Distress among women receiving uninformative BRCA1/2 results: 12-month outcomes

Implications of genetic testing and informed consent before and after genetic testing in individuals with cancer

Recent advancements in next generation sequencing have allowed for genetic information become more readily available in the clinical setting for those affected by cancer and by treating clinicians. Given the lack of access to geneticists, medical oncologists and other treating physicians have begun ordering and interpreting genetic tests for individuals with cancer through the process of "mainstreaming". While this process has allowed for quicker access to genetic tests, the process of "mainstreaming" has also brought several challenges including the dissemination of variants of unknown significance results, ordering of appropriate tests, and accurate interpretation of genetic results with appropriate follow-up testing and interventions. In this editorial, we seek to explore the process of informed consent of individuals before obtaining genetic testing and offer potential solutions to optimize the informed consent process including categorization of results as well as a layered consent model.

Germline Genetic Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Current Concepts in Risk Evaluation

Our understanding of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer has significantly improved over the past two decades. In addition to BRCA1/2, pathogenic variants in several other DNA-repair genes have been shown to increase the risks of breast and ovarian cancer. The magnitude of cancer risk is impacted not only by the gene involved, but also by family history of cancer, polygenic risk scores, and, in certain genes, pathogenic variant type or location. While estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with pathogenic variants are available, these are predominantly based on studies of high-risk populations with young age at diagnosis of cancer, multiple primary cancers, or family history of cancer. More recently, breast cancer risk for germline pathogenic variant carriers has been estimated from population-based studies. Here, we provide a review of the field of germline genetic testing and risk evaluation for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in high-risk and population-based settings.

Psychological distress following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk

Advances in our understanding of the genetic landscape of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have led to the clinical adoption of multi-gene panel testing. Panel testing introduces new sources of genetic uncertainty secondary to the inclusion of moderate- and low-penetrance genes, as well as the increased likelihood of identifying a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). This cross-sectional study explored the post-test psychological functioning of women who underwent multi-gene panel testing for HBOC susceptibility genes. Two hundred and ninety-five women who underwent panel testing within the previous 2 years completed a study questionnaire to measure levels of cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress using the Impact of Events Scale (IES) and the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA), respectively. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between genetic test results and levels of psychological distress captured by the IES and MICRA. In this cohort, a pathogenic variant (PV) was identified in 41 (14%) of participants, and 77 (26%) participants were found to have a VUS. In the multi-variate model, higher mean levels of genetic testing-related distress were observed in individuals with a PV (p < 0.001) or a VUS (p = 0.007) compared to those with a negative result. Furthermore, participants with a PV in a moderate-penetrance gene were found to have higher levels of genetic testing-related distress compared to those with a PV in a high-risk gene (p = 0.03). Overall, participants were highly satisfied with their genetic testing experience, with 92% of individuals reporting they would recommend testing to others. Our findings highlight differences in psychological outcomes based on both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance, which contribute to our understanding of the impact of panel testing and sources of both cancer-related and genetic testing-related distress secondary to testing.

Cascade testing for hereditary cancer in Singapore: how population genomics help guide clinical policy

Hereditary Cancer makes up around 5-10% of all cancers. It is important to diagnose hereditary cancer in a timely fashion, as not only do patients require long-term care from a young age, but their relatives also require management. The main approach to capture at-risk relatives is cascade testing. It involves genetic testing of relatives of the first detected carrier of a pathogenic variant in a family i.e. the proband. The current standard of care for cascade testing is a patient-mediated approach. Probands are then advised to inform and encourage family members to undergo genetic testing. In Singapore, cascade testing is inefficient, around 10-15%, lower than the 30% global average. Here, we describe the cascade testing process and its effort to increase testing in Singapore. Precision Health Research, Singapore (PRECISE), was set up to coordinate Singapore's National Precision Medicine strategy and has awarded five clinical implementation pilots, with one of them seeking to identify strategies for how cascade testing for hereditary cancer can be increased in a safe and cost-efficient manner. Achieving this will be done through addressing barriers such as cost, manpower shortages, exploring a digital channel for contacting at-risk relatives, and getting a deeper insight into why genetic testing gets declined. If successful, it will likely result in care pathways that are a cost-effective public health intervention for identifying individuals at risk. Surveillance and management of those unaffected at-risk individuals, if caught early, will result in improved patient outcomes, and further reduce the healthcare burden for the economy.

Clinical implications of VUS reclassification in a single-centre series from application of ACMG/AMP classification rules specified for BRCA1/2

BACKGROUND

BRCA1/2 testing is crucial to guide clinical decisions in patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, but detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) prevents proper management of carriers. The ENIGMA (Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) BRCA1/2 Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) has recently developed BRCA1/2 variant classification guidelines consistent with ClinGen processes, specified against the ACMG/AMP (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular-Pathology) classification framework.

METHODS

The ClinGen-approved BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP classification guidelines were applied to BRCA1/2 VUSs identified from 2011 to 2022 in a series of patients, retrieving information from the VCEP documentation, public databases, literature and ENIGMA unpublished data. Then, we critically re-evaluated carrier families based on new results and checked consistency of updated classification with main sources for clinical interpretation of BRCA1/2 variants.

RESULTS

Among 166 VUSs detected in 231 index cases, 135 (81.3%) found in 197 index cases were classified by applying BRCA1/2-specified ACMG/AMP criteria: 128 (94.8%) as Benign/Likely Benign and 7 (5.2%) as Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic. The average time from the first report as 'VUS' to classification using this approach was 49.4 months. Considering that 15 of these variants found in 64 families had already been internally reclassified prior to this work, this study provided 121 new reclassifications among the 151 (80.1%) remaining VUSs, relevant to 133/167 (79.6%) families.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrated the effectiveness of new BRCA1/2 ACMG/AMP classification guidelines for VUS classification within a clinical cohort, and their important clinical impact. Furthermore, they suggested a cadence of no more than 3 years for regular review of VUSs, which however requires time, expertise and resources.

The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing.

METHODS

The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services.

DISCUSSION

With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Genomic disparity impacts variant classification of cancer susceptibility genes in Turkish breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Turkish genome is underrepresented in large genomic databases. This study aims to evaluate the effect of allele frequency in the Turkish population in determining the clinical utility of germline findings in breast cancer, including invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L), and ductal carcinoma (DC).

METHODS

Two clinic-based cohorts from the Umraniye Research and Training Hospital (URTH) were used in this study: a cohort consisting of 132 women with breast cancer and a non-cancer cohort consisting of 492 participants. The evaluation of the germline landscape was performed by analysis of 27 cancer genes. The frequency and type of variants in the breast cancer cohort were compared to those in the non-cancer cohort to investigate the effect of population genetics. The variant allele frequencies in Turkish Variome and gnomAD were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

The genetic analysis identified 121 variants in the breast cancer cohort (actionable = 32, VUS = 89) and 223 variants in the non-cancer cohort (actionable = 25, VUS = 188). The occurrence of 21 variants in both suggested a possible genetic population effect. Evaluation of allele frequency of 121 variants from the breast cancer cohort showed 22% had a significantly higher value in Turkish Variome compared to gnomAD (p < 0.0001, 95% CI) with a mean difference of 60 times (ranging from 1.37-354.4). After adjusting for variant allele frequency using the ancestry-appropriate database, 6.7% (5/75) of VUS was reclassified to likely benign.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study of population genetic effects in breast cancer subtypes in Turkish women. Our findings underscore the need for a large genomic database representing Turkish population-specific variants. It further highlights the significance of the ancestry-appropriate population database for accurate variant assessment in clinical settings.

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.

Identification of individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer using a digital patient-input tool combining family cancer history screening and new-onset diabetes

Capturing family history might be a valuable tool for identification of individuals at increased risk of pancreatic cancer, which would allow enrollment into pancreatic surveillance programs. In addition, weight loss and concurrent new-onset diabetes may be utilized as an early marker for pancreatic cancer. This study evaluates the yield of combining family history and the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) model to identify individuals who could benefit from pancreatic surveillance. A novel questionnaire and digital input tool was created that combined questions on family cancer history and criteria of the ENDPAC model. Individuals meeting ENDPAC criteria were enrolled directly in the high-risk pancreatic clinic. Individuals who met the criteria for a significant family history of cancer were offered referral to a genetic counselor. The questionnaire was completed by 453 patients. Of those, 25.8% (117/453) had significant familial risk factors. Eighteen individuals (15.4%) completed genetic testing previously, of whom five had a pathogenic variant. Thirty-four (29.9%) out of 117 individuals with a strong family history - flagged by the questionnaire - underwent genetic testing. Four (11.8%) of these patients harbored a pathogenic variant. Additionally, through cascade family testing, two siblings were found to carry pathogenic variants. Four (0.9%) of the 453 patients matched ENDPAC criteria. Two were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and the others were enrolled in the surveillance program. In conclusion, identification of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer can be achieved by combining family history screening and the ENDPAC model to facilitate referral to genetic counseling and high-risk clinics.

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.

Discovery of over 200 new and expanded genetic conditions using GeneMatcher

GeneMatcher is a platform through which various stakeholders can connect with others interested in candidate gene findings. GeneDx, a diagnostic laboratory, has utilized GeneMatcher over the last seven years to successfully facilitate connections between clinicians and researchers, generating fruitful research collaborations. Our ultimate goal in reporting candidate gene findings is to amass sufficient evidence to establish novel disease–gene relationships (DGRs), thus providing diagnostic answers to families and clinicians. Our database of over 300,000 clinical exomes has been a major driver of DGR discovery. Our laboratory accounts for over 20% of total GeneMatcher submissions. Largely fueled by GeneMatcher matches, we have published over 200 articles involving new DGRs or expanded phenotypes for known disease‐causing genes in the past three years. These endeavors require commitments to sharing data and dedicating resources to investigate potential matches. Ultimately, GeneMatcher enables collaboration on a broad scale: we are grateful to the clinicians, researchers, patients, and caregivers who have partnered with us to accelerate the pace of DGR discovery. GeneMatcher opens the door to new partnerships, new discoveries, and families finding answers that otherwise may not have been possible.

Préoccupations et besoins d’aide psychologiques chez les femmes à risque génétique de cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire : une étude prospective observationnelle en Allemagne, Espagne et France

Objectifs et contexte : L’arrivée des tests de panel de gènes a augmenté la complexité de la communication en consultation d’oncogénétique. Une attention quant à l’impact de cette communication sur les préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique s’avère d’autant plus indispensable. Cette étude vise à en quantifier le type et l’ampleur, avant et après la communication du résultat de test génétique, chez des femmes s’adressant à la consultation d’oncogénétique pour réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire en Allemagne, Espagne et France.

Participants et mesures : Parmi les 752 personnes invitées consécutivement à participer à cette étude, 646 (86 %) ― dont 510 (68 %) atteintes d’un cancer du sein―ont répondu à un questionnaire (PAHC (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer)) portant d’une part sur les préoccupations spécifiques à la démarche en oncogénétique et d’autre part sur leurs besoins d’aide psychologique ; questionnaire proposé après la consultation initiale d’oncogénétique initiale (T1) et, pour 460 (61 %) d’entre elles, deux mois après la communication du résultat du test (T2).

Résultats : Soixante-dix-neuf (17,2 %), 19 (4,1 %), 259 (56,3 %), 44 (9,6 %), 59 (12,8 %) femmes ont reçu respectivement les résultats suivants : un variant pathogène sur BRCA1/2 ou sur autre gène à risque élevé ou modéré, un résultat négatif non informatif, un résultat négatif vrai, ou la présence d’un variant dont la signification clinique est incertaine (VUS). Le type de préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique se sont révélés variables selon les pays. Cependant, globalement, les préoccupations les plus fréquentes (> 70 %) étaient relatives à la perte d’un proche familial par cancer, et les moins fréquentes (< 5 %) relatives au soutien des proches. La plupart de ces préoccupations persistent deux mois plus tard, à la suite du résultat de test génétique. En revanche, le besoin d’aide psychologique a globalement diminué sur le plan statistique, excepté, selon le pays, pour les préoccupations familiales/sociales, les difficultés émotionnelles ou les aspects pratiques.

Conclusions : Dans notre étude portant sur des femmes issues de trois pays européens s’adressant à la consultation oncogénétique en vue de réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire, la plupart des préoccupations liées à la situation génétique persistent deux mois après la communication du résultat de test, et les besoins d’aide psychologique se manifestent surtout dans le champ des relations et des émotions.

Impact of Variant Reclassification in Cancer Predisposition Genes on Clinical Care

PURPOSE

Genetic testing has clinical utility in the management of patients with hereditary cancer syndromes. However, the increased likelihood of encountering a variant of uncertain significance in individuals of non-European descent such as Asians may be challenging to both clinicians and patients. This study aims to evaluate the impact of variant reclassification in an Asian country with variants of uncertain significance reported in cancer predisposition genes.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients seen at the Cancer Genetics Service at the National Cancer Centre Singapore between February 2014 and March 2020 was conducted. The frequency, direction, and time to variant reclassification were evaluated by comparing the reclassified report against the original report.

RESULTS

A total of 1,412 variants of uncertain significance were reported in 49.9% (845 of 1,695) of patients. Over 6 years, 6.7% (94 of 1,412) of variants were reclassified. Most variants of uncertain significance (94.1%, 80 of 85) were downgraded to benign or likely benign variant, with a smaller proportion of variants of uncertain significance (5.9%, 5 of 85) upgraded to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Actionable variants of uncertain significance upgrades and pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant downgrades, which resulted in management changes, happened in 31.0% (39 of 126) of patients. The median and mean time taken for reclassification were 1 and 1.62 year(s), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We propose a clinical guideline to standardize management of patients reported to have variants of uncertain significance. Management should be based on the patient's personal history, family history, and variant interpretation. For clinically relevant or suspicious variants of uncertain significance, follow-up is recommended every 2 years, as actionable reclassifications may happen during this period.

The Intersection of Palliative Care and Genetic Counseling in Cancer Care: A Case Discussion

Up to 10% of cancers have a strong hereditary component. The diagnosis of a hereditary cancer may alter treatment recommendations for the patient. However, the optimal timing and best practices for integrating genetic counseling and testing into the care of women diagnosed with cancer remains unclear. In this study, we demonstrate the potential benefits of discussing genetic testing and counseling in the context of palliative care through two cases. Incorporating referrals for genetic testing into the palliative care context is important. This provides an opportunity to perform previously missed genetic testing. It is also a chance for the patient to leave a legacy while also potentially allowing for alternate targeted treatment possibilities that may be well tolerated and provide a better quality of life for the patients themselves. The benefits of referral to palliative care by the genetics team includes assisting patients with the management of not only physical but also psychological symptoms as well as conducting advanced care planning in patients and families with hereditary mutations.

An ethical analysis of divergent clinical approaches to the application of genetic testing for autism and schizophrenia

Genetic testing to identify genetic syndromes and copy number variants (CNVs) via whole genome platforms such as chromosome microarray (CMA) or exome sequencing (ES) is routinely performed clinically, and is considered by a variety of organizations and societies to be a "first-tier" test for individuals with developmental delay (DD), intellectual disability (ID), or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, in the context of schizophrenia, though CNVs can have a large effect on risk, genetic testing is not typically a part of routine clinical care, and no clinical practice guidelines recommend testing. This raises the question of whether CNV testing should be similarly performed for individuals with schizophrenia. Here we consider this proposition in light of the history of genetic testing for ID/DD and ASD, and through the application of an ethical analysis designed to enable robust, accountable and justifiable decision-making. Using a systematic framework and application of relevant bioethical principles (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice), our examination highlights that while CNV testing for the indication of ID has considerable benefits, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest that overall, the potential harms are outweighed by the potential benefits of CNV testing for the sole indications of schizophrenia or ASD. However, although the application of CNV tests for children with ASD or schizophrenia without ID/DD is, strictly speaking, off-label use, there may be clinical utility and benefits substantive enough to outweigh the harms. Research is needed to clarify the harms and benefits of testing in pediatric and adult contexts. Given that genetic counseling has demonstrated benefits for schizophrenia, and has the potential to mitigate many of the potential harms from genetic testing, any decisions to implement genetic testing for schizophrenia should involve high-quality evidence-based genetic counseling.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Genetic Access Program: Paving the Way for Genetic Characterization of ALS in the Clinic

Objective

To report the frequency of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) genetic variants in a nationwide cohort of clinic-based patients with ALS with a family history of ALS (fALS), dementia (dALS), or both ALS and dementia (fALS/dALS).

Methods

A multicenter, prospective cohort of 573 patients with fALS, dALS, or fALS/dALS, underwent genetic testing in the ALS Genetic Access Program (ALS GAP), a clinical program for clinics of the Northeast ALS Consortium. Patients with dALS underwent C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) testing; those with fALS or fALS/dALS underwent C9orf72 HRE testing, followed by sequencing of SOD1, FUS, TARDBP, TBK1, and VCP.

Results

A pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variant was identified in 171/573 (30%) of program participants. About half of patients with fALS or fALS/dALS (138/301, 45.8%) had either a C9orf72 HRE or a P or LP variant identified in SOD1, FUS, TARDBP, TBK1, or VCP. The use of a targeted, 5-gene sequencing panel resulted in far fewer uncertain test outcomes in familial cases compared with larger panels used in other in clinic-based cohorts. Among dALS cases 11.8% (32/270) were found to have the C9orf72 HRE. Patients of non-Caucasian geoancestry were less likely to test positive for the C9orf72 HRE, but were more likely to test positive on panel testing, compared with those of Caucasian ancestry.

Conclusions

The ALS GAP program provided a genetic diagnosis to ∼1 in 3 participants and may serve as a model for clinical genetic testing in ALS.

In silico analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense variants and the relevance in molecular genetic testing

Over the years since the genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been conducted for research and later introduced into clinical practice, a high number of missense variants have been reported in the literature and deposited in public databases. Polymorphism Phenotyping v2 (PolyPhen-2) and Sorting Intolerant from Tolerant (SIFT) are two widely applied bioinformatics tools used to assess the functional impacts of missense variants. A total of 2605 BRCA1 and 4763 BRCA2 variants from the ClinVar database were analysed with PolyPhen2 and SIFT. When SIFT was evaluated alongside PolyPhen-2 HumDiv and HumVar, it had shown top performance in terms of negative predictive value (NPV) (100%) and sensitivity (100%) for ClinVar classified benign and pathogenic BRCA1 variants. Both SIFT and PolyPhen-2 HumDiv achieved 100% NPV and 100% sensitivity in prediction of pathogenicity of the BRCA2 variants. Agreement was achieved in prediction outcomes from the three tested approaches in 55.04% and 68.97% of the variants of unknown significance (VUS) for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. The performances of PolyPhen-2 and SIFT in predicting functional impacts varied across the two genes. Due to lack of high concordance in prediction outcomes among the two tested algorithms, their usefulness in classifying the pathogenicity of VUS identified through molecular testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 is hence limited in the clinical setting.

Uncertainty following an inconclusive result from the BRCA1/2 genetic test: A review about psychological outcomes

BACKGROUND

An inconclusive result from BRCA1/2 genetic testing indicates that a genetic variant of uncertain significance is detected. This case constitutes the majority of genetic test results, but studies specifically addressing the psychological adjustment of people with inconclusive results are scarce.

AIM

To examine psychological outcomes of receiving an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result.

METHODS

PubMed, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were screened for studies focusing on distress, anxiety, and depression levels in individuals with inconclusive genetic test results. This review is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method.

RESULTS

Studies on psychological outcomes of inconclusive BRCA1/2 focused on general and specific distress, anxiety, and depression. Overall, they produced mixed results. These inconsistent findings are probably due to the uncertainty caused by this type of result, that may also influence the decisions of individuals about surveillance and prophylactic options, reducing their compliance. In addition, this review highlights specific risk and protective factors that affect psychological adjustment in individuals with an inconclusive genetic testing result.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with inconclusive genetic test results need specific educational programs and support to better understand the meaning of their results in order to be able to make decisions about surveillance and prophylactic options.

How patients deal with an ambiguous medical test: Decision-making after genetic testing

OBJECTIVE

We know little about how patients make decisions when they receive a variant of uncertain significance result (VUS) from genetic testing. The purpose of this study was to elucidate a model of patient-informed decision-making after receiving a VUS result.

METHODS

Using an adapted Mental Models Approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with women who received a VUS result from genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (N = 20) to explore factors they believed were relevant to their decision-making. Two coders used a coding scheme informed by experts in hereditary breast cancer to conduct analysis. Inter-coder reliability was α = .86.

RESULTS

Three overarching decision themes emerged from the interviews: managing ambiguity, medical risk management, and sharing results with others. While participants noted some difficulty understanding their result, genetic counselors' interpretations, psychosocial factors (e.g., risk perceptions), and competing extrinsic demands influenced their decisions.

CONCLUSION

Complex influences affect patient decision-making after a VUS result from genetic testing and may encourage health protective behavior.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Even patients who understand their test result could use support managing the ambiguity of their test result and sharing it with others.

Psychometric Properties of the MICRA Questionnaire in Portuguese Individuals Carrying SDHx Mutations

This study aims to present the translation and cultural adaptation, as well as the psychometric characteristics of the Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire in individuals with SDHx mutations. The questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted in accordance with the process recommended by the World Health Organization. As per suggestion of the authors of the original instrument, a joint, universal European and Brazilian Portuguese version of the MICRA was created. Ninety-six (asymptomatic or affected) patients with SDHx mutations nationwide completed the adapted version of the MICRA in Portugal. Analyses consisted of confirmatory factor analysis, reliability estimation (alphas), and correlations with two other distress and quality of life instruments. The Portuguese adaptation of the MICRA was understandable to patients from various socioeconomic backgrounds. All items and factor structure of the original version were retained, yielding a good model fit. The MICRA's three subscales and total score showed good internal consistency, and the correlations found between the Portuguese version of the MICRA and the other instruments assessing similar constructs further supported its validity. The adapted version of the MICRA showed good psychometric properties with a representative population of SDHx mutation carriers. This instrument can now be used to study the multidimensional impact of taking a genetic test for these mutations. It can also be used in future studies with other Portuguese populations of patients submitted to genetic tests for cancer risk assessment.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

The impact of communicating uncertain test results in cancer genetic counseling: A systematic mixed studies review

OBJECTIVE

Cancer genetic counseling increasingly involves discussing uncertain test results, for example because multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This review was performed to provide insight into how counselors' communication of uncertain test results during genetic counseling for cancer affects counselors and counselees.

METHODS

A systematic mixed studies review was undertaken to review research on the effects of communicating uncertain test results. Four databases were searched using a PICO search strategy. Study findings of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included. Uncertain test results encompassed either an inconclusive test result or a variant of unknown significance (VUS). Counselees involved almost exclusively women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. None of the articles reported effects on counselor outcomes. Counselee outcomes were categorized as cognitive, affective or behavioral. Interpretation of a VUS was overall reported as difficult, and counselees' distress and worry were repeatedly found to decrease over time after the discussion of any uncertain test result. For most other outcomes, findings were sparse and/or inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on effects on counselee outcomes is scant and inconsistent. Future studies are warranted to provide insight into how counselees and counselors are affected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinical practice could benefit from guidelines on how to address uncertain test results during pre- and posttest genetic consultations.

A Modern Dilemma: How Experts Grapple with Ambiguous Genetic Test Results

Objective. Clinicians regularly use panel genetic testing to identify hereditary breast cancer risk, but this practice increases the rate of receiving an ambiguous test result, the variant of uncertain significance (VUS). VUS results are a growing and long-term challenge for providers and have caused negative patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to elicit expert opinions about patients' decision making after receiving a VUS result to provide future guidance for VUS disclosure. Methods. Using an adapted mental models approach, experts (N = 25) completed an online survey and in-depth interview eliciting qualitative judgments of the factors relevant to informed patient decision making after receiving a VUS result. Content analysis of interview transcripts clarified the basis for these judgments. Results. Participants identified 11 decisions facing patients after receiving VUS results grouped into ambiguity management or risk management. The experts also identified 24 factors relevant to each decision, which reflected 2 themes: objective factors (e.g., clinical information, guidelines) and psychosocial factors (e.g., understanding or risk perception). Conclusion. This study presents an adaptation of the mental models approach for communication under conditions of ambiguity. Findings suggest providers who present VUS results from genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer should discuss decisions related to ambiguity management that focus on hope for future reclassification, and be directive when discussing risk management decisions. Objective and psychosocial factors should influence both ambiguity and risk management decisions, but especially risk management decisions.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years.

RESULTS

Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit.

CONCLUSION

Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

Patients' views on variants of uncertain significance across indications

As genomic sequencing expands into more areas of patient care, an increasing number of patients learn of the variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) that they carry. Understanding the potential psychosocial consequences of the disclosure of a VUS can help inform pre- and post-test counseling discussions. Medical uncertainty in general elicits a variety of responses from patients, particularly in the growing field of medical genetics and genomics. It is important to consider patients' responses to the ambiguous nature of VUSs across different indications and situational contexts. Genetic counselors and other providers ordering genetic testing should be prepared for the possibility of their patients' misinterpretation of such results. Pre-test counseling should include a discussion of the possibility of VUSs and what it would mean for the patient's care and its potential psychosocial impacts. When a VUS is found, post-test counseling should include additional education and a discussion of the variant's implications and medical management recommendations based on the results. These discussions may help temper subjective interpretations, unrealistic views, and decisional regret.

Illustrating Cancer Risk: Patient Risk Communication Preferences and Interest regarding a Novel BRCA1/2 Genetic Risk Modifier Test

INTRODUCTION

Genetic risk modifier testing (GRMT), an emerging form of genetic testing based on common single nucleotide polymorphisms and polygenic risk scores, has the potential to refine estimates of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers' breast cancer risks. However, for women to benefit from GRMT, effective approaches for communicating this novel risk information are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient preferences regarding risk communication materials for GRMT.

METHODS

We developed four separate presentations (panel of genes, icon array, verbal risk estimate, graphical risk estimate) of hypothetical GRMT results, each using varying risk communication strategies to convey different information elements including number of risk modifier variants present, variant prevalence among BRCA1/2 carriers, and implications and uncertainties of test results for cancer risk. Thirty BRCA1/2 carriers evaluated these materials (randomized to low, moderate, or high breast cancer risk versions). Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained through in-person interviews.

RESULTS

Across risk versions, participants preferred the presentation of the graphical risk estimate, often in combination with the verbal risk estimate. Interest in GRMT was high; 76.7% of participants wanted their own GRMT. Participants valued the potential for GRMT to clarify their cancer susceptibility and provide actionable information. Many (65.5%) anticipated that GRMT would make risk management decisions easier.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with BRCA1/2 mutations could be highly receptive to GRMT, and the minimal amount of necessary information to be included in result risk communication materials includes graphical and verbal estimates of future cancer risk. Findings will inform clinical translation of GRMT in a manner consistent with patients' preferences.

Germline variants in cancer genes in high-risk non-BRCA patients from Puerto Rico

Inherited pathogenic variants in genes that confer moderate to high risk of breast cancer may explain up to 50% of familial breast cancer. This study aimed at identifying inherited pathogenic variants in breast cancer cases from Puerto Rico that were not linked to BRCA1 or BRCA2. Forty-eight breast cancer patients that met the clinical criteria for BRCA testing but had received a negative BRCA1/2 result were recruited. Fifty-three genes previously implicated in hereditary cancer predisposition were captured using the BROCA Agilent cancer risk panel followed by massively parallel sequencing. Missense variants of uncertain clinical significance in CHEK2 were evaluated using an in vitro kinase assays to determine their impact on function. Pathogenic variants were identified in CHEK2, MUTYH, and RAD51B in four breast cancer patients, which represented 8.3% of the cohort. We identified three rare missense variants of uncertain significance in CHEK2 and two variants (p.Pro484Leu and p.Glu239Lys) showed markedly decreased kinase activity in vitro comparable to a known pathogenic variant. Interestingly, the local ancestry at the RAD51B locus in the carrier of p.Arg47* was predicted to be of African origin. In this cohort, 12.5% of the BRCA-negative breast cancer patients were found to carry a known pathogenic variant or a variant affecting protein activity. This study reveals an unmet clinical need of genetic testing that could benefit a significant proportion of at-risk Latinas. It also highlights the complexity of Hispanic populations as pathogenic factors may originate from any of the ancestral populations that make up their genetic backgrounds.

Regarding the Yin and Yang of Precision Cancer- Screening and Treatment: Are We Creating a Neglected Majority?

In this commentary, we submit that the current emphasis of precision cancer screening and treatment (PCST) has been to provide and interpret the implications of "positive" screening results for those deemed to be at greatest risk for cancer or most likely to benefit from targeted treatments. This is an important, but proportionately small target group, regardless of the cancer context. Overlooked by this focus is the larger majority of those screened who receive "negative" results. We contend that for optimal dissemination of PCST, the complement of positive and negative results be viewed as an inseparable yin-yang duality with the needs of those who receive negative screening results viewed as important as those deemed to be at highest risk or derive targeted treatment benefit. We describe three areas where communication of negative PCST results warrant particular attention and research consideration: population-based family history screening, germline testing for hereditary cancer syndromes, and tumor testing for targeted cancer treatment decision-making. Without thoughtful consideration of the potential for negative results to have psychological and behavioral influences, there is a potential to create a "neglected majority". This majority may be inclined to misinterpret results, disseminate inaccurate information to family, dismiss the credibility of results, or become disillusioned with existing medical treatments.

Ethnic disparities among men with prostate cancer undergoing germline testing

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is among the most heritable cancers, and clinical testing for germline genetic variants based on ethnicity, disease features, and family history has recently become standard of care for men with advanced disease. It is not established whether prevalence of germline variants varies based on ethnicity or race.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined germline genetic and clinical data of men reporting a diagnosis of prostate cancer referred to Color Genomics by a healthcare provider for testing of 30 genes associated with hereditary cancer risk. Variants were classified as pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), variant of uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign, or benign. P/LP and VUS prevalence was compared among subgroups classified by age at diagnosis, self-reported ethnicity, family history, and history of other cancer.

RESULTS

We identified 1,351 men reporting a diagnosis of prostate cancer of any stage who underwent germline testing. Overall, 78% of men were Caucasian, 11% Ashkenazi Jewish, 3% African-American/Canadian (AAC), 2% Hispanic, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander (API), and 4% Other (multiple, unknown, Native-American). One-hundred eighty-seven men (13.8%) carried a P/LP variant, and the most prevalent P/LP variants were in BRCA2 (3.4%), CHEK2 (2.8%), MUTYH (1.8%), and ATM (1.7%). Age at diagnosis, ethnicity, type of family member with prostate cancer, and type of second cancer were not associated with risk of carrying any P/LP variant. Ashkenazi Jewish men (6.7%) were more likely to carry P/LP BRCA2 variants than Caucasian men (2.8%) (P < 0.05). Two-hundred eighty-four men (21.0%) carried a VUS, and AAC (36.6%) and API (33.3%) men were most likely to carry a VUS (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

P/LP germline variants are prevalent in men with prostate cancer. AAC, Hispanic, and API men with prostate cancer are under-represented in studies of germline testing, potentially contributing to higher rates of VUS relative to Caucasian and Ashkenazi Jewish men. Further studies in these groups will facilitate reclassification of VUS, increasing opportunities for early detection, cancer risk modification, and targeted therapeutics.

Psychosocial problems in women attending French, German and Spanish genetics clinics before and after targeted or multigene testing results: an observational prospective study

OBJECTIVES AND SETTING

Advances in multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility has increased the complexity of counselling, requiring particular attention to counselees' psychosocial needs. Changes in psychosocial problems before and after genetic testing were prospectively compared between genetic test results in women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic susceptibility in French, German and Spanish clinics.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES

Among 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) were assessed after the initial genetic consultation (T1), including 510 (68%) affected with breast cancer, of which 460 (61%) were assessed again after receiving the test result (T2), using questionnaires addressing genetic-specific psychosocial problems (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer (PAHC)-six scales). Sociodemographic and clinical data were also collected.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine (17.2%), 19 (4.1%), 259 (56.3%), 44 (9.6%) and 59 (12.8%) women received a BRCA1/2, another high/moderate-risk pathogenic variant (PV), negative uninformative, true negative (TN) or variant of uncertain significance result (VUS), respectively. On multiple regression analyses, compared with women receiving another result, those with a VUS decreased more in psychosocial problems related to hereditary predisposition (eg, coping with the test result) (ß=-0.11, p<0.05) and familial/social issues (eg, risk communication) (ß=-0.13, p<0.05), almost independently from their problems before testing. Women with a PV presented no change in hereditary predisposition problems and, so as women with a TN result, a non-significant increase in familial/social issues. Other PAHC scales (ie, emotions, familial cancer, personal cancer and children-related issues) were not affected by genetic testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In women tested for breast or ovarian cancer genetic risk in European genetics clinics, psychosocial problems were mostly unaffected by genetic testing. Apart from women receiving a VUS result, those with another test result presented unchanged needs in counselling in particular about hereditary predisposition and familial/social issues.

Germline Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Risk: The Past, Present, and Future

The field of germline genetic testing for breast cancer (BC) risk has evolved substantially in the last decade. The introduction of multigene panel testing (MGPT) led to an urgent need to understand the cancer risk associated with several genes included in the panels. Although the research on understanding the cancer risk associated with mutations in several genes continues, there is also a need to understand the modifying effects of race and ethnicity, family history, and BC pathology on the prevalence of germline mutations and associated BC risk. Furthermore, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to predict BC risk in patients with or without germline mutations in cancer-predisposition genes are now available for clinical use, although data on the clinical utility of PRSs are lacking. In patients with advanced BC associated with BRCA1/2 mutation, olaparib and talazoparib are now approved for treatment. In addition, molecular profiling studies are being used to clarify the BC tumor biology in mutation carriers to identify potential therapeutic options. In this article, we discuss these advances in the field of germline genetic testing and highlight current limitations and implications for clinical care.

Understanding variants of uncertain significance in the era of multigene panels: Through the eyes of the patient

Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are often disclosed to patients despite ambiguous association with disease risk and lack of clinical actionability. It is important to understand how patients understand a VUS result, but few studies have assessed this. Our qualitative study explored patient recall, reaction to, and interpretation of a VUS in the context of multigene panels. We conducted 11 semi-structured phone interviews with adults who had a VUS identified on multigene panel testing in a hereditary oncology clinic, with questions focusing on the VUS result, personal and family history, and motivations for and expectations of genetic testing. Transcripts were coded iteratively, using both deductive and inductive codes. Overall, participants usually recalled that they had a VUS, despite variation in the vocabulary used. Participants responded both emotionally and intellectually to receiving information about having a VUS, which was often a result of their expectations and motivations prior to testing. Overall, participants understood the lack of clinical significance of a VUS, yet often interpreted the etiologic significance of a VUS within the context of the personal and family history. Our study provides insight into a process by which patients translate uncertain genetic testing results into a construct that fits within their current belief framework and which may be facilitated by a genetic counselor.

Psychosocial Effects of Multigene Panel Testing in the Context of Cancer Genomics

In recent years, with both the development of next-generation sequencing approaches and the Supreme Court decision invalidating gene patents, declining costs have contributed to the emergence of a new model of hereditary cancer genetic testing. Multigene panel testing (or multiplex testing) involves using next-generation sequencing technology to determine the sequence of multiple cancer-susceptibility genes. In addition to high-penetrance cancer-susceptibility genes, multigene panels frequently include genes that are less robustly associated with cancer predisposition. Scientific understanding about associations between many specific moderate-penetrance gene variants and cancer risks is incomplete. The emergence of multigene panel tests has created unique challenges that may have meaningful psychosocial implications. Contrasted with the serial testing process, wherein patients consider the personal and clinical implications of each evaluated gene, with multigene panel testing, patients provide broad consent to whichever genes are included in a particular panel and then, after the test, receive in-depth genetic counseling to clarify the distinct implications of their specific results. Consequently, patients undergoing multigene panel testing may have a less nuanced understanding of the test and its implications, and they may have fewer opportunities to self-select against the receipt of particular types of genetic-risk information. Evidence is conflicting regarding the emotional effects of this testing.

Experiences and interpretations of BRCA1/2 testing among women affected by breast or ovarian cancer who received a negative result

The aim of this study was to retrospectively describe the genetic testing motives and experiences of women with a previous breast and/or ovarian cancer diagnosis, who received negative BRCA1/2 results including variants of unknown significance and no pathogenic variant detected. One hundred and thirteen women (mean age 56.17 years) were recruited from a familial cancer centre in metropolitan Australia, an average 3.4 years after undergoing testing. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire focusing on the retrospective experience of and motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing. The study found that the primary motives for undergoing BRCA1/2 testing were (a) to know more about whether their cancer was hereditary, and (b) to have more certainty about the risk of their children developing cancer. In terms of perceptions of personal risk, 35% of women perceived that their risk of breast cancer to be the same or lower than the general population and 80% believed the negative test result to mean that a risk-conferring gene had not been detected. Yet, the average estimate of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary was 48 out of a possible 100. Psychologically, women did not interpret the negative BRCA1/2 result as a positive outcome. Half were not relieved by the result and were as or more worried than before. Psychological morbidity was high with 17%, 100%, and 36% experiencing clinically significant depression, anxiety, and cancer-specific distress, respectively. Self-ratings of the likelihood that their cancer was hereditary were more closely associated with their personal family cancer histories than with measures of psychological distress. These results have implications for adherence to risk-reducing behaviours and quality of life. Given that these women are not routinely followed up in clinical practice, these findings highlight the importance of post-test genetic counselling and longer-term follow-up for women with negative BRCA1/2 results. Additional time and emotional support from genetic counsellors may help this group of women make sense of the meaning of their test result and adjust psychologically, particularly to uncertainty around the cause of their family history.

Patients' reactions and follow-up testing decisions related to Tay-Sachs (HEXA) variants of uncertain significance results

JScreen is a national public health initiative based out of Emory University that provides reproductive carrier screening through an online portal and follow-up genetic counseling services. In 2014, JScreen began reporting to patients variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease (HEXA). Genetic counseling was provided to discuss the VUS and patients were offered hexosaminidase A (HEXA) blood enzyme testing to assist with VUS reclassification. To identify patient reactions and factors influencing their follow-up testing decisions after receiving these results, we conducted a retrospective quantitative study by administering online surveys to 62 patients with HEXA VUSs. Participants who pursued enzyme testing and those who did not both experienced low levels of distress when receiving the VUS results. Perceptions of HEXA carrier status after genetic counseling, decisional conflict levels, plans to have children in the near future, time available to pursue enzyme testing, and eligibility for research were significant factors influencing decision-making to pursue or not pursue enzyme testing. Genetic counseling played an important role in helping patients understand the VUS and follow-up testing options. When discussing VUSs with patients, it would be beneficial for genetic counselors to focus on the patient's perception of the VUS, anxiety related to the uncertainty of their results, and follow-up options, when available.

Reinterpretation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants of uncertain significance in patients with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer using the ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines

BACKGROUND

Although BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic testing plays an important role in determining treatment modalities in patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, sequence variants with unknown clinical significance or variant of uncertain significance (VUS) have limited use in medical decision-making. With vast quantities of gene-related data being updated, the clinical significance of VUS may change over time. We reinterpreted the sequence variant previously reported as BRCA1/2 VUS results in patients with breast or ovarian cancer and assessed whether the clinical significance of VUS was changed.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 423 breast or ovarian cancer patients who underwent BRCA1/2 genetic testing from 2010 to 2017. The VUSs in BRCA1/2 were reanalyzed using the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology standards and guidelines (ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines) and the VUS was reclassified into five categories: "pathogenic", "likely pathogenic", "VUS", "likely benign", and "benign".

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients (48 sequence types of VUS) were identified as carrying either one or more VUS in BRCA1/2. Among the 75 patients, two patients (2.7%) were reclassified as "likely pathogenic", 30 patients (40.0%) were reclassified as either "benign" or "likely benign", and the remaining 43 patients (57.3%) were still classified as VUS category.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the clinical significance of VUS in BRCA1/2 may vary from time to time, reinterpretation of the VUS results could contribute to clinical decision-making.

Patient goals, motivations, and attitudes in a patient-driven variant reclassification study

Family studies to reclassify clinically ascertained variants of uncertain significance (VUS) can impact risk assessment, medical management, and psychological outcomes for patients and their families. There are limited avenues for patients and their families to actively participate in VUS reclassification, and access to family studies at most commercial laboratories is restricted by multiple factors. To explore patient attitudes about participation in family studies for VUS reclassification, we conducted semistructured pre- and post-participation telephone interviews with 38 participants in a family-based VUS reclassification study that utilized a patient-driven approach for family ascertainment and recruitment. Participants had VUS from multigene panel testing performed at multiple clinical laboratories for cancer or other disease risk. Inductive thematic analysis of transcribed interviews highlighted four major themes: (a) Participants' study goals were driven by the desire to resolve uncertainty related to the VUS, (b) Participants had mixed reactions to the VUS reclassification outcomes of the study, (c) Personal, public, and familial knowledge increased through study participation and (d) Participants used study participation to actively cope with the uncertainty of a VUS. As personalized genomic medicine becomes more prevalent, clinicians, clinical laboratories, and researchers could consider creating more opportunities for active partnership with patients and families, who are motivated to contribute data to familial VUS studies.

The Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR) Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation

The purpose of this study was to develop a brief instrument, the Feelings About genomiC Testing Results (FACToR), to measure the psychosocial impact of returning genomic findings to patients in research and clinical practice. To create the FACToR, we modified and augmented the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) questionnaire based on findings from a literature review, two focus groups (N = 12), and cognitive interviews (N = 6). We evaluated data from 122 participants referred for evaluation for inherited colorectal cancer or polyposis from the New EXome Technology in (NEXT) Medicine Study, an RCT of exome sequencing versus usual care. We assessed floor and ceiling effects of each item, conducted principal component analysis to identify subscales, and evaluated each subscale's internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. After excluding items that were ambiguous or demonstrated floor or ceiling effects, 12 items forming four distinct subscales were retained for further analysis: negative emotions, positive feelings, uncertainty, and privacy concerns. All four showed good internal consistency (0.66-0.78) and test-retest reliability (0.65-0.91). The positive feelings and the uncertainty subscales demonstrated known-group validity. The 12-item FACToR with four subscales shows promising psychometric properties on preliminary evaluation in a limited sample and needs to be evaluated in other populations.

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

The combination of increased referral for genetic testing and the current shortage of genetic counselors has necessitated the development and implementation of alternative models of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the patient outcomes that are associated with alternative models of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hereditary cancer, including germline-only and tumor testing models. Seven databases were searched, selecting studies that were: (1) full-text articles published ≥2007 or conference abstracts published ≥2015, and (2) assessing patient outcomes of an alternative model of genetic counseling or testing. A total of 79 publications were included for review and synthesis. Data-charting was completed using a data-charting form that was developed by the study team for this review. Seven alternative models were identified, including four models that involved a genetic counselor: telephone, telegenic, group, and embedded genetic counseling models; and three models that did not: mainstreaming, direct, and tumor-first genetic testing models. Overall, these models may be an acceptable alternative to traditional models on knowledge, patient satisfaction, psychosocial measures, and the uptake of genetic testing; however, particular populations may be better served by traditional in-person genetic counseling. As precision medicine initiatives continue to advance, institutions should consider the implementation of new models of genetic service delivery, utilizing a model that will best serve the needs of their unique patient populations.

Prevalence of Variant Reclassification Following Hereditary Cancer Genetic Testing

IMPORTANCE

Variant reclassification is an important component of hereditary cancer genetic testing; however, there are few published data quantifying the prevalence of reclassification.

OBJECTIVE

Retrospective cohort study of individuals who had genetic testing from 2006 through 2016 at a single commercial laboratory.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cohort of individuals who had genetic testing between 2006 and 2016 at a single commercial laboratory was assessed. Variants were classified as benign, likely benign, variant of uncertain significance, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for patients from the University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center.

EXPOSURES

Hereditary cancer genetic testing.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Frequency of and time to amended reports; frequency and types of variant reclassification.

RESULTS

From 2006 through 2018, 1.45 million individuals (median [interquartile range] age at testing, 49 years [40.69-58.31 years], 95.6% women) had genetic testing, and 56.6% (n = 821 724) had a personal history of cancer. A total of 1.67 million initial tests were reported and 59 955 amended reports were issued due to variant reclassification. Overall, 6.4% (2868 of 44 777) of unique variants were reclassified. Reclassification to a different clinical category was rare among unique variants initially classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic (0.7%, 61 of 9112) or benign or likely benign (0.2%, 15 of 8995). However, 7.7% (2048 of 26 670) of unique variants of uncertain significance were reclassified: 91.2% (1867 of 2048) were downgraded to benign or likely benign (median time to amended report, 1.17 years), 8.7% (178 of 2048) were upgraded to pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (median time to amended report, 1.86 years). Because most variants were observed in more than 1 individual, 24.9% (46 890 of 184 327) of all reported variants of uncertain significance were reclassified.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Following hereditary cancer genetic testing at a single commercial laboratory, 24.9% of variants of uncertain significance were reclassified, which included both downgrades and upgrades. Further research is needed to assess generalizability of the findings for other laboratories, as well as the clinical consequences of the reclassification as a component of a genetic testing program.

Experiences of patients seeking to participate in variant of uncertain significance reclassification research

Patients' understanding of a genetic variant of unknown clinical significance (VUS) is likely to influence beliefs about risk implications, consequent medical decisions, and other actions such as involvement in research. We interviewed 26 self-selected participants with a clinically identified VUS before they enrolled into a VUS reclassification study. Semi-structured interviews addressed topics including motivation to get genetic test, experience with the VUS result, affective responses to receiving VUS, and perceived effect of VUS and reclassification on medical care. We found that family and personal history of disease were the most prevalent motivators for getting a genetic test. Participants demonstrated mixed understanding of VUS. Most expressed negative effect on learning of their VUS result and uncertainty about its impact on clinical management. Most expected reclassification efforts to benefit their family members but not themselves. Some expressed distrust of their providers following a VUS result. Participation in the VUS reclassification study appeared to be motivated by four factors for patients with VUS-negative effect about VUS, uncertainty about its impact on clinical management, concern for family members' well-being, and to advance science. Perhaps the direct acknowledgement and appraisal of uncertainty as a means of coping was missing in some pre-test counseling experienced by our participants and thus they were not psychologically prepared for atypical VUS results. The finding of VUS-induced provider distrust suggests a need for careful consideration of appropriate pre- and post-test counseling about VUS.

Health behaviors among unaffected participants following receipt of variants of uncertain significance in cardiomyopathy-associated genes

Purpose

Studies on returning variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have predominantly included patients with a personal or family history of cancer and cancer-associated gene VUS. This study examined health behaviors amongst participants with cardiomyopathy-associated gene VUS, but without a personal history of cardiomyopathy.

Methods

Sixty-eight eligible participants without apparent cardiomyopathy who received VUS in cardiomyopathy-associated genes completed a survey of health behaviors, disclosure, distress, uncertainty, positive experiences, decisional conflict, and perceived value. Medical records of participants who reported cardiac testing because of their VUS were reviewed for testing indication(s).

Results

Two participants had cardiac testing due to their VUS alone. Four had cardiac testing because of their VUS and other clinical indications and 12 changed health behaviors, including one participant who was subsequently diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. Distress, uncertainty, and decisional conflict were low (means= 1.2, 4.2, 24.5; scale ranges= 0–30, 0–45, 15–75, respectively), and positive experiences and perceived value were moderate (means= 12.4, 14.4; scale range= 0–20, 4–20, respectively). Greater perceived value was associated with greater likelihood to engage in health behaviors (p= 0.04).

Conclusion

VUS can be returned to apparently unaffected individuals with modest use of healthcare resources, minimal behavioral changes, and favorable psychological reactions.

Psychological impact of multigene cancer panel testing in patients with a clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer across Spain

OBJECTIVE

Patients' psychological reactions to multigene cancer panel testing might differ compared with the single-gene testing reactions because of the complexity and uncertainty associated with the different possible results. Understanding patients' preferences and psychological impact of multigene panel testing is important to adapt the genetic counselling model.

METHODS

One hundred eighty-seven unrelated patients with clinical suspicion of hereditary cancer undergoing a 25-gene panel test completed questionnaires after pretest genetic counselling and at 1 week, 3 months, and 12 months after results to elicit their preferences regarding results disclosure and to measure their cancer worry and testing-specific distress and uncertainty.

RESULTS

A pathogenic variant was identified in 38 patients (34 high penetrance and 4 moderate penetrance variants), and 54 patients had at least one variant of uncertain significance. Overall, cancer panel testing was not associated with an increase in cancer worry after results disclosure (P value = .87). Twelve months after results, carriers of a moderate penetrance variant had higher distress and uncertainty scores compared with carriers of high penetrance variants. Cancer worry prior to genetic testing predicted genetic testing specific distress after results, especially at long term (P value <.001). Most of the patients reported the wish to know all genetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that patients can psychologically cope with cancer panel testing, but distress and uncertainty observed in carriers of moderate penetrance cancer variants in this cohort warrant further research.

Examining the Psychosocial Impact of Genetic Testing for Cardiomyopathies

Inherited cardiomyopathies, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), are the most common monogenic cause of cardiac disease and can rarely lead to sudden cardiac death (SCD). They are characterized by incomplete and age-dependent penetrance and are usually initially symptomatic in adulthood yet can present in childhood as well. Over 20 genes have been identified to cause HCM, and more than 40 genes are known to cause DCM. Genetic testing for these genes has been integrated into medical care; however, the psychological impact of genetic testing and the impact of the uncertainty that comes with receiving these results have not been well studied. This study surveyed 90 adult probands and relatives with a personal or family history of cardiomyopathy from a single hospital-based cardiac genetic program to determine the psychosocial impact of genetic testing for cardiomyopathies. Standardized psychological instruments including an adapted Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (aMICRA), Impact of Event Scale (IES), and Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) scales were utilized. Patients with positive genetic test results had higher scores for intrusive thoughts, avoidance, and distress when compared to those with negative genetic test results and were also more likely to make or plan to make life changes because of the results of their genetic testing. Satisfaction with the decision to undergo genetic testing was similar regardless of genetic test results. The results of this study provide insight into the patient experience of genetic testing for cardiomyopathies and how these experiences are associated with genetic test results and cardiac history.

In Reply

This Letter to the Editor responds to concerns regarding a recently published analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classifications between a single testing laboratory (Myriad Genetic Laboratories) and a database of user‐submitted variant classifications (ClinVar).

From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals

Despite ongoing research efforts to reclassify BRCA variant of uncertain significance (VUS), results for strategies to disseminate findings to genetic counselors are lacking. We disseminated results from a study on reclassification of BRCA VUS using a mailed reclassification packet including a reclassification guide, patient education aid, and patient letter template for patients/families with BRCA VUS. This study reports on genetic counselors' responses to the dissemination materials. Eligible participants (n = 1015) were identified using mailing lists from professional genetics organizations. Participants were mailed a BRCA VUS reclassification packet and a return postcard to assess responses to the materials. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses. In response to the mailing, 128 (13.0%) genetic counselors completed and returned postcards. The majority of respondents (n = 117; 91.4%) requested the patient letter template and patient education guides as PDFs (n = 122; 95.3%). The majority (n = 123; 96.9%) wanted an updated reclassification guide upon availability. Open-ended responses demonstrate the material was well-received; some specified they would tailor the patient letter to fit their practice and patients' needs. Participants requested additional patient and provider educational materials for use in practice. Materials communicating BRCA VUS reclassification updates were liked and were likely to be used in practice. To achieve the benefits of VUS reclassification in clinical practice, ongoing efforts are needed to continuously and effectively disseminate findings to providers and patients.

Modeling the dyadic effects of parenting, stress, and coping on parent-child communication in families tested for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer risk

Genetic testing for BRCA genes, associated with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer risk, is an accepted cancer control strategy. BRCA genetic testing has both medical and psychosocial implications for individuals seeking testing and their family members. However, promoting open and adaptive communication about cancer risk in the family is challenging for parents of minor children. Using prospective data collected from mothers undergoing BRCA genetic testing and their untested co-parents (N = 102 parenting dyads), we examined how maternal and co-parent characteristics independently and conjointly influenced the overall quality of parent-child communication with minor children. Statistical associations were tested in accordance with the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Significant Actor effects were observed among mothers, such that open parent-child communication prior to genetic testing was positively associated with open communication 6 months following receipt of genetic test results; and among co-parents, more open parent-child communication at baseline and greater perceived quality of the parenting relationship were associated with more open parent-child communication at follow-up. Partner effects were also observed: co-parents' baseline communication and confidence in their ability to communicate with their minor children about genetic testing was positively associated with open maternal parent-child communication at follow-up. These results demonstrate that for families facing the prospect of cancer genetic testing, perceptions and behaviors of both members of child-rearing couples have important implications for the overall quality of communication with their minor children, including communication about cancer risk.

Evaluation of laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels

Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility is a rapidly evolving field and partly a result of next-generation sequencing (NGS) allowing analysis of multiple cancer susceptibility genes simultaneously. This qualitative study explored laboratory perspectives on hereditary cancer panels. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of clinical laboratories offering hereditary cancer panels via NGS. Several themes emerged from the responses pertaining to hereditary cancer panel development, the importance of communication of panel properties with patients, variant reporting policies, and the future of hereditary cancer gene testing. Clinical utility was discussed as primary consideration during panel development. In addition, while participants indicated gene and syndrome overlap prompted panel development in general, laboratories differed in their opinions of whether phenotypic overlap warrants offering pan-cancer panels only versus cancer specific panels. Participants stressed the importance of patients understanding implications of panel testing, including what is tested for and limitations of testing. While all laboratories discussed the limitations of a variant of uncertain significance result, they differed significantly in their reporting methods. This study provides healthcare providers information on the laboratory approach to panel testing, highlighting both commonalities and differences in laboratory approaches, and may allow providers to make more informed decisions when ordering hereditary cancer panels.

Clinical Variant Classification: A Comparison of Public Databases and a Commercial Testing Laboratory

BACKGROUND

There is a growing move to consult public databases following receipt of a genetic test result from a clinical laboratory; however, the well-documented limitations of these databases call into question how often clinicians will encounter discordant variant classifications that may introduce uncertainty into patient management. Here, we evaluate discordance in BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classifications between a single commercial testing laboratory and a public database commonly consulted in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classifications were obtained from ClinVar and compared with the classifications from a reference laboratory. Full concordance and discordance were determined for variants whose ClinVar entries were of the same pathogenicity (pathogenic, benign, or uncertain). Variants with conflicting ClinVar classifications were considered partially concordant if ≥1 of the listed classifications agreed with the reference laboratory classification.

RESULTS

Four thousand two hundred and fifty unique BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants were available for analysis. Overall, 73.2% of classifications were fully concordant and 12.3% were partially concordant. The remaining 14.5% of variants had discordant classifications, most of which had a definitive classification (pathogenic or benign) from the reference laboratory compared with an uncertain classification in ClinVar (14.0%).

CONCLUSION

Here, we show that discrepant classifications between a public database and single reference laboratory potentially account for 26.7% of variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. The time and expertise required of clinicians to research these discordant classifications call into question the practicality of checking all test results against a database and suggest that discordant classifications should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

With the increasing use of clinical genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk, accurate variant classification is vital to ensuring appropriate medical management. There is a growing move to consult public databases following receipt of a genetic test result from a clinical laboratory; however, we show that up to 26.7% of variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have discordant classifications between ClinVar and a reference laboratory. The findings presented in this paper serve as a note of caution regarding the utility of database consultation.