Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway

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.

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

Genetic counselling referral practices for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A French retrospective multicentre observational cohort study (CAPANCOGEN)

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Genetic counselling (GC) is a key step in the identification of inherited germline mutations. However, the oncogenetic practices are poorly described for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) in Europe. The CAPANCOGEN study aimed to describe the GC referral practices in France and assess the implementation of international guidelines in patients with PA.

METHODS

Information about GC referrals with PA was collected in 13 French centres from September 2019 to October 2021. In the 5 largest centres, personal and familial histories of cancers and diseases associated with a higher risk of germline mutations were collected in 460 patients, according to international, American, European and French GC referral guidelines. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify the factors influencing GC referral.

RESULTS

Among 833 patients, a total of 100 patients (12%) had an indication of GC according to local multidisciplinary tumour board meetings (MTBM). Among these patients, 41% did not undergo GC. The median time between MTBM and GC was 55 days (IQR: 14.5-112). Among 460 patients with collected personal and familial history, 31.5% were not referred to a GC despite an existing indication. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, suspected CDKN2A (p = 0.032) or BRCA mutation (p < 0.001), familial pancreatic cancer history (p < 0.001) and controlled disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (p < 0.001) increased the referral rate. Conversely, older age (p = 0.002) and a locally advanced PA (p = 0.045) decreased the risk of GC referral.

CONCLUSIONS

GC referral is inadequate despite valuable information in patients' medical files.

A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101  patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland.

Patients’ experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse).

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care.

METHODS

We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations.

RESULTS

In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10.

CONCLUSION

Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

Mainstream germline genetic testing in men with metastatic prostate cancer: design and protocol for a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

In international guidelines, germline genetic testing is recommended for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Before undergoing germline genetic testing, these patients should receive pre-test counseling. In the standard genetic care pathway, pre-test counseling is provided by a healthcare professional of a genetics department. Because the number of patients with metastatic prostate cancer is large, the capacity in the genetics departments might be insufficient. Therefore, we aim to implement so-called mainstream genetic testing in the Netherlands for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, non-genetic healthcare professionals discuss and order germline genetic testing. In our DISCOVER study, we will assess the experiences among patients and non-genetic healthcare professionals with this new pathway.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective observational cohort study will be conducted in 15 hospitals, in different regions of the Netherlands. We developed an online training module on genetics in prostate cancer and the counseling of patients. After completion of this module, non-genetic healthcare professionals will provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Both non-genetic healthcare professionals and patients receive three questionnaires. We will determine the experience with mainstream genetic testing, based on satisfaction and acceptability. Patients with a pathogenic germline variant will also be interviewed. We will determine the efficacy of the mainstreaming pathway, based on time investment for non-genetic healthcare professionals and the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants.

DISCUSSION

This study is intended to be one of the largest studies on mainstream genetic testing in prostate cancer. The results of this study can improve the mainstream genetic testing pathway in patients with prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered in the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under number NL9617.

Patient Experience with a Gynecologic Oncology-Initiated Genetic Testing Model for Women with Tubo-Ovarian Cancer

Background: Up to 20% of women diagnosed with tubo-ovarian carcinoma carry a germline pathogenic variant in a cancer-predisposing gene (e.g., BRCA1/BRCA2). Identifying these variants can help to inform eligibility for therapies, guide surveillance and prevention of new primary cancers, and assess risk to family members. The Gynecologic Oncology-Initiated Genetic Testing Model (GOIGT) was initiated at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) to streamline universal germline genetic testing for this population, while addressing the limited resources in the public healthcare system. This study aimed to evaluate the patient experience of participating in this model. Methods: Study participants were patients diagnosed with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer who underwent genetic testing through the GOIGT model between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. Eligible participants completed the retrospective questionnaires at least one month after result disclosure. Results: A total of 126 patients were tested through the GOIGT model during the study period, of which 56 were invited to participate. Thirty-four participants returned the study questionnaire. Overall, participants did not report decision regret following the genetic testing and were satisfied with the GOIGT model. Participants reported low levels of uncertainty and distress related to the implications of their test results for themselves and their family members. Conclusions: The results of this study support the continued implementation of mainstreamed genetic testing models for women with high-grade non-mucinous tubo-ovarian cancer. Further studies are required to compare experiences for patients with different genetic test results.

Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country

With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability.

Abstract

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

“It was an important part of my treatment”: a qualitative study of Norwegian breast Cancer patients’ experiences with mainstreamed genetic testing

Background

In South-Eastern Norway, genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is offered to breast cancer patients by their treating surgeon or oncologist. Genetic counselling from a geneticist or a genetic counsellor is offered only to those who test positive for a pathogenic variant or have a family history of cancer. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to learn about patients’ experience of this healthcare service.

Methods

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 breast cancer patients who had been diagnosed during the first half of 2016 or 2017 at one regional and one university hospital and who had been offered testing by their treating physician. A six-phase thematic approach was used to analyse the data.

Results

The participants had varied experiences of how and when testing was offered. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: 1. informational and communicational needs and challenges during a chaotic time, 2. the value of genetic testing and 3. the importance of standardised routines for mainstreamed genetic testing.

Conclusions

Despite the shock of their diagnosis and the varying experiences they had in respect of how and when testing was offered, all of the participants emphasised that genetic testing had been an important part of their diagnosis and treatment. Our results indicate that there is a need for continuous collaboration between geneticists, surgeons, oncologists and laboratory specialists in order to establish simple and robust routines so as to ensure that all eligible breast cancer patients are offered testing at a point when the test result can have an impact on treatment.

Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Integration of genetic testing into routine oncology care could improve access to testing. This systematic review investigated interventions and the tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing access to genetic counselling and testing and identifying hereditary cancer in oncology.

METHODS

The search strategy results were reported using the PRISMA statement and four electronic databases were searched. Eligible studies included routine genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer or uptake after universal tumour screening for colorectal or endometrial cancer. The titles and abstracts were reviewed and the full text articles screened for eligibility. Data extraction was preformed using a designed template and study appraisal was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were mapped to Proctor's et al outcomes and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies, published up to May 2020, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies ranged from poor (72%), fair to good (28%) quality. Most interventions identified were complex (multiple components) such as; patient or health professional education, interdisciplinary practice and a documentation or system change. Forty-eight percent of studies with complex interventions demonstrated on average a 35% increase in access to genetic counselling and a 15% increase in testing completion. Mapping of study outcomes showed that 70% and 32% of the studies aligned with either the service and client or the implementation level outcome and 96% to the process or inner setting domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests that complex interventions have a potentially positive effect towards genetic counselling and testing completion rates in oncology services. Studies of sound methodological quality that explore a greater breadth of pre and post implementation outcomes and informed by theory are needed. Such research could inform future service delivery models for the integration of genetics into oncology services.

Mainstream genetic testing for breast cancer patients: early experiences from the Parkville Familial Cancer Centre

The demand for genetic testing of hereditary breast cancer genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 has continued to increase with the lowering costs of testing, raised awareness in the general public, and implications for breast cancer treatment when a patient is identified as having a germline pathogenic variant. Historically within Australia, patients affected by high genetic risk breast cancers have been referred to a familial cancer centre (FCC) for assessment and testing, resulting in wait times for an appointment for pre- and post-test genetic counselling and an increased demand on the public-funded FCC. To improve patient access and pace of genetic testing, as well as refocus FCC resources, a mainstream clinical genetic testing program was rolled out in September 2017 through the Parkville FCC (PFCC) in Australia at 10 hospital sites. This program enables specialist doctors of eligible patients affected by breast cancer to arrange genetic testing directly at an oncology/surgical appointment and follow up the results as part of the patients' routine clinical care. In this model, the specialist doctor is responsible for any treatment implications of the genetic test result, and the PFCC is responsible for result interpretation, future cancer risk, family cascade testing and segregation testing where warranted. To date the program has had successful uptake, a notable pathogenic variant detection rate, reduced the burden on the PFCC enabling a reallocation of resources and has streamlined the process of genetic testing for eligible patients. Investigation into the patient and clinician experiences of the mainstream program is required.

Effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to breast cancer genetic testing

Background

There is an underuse of genetic testing in breast cancer patients with a lower level of education, limited health literacy or a migrant background. We aimed to study the effect of a health literacy training program for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses on disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter study in a quasi-experimental pre-post (intervention) design. The intervention consisted of an online module and a group training for surgical oncologists and specialized nurses in three regions in the Netherlands. Six months pre- and 12 months post intervention, clinical geneticists completed a checklist with socio-demographic characteristics including the level of health literacy of each referred patient. We conducted univariate and logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effect of the training program on disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Results

In total, 3179 checklists were completed, of which 1695 were from hospital referrals. No significant differences were found in educational level, level of health literacy and migrant background of patients referred for genetic testing by healthcare professionals working in trained hospitals before (n = 795) and after (n = 409) the intervention. The mean age of patients referred by healthcare professionals from trained hospitals was significantly lower after the intervention (52.0 vs. 49.8, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

The results of our study suggest that the health literacy training program did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing. Future research in a more controlled design is needed to better understand how socio-demographic factors influence referral to breast cancer genetic testing and what other factors might contribute.

•

Study on the effect of a health literacy training on access to breast cancer genetic testing.

•

Background characteristics of breast cancer patients pre- and post-intervention are compared.

•

Mean age of patients referred by trained hospitals was significantly lower after intervention.

•

The health literacy training did not decrease disparities in referral to genetic testing.

Management of patients with BRCA mutation from the point of view of a breast surgeon

Germ-line mutation in BRCA (BReast CAncer gene) 1 or BRCA2 are found in 3–4% of all women with breast cancer. These patients have a significant increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. They are often younger when diagnosed with the mutation, and the possible breast cancer they get is often aggressive with inferior outcome. There are risk reducing strategies, and the most powerful strategy is risk reducing surgery, both risk reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRM) and risk reducing bilateral salpino-oophorectomy (PBSO). This review is meant to address breast surgery in patients with germline BRCA mutation. The guidelines and techniques applied is under continuous change and it is important for the clinicians to be well informed to provide the patient with the information needed for them to make an informed decision on what risk strategy to choose.

•

Patients with germ-line mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a significant increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

•

There are different risk reducing strategies and the most powerful strategy is risk-reducing surgery, both risk reducing bilateral mastectomy and risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

•

Guidelines and techniques for the risk reducing surgery of the breast are under continuous change and improvement.

•

Breast conserving therapy is not associated with worse survival and is a good option for a BRCA mutation carrier diagnosed with breast cancer. Risk-reducing mastectomy can be performed in a later setting.

•

The management of BRCA mutation carriers, both affected and unaffected, should be performed in a multidisciplinary team. Physicians need to be systematically educated and updated on the most recent literature.

Recontacting non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer patients for germline CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant testing: uptake and patient experiences

Background

CHEK2 has been recognized as a breast cancer risk gene with moderate effect. Women who have previously tested negative for a BRCA1/2 gene germline pathogenic variant may benefit from additional genetic testing for the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. The aims of this study were: 1) to assess the uptake of an active approach by recontacting BRCA1/2-negative women for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples and 2) to explore patients’ experiences with this approach.

Methods

Between 2015 and 2017, women who had been tested earlier negative for BRCA1/2 germline pathogenic variants, were recontacted for additional CHEK2 c.1100del testing on stored DNA-samples, free-of-charge. They received an information letter about the CHEK2 pathogenic variant and could return an informed consent form when they opted for additional genetic testing. Those in whom the CHEK2 pathogenic variant was absent, received a letter describing this result. Those who tested positive, were invited for a personal counseling at the department of genetics. On average 21 months (range 4–27) after the genetic test result, a questionnaire was sent to all identified carriers and a control group of women who tested negative for the pathogenic variant to explore patients’ experiences with our approach.

Results

In total, 70% (N = 1666) of the N = 2377 women contacted opted for additional testing, and 66 (4%) of them proved to be carriers of the CHEK2 c.1100del pathogenic variant. Regardless of the outcome of the genetic test, women were generally satisfied with our approach and reported that the written information was sufficient to make an informed decision about the additional CHEK2 testing.

Conclusions

The uptake (70%) of our approach was considered satisfactory. Patients considered the benefits more important than the psychosocial burden. Given the rapid developments in DNA-diagnostics, our findings may support future initiatives to recontact patients about additional genetic testing when they previously tested negative for a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer gene.