Factors Influencing Clinical Follow-Up for Individuals with a Personal History of Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer and Previous Uninformative BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing

Outcomes of retesting in patients with previously uninformative cancer genetics evaluations

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

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

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

Out-of-pocket and private pay in clinical genetic testing: A scoping review

Full coverage of the cost of clinical genetic testing is not always available through public or private insurance programs, or a public healthcare system. Consequently, some patients may be faced with the decision of whether to finance testing out-of-pocket (OOP), meet OOP expenses required by their insurer, or not proceed with testing. A scoping review was conducted to identify literature associated with patient OOP and private pay in clinical genetic testing. Seven databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PAIS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the JBI Evidence-Based Practice database) were searched, resulting in 83 unique publications included in the review. The presented evidence includes a descriptive analysis, followed by a narrative account of the extracted data. Results were divided into four groups according to clinical indication: (1) hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, (2) other hereditary cancers, (3) prenatal testing, (4) other clinical indications. The majority of studies focused on hereditary cancer and prenatal genetic testing. Overall trends indicated that OOP costs have fallen and payer coverage has improved, but OOP expenses continue to present a barrier to patients who do not qualify for full coverage.

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.

Female family members lack understanding of indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results shared by probands

Genetic test results have important implications for close family members. Indeterminate negative results are the most common outcome of BRCA1/2 mutation testing. Little is known about family members' understanding of indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate how daughters and sisters received and understood genetic test results as shared by their mothers or sisters. Participants included 81 women aged 40-74 with mothers or sisters previously diagnosed with breast cancer and who received indeterminate negative BRCA1/2 test results. Participants had never been diagnosed with breast cancer nor received their own genetic testing or counseling. This Institutional Review Board-approved study utilized semi-structured interviews and surveys. Descriptive coding with theme development was used during qualitative analysis. Participants reported low amounts of information shared with them. Most women described test results as negative and incorrectly interpreted the test to mean there was no genetic component to the pattern of cancer in their families. Only seven of 81 women accurately described test results consistent with the meaning of an indeterminate negative. Our findings demonstrate that indeterminate negative genetic test results are not well understood by family members. Lack of understanding may lead to an inability to effectively communicate results to primary care providers and missed opportunities for prevention, screening, and further genetic testing. Future research should evaluate acceptability and feasibility of providing family members letters they can share with their own primary care providers.