Population prevalence of individuals meeting criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing

Universal Germline-Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer: Implementation in a Rural Practice and Impact on Shared Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Whereas the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria restrict germline-genetic testing (GGT) to a subset of breast cancer (BC) patients, the American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends universal GGT. Although the yield of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in unselected BC patients has been studied, the practicality and utility of incorporating universal GGT into routine cancer care in community and rural settings is understudied. This study reports real-world implementation of universal GGT for patients with breast cancer and genetics-informed, treatment decision-making in a rural, community practice with limited resources.

METHODS

From 2019 to 2022, all patients with breast cancer at a small, rural hospital were offered GGT, using a genetics-extender model. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact test, t-tests, and calculation of odds ratios. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of 210 patients with breast cancer who were offered GGT, 192 (91.4%) underwent testing with 104 (54.2%) in-criteria (IC) and 88 (45.8%) out-of-criteria (OOC) with NCCN guidelines. Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 25 patients (13.0%), with PGV frequencies of 15 of 104 (14.4%) in IC and ten of 88 (11.4%) in OOC patients (p = 0.495). GGT informed treatment for 129 of 185 (69.7%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal GGT was successfully implemented in a rural, community practice with > 90% uptake. Treatment was enhanced or de-escalated in those with and without clinically actionable PGVs, respectively. Universal GGT for patients with breast cancer is feasible within rural populations, enabling optimization of clinical care to patients' genetic profile, and may reduce unnecessary healthcare, resource utilization.

Serum high-density lipoprotein level and prognosis of ovarian cancer

This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level in patients with ovarian cancer. This study enrolled 152 patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 119 patients with benign ovarian tumors. The associations of patient characteristics and disease with survival were determined using Cox regression analysis, t tests, analysis of variance for multiple-group comparisons, and chi-square tests. The potential association between HDL levels and the clinical characteristics of the disease was also analyzed. The diagnostic value of HDL was estimated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve. Progression-free survival and overall survival were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and their associations with patient and pathological variables, including HDL, were determined using the log-rank test. The median serum HDL was 1.15 mm measured in 152 patients with ovarian cancer and 1.30 mm in 119 patients with benign ovarian tumors (P = .000054). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.735 for serum HDL levels. Serum HDL levels were significantly associated with tumor pathological types (non-serous vs serous, P < .05). No association was observed between serum HDL levels and patient age, age at menarche or marriage, number of children, tumor grade, or clinical stage (P > .05). Patients with high serum HDL levels had a longer progression-free survival and overall survival than those with low serum HDL levels. Serum HDL levels are an independent prognostic factor for ovarian cancer.

Prevalence of Americans reporting a family history of cancer indicative of increased cancer risk: Estimates from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey

The collection and evaluation of family health history in a clinical setting presents an opportunity to discuss cancer risk, tailor cancer screening recommendations, and identify people with an increased risk of carrying a pathogenic variant who may benefit from referral to genetic counseling and testing. National recommendations for breast and colorectal cancer screening indicate that men and women who have a first-degree relative affected with these types of cancers may benefit from talking to a healthcare provider about starting screening at an earlier age and other options for cancer prevention. The prevalence of reporting a first-degree relative who had cancer was assessed among adult respondents of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey who had never had cancer themselves (n = 27,999). We found 35.6% of adults reported having at least one first-degree relative with cancer at any site. Significant differences in reporting a family history of cancer were observed by sex, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and census region. Nearly 5% of women under age 50 and 2.5% of adults under age 50 had at least one first-degree relative with breast cancer or colorectal cancer, respectively. We estimated that 5.8% of women had a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that may indicate increased genetic risk. A third of U.S. adults who have never had cancer report a family history of cancer in a first-degree relative. This finding underscores the importance of using family history to inform discussions about cancer risk and screening options between healthcare providers and their patients.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system

Background

A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients.

Methods

We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients.

We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing.

Results

Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population.

Conclusions

Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.

Using a Tailored Digital Health Intervention for Family Communication and Cascade Genetic Testing in Swiss and Korean Families With Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Protocol for the DIALOGUE Study

Background

In hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), family communication of genetic test results is essential for cascade genetic screening, that is, identifying and testing blood relatives of known mutation carriers to determine whether they also carry the pathogenic variant, and to propose preventive and clinical management options. However, up to 50% of blood relatives are unaware of relevant genetic information, suggesting that potential benefits of genetic testing are not communicated effectively within family networks. Technology can facilitate communication and genetic education within HBOC families.

Objective

The aims of this study are to develop the K-CASCADE (Korean–Cancer Predisposition Cascade Genetic Testing) cohort in Korea by expanding an infrastructure developed by the CASCADE (Cancer Predisposition Cascade Genetic Testing) Consortium in Switzerland; develop a digital health intervention to support the communication of cancer predisposition for Swiss and Korean HBOC families, based on linguistic and cultural adaptation of the Family Gene Toolkit; evaluate its efficacy on primary (family communication of genetic results and cascade testing) and secondary (psychological distress, genetic literacy, active coping, and decision making) outcomes; and explore its translatability using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework.

Methods

The digital health intervention will be available in French, German, Italian, Korean, and English and can be accessed via the web, mobile phone, or tablet (ie, device-agnostic). K-CASCADE cohort of Korean HBOC mutation carriers and relatives will be based on the CASCADE infrastructure. Narrative data collected through individual interviews or mini focus groups from 20 to 24 HBOC family members per linguistic region and 6-10 health care providers involved in genetic services will identify the local cultures and context, and inform the content of the tailored messages. The efficacy of the digital health intervention against a comparison website will be assessed in a randomized trial with 104 HBOC mutation carriers (52 in each study arm). The translatability of the digital health intervention will be assessed using survey data collected from HBOC families and health care providers.

Results

Funding was received in October 2019. It is projected that data collection will be completed by January 2023 and results will be published in fall 2023.

Conclusions

This study addresses the continuum of translational research, from developing an international research infrastructure and adapting an existing digital health intervention to testing its efficacy in a randomized controlled trial and exploring its translatability using an established framework. Adapting existing interventions, rather than developing new ones, takes advantage of previous valid experiences without duplicating efforts. Culturally sensitive web-based interventions that enhance family communication and understanding of genetic cancer risk are timely. This collaboration creates a research infrastructure between Switzerland and Korea that can be scaled up to cover other hereditary cancer syndromes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04214210; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04214210 and CRiS KCT0005643; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/26264

Identification of women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in a sample of 1000 Slovenian women: a comparison of guidelines

Background

An important number of breast and ovarian cancer cases is due to a strong genetic predisposition. The main tool for identifying individuals at risk is recognizing a suggestive family history of cancer. We present a prospective study on applying three selected clinical guidelines to a cohort of 1000 Slovenian women to determine the prevalence of at-risk women according to each of the guidelines and analyze the differences amongst the guidelines.

Methods

Personal and family history of cancer was collected for 1000 Slovenian women. Guidelines by three organizations: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American College of Medical Genetics in cooperation with National Society of Genetic Counselors (ACMG/NSGC), and Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) were applied to the cohort. The number of women identified, the characteristics of the high-risk population, and the agreement between the guidelines were explored.

Results

NCCN guidelines identify 13.2% of women, ACMG/NSGC guidelines identify 7.1% of women, and SGO guidelines identify 7.0% of women from the Slovenian population, while 6.2% of women are identified by all three guidelines as having high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

Conclusions

We identified 13.7% of women from the Slovenian population as being at an increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer based on their personal and family history of cancer using all of the guidelines. There are important differences between the guidelines. NCCN guidelines are the most inclusive, identifying nearly twice the amount of women as high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer as compared to the AGMG/NSCG and SGO guidelines in the Slovenian population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08400-8.

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.

Implementing Cancer Genomics in State Health Agencies: Mapping Activities to an Implementation Science Outcome Framework

OBJECTIVE

To show how state health agencies can plan and evaluate activities to strengthen the evidence base for public health genomics, we mapped state cancer genomics activities to the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] implementation science outcome framework.

METHODS

We identified state health agency activities addressing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome by reviewing project narratives from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cancer Genomics Program funding recipients, leading discussions with state health agencies, and conducting an environmental scan.

RESULTS

State health agencies' cancer genomics activities included developing or adding to state surveillance systems, developing educational materials, bidirectional reporting, promoting health plan policy change, training providers, and promoting recommendations and standards. To address health disparities, programs have tracked group differences, developed culturally appropriate educational materials, and promoted access to services for underserved populations.

CONCLUSION

State health agencies can use the Doyle et al. [Genet Med. 2018;20(9):995-1003] performance objectives and outcome measures to evaluate proposed and ongoing activities. By demonstrating whether activities result in improved outcomes, state health agencies can build the evidence for the implementation of cancer genomics activities.

Population prevalence of individuals meeting criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing

Background

Personal cancer diagnosis and family cancer history factor into which individuals should undergo genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome. Family history is often determined in the research setting through kindreds with disease clusters, or clinically from self‐report. The population prevalence of individuals with diagnostic characteristics and/or family cancer history meeting criteria for HBOC testing is unknown.

Methods

Utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry data and a research resource linking registry records to genealogies, the Utah Population Database, the population‐based prevalence of diagnostic and family history characteristics meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for HBOC testing was objectively assessed.

Results

Among Utah residents with an incident breast cancer diagnosis 2010‐2015 and evaluable for family history, 21.6% met criteria for testing based on diagnostic characteristics, but the proportion increased to 62.9% when family history was evaluated. The proportion of cases meeting testing criteria at diagnosis was 94% for ovarian cancer, 23% for prostate cancer, and 51.1% for pancreatic cancer. Among an unaffected Utah population of approximately 1.7 million evaluable for family history, 197,601 or 11.6% met testing criteria based on family history.

Conclusions

This study quantifies the population‐based prevalence of HBOC criteria using objectively determined genealogy and cancer incidence data. Sporadic breast cancer likely represents a portion of the high prevalence of family cancer history seen in this study. These results underline the importance of establishing presence of a deleterious mutation in an affected family member, per NCCN guidelines, before testing unaffected relatives.