Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes-Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Hereditary Cancer Syndrome Carriers: Feeling Left in the Corner

OBJECTIVES

There is limited evidence on health promotion interventions in people with hereditary cancer syndromes or on their main sources of support and information. This study aimed to understand these patients' experiences and needs, including their information needs, their views on prevention and mental health, and the support they want from nurses.

METHODS

This qualitative study included 22 people (8 previvors and 14 survivors) with hereditary breast and ovarian syndrome or Lynch syndrome from 10 European countries. Participants underwent individual semi-structured interviews, which were recorded and transcribed for reflexive thematic analysis. The patient and public involvement panel provided input on study design and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Patient experiences were similar regardless of the country and access to testing and screening. Participants reported receiving little information on the importance of health behaviors for cancer risk and expressed their wish to be followed by cancer professionals. They felt compelled to seek support and information from the internet and patient groups. The main themes identified were: (unmet) informational and support needs, seeing life in a different way, and limitations of health care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

People with hereditary cancer syndromes need professionals to be involved in their long-term management and to provide reliable information. As genomics are increasingly integrated in oncology, the need for professionals to support these populations will increase.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are crucial for promoting self-management and advocating for patient decision-making; however, they need skills and knowledge to do so. There is a need for nurses to get more involved in understanding hereditary cancer syndromes and an opportunity to take the lead in the care of these people.

Queering genomics: How cisnormativity undermines genomic science

Over the past century, genetics and genomics ("genomics") have contributed significantly to our knowledge of human biology and disease. Genomics has also bolstered inaccurate and harmful arguments about "essential" differences between socially defined groups. These purported differences have reinforced class hierarchies and justified the mistreatment of groups such as Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color and/or people with disabilities. With this history in mind, we explore how genomics is used to reinforce scientifically unsound understandings of the relationship between two fundamental aspects of the human experience: sex and gender. We argue that imprecise, inaccurate practices for collecting data and conducting genomic research have adversely influenced genomic science and can contribute to the stigmatization of people whose sex and/or gender challenge binary expectations. The results have been to preclude transgender and intersex people from accessing high-quality, evidence-based healthcare and to hinder their participation in scientifically sound research. In this perspective, we use the lens of queer theory to render this situation more visible. First, we highlight the theoretical contributions queer theory can make to genomic science. Second, we examine practices in research and clinical genomics that exclude and stigmatize transgender and intersex people. Third, we highlight the ways that many current genomic research practices generate false conclusions that are used to support unjust public policies. We conclude by recommending ways that clinicians and researchers can-and should-harness the scientific, social, and cultural power of genomics to advance knowledge and improve lives across the spectra of sex and gender.

Interventions to support decision making in people considering germline genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants: A scoping review

Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are medically actionable and may inform hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) treatment and prevention. However, rates of germline genetic testing (GT) in people with and without cancer are suboptimal. Individuals' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs may influence GT decisions. While genetic counseling (GC) provides decision support, the supply of genetic counselors is insufficient to meet demand. Accordingly, there is a need to explore the evidence on interventions that aim to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. We conducted a scoping review of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO using search terms related to HBOC, GT, and decision making. First, we screened records to identify peer-reviewed reports that described interventions to support BRCA1/2 testing decisions. Next, we reviewed full-text reports and excluded studies that lacked statistical comparisons or enrolled previously tested individuals. Finally, we extracted study characteristics and findings into a table. All records and reports were reviewed independently by two authors; decisions were tracked in Rayyan, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Of 2116 unique citations, 25 met the eligibility criteria. Articles were published between 1997 and 2021 and described randomized trials and nonrandomized, quasi-experimental studies. Most studies tested technology-based (12/25, 48%) or written (9/25, 36%) interventions. Nearly half (12/25, 48%) of interventions were designed to complement traditional GC. Of the interventions compared to GC, 75% (6/8) increased or had a noninferior effect on knowledge, and 67% (4/6) decreased or had a noninferior effect on decisional conflict. Intervention effects on GT uptake were mixed, which may reflect evolving eligibility criteria for GT. Our findings suggest novel interventions may promote informed GT decision making, but many were developed to complement traditional GC. Trials that assess the effects of decision support interventions in diverse samples and evaluate implementation strategies for efficacious interventions are warranted.

Genetic counselors' and community clinicians' implementation and perceived barriers to informed consent during pre-test counseling for hereditary cancer risk

As demand for genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) continues to increase, so does the sense of urgency to scale up efforts to triage patients, facilitate informed consent, and order genetic testing for cancer risk. The National Society of Genetic Counselors outlines the elements of informed consent that should be addressed in a GCRA session. While this practice resource aims to improve health equity, research on how well the elements of informed consent are implemented in practice is lacking. This retrospective and prospective mixed-methods study assessed how adequately the elements of informed consent are addressed during pre-test GCRA among 307 community clinicians (CC) and 129 cancer genetic counselors (GC), and barriers they face to addressing these elements. Results revealed that more than 90% of both cohorts consistently addressed components of at least 5 of the 10 elements of informed consent during a pre-test consultation. Technical aspects and accuracy of the test and utilization of test results were the most similarly addressed elements. Notably, GCs more often review the purpose of the test and who to test, general information about the gene(s), and economic considerations whereas CCs more often review alternatives to testing. Both cohorts reported psychosocial aspects of the informed consent process as the least adequately addressed element. Time constraints and patient-related concerns were most often cited by both cohorts as barriers to optimal facilitation of informed consent. Additional barriers reported by CCs included provider lack of awareness, experience, or education, and availability of resources and institutional support. Findings from this study may contribute to the development of alternative delivery models that incorporate supplementary educational tools to enhance patient understanding about the utility of genetic testing, while helping to mitigate the barrier of time constraints. Equally important is the use of this information to develop continuing education tools for providers.

Implementation Mapping for Managing Patients at High Risk for Hereditary Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Currently, no standard workflow exists for managing patients with pathogenic variants that put them at higher risk for hereditary cancers. Therefore, follow-up care for individuals with pathogenic variants is logistically challenging and results in poor guideline adherence. To address this challenge, authors created clinical management strategies for individuals identified at high risk for hereditary cancers.

METHODS

An implementation mapping approach was used to develop and evaluate the establishment of a Hereditary Cancer Clinic at the Medical University of South Carolina throughout in 2022. This approach consisted of 5 steps: conduct a needs assessment, identify objectives, select implementation strategies, produce implementation protocols, and develop an evaluation plan. The needs assessment consisted of qualitative interviews with patients (n=11), specialists (n=9), and members of the implementation team (n=4). Interviews were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify barriers and facilitators to establishment of the Hereditary Cancer Clinic. Objectives were identified, and then the team selected implementation strategies and produced implementation protocols to address concerns identified during the needs assessment. Authors conducted a second round of patient interviews to assess patient education materials.

RESULTS

The research team developed a long-term evaluation plan to guide future assessment of implementation, service, and clinical/patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This approach provides the opportunity for real-time enhancements and impact, with strategies for care specialists, patients, and implementation teams. Findings support ongoing efforts to improve patient management and outcomes while providing an opportunity for long-term evaluation of implementation strategies and guidelines for patients at high risk for hereditary cancers.

Experiences of hereditary cancer care among transgender and gender diverse people: "It's gender. It's cancer risk…it's everything"

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals are a significant yet underrepresented population within genetic counseling research and broader LGBTQI+ health studies. This underrepresentation perpetuates a cycle of exclusion from the production of medical knowledge, impacting the quality and equity of care received by TGD individuals. This issue is particularly poignant in cancer genetic counseling, where TGD individuals with elevated cancer risk receive risk assessment, counseling, and referral to support based on risk figures and standards of care developed for cisgender individuals. The experiences of TGD individuals navigating inherited cancer syndromes remain largely undocumented in medical literature, posing challenges to the provision of inclusive care by genetics providers. To bridge this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were held with gender diverse adults having hereditary cancer syndromes, family histories of such syndromes, or personal histories of chest cancer. Our study employed thematic analysis using combined inductive and deductive methods to illuminate how hereditary cancer care intersects with participants' gender identities, gender expression, and gender-affirming care experiences. Participants reflected on care experiences that felt affirming or triggered gender dysphoria. Participants also discussed the interplay between risk-reducing mastectomy and top surgery, exploring co-emergent dynamics between cancer risk management and gender expression. Significantly, participants identified actionable strategies for healthcare providers to enhance support for gender diverse patients, including the mindful use of gendered language, collaborative decision-making, and conveying allyship. These findings offer valuable insights into tailoring genetic counseling to meet the unique needs of TGD individuals, advancing the path toward inclusive and appropriate care for LGBTQI+ individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Paradigm Shift: A Comprehensive Review of Ovarian Cancer Management in an Era of Advancements

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the female genital malignancy with the highest lethality. Patients present a poor prognosis mainly due to the late clinical presentation allied with the common acquisition of chemoresistance and a high rate of tumour recurrence. Effective screening, accurate diagnosis, and personalised multidisciplinary treatments are crucial for improving patients' survival and quality of life. This comprehensive narrative review aims to describe the current knowledge on the aetiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of OC, highlighting the latest significant advancements and future directions. Traditionally, OC treatment involves the combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Although more therapeutical approaches have been developed, the lack of established predictive biomarkers to guide disease management has led to only marginal improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) while patients face an increasing level of toxicity. Fortunately, because of a better overall understanding of ovarian tumourigenesis and advancements in the disease's (epi)genetic and molecular profiling, a paradigm shift has emerged with the identification of new disease biomarkers and the proposal of targeted therapeutic approaches to postpone disease recurrence and decrease side effects, while increasing patients' survival. Despite this progress, several challenges in disease management, including disease heterogeneity and drug resistance, still need to be overcome.

Germline BRCA-Mutated HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Overcoming Challenges in Genetic Testing and Clinical Considerations When Using Talazoparib

Genetic testing is essential to the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. For example, women who carry mutations in BRCA1/2 genes have an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer and the presence of these mutations may sensitize the patient to treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Two PARP inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with germline BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (olaparib and talazoparib). The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer (Version 2.2023) recommend that all patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) be assessed for the presence of germline BRCA1/2 mutations. However, many women eligible for genetic testing do not receive it. Here, we provide our perspectives on both the importance of genetic testing and the challenges patients and community clinicians may face when trying to access genetic testing. We also present a hypothetical case study involving a female patient with germline BRCA-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mBC to highlight potential clinical considerations on the use of talazoparib, including the decision to initiate therapy, dosing considerations, potential drug-drug interactions, and managing side effects. This case illustrates the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to managing patients with mBC and involving the patient in the decision-making process. This patient case is fictional and does not represent events or a response from an actual patient; this fictional case is for educational purposes only.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT.

RESULTS

The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

Informational needs of individuals from families harboring BRCA pathogenic variants: A systematic review and content analysis

PURPOSE

Personalized information is paramount to patient-centered communication and decision-making regarding risk management in hereditary cancer syndromes. This systematic review identified information needs of individuals from families harboring BRCA pathogenic variants and compared findings based on gender (women vs men) and clinical characteristics (patients with cancer vs previvors and BRCA heterozygotes vs untested relatives).

METHODS

We screened 8115 studies identified from databases and citation searching. The quality of selected studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis was conducted based on content analysis.

RESULTS

From 18 selected studies including 1063 individuals, we identified 9 categories of information needs. Risk of bias in the selected studies was moderate. Men, untested relatives, and racial and ethnic minorities were underrepresented. Frequently required information was personalized cancer risk and risk-reducing strategies, including decision-making, family implications of hereditary cancers, psychological issues, and cascade testing. Subgroup analyses showed that information needs depended on gender, personal cancer history, and cascade testing in relatives.

CONCLUSION

We identified comprehensive and detailed informational needs of individuals from families harboring BRCA pathogenic variants and gaps in international guidelines. Needs for personalized information varied based on gender, health, and genetic testing status. Findings of this study have implications for genetic counseling, tailoring educational materials, and personalizing interventions.

Patient‐reported outcomes associated with reflex BRCA1 /2 tumor and subsequent germline panel genetic testing for high‐grade serous ovarian cancer

Reflex genetic testing of tumor tissue is being completed to direct cancer treatment; however, the patient impact of this genetic testing model is unknown. This survey study evaluates psychological outcomes following tumor and germline genetic testing in individuals with a new diagnosis of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). Individuals were recruited from two hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Participants completed surveys 1 week after receiving tumor results and 1 week after receiving germline results (which included genetic counseling). Outcomes included cancer-related distress (Impact of Events Scale: IES), genetic testing-related distress (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment: MICRA), and patient satisfaction. Paired t-tests were used to evaluate differences in outcomes following each genetic test result; Cohen's d was used to evaluate effect size. Subgroup analyses were undertaken according to age at diagnosis (<60 years vs. ≥60 years) and test results (any positive vs. both negative). McNemar's test assessed differences in satisfaction. Fifty-two individuals were included in the analyses. Mean IES scores were similar following disclosure of tumor and germline results (27.39 vs. 26.14; p = 0.481; d = 0.101). Compared to following tumor result disclosure, MICRA scores were significantly lower following receipt of germline results with genetic counseling (27.23 vs. 22.69; p = 0.007; d = 0.435). Decreases in MICRA scores from tumor to germline result disclosure were greater for those diagnosed <60 years or those who received only negative test results. Most individuals were satisfied/highly satisfied following tumor (85.7%) and germline (89.8%) results disclosure (p = 0.774). Reflex tumor, and subsequent germline, genetic testing is a new model of care for cancer patients. In our cohort, genetic testing-related distress decreased significantly following receipt of germline results with genetic counseling, especially for individuals diagnosed under 60 years and those receiving only negative results. Most individuals were satisfied with this model of care.

Genetic testing for patients at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

ABSTRACT

The field of cancer genetic testing has made great advances in correctly identifying patients at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. These tests, used during a genetic consultation, promote earlier detection of cancer and potentially increase survival. Despite these advancements, a large number of persons at risk for BRCA1/2 mutations remain untested due to a shortage of genetic counselors and lack of clinician knowledge on how to properly screen, identify, and refer patients to genetic counseling. We suggest team-based practices that physician associates/assistants (PAs) and NPs can use in collaboration with genetic counselors. We also explore how PAs and NPs can alleviate the burden on genetic counselors by taking a comprehensive family history, providing elements of counseling, and ordering appropriate genetic tests. This approach maximizes the amount of time the patient spends receiving actual genetic counseling. By creating this collaborative relationship, PAs and NPs can help increase the number of qualifying patients who receive genetic testing and counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes.

Controversies and Open Questions in Management of Cancer-Free Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants in BRCA1/BRCA2

Females harboring germline BRCA1/BRCA2 (BRCA) P/LPV are offered a tight surveillance scheme from the age of 25−30 years, aimed at early detection of specific cancer types, in addition to risk-reducing strategies. Multiple national and international surveillance guidelines have been published and updated over the last two decades from geographically diverse countries. We searched for guidelines published between 1 January 2015 and 1 May 2022. Differences between guidelines on issues such as primary prevention, mammography screening in young (<30 years) carriers, MRI screening in carriers above age 65 years, breast imaging (if any) after risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, during pregnancy, and breastfeeding, and hormone-replacement therapy, are just a few notable examples. Beyond formal guidelines, BRCA carriers’ concerns also focus on the timing of risk-reducing surgeries, fertility preservation, management of menopausal symptoms in cancer survivors, and pancreatic cancer surveillance, issues that, for some, there are no data to support evidence-based recommendations. This review discusses these unsettled issues, emphasizing the importance of future studies to enable global guideline harmonization for optimal surveillance strategies. Moreover, it raises the unmet need for personalized risk stratification and surveillance in BRCA P/LPV carriers.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Current Status of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Practice Among Gynecologic Oncologists in Japan: A Nationwide Survey by the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO)

Objective

The practices pertaining to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in Japan have been rapidly changing owing to the clinical development of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, the increasing availability of companion diagnostics, and the broadened insurance coverage of HBOC management from April 2020. A questionnaire of gynecologic oncologists was conducted to understand the current status and to promote the widespread standardization of future HBOC management.

Methods

A Google Form questionnaire was administered to the members of the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology. The survey consisted of 25 questions in 4 categories: respondent demographics, HBOC management experience, insurance coverage of HBOC management, and educational opportunities related to HBOC.

Results

A total of 666 valid responses were received. Regarding the prevalence of HBOC practice, the majority of physicians responded in the negative and required human resources, information sharing and educational opportunities, and expanded insurance coverage to adopt and improve HBOC practice. Most physicians were not satisfied with the educational opportunities provided so far, and further expansion was desired. They remarked on the psychological burdens of many HBOC managements. Physicians reported these burdens could be alleviated by securing sufficient time to engage in HBOC management, creating easy-to-understand explanatory material for patients, collaboration with specialists in genetic medicine, and educational opportunities.

Conclusion

Gynecologic oncologists in Japan are struggling to deal with psychological burdens in HBOC practice. To promote the clinical practice of HBOC management, there is an urgent need to strengthen human resources and improve educational opportunities, and expand insurance coverage for HBOC management.

Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology conducted a survey on the current status of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) practice. About half of the 666 respondents did not feel that HBOC practice had become common, and the majority answered HBOC practice in Japan was not widespread. There is a need to strengthen human resources and educational content, and to reexamine the items covered by insurance.

Physician-directed genetic screening to evaluate personal risk for medically actionable disorders: a large multi-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of proactive genetic screening for disease prevention and early detection is not yet widespread. Professional practice guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) have encouraged reporting pathogenic variants that confer personal risk for actionable monogenic hereditary disorders, but only as secondary findings from exome or genome sequencing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognizes the potential public health impact of three Tier 1 actionable disorders. Here, we report results of a large multi-center cohort study to determine the yield and potential value of screening healthy individuals for variants associated with a broad range of actionable monogenic disorders, outside the context of secondary findings.

METHODS

Eligible adults were offered a proactive genetic screening test by health care providers in a variety of clinical settings. The screening panel based on next-generation sequencing contained up to 147 genes associated with monogenic disorders within cancer, cardiovascular, and other important clinical areas. Sequence and intragenic copy number variants classified as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, pathogenic (low penetrance), or increased risk allele were considered clinically significant and reported. Results were analyzed by clinical area and severity/burden of disease using chi-square tests without Yates' correction.

RESULTS

Among 10,478 unrelated adults screened, 1619 (15.5%) had results indicating personal risk for an actionable monogenic disorder. In contrast, only 3.1 to 5.2% had clinically reportable variants in genes suggested by the ACMG version 2 secondary findings list to be examined during exome or genome sequencing, and 2% had reportable variants related to CDC Tier 1 conditions. Among patients, 649 (6.2%) were positive for a genotype associated with a disease of high severity/burden, including hereditary cancer syndromes, cardiovascular disorders, or malignant hyperthermia susceptibility.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first real-world examples of specialists and primary care providers using genetic screening with a multi-gene panel to identify health risks in their patients. Nearly one in six individuals screened for variants associated with actionable monogenic disorders had clinically significant results. These findings provide a foundation for further studies to assess the role of genetic screening as part of regular medical care.