant Tumors: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Multiple primary malignant neoplasms are multiple tumors with different pathogenetic origin. They may be synchronous or metachronous. The management of these conditions represents an interesting clinical scenario. A crucial aspect is the decision regarding which tumor to treat initially, and how to schedule further treatments according to individual tumor risk. This process involves a multidisciplinary physician team to ensure favorable outcomes. We describe a case report of a female patient affected by primary synchronous tumors of the breast and pectoral skin, which raised a series of diagnostic, etiological and therapeutic issues persuading us to carry out a critical review of the literature.

From Targeting Somatic Mutations to Finding Inherited Cancer Predispositions: The Other Side of the Coin

The expanding use of tumor genome analysis by next generation sequencing to drive target therapies has led to increased germline findings in genes predisposing to hereditary cancer. These putative germline findings obtained from theranostic analyses, such as BRCA1/2 gene testing, large panels, whole-exome, or whole-genome sequencing, need to be managed carefully and in an anticipated way with the patient. Before the genetic analysis of a tumor, specific information should be given to patients, who should be aware that the results may have extra-therapeutic medical issues for themselves and relatives. We previously published a list of 36 actionable genes predisposing to cancer for which informing the patient is recommended prior to pangenomic germline analysis because of available screening or preventive strategies. Here, we report clinical practice considerations and schemes for managing germline findings in tumor analyses, including written informed consent and a multidisciplinary approach involving an oncologist, molecular biologist/pathologist, and geneticist in case of germline findings. A somatic result showing a deleterious mutation in a known predisposing gene in a patient who has consented to this purpose should result in referral to a geneticist who is part of the multidisciplinary team. At any time of the somatic analysis process, the patient may have access to a geneticist consultation if additional information is required. This framework will optimally manage both personalized theranostic issues and specific preventive strategies for individuals and relatives; it will also simplify and accelerate the process of genetic testing.

A tailored approach towards informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

In current practice, probands are asked to inform relatives about the possibility of predictive DNA testing when a pathogenic variant causing an inherited cardiac condition (ICC) is identified. Previous research on the uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing in relatives suggests that not all relatives are sufficiently informed. We developed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored approach in which probands decide together with the genetic counsellor which relatives they inform themselves and which relatives they prefer to have informed by the genetic counsellor. Here, we present the study protocol of this randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

A multicentre randomised controlled trial with parallel-group design will be conducted in which an intervention group receiving the tailored approach will be compared with a control group receiving usual care. Adult probands diagnosed with an ICC in whom a likely pathogenic or pathogenic variant is identified will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group (total sample: n=85 probands). Primary outcomes are uptake of genetic counselling and predictive DNA testing by relatives (total sample: n=340 relatives). Secondary outcomes are appreciation of the approach used and impact on familial and psychological functioning, which will be assessed using questionnaires. Relatives who attend genetic counselling will be asked to fill out a questionnaire as well.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres (MEC 2017-145), the Netherlands. All participants will provide informed consent prior to participation in the study. Results of the study on primary and secondary outcome measures will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR6657; Pre-results.

Epithelial ovarian cancer risk: A review of the current genetic landscape

Ovarian cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death in women in the developed world, and one of the most heritable cancers. One of the most significant risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Combined risk factors can be used in models to stratify risk of EOC, and aid in decisions regarding risk-reduction strategies. Germline pathogenic variants in EOC susceptibility genes including those involved in homologous recombination and mismatch repair pathways are present in approximately 22% to 25% of EOC. These genes are associated with an estimated lifetime risk of EOC of 13% to 60% for BRCA1 variants and 10% to 25% for BRCA2 variants, with lower risks associated with remaining genes. Genome-wide association studies have identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) thought to explain an additional 6.4% of the familial risk of ovarian cancer, with 34 susceptibility loci identified to date. However, an unknown proportion of the genetic component of EOC risk remains unexplained. This review comprises an overview of individual genes and SNPs suspected to contribute to risk of EOC, and discusses use of a polygenic risk score to predict individual cancer risk more accurately.

Informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: experiences and attitudes of healthcare professionals and counselees

Inherited cardiac conditions (ICCs) can lead to sudden cardiac death at young age, even without previous symptoms, yet often remain undetected. To prevent sudden cardiac death, cardiac monitoring and/or predictive DNA testing is advised for at-risk relatives. Probands in whom a causal variant is detected are asked to inform their relatives about the possibility of testing, often supported by a family letter. This qualitative study investigates experiences with and attitudes toward this family-mediated approach in ICCs and explores whether and how improvements can be made. Two online focus groups were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from various disciplines, as were 25 face-to-face semi-structured interviews with counselees (10 probands; 15 relatives). Data were analysed by two researchers independently using a thematic approach. Participants, both HCPs and counselees, preferred that probands inform relatives about genetic risks in ICCs, but both groups struggled with the dependency on and burden on probands to inform their relatives. To overcome this, HCPs do see a more active role for themselves in informing relatives, but prefer uniformity in procedures in order to maintain their workload. Counselees, on the other hand, prefer a tailored information provision strategy adjusted to family dynamics and the personality characteristics of relatives. In conclusion, although it is generally preferred that probands inform relatives themselves, a more active role of HCPs could be considered to overcome the dependency and burden on probands. Further research is needed to study how HCPs can engage more actively in informing at-risk relatives in current clinical genetic practise.