Recontacting patients for multigene panel testing in hereditary cancer: Efficacy and insights

Hereditary Cancer Screening and Outcomes at an Urban Safety-Net Hospital

PURPOSE

Patients with hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) have a high lifetime risk of developing cancer. Historically underserved populations have lower rates of genetic evaluation. We sought to characterize demographic factors that are associated with undergoing HCS evaluation in an urban safety-net patient population.

METHODS

All patients who met inclusion criteria for this study from 2016 to 2021 at an urban safety-net hospital were included in this analysis. Inclusion criteria were pathologically confirmed breast, ovarian/fallopian tube, colon, pancreatic, and prostate cancers. Patients also qualified for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers or Lynch syndrome on the basis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Demographic and oncologic data were collected through retrospective chart review. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were constructed.

RESULTS

Of the 637 patients included, 40% underwent genetic testing. Variables associated with receiving genetic testing on univariable analysis included patients living at the time of data collection, female sex, Latinx ethnicity, Spanish language, family history of cancer, and referral for genetic testing. Patients identifying as Black, having Medicare, having pancreatic or prostate cancer, having stage IV disease, having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) prognostic score ≥1, having medium or high Charlson comorbidity index, with current or previous cigarette use, and with previous alcohol use were negatively associated with testing. On multivariable modeling, family history of cancer was positively associated with testing. Patients identifying as Black, having colon or prostate cancer, and having ECOG score of 2 had significantly lower association with genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of HCS was lower in patients identifying as Black, those with colon or prostate cancer, and those with an ECOG score of 2. Efforts to increase HCS testing in these patients will be important to advance equitable cancer care.

An analysis of the impact of annual cancer genetic testing guideline updates on a past patient population

Germline genetic testing for cancer predisposition genes has become an essential component of cancer treatment and risk reduction. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) releases annual genetic testing guidelines that identify characteristics of patients that could be affected by a hereditary cancer syndrome. These guidelines have broadened over time and the implications for past patients of cancer genetics clinics are not well understood. This study is a retrospective chart review aimed at determining the percentage and characteristics of past patients that meet updated NCCN guidelines (Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreas [BOP] v1.2022 and Colorectal [CRC] v1.2021), patients that attended a follow-up appointment, and patients who went on to receive genetic testing. Clinical data and characteristics were compared between the study population as a whole and the cohort of patients that met updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021. The study population consisted of 280 patients with 76 (27.1%) patients meeting updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021. The year of initial cancer genetic counseling appointment was statistically significant (p = 0.023) with patients more likely to meet NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021 with earlier initial cancer genetic counseling appointments. In the cohort that met updated NCCN guidelines BOP v1.2022 and CRC v1.2021, the most common reason was a change in the NCCN guidelines (BOP or CRC) (54/76, 71.1%) with triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at any age being the most impactful guideline change (19/54, 35.2%). Twenty-one patients attended a follow-up appointment (7.5%) and of those that received genetic testing (17/21, 81%) most received negative results (13/17, 61.9%), with one pathogenic, low penetrance result (1/17, 5.9%, CHEK2 p.I157T). Provider-initiated follow-up was attributed to most follow-up appointments (16/21, 76.2%) implying patients do not tend to follow-up on their own. Education to non-genetics providers as well as targeted implementation of follow-up protocols possibly managed by genetic counseling assistants and utilizing electronic medical record (EMR) patient messaging could lead to improved patient follow-up.

Characterization of variant reclassification and patient re-contact in a cancer genetics clinic

Expanded genetic testing guidelines for hereditary cancers, increased utilization of large multigene panels, and improved methods for reclassifying variants have led to a greater need to understand how variant reclassification and patient re-contact are managed. This study aimed to describe the process of variant reclassification and subsequent patient re-contact at a comprehensive cancer genetic counseling service in a large metropolitan medical center with several statewide satellite locations. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify reclassified variants between 1/1/1997 and 12/1/2020. In total, 8.4% (211/2503) of variants were reclassified over the 24-year period, which includes multiple cases involving the same unique variant. Several variants underwent more than one reclassification, resulting in 232 total reclassifications among 194 individuals. Nearly all reclassifications were prompted by the laboratory (99.1%; 230/232) rather than the genetics clinic staff. Overall, 10.3% (24/232) of all reclassifications were upgrades, but only 9.1% (21/232) led to a change in management recommendations. The median time for variant reclassification was 1.7 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.8-3.2 years). There was no statistically significant difference in the time to reclassification for White patients (median = 1.6 years; IQR = 0.8-2.8 years) compared to non-White patients (median = 2.0 years; IQR = 0.9-3.7 years; Mann-Whitney U = 4,764.0, p = 0.066). Patient re-contact was attempted for 97.4% (226/232) of variants and was always performed by a genetic counselor, most often through a mailed letter (85.8%, 194/226). Specifically for reclassifications that led to a change in management recommendations, re-contact was always attempted, most often through combined telephone and mailed letter (95.2%; 20/21). Overall, the median time from reclassification to attempted patient re-contact was 13 days (range: 0-589 days). The characterization of this clinic's reclassification and re-contact procedures can serve as an example for other genetics clinics trying to incorporate re-contact into their workflow.

Uptake of genetic counseling and multi-gene panel testing among women in the Intermountain West with previous negative BRCA1 and BRCA2 results contacted for updated testing

Women with a personal history of breast or ovarian cancer who previously had BRCA1/2 testing now have the opportunity for additional genetic risk information through multi-gene panel testing. However, little is known about women's receptivity to further contact and uptake of genetic counseling and updated genetic testing. Utilizing a clinic database to identify potential participants, we prospectively contacted women in the United States with a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer who had negative BRCA1/2 testing, which was performed primarily between 2011 and 2018. Eligible and interested participants were scheduled for a genetic counseling appointment to discuss updated genetic testing using a multi-gene panel. We attempted to contact 455 participants, screened 203 (45%), and 103 (23%) completed a pre-test genetic counseling visit to discuss updated testing. Of these, 88 participants had updated multi-gene panel testing. Participants had an average age of 59 years, and most (78%) had breast cancer with an average age of 45 at diagnosis. The majority (97%) of participants were white. Of participants who underwent panel testing, 13% (n = 11) had at least one pathogenic variant identified. Most participants (86%) had an out-of-pocket cost of $100 or less for their panel. There is a sizable population of women with a personal and/or family history of breast or ovarian cancer and negative BRCA1/2 test results who would qualify for updated multi-gene panel testing. In our study, 59% of those reached who were eligible completed a pre-test genetic counseling visit. Clinics could consider an outreach program to offer genetic counseling and updated genetic testing. Supports for this type of effort may include coordinators and genetic counseling assistants and an available database with patients' contact information and prior genetic test results. Updated testing allows women more information about their risk and may expand the value of genetic counseling.

Outcomes of retesting in patients with previously uninformative cancer genetics evaluations

Advances in cancer genetics have increased germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) detection rates. More data is needed to inform which patients with previously uninformative results could benefit most from retesting, especially beyond breast/ovarian cancer populations. Here, we describe retesting outcomes and predictors of PV/LPVs in a cohort of patients unselected by cancer diagnosis. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients at a cancer genetics clinic between 1998 and 2019 who underwent genetic testing (GT) on ≥ 2 dates with ≥ 1 year between tests, with no PV/LPVs on first-line GT. Demographics, retesting indications, and GT details were reviewed to evaluate predictive factors of PV/LPV identification. 139 patients underwent retesting, of whom 24 (17.3%) had a PV/LPV, encompassing 15 genes. 14 PV/LPV carriers (58.3%) only returned for retesting after personal or familial history changes (typically new cancer diagnoses), while 10 (41.7%) retested due to updated GT availability. No specific GT method was most likely to identify PV/LPVs and no specific clinical factors were predictive of a PV/LPV. The identified PV/LPVs were consistent with patients' personal or family histories, but were discordant with the initial referral indication for GT. For 16 (66.7%) PV/LPV carriers, the genetic diagnosis changed clinical management. This study adds to the limited body of literature on retesting outcomes beyond first-line BRCA analysis alone and confirms the utility of multigene panel testing. Retesting certain affected individuals when updated GT is available could result in earlier PV/LPV identification, significantly impacting screening recommendations and potentially reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality.

Impact of changing guidelines on genetic testing and surveillance recommendations in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors with family history of pancreatic cancer

Changing practice guidelines and recommendations have important implications for cancer survivors. This study investigated genetic testing patterns and outcomes and reported family history of pancreatic cancer (FHPC) in a large registry population of breast cancer (BC) patients. Variables including clinical and demographic characteristics, FHPC in a first or second-degree relative, and genetic testing outcomes were analyzed for BC patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the NYU Langone Health Breast Cancer Database. Among 3334 BC patients, 232 (7%) had a positive FHPC. BC patients with FHPC were 1.68 times more likely to have undergone genetic testing (p < 0.001), but 33% had testing for BRCA1/2 only and 44% had no genetic testing. Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) were identified in 15/129 (11.6%) BC patients with FHPC, and in 145/1315 (11.0%) BC patients without FHPC. Across both groups, updates in genetic testing criteria and recommendations could impact up to 80% of this cohort. Within a contemporary cohort of BC patients, 7% had a positive FHPC. The majority of these patients (56%) had no genetic testing, or incomplete testing by current standards, suggesting under-diagnosis of PC risk. This study supports recommendations for survivorship care that incorporate ongoing genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Assessment of genetic referrals and outcomes for women with triple negative breast cancer in regional cancer centres in Australia

Background

Guidelines for referral to cancer genetics service for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer have changed over time. This study was conducted to assess the changing referral patterns and outcomes for women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer across three regional cancer centres during the years 2014–2018.

Methods

Following ethical approval, a retrospective electronic medical record review was performed to identify those women diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, and whether they were referred to a genetics service and if so, the outcome of that genetics assessment and/or genetic testing.

Results

There were 2441 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seen at our cancer services during the years 2014–2018, of whom 237 women were diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer. Based on age of diagnosis criteria alone, 13% (31/237) of our cohort fulfilled criteria for genetic testing, with 81% (25/31) being referred to a cancer genetics service. Of this group 68% (21/31) were referred to genetics services within our regions and went on to have genetic testing with 10 pathogenic variants identified; 5x BRCA1, 4x BRCA2 and × 1 ATM:c.7271 T > G.

Conclusions

Referral pathways for women diagnosed with TNBC to cancer genetics services are performing well across our cancer centres. We identified a group of women who did not meet eligibility criteria for referral at their time of diagnosis, but would now be eligible, as guidelines have changed. The use of cross-discipline retrospective data reviews is a useful tool to identify patients who could benefit from being re-contacted over time for an updated cancer genetics assessment.