Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: The Implications of the US FDA's First Marketing Authorization for BRCA Mutation Testing

Clonal Hematopoiesis, Inflammation, and Hematologic Malignancy

Somatic or acquired mutations are postzygotic genetic variations that can occur within any tissue. These mutations accumulate during aging and have classically been linked to malignant processes. Tremendous advancements over the past years have led to a deeper understanding of the role of somatic mutations in benign and malignant age-related diseases. Here, we review the somatic mutations that accumulate in the blood and their connection to disease states, with a particular focus on inflammatory diseases and myelodysplastic syndrome. We include a definition of clonal hematopoiesis (CH) and an overview of the origins and implications of these mutations. In addition, we emphasize somatic disorders with overlapping inflammation and hematologic disease beyond CH, including paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria and aplastic anemia, focusing on VEXAS (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome. Finally, we provide a practical view of the implications of somatic mutations in clinical hematology, pathology, and beyond.

Retrospective Cohort Study on the Limitations of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Screening in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

Among cancer predisposition genes, most direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests evaluate three Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) founder mutations in BRCA1/2, which represent a small proportion of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PLPV) in cancer predisposing genes. In this study, we investigate PLPV in BRCA1/2 and other cancer predisposition genes that are missed by testing only AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations.

METHODS

Individuals were referred to genetic testing for personal diagnoses of breast and/or ovarian cancer (clinical cohort) or were self-referred (nonindication-based cohort). There were 348,692 participants in the clinical cohort and 7,636 participants in the nonindication-based cohort. Both cohorts were analyzed for BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations. Full sequence analysis was done for PLPV in BRCA1/2, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2 (truncating variants), EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2/6, NF1, PMS2, RAD51C/D, and 22 other genes.

RESULTS

BRCA1/2 AJ founder mutations accounted for 10.8% and 29.7% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in the clinical and nonindication-based cohorts, respectively. AJ founder mutations accounted for 89.9% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in those of full AJ descent, but only 69.6% of those of partial AJ descent. In total, 0.5% of all individuals had a BRCA1/2 AJ founder variant, while 7.7% had PLPV in a high-risk breast/ovarian cancer gene. For non-AJ individuals, limiting evaluation to the AJ founder BRCA1/2 mutations missed >90% of mutations in actionable cancer risk genes. Secondary analysis revealed a false-positive rate of 69% for PLPV outside of non-AJ BRCA 1/2 founder mutations.

CONCLUSION

DTC genetic testing misses >90% of BRCA1/2 PLPV in individuals of non-AJ ancestry and about 10% of BRCA1/2 PLPV among AJ individuals. There is a high false-positivity rate for non-AJ BRCA 1/2 PLPV with DTC genetic testing.

Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology

Policy Points American health care policy must be critically assessed to establish the role it plays in sustaining and alleviating the health disparities that currently exist in molecular genetic testing. It is critical to understand the economic and sociocultural influences that drive patients to undergo or forgo molecular testing, especially in marginalized patient populations. A multipronged solution with actions necessary from multiple stakeholders is required to reduce the cost of health care, rebalance regional disparities, encourage physician engagement, reduce data bias, and earn patients' trust.

CONTEXT

The health status of a population is greatly influenced by both biological processes and external factors. For years, minority and low socioeconomic patient populations have faced worse outcomes and poorer health in the United States. Experts have worked extensively to understand the issues and find solutions to alleviate this disproportionate burden of disease. As a result, there have been some improvements and successes, but wide gaps still exist. Diagnostic molecular genetic testing and so-called personalized medicine are just now being integrated into the current American health care system. The way in which these tests are integrated can either exacerbate or reduce health disparities.

METHODS

We provide case scenarios-loosely based on real-life patients-so that nonexperts can see the impacts of complex policy decisions and unintentional biases in technology without needing to understand all the intricacies. We use data to explain these findings from an extensive literature search examining both peer-reviewed and gray literature.

FINDINGS

Access to diagnostic molecular genetic testing is not equitable or sufficient, owing to at least five major factors: (1) cost to the patient, (2) location, (3) lack of provider buy-in, (4) data-set bias, and (5) lack of public trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular genetic pathology can be made more equitable with the concerted efforts of multiple stakeholders. Confronting the five major factors identified here may help us usher in a new era of precision medicine without its discriminatory counterpart.

Ethical Considerations in Precision Medicine and Genetic Testing in Internal Medicine Practice: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making for the integration of precision medicine and genetic testing into clinical care. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and can also inform how health care systems, professional schools, and residency programs integrate genomics into educational and clinical settings. Addressing the challenges of precision medicine and genetic testing will guide ethical and responsible implementation to improve health outcomes.

BRCA testing on buccal swab to improve access to healthcare and cancer prevention: a performance evaluation

OBJECTIVE

BRCA1/2 (BRCA) genetic testing allows patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to receive appropriate medical management with molecular target therapy and prevention strategies. Most of the BRCA sequencing methods use blood as the primary source of germline DNA. Buccal swab emerged as an alternative collection device due to its convenient and non-invasive characteristics. This study assessed the suitability of buccal swabs as the DNA source in next-generation sequencing-based BRCA genotyping.

METHODS

Matched buccal swabs and blood samples were collected from 51 patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer, including 29 BRCA-mutated patients, from June to December 2021. Buccal swabs were self-collected using COPAN FLOQSwabs hDNA Free. BRCA genes were amplified using Devyser's BRCA next-generation sequencing kit and sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq platform. We evaluated collection and extraction procedures, amplification and sequencing performances, coverage data, blood/swab variant calling concordance, and interpretation.

RESULTS

Comparable sequencing parameters were observed between the two sample types in term of mean total number of reads passing filter for indexed sample (p>0.05) and sequencing coverage distribution, with a widespread overlap of mean depth of coverage/target region between blood and swab samples. An overall concordance of 100% in both polymorphisms and pathogenic variants calling between the two DNA sources were observed, including the copy number variation prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this study support the use of buccal swabs as an alternative source of DNA for BRCA evaluation. The use of this alternative delivery mode of BRCA testing may facilitate access to care without compromising patient outcomes.

Evaluating Web-Based Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests for Cancer Susceptibility

PURPOSE

Recent years have seen direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing for cancer susceptibility change dramatically. For one, a new model now dominates the market where tests are advertised to consumers but ordered by physicians. For another, many of today's tests are distinguished from earlier DTC offerings for cancer susceptibility by their scope and potential clinical significance. This review provides a comprehensive overview of available DTC genetic tests for cancer susceptibility and identifies aspects of the DTC testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and understand their results.

METHODS

First, we provide an overview of each DTC genetic test for cancer susceptibility that includes information about cost; who orders it; whether variants of uncertain significance are returned; availability of genetic counseling; intended users; management of variant reclassifications; whether it is characterized as diagnostic, actionable, and clinically valid; molecular technique used; and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments/College of American Pathologists status. Second, we identify six aspects of the testing process that could affect consumers' ability to make informed decisions about testing and interpret their results: How companies use certain terms (eg, medical grade or clinical grade); how companies use consumers' health information during the ordering process; the extent of genetic counseling provided by companies; companies' procedures for returning results; the role of company-provided ordering physicians; and companies' procedures for communicating variant reclassifications.

RESULTS

On the basis of our review of companies' Web sites, we believe that consumers would benefit from more information about these aspects of testing.

CONCLUSION

Providing this information would help consumers make informed decisions about whether to use a particular DTC genetic testing service and, should they choose to pursue testing, understand the implications and limitations of their results.

A Case-Based Approach to Understanding Complex Genetic Information in an Evolving Landscape

The rapid integration of highly sensitive next-generation sequencing technologies into clinical oncology care has led to unparalleled progress, and yet these technological advances have also made genetic information considerably more complex. For instance, accurate interpretation of genetic testing for germline/inherited cancer predisposition syndromes and somatic/acquired pathogenic variants now requires a more nuanced understanding of the presence and incidence of clonal hematopoiesis and circulating tumor cells, with careful evaluation of pathogenic variants occurring at low variant allele frequency required. The interplay between somatic and germline pathogenic variants and awareness of distinct genotype-phenotype manifestations in various inherited cancer syndromes are now increasingly appreciated and can impact patient management. Through a case-based approach, we focus on three areas of particular relevance to the treating clinician oncologist: (1) understanding clonal hematopoiesis and somatic mosaicism, which can be detected on germline sequencing and lead to considerable confusion in clinical interpretation; (2) implications of the detection of a potentially germline pathogenic variant in a high-penetrance cancer susceptibility gene during routine tumor testing; and (3) a review of gene-specific risks and surveillance recommendations in Lynch syndrome. A discussion on the availability and difficulties often associated with direct-to-consumer genetic testing is also provided.

Physician-guided, hybrid genetic testing exerts promising effects on health-related behavior without compromising quality of life

Genetic risk analysis is increasingly in demand by participants. Hybrid genetic testing has the advantage over direct to consumer testing by involving a physician who guides the process and offers counseling after receiving the results. The objective of this study was to determine whether a structured physician moderated primary preventive, hybrid genetic risk assessment enhanced counseling program leads to improvement in lifestyle and does not impair quality of life. Risk genes for malignant, cardiovascular, coagulation, storage diseases and pharmacogenetics (> 100 genes) were tested. Screening, consultation and genetic counseling embedded in a primary/secondary prevention check-up program for executives of surrounding companies took place in a single center in Germany. Follow-up included established questionnaires for quality of life, nutrition and physical activity. Analysis included n = 244 participants. Median age at baseline was 49 years (interquartile range: 44–55), 93% were male, 3% (n = 7 of 136 responses) were smoker. Mean body mass index was 25.2 kg/m². Follow-up response rate was 74% (n = 180), mean follow-up time was 6.8 months (standard deviation = 2.1). In 91 participants (37.8%, 91/241) at least one pathogenic variant was found, 60 thereof were clinically relevant (24.9%, 60/241). 238 participants (98%, 238/241) had > 1 pharmacogenetic variant, only 2 (0.8%, 2/241) took a correspondingly affected drug (56 participants took ≥ 1 drug/day). The energy expenditure significantly increased by ≈ 35% [median multiple of energy expenditure of 1.34 (confidence interval = 1.15–1.57, p < 0.001)] metabolic equivalents of task (MET)-min/week; participants spent on average 41 min (p < 0.001) less in sedentary activities per day and spent more time for lunch (≈ 2 additional minutes/day; p = 0.031). Indicators of the consumption of red meat and sweet pastries significantly decreased (both adjusted p = 0.049). Neither quality of life in general nor subgroup analysis of participants with at least one conspicuous genetic risk differed significantly over follow-up. Hybrid genetic testing and counseling exerted positive effects on health-related behavior and was not associated with major psychological adverse effects in the short-term follow-up. The approach seems to be feasible for use in preventive health care.

Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

The care of pediatric cancer patients is a vast departure from cancer care of adults. While the available treatment modalities-chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery-are the same, the diseases, care-delivery, and outcomes differ greatly. And just as 'children are not just little adults,' pediatric bioethics occupies a distinct place within the broader field of bioethics. In this chapter, we will begin with an introduction to fundamental principles and frameworks for understanding ethical issues in pediatrics, highlighting the triadic nature of medical decision-making between a physician, the child-patient, and the child's parent as the surrogate decision-maker. We will then delve into further details of how these principles and frameworks shape the care of children with cancer, examining specific ethical challenges commonly encountered by pediatric oncologists. We will traverse this landscape by examining issues involving (a) informed consent; (b) research involving children; (c) end of life; (d) genetic and genomic testing; and (e) professionalism. We also examine ethical challenges in clinical research, in children and more broadly. While not an exhaustive exploration of the myriad ethical issues one might encounter in pediatric cancer medicine and clinical trials, this chapter provides readers with a foundation for further reading.

Challenges and Opportunities of Genomic Approaches in Therapeutics Development

The magnitude of all therapeutic responses is significantly determined by genome structure, variation, and functional interactions. This determination occurs at many levels which are discussed in the current review. Well-established examples of structural variation between individuals are known to dictate an individual's response to numerous drugs, as clearly illustrated by warfarin. The exponential rate of genomic-based interrogation is coupled with an expanding repertoire of genomic technologies and applications. This is leading to an ever more sophisticated appreciation of how structural variation, regulation of transcription and genomic structure, both individually and collectively, define cell therapeutic responses.

Population Screening for Inherited Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer

The discovery of genes underlying inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer has revolutionized the ability to identify women at high risk for these diseases before they become affected. Women who are carriers of deleterious variants in these genes can undertake surveillance and prevention measures that have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, under current strategies, the vast majority of women carriers remain undetected until they become affected. In this review, we show that universal testing, particularly of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, fulfills classical disease screening criteria. This is especially true for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Ashkenazi Jews but is translatable to all populations and may include additional genes. Utilizing genetic information for large-scale precision prevention requires a paradigmatic shift in health-care delivery. To address this need, we propose a direct-to-patient model, which is increasingly pertinent for fulfilling the promise of utilizing personal genomic information for disease prevention.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: Value and Risk

Although the explosive growth of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has moderated, a substantial number of patients are choosing to undergo genetic testing outside the purview of their regular healthcare providers. Further, many industry leaders have been expanding reports to cover many more genes, as well as partnering with employers and others to expand access. This review addresses continuing concerns about DTC genetic testing quality, psychosocial impact, integration with medical practice, effects on the healthcare system, and privacy, as well as emerging concerns about third-party interpretation services and non-health-related uses such as investigative genetic genealogy. It concludes with an examination of two possible futures for DTC genetic testing: merger with traditional modes of healthcare delivery or continuation as a parallel system for patient-driven generation of health-relevant information. Each possibility is associated with distinctive questions related to value and risk.

How Will Genetics Inform the Clinical Care of Atrial Fibrillation?

Susceptibility to atrial fibrillation (AF) is determined by well-recognized risk factors such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension, emerging risk factors such as sleep apnea or inflammation, and increasingly well-defined genetic variants. As discussed in detail in a companion article in this series, studies in families and in large populations have identified multiple genetic loci, specific genes, and specific variants increasing susceptibility to AF. Since it is becoming increasingly inexpensive to obtain genotype data and indeed whole genome sequence data, the question then becomes to define whether using emerging new genetics knowledge can improve care for patients both before and after development of AF. Examples of improvements in care could include identifying patients at increased risk for AF (and thus deploying increased surveillance or even low-risk preventive therapies should these be available), identifying patient subsets in whom specific therapies are likely to be effective or ineffective or in whom the driving biology could motivate the development of new mechanism-based therapies or identifying an underlying susceptibility to comorbid cardiovascular disease. While current guidelines for the care of patients with AF do not recommend routine genetic testing, this rapidly increasing knowledge base suggests that testing may now or soon have a place in the management of select patients. The opportunity is to generate, validate, and deploy clinical predictors (including family history) of AF risk, to assess the utility of incorporating genomic variants into those predictors, and to identify and validate interventions such as wearable or implantable device-based monitoring ultimately to intervene in patients with AF before they present with catastrophic complications like heart failure or stroke.

Cancer Genetic Counseling-Current Practice and Future Challenges

Cancer genetic counseling practice is rapidly evolving, with services being provided in increasingly novel ways. Pretest counseling for cancer patients may be abbreviated from traditional models to cover the elements of informed consent in the broadest of strokes. Genetic testing may be ordered by a cancer genetics professional, oncology provider, or primary care provider. Increasingly, direct-to-consumer testing options are available and utilized by consumers anxious to take control of their genetic health. Finally, genetic information is being used to inform oncology care, from surgical decision-making to selection of chemotherapeutic agent. This review provides an overview of the current and evolving practice of cancer genetic counseling as well as opportunities and challenges for a wide variety of indications in both the adult and pediatric setting.

The Need to Improve the Clinical Utility of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: Either Too Narrow or Too Broad

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing for disease susceptibility is largely dominated by 2 extremes—narrow tests that only screen for a few variants and broad tests that include dozens of genes. These tests may lack clinical utility for consumers wanting to understand their disease risks. In the context of genetic testing, clinical utility refers to the ability of a test to generate results that can be used to reduce morbidity and mortality through the adoption of medical management strategies, including screening and surgery. Narrow and broad tests, however, lack clinical utility for different reasons. Narrow tests are often incomplete, and only include a limited number of relevant variants. Broad tests, by contrast, are concerning because they often include genes for which well-established risk estimates, medical management guidelines, or both may be absent.

Use of an Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Patient Decision Aid in Primary Care Practices

Background: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations for mammography screening, genetic counseling and testing for pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, and use of risk-reducing medications require assessment of breast cancer risk for clinical decision-making, but efficient methods for risk assessment in clinical practice are lacking. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study evaluating a web-based breast cancer risk assessment and decision aid (MammoScreen) was conducted in an academic general internal medicine clinic. All eligible women, 40-74 years of age without previous diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer and who were enrolled in the Epic MyChart patient portal were invited. MammoScreen uptake and completion rates and consistency between breast cancer risk determined by MammoScreen and existing risk information in the Epic record were measured. Patient and physician experiences were summarized from interviews. Results: Of 448 invited participants, 339 (75.7%) read their MyChart invitation and 125 (36.9%) who read invitations enrolled in the study; 118 (94.4% of enrolled) completed MammoScreen. Twenty-one women were categorized as above-average risk from either MammoScreen data or the chart review and 7 (33.3%) were identified by both sources. Physicians and patients believed MammoScreen was easy to use and was helpful in identifying risks and facilitating shared decision-making. Conclusions: Breast cancer risk assessment and mammography screening decision support were efficiently implemented through a web-based tool for patients sent through an electronic patient portal. Integration of patient decision aids with risk algorithms in clinical practice may help support the implementation of USPSTF recommendations that include risk assessment and shared decision-making.

Current Approaches to Germline Cancer Genetic Testing

The prevalence of genetic predisposition to cancer is greater than initially appreciated, yet most affected individuals remain undiagnosed. Deleterious germline variants in cancer predisposition genes are implicated in 1 in 10 cases of advanced cancer. Next-generation sequencing technologies have made germline and tumor DNA sequencing more accessible and less expensive. Expanded access to clinical genetic testing will improve identification of individuals with genetic predisposition to cancer and provide opportunities to effectively reduce morbidity through precision cancer therapies and surveillance. Cross-disciplinary clinical education in genomic medicine is needed to translate advances in genomic medicine into improved health outcomes.

Lessons Learned from Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

The number of companies offering direct-to-consumer genetic tests is increasing. There is growing concern over whether direct-to-consumer genetic companies should be allowed to offer clinically relevant testing that has only been possible under medical care. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing can be incomplete, inaccurate, and inappropriate. The usefulness of such testing is extremely limited and it is unclear how well customers understand reported results. Research on the long-term impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing is necessary to determine if stricter regulations regarding the performance of direct-to-consumer genetic testing are necessary.

Clinical genetic testing in endocrinology: Current concepts and contemporary challenges

Recent advances in DNA sequencing technology have led to an unprecedented period of disease-gene discovery offering many new opportunities for genetic testing in the clinical setting. Endocrinology has seen a rapid expansion in the taxonomy of monogenic disorders, which can be detected by an expanding portfolio of genetic tests in both diagnostic and predictive settings. Successful testing relies on many factors including the ability to identify those at increased risk of genetic disease in the busy clinic as well as a working knowledge of the various testing platforms and their limitations. The clinical utility of a given test is dependent upon many factors, which include the reliability of the genetic testing platform, the accuracy of the test result interpretation and knowledge of disease penetrance and expression. The increasing adoption of "high-content" genetic testing based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) to diagnose hereditary endocrine disorders brings a number of challenges including the potential for uncertain test results and/or genetic findings unrelated to the indication for testing. Therefore, it is increasingly important that the clinician is aware of the current evolution in genetic testing, and understands the different settings in which it may be employed. This review provides an overview of the genetic testing workflow, focusing on each of the major components required for successful testing in adult and paediatric endocrine settings. In addition, the challenges of variant interpretation are highlighted, as are issues related to informed consent, prenatal diagnosis and predictive testing. Finally, the future directions of genetic testing relevant to endocrinology are discussed.

An update on genetic risk assessment and prevention: the role of genetic testing panels in breast cancer

Introduction: In the past 5 years, multi-gene panels have replaced the practice of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing in cases of suspected inherited breast cancer susceptibility. A variety of genes have been included on these panels without certainty of their clinical utility. Pertinent current and historical literature was reviewed to provide an up-to-date snapshot of the changing landscape of the use of gene panel tests in the context of breast cancer. Areas covered: Following a recent review of the evidence, 10 genes have been found to have definitive evidence of increased breast cancer risk with variable penetrance. Here, we review the recent changes to the practice of multi-gene panel use in breast cancer diagnoses, including an update on next generation sequencing, alternative models of genetic testing, considerations when ordering these panel tests, and recommendations for management in identified carriers for a variety of genes. A comparison of screening recommendations and carrier frequencies from recent studies is also explored. Lastly, we consider what the future of hereditary oncologic genetic testing holds. Expert opinion: The transition to multi-gene panels in breast cancer patients has improved the likelihood of capturing a rare variant in a well-established gene associated with hereditary breast cancer (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2, TP53). There is also an increase in the likelihood of uncovering an uncertain result. This could be in the form of a variant of uncertain significance, or a pathogenic variant in a gene with questionable breast cancer risk-association. Concurrently, a changing landscape of who orders genetic tests will improve access to genetic testing. This pervasiveness of genetic testing must be accompanied with increased genetic literacy in all health-care providers, and access to support from genetics professionals for management of patients and at-risk family members.

Evaluating BRCA mutation risk predictive models in a Chinese cohort in Taiwan

Accurate estimation of carrier probabilities of cancer susceptibility gene mutations is an important part of pre-test genetic counselling. Many predictive models are available but their applicability in the Asian population is uncertain. We evaluated the performance of five BRCA mutation risk predictive models in a Chinese cohort of 647 women, who underwent germline DNA sequencing of a cancer susceptibility gene panel. Using areas under the curve (AUCs) on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves as performance measures, the models did comparably well as in western cohorts (BOADICEA 0.75, BRCAPRO 0.73, Penn II 0.69, Myriad 0.68). For unaffected women with family history of breast or ovarian cancer (n = 144), BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, and Tyrer-Cuzick models had excellent performance (AUC 0.93, 0.92, and 0.92, respectively). For women with both personal and family history of breast or ovarian cancer (n = 241), all models performed fairly well (BOADICEA 0.79, BRCAPRO 0.79, Penn II 0.75, Myriad 0.70). For women with personal history of breast or ovarian cancer but no family history (n = 262), most models did poorly. Between the two well-performed models, BOADICEA underestimated mutation risks while BRCAPRO overestimated mutation risks (expected/observed ratio 0.67 and 2.34, respectively). Among 424 women with personal history of breast cancer and available tumor ER/PR/HER2 data, the predictive models performed better for women with triple negative breast cancer (AUC 0.74 to 0.80) than for women with luminal or HER2 overexpressed breast cancer (AUC 0.63 to 0.69). However, incorporating ER/PR/HER2 status into the BOADICEA model calculation did not improve its predictive accuracy.

Genetic counseling, genetic testing, and risk perceptions for breast and colorectal cancer: Results from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

We examined what proportion of the U.S. population with no personal cancer history reported receiving either genetic counseling or genetic testing for cancer risk, and also the association of these behaviors with cancer risk perceptions. We used data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Objective relative risk scores for breast (women) and colorectal (men and women) cancer risk were generated for individuals without a personal history of cancer. Participants' risk perceptions were compared with their objective relative risk. Of 12,631 women, 1.2% reported receiving genetic counseling and 0.8% genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer risk. Of 15,085 men and women, 0.8% reported receiving genetic counseling and 0.3% genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer risk. Higher breast cancer risk perception was associated with genetic counseling (OR: 4.31, 95%CI: 2.56, 7.26) and testing (OR: 3.56, 95%CI: 1.80, 7.03). Similarly, higher perception of colorectal cancer risk was associated with genetic counseling (OR: 5.04, 95%CI: 2.57, 9.89) and testing (OR: 5.92, 95%CI: 2.40, 14.63). A higher proportion of individuals with colorectal cancer risk perceptions concordant with their objective risk (vs. discordant) had undergone genetic counseling or testing for colorectal cancer risk. Concordant risk perceptions for breast cancer were not associated with breast cancer genetic counseling or testing. Given frequent dialogue about implementing population level programs involving genetic services for cancer risk, policy makers and investigators should consider the role of risk perceptions in the effectiveness and design of such programs and potential strategies for addressing inaccuracies in risk perceptions.

Cancer drug development: The missing links

IMPACT STATEMENT

The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.

Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus

This paper examines key considerations for the successful integration of genomic technologies into healthcare systems. All healthcare systems strive to introduce new technologies that are effective and affordable, but genomics offers particular challenges, given the rapid evolution of the technology. In this context we frame internationally relevant discussion points relating to effective and sustainable implementation of genomic testing within the strategic priority areas of the recently endorsed Australian National Health Genomics Policy Framework. The priority areas are services, data, workforce, finances, and person-centred care. In addition, we outline recommendations from a government perspective through the lens of the Australian health system, and argue that resources should be allocated not to just genomic testing alone, but across the five strategic priority areas for full effectiveness.

Is there a classical role for the clinical laboratory in digital health?

The classical role of the clinical laboratory, seen as the central place where the samples converge and from where the results are distributed, will be challenged by the development of digital health, the application of information technology (big data) and genomics to health care. When the development of disruptive new technologies will allow the production of accurate results outside the laboratory, its role will dramatically change. However, several factors are slowing down these evolutions. The quality of the existing data is relatively poor: lack of standardization of results, different units, different reference intervals, etc. The lab-on-a-chip technology is still relatively far from broad range application and the costs are higher than the traditional methods. There is the need for regulations of direct to consumer approaches that are posing big ethical problems. In the future, the clinical laboratory will maintain part of the "classical" role in the areas of research education and services. The large production will continue, favored by consolidation and reduction of the number of laboratories. The specialists of laboratory medicine have the task of collaborating with the national scientific societies and with the industry for improving harmonization of all the production phases, thus allowing the production of meaningful big data. Clinical laboratories have the role of implementing translational medicine. The new point-of-care (POC) technologies still need validation, the clinical laboratory is the place to do it. The advisory role toward clinicians and patients has to be improved, and a role in validating laboratory data interpretation apps and in controlling and supervising the functionality and the quality of the POC devices has to be developed.