Population-based genetic testing for Women's cancer prevention

Women's preferences for genetic screening in routine care: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Examine decision-making regarding when women would prefer to receive reproductive carrier and cancer predisposition screening and from what clinician.

METHODS

20 women completed in-depth interviews via Zoom exploring their views on the provision of reproductive carrier and cancer predisposition screening. Our analysis identified themes related to what informs women's preferences for when they would like to receive a genetic screening offer and by which clinician.

RESULTS

Participants' responses to questions about when they would be interested in receiving genetic screening were best understood through the lens of the Extended Parallel Process Model. Specifically, personal utility of the information, a woman's family health history and cost were key factors in decision-making. Women considered their clinician's knowledge and their trust in and relationship with the clinician when deciding from whom they would prefer to receive an offer of genetic screening.

CONCLUSION

OB/GYN clinic patients may accept an offer of genetic screening from a knowledgeable and trusted clinician for carrier and cancer predisposition screening preconceptionally or prenatally.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Integrating genetic reproductive and cancer predisposition screening into the care provided to reproductive age OB/GYN patients may be acceptable to this population.

Walking the tightrope: Fertility preservation among hereditary breast and ovarian Cancer syndrome Previvors

INTRODUCTION

Fertility-related concerns cause significant anxiety among patients with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC). The Society of Gynecologic Oncology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommend patients diagnosed with HBOC receive early referral to a reproductive endocrinologist. However, evidence about fertility trends in this patient population are limited and guidelines are scarce. The aim of this study is to compare fertility preservation among patients with HBOC to control patients undergoing fertility treatment without a diagnosis of infertility.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who presented to a single academic institution for fertility preservation in the setting of diagnosis of HBOC. In this study, HBOC patients are referred to as those who had tested positive for pathogenic mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2 or were at high-risk for HBOC based on a strong family history (defined as >3 family members diagnosed with HBOC) without a genetic mutation. HBOC patients were matched in a 1:1 fashion to a control group undergoing fertility preservation without a diagnosis of infertility or HBOC. All analysis was done using SPSS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Between August 1st, 2016 and August 1st, 2022, 81 patients presented to the study center for consultation in the setting of HBOC. Of those who presented, 48 (59.2%) ultimately underwent oocyte cryopreservation and 33 (40.7%) underwent embryo cryopreservation. Patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation due to BRCA1 status were more likely to present for fertility consultation at a younger age compared to control patients (32.6 vs. 34.7 years, p = 0.03) and were more likely to undergo oocyte cryopreservation at a younger age (32.1 vs. 34.6 years, p = 0.007). There was no difference in age at initial consultation or age at procedure for patients with BRCA2 or patients with a strong family history compared to control patients (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the mean age of patients with HBOC at presentation for consultation for embryo cryopreservation or the mean age the patient with HBOC underwent embryo cryopreservation compared to control patients (p > 0.05). Patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 did not have expedited time from consultation to first cycle start (p > 0.05). After adjusting for factors including anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level and age, patients considered in the HBOC group due to family history had less time between consultation and oocyte cryopreservation cycle compared to control patients. (179 vs. 317 days, p = 0.045). There was no difference in time from consultation to starting cycle for embryo cryopreservation for patients with HBOC compared to controls (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with HBOC did not undergo expedited fertility treatment compared to control patients undergoing oocyte and embryo cryopreservation for non-infertility reasons. Patients diagnosed with BRCA1 had more oocytes retrieved compared to the control population which is possibly due to earlier age of presentation in the setting of recommended age of risk reducing surgery being age 35-40. When age matched, cycle outcomes did not differ between HBOC and control patients. Given the known cancer prevention benefit and recommendations for risk-reducing surgery, future studies should focus on guidelines for fertility preservation for patients with HBOC.

Additional findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: A qualitative study of recipient perspectives

PURPOSE

Participants in the 100,000 Genomes Project, a clinical/research initiative delivered through the UK National Health Service, were offered screening for "additional findings" (AFs): pathogenic/likely pathogenic secondary findings in genes associated with familial hypercholesterolemia or a cancer predisposition syndrome. Understanding the psychological and behavioral responses to secondary findings can inform the clinical utility of a search and disclose policy.

METHODS

Thirty-two adult AF recipients took part in semi-structured interviews analyzed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes were constructed: cognitive responses to an AF, emotional and psychological responses, personal control, perceived risk of AF-associated disease, and family implications. Many participants had misunderstood or incompletely remembered consent for AFs, and most were surprised or shocked to receive an AF. Although many ultimately appreciated knowing about the risk conferred, some struggled to make sense of their disease risk, which complicated decision making about risk management, particularly for women with a BRCA AF. Recipients sought control through seeking clinical evaluation and information, and informing relatives. Difficulties with conceptualizing risk and lack of AF-associated disease family history meant that some hesitated to inform relatives.

CONCLUSION

Genome sequencing programs offering secondary findings require attention to consent processes. Post-disclosure care should aim to promote recipients' perceived personal control.

Global epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer

Globally, ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in women, accounting for an estimated 3.7% of cases and 4.7% of cancer deaths in 2020. Until the early 2000s, age-standardized incidence was highest in northern Europe and North America, but this trend has changed; incidence is now declining in these regions and increasing in parts of eastern Europe and Asia. Ovarian cancer is a very heterogeneous disease and, even among the most common type, namely epithelial ovarian cancer, five major clinically and genetically distinct histotypes exist. Most high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas are now recognized to originate in the fimbrial ends of the fallopian tube. This knowledge has led to more cancers being coded as fallopian tube in origin, which probably explains some of the apparent declines in ovarian cancer incidence, particularly in high-income countries; however, it also suggests that opportunistic salpingectomy offers an important opportunity for prevention. The five histotypes share several reproductive and hormonal risk factors, although differences also exist. In this Review, we summarize the epidemiology of this complex disease, comparing the different histotypes, and consider the potential for prevention. We also discuss how changes in the prevalence of risk and protective factors might have contributed to the observed changes in incidence and what this might mean for incidence in the future.

Hereditary cancer testing in a diverse sample across three breast imaging centers

PURPOSE

Up to 10% of all breast cancers (BC) are attributed to inherited pathogenic variants (PV) in BC susceptibility genes; however, most carriers of PVs remain unidentified. Here, we sought to determine the yield of hereditary cancer gene PVs among diverse women attending breast imaging centers, who could benefit from enhanced surveillance and/or risk reduction interventions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional retrospective cohort study included consecutive women, unselected for personal or family cancer history, who were offered genetic testing for hereditary cancer genes at the time of breast imaging at three centers (November 2020-March 2022).

RESULTS

Among 1943 patients (median age: 66 years), self-reported race/ethnicity was White (34.5%), Hispanic (27.7%), African American (17.9%), Asian (4.5%), Ashkenazi Jewish (0.6%), Other (3.5%), and missing (13.0%). Thirty-nine patients (2%) were identified as carriers of a PV in an autosomal dominant clinically actionable hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC)-related or Lynch syndrome gene, most frequently, BRCA2 (6/39; 15.4%), PALB2 (8/39; 20.5%), CHEK2 (10/39; 25.6%), and PMS2 (5/39; 12.8%). Of the 34 PVs with known race/ethnicity, 47% were detected among non-White patients. Overall, 354/1,943 (18.2%) of patients met NCCN guidelines for HBOC gene testing and only 15/39 (38.5%) patients with an autosomal dominant clinically actionable PV met guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This population health approach extended the reach of genetic cancer risk assessment in a diverse population and highlighted the limits of a guideline-based approach. This may help address inequity in access to risk-appropriate screening and cancer prevention.

Advancing Precision Medicine in South Tyrol, Italy: A Public Health Development Proposal for a Bilingual, Autonomous Province

This paper presents a comprehensive development plan for advancing precision medicine in the autonomous province of South Tyrol, Italy, a region characterized by its bilingual population and unique healthcare challenges. This study highlights the need to address the shortage of healthcare professionals proficient in language for person-centered medicine, the lag in healthcare sector digitalization, and the absence of a local medical university, all within the context of an initiated pharmacogenomics program and a population-based precision medicine study known as the "Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol" (CHRIS) study. The key strategies for addressing these challenges and integrating CHRIS study findings into a broader precision medicine development plan are discussed, including workforce development and training, investment in digital infrastructure, enhanced data management and analytic capabilities, collaboration with external academic and research institutions, education and capacity building, securing funding and resources, and promoting a patient-centered approach. This study emphasizes the potential benefits of implementing such a comprehensive development plan, including improved early detection, personal ized treatment, and prevention of chronic diseases, ultimately leading to better healthcare outcomes and overall well-being in the South Tyrolean population.

Breast cancer genetics and risk assessment: an overview for the clinician

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally with enormous associated morbidity, mortality and economic impact. Prevention of breast cancer is a global public health imperative. To date, most of our global efforts have been directed at expanding population breast cancer screening programs for early cancer detection and not at breast cancer prevention efforts. It is imperative that we change the paradigm. As with other diseases, prevention of breast cancer starts with identification of individuals at high risk, and for breast cancer this requires improved identification of individuals who carry a hereditary cancer mutation associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer, and identification of others who are at high risk due to non-genetic, established modifiable and non-modifiable factors. This article will review basic breast cancer genetics and the most common hereditary breast cancer mutations associated with increased risk. We will also discuss the other non-genetic modifiable and non-modifiable breast cancer risk factors, available risk assessment models and an approach to incorporating screening for genetic mutation carriers and identifying high-risk women in clinical practice. A discussion of guidelines for enhanced screening, chemoprevention and surgical management of high-risk women is beyond the scope of this review.

Hereditary Women's Cancer: Management and Risk-Reducing Surgery

Hereditary women's syndromes due to inherited mutations result in an elevated risk of developing gynecological cancers over the lifetime of affected carriers. The BRCA 1 and 2 mutations, Lynch syndrome (LS), and mutations in rare hereditary syndromes increase this risk and require more effective management of these patients based on surveillance and prophylactic surgery. Patients need counseling regarding risk-reducing surgery (RRS) and the time required to perform it, considering the adverse effects of premenopausal surgery and the hormonal effect on quality of life, bone density, sexual activity, and cardiological and vascular diseases. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) is the gold standard for BRCA-mutated patients. An open question is that of endometrial cancer (EC) risk in patients with BRCA1/2 mutation to justify prophylactic hysterectomy during RRSO surgical procedures. RRS provides a 90-95% risk reduction for ovarian and breast cancer in women who are mutation carriers, but the role of prophylactic hysterectomy is underinvestigated in this setting of patients. In this review, we evaluate the management of the most common hereditary syndromes and the benefits of risk-reducing surgery, particularly exploring the role of prophylactic hysterectomy.

Interest in genetic testing and risk-reducing behavioral changes: results from a community health assessment in New York City

Risk-based genetic tests are often used to determine cancer risk, when to initiate screening, and frequency of screening, but rely on interest in genetic testing. We examined overall interest in genetic testing for cancer risk assessment and willingness to change behavior, and whether these are affected by demographic or socioeconomic factors.We conducted a community needs health survey in 2019 among primary care and cancer patients, family members and community members in New York City. We used univariable analysis and relative risk regression to examine interest in genetic cancer risk testing and willingness to modify lifestyle behaviors in response to an informative genetic test.Of the 1225 participants, 74.0% (n = 906) expressed interest in having a genetic test to assess cancer risk. Interest in genetic testing was high across all demographic and socioeconomic groups; reported interest in genetic testing by group ranged from 65.0 (participants aged 65 years and older) to 83.6% (participants below federal poverty level). Among the 906 participants that reported interest in genetic testing, 79.6% were willing to change eating habits, 66.5% to change exercise habits, and 49.5% to lose weight in response to an informative genetic test result.Our study reveals that interest in genetic testing for cancer risk is high among patients and community members and is high across demographic and socioeconomic groups, as is the reported willingness to change behavior. Based on these results, we recommend that population-based genetic testing may result in greater reduction cancer risk, particularly among minoritized groups.

Characterizing the extracellular matrix transcriptome of cervical, endometrial, and uterine cancers

•

The matrisome plays a critical role in the progression of cancer, but the matrisomes of gynecological cancers have not been well characterized.

•

We built an in silico analysis pipeline to analyze publicly available bulk RNA-seq datasets of cervical, endometrial, and uterine cancers.

•

Using a machine learning approach, we identified genes and gene networks that held inferential significance for cancer stage and patient survival.

•

Cervical, endometrial, and uterine cancers are highly distinct from one another and should be analyzed separately.

Increasingly, the matrisome, a set of proteins that form the core of the extracellular matrix (ECM) or are closely associated with it, has been demonstrated to play a key role in tumor progression. However, in the context of gynecological cancers, the matrisome has not been well characterized. A holistic, yet targeted, exploration of the tumor microenvironment is critical for better understanding the progression of gynecological cancers, identifying key biomarkers for cancer progression, establishing the role of gene expression in patient survival, and for assisting in the development of new targeted therapies. In this work, we explored the matrisome gene expression profiles of cervical squamous cell carcinoma and endocervical adenocarcinoma (CESC), uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma (UCEC), and uterine carcinosarcoma (UCS) using publicly available RNA-seq data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) portal. We hypothesized that the matrisomal expression patterns of CESC, UCEC, and UCS would be highly distinct with respect to genes which are differentially expressed and hold inferential significance with respect to tumor progression, patient survival, or both. Through a combination of statistical and machine learning analysis techniques, we identified sets of genes and gene networks which characterized each of the gynecological cancer cohorts. Our findings demonstrate that the matrisome is critical for characterizing gynecological cancers and transcriptomic mechanisms of cancer progression and outcome. Furthermore, while the goal of pan-cancer transcriptional analyses is often to highlight the shared attributes of these cancer types, we demonstrate that they are highly distinct diseases which require separate analysis, modeling, and treatment approaches. In future studies, matrisome genes and gene ontology terms that were identified as holding inferential significance for cancer stage and patient survival can be evaluated as potential drug targets and incorporated into in vitro models of disease.

Management Strategies of Breast Cancer Patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Germline Variants

Most of breast cancer cases are sporadic; however, 15–20% are associated with family history, and some are inherited. Among those, deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumor suppressor genes are the most commonly encountered pathogenic germline variants (PGVs). Given the availability and affordability of multi-gene panel sequencing technologies, testing for PGVs is commonly practiced. With our enhanced understanding of cancer genetics and specific molecular alterations, the better acceptance of risk-directed screening and prevention, and the recent introduction of novel targeted therapies, management of BRCA-positive breast cancers is taking a new direction, focusing more on risk-reducing interventions, including mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, and incorporating special treatment regimens, including platinum-based chemotherapy, and the recently-introduced PARP (poly (ADP)-ribose polymerase) inhibitors. Given the recent advances in reproductive technology and molecular medicine, younger women with PGVs may have the option of embryo selection through preimplantation genetic testing and diagnosis, thus preventing the potential transmission of the implicated genes to the next generations. In this review, we cover the clinical implications of identifying a pathogenic germline mutation in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer patients, and their relatives, across the continuum of care – from cancer prevention and early detection, through active treatment and up to survivorship issues.

Incomplete Penetrance of Population-Based Genetic Screening Results in Electronic Health Record

The clinical value of population-based genetic screening projects depends on the actions taken on the findings. The Healthy Nevada Project (HNP) is an all-comer genetic screening and research project based in northern Nevada. HNP participants with CDC Tier 1 findings of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome (LS), or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are notified and provided with genetic counseling. However, the HNP subsequently takes a “hands-off” approach: it is the responsibility of notified participants to share their findings with their healthcare providers, and providers are expected to implement the recommended action plans. Thus, the HNP presents an opportunity to evaluate the efficiency of participant and provider responses to notification of important genetic findings, using electronic health records (EHRs) at Renown Health (a large regional hospital in northern Nevada). Out of 520 HNP participants with findings, we identified 250 participants who were notified of their findings and who had an EHR. 107 of these participants responded to a survey, with 76 (71%) indicating that they had shared their findings with their healthcare providers. However, a sufficiently specific genetic diagnosis appeared in the EHRs and problem lists of only 22 and 10%, respectively, of participants without prior knowledge. Furthermore, review of participant EHRs provided evidence of possible relevant changes in clinical care for only a handful of participants. Up to 19% of participants would have benefited from earlier screening due to prior presentation of their condition. These results suggest that continuous support for both participants and their providers is necessary to maximize the benefit of population-based genetic screening. We recommend that genetic screening projects require participants’ consent to directly document their genetic findings in their EHRs. Additionally, we recommend that they provide healthcare providers with ongoing training regarding documentation of findings and with clinical decision support regarding subsequent care.

Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing

Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.

Embedding the Community and Individuals in Disease Prevention

The primary prevention of non-communicable diseases is one of the most challenging and exciting aspects of medicine and primary care this century. For cancer, it is an urgent matter in light of the increasing burden of the disease among younger people and the higher frequency of more aggressive forms of the disease for all ages. Most chronic disorders result from the influence of the environment on the expression of genes within an individual. The environment at-large encompasses lifestyle (including nutrition), and chemical/physical and social exposures. In cancer, the interaction between the (epi)genetic makeup of an individual and a multiplicity of environmental risk and protecting factors is considered key to disease onset. Thus, like for precision therapy developed for patients, personalized or precision prevention is envisioned for individuals at risk. Prevention means identifying people at higher risk and intervening to reduce the risk. It requires biological markers of risk and non-aggressive preventive actions for the individual, but it also involves acting on the environment and the community. Social scientists are considering micro (individual/family), meso (community), and macro (country population) levels of care to illustrate that problems and solutions exist on different scales. Ideally, the design of interventions in prevention should integrate all these levels. In this perspective article, using the example of breast cancer, we are discussing challenges and possible solutions for a multidisciplinary community of scientists, primary health care practitioners and citizens to develop a holistic approach of primary prevention, keeping in mind equitable access to care.

Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system

Background

A critical step in access to genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes is referral for genetic counseling to assess personal and family risk. Individuals meeting testing guidelines have the greatest need to be evaluated. However, referrals to genetics are underutilized in US patients with hereditary cancer syndromes, especially within traditionally underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income, and non-English speaking patients.

Methods

We studied existing processes for referral to genetic evaluation and testing for hereditary cancer risk to identify areas of potential improvement in delivering these services, especially for traditionally underserved patients.

We conducted a retrospective review of 820 referrals to the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) genetics department containing diagnosis codes for hereditary cancer risk. We classified referrals as high- or low-quality based on whether sufficient information was provided to determine if patients met national practice guidelines for testing. Through chart abstraction, we also assessed consistency with practice guidelines, whether the referral resulted in a visit to the genetics department for evaluation, and clinical characteristics of patients receiving genetic testing.

Results

Most referrals (n = 514, 63%) contained sufficient information to assess the appropriateness of referral; of those, 92% met practice guidelines for genetic testing. Half of referred patients (50%) were not offered genetic evaluation; only 31% received genetic testing. We identified several barriers to receiving genetic evaluation and testing, the biggest barrier being completion of a family history form sent to patients following the referral. Those with a referral consistent with testing guidelines, were more likely to receive genetic testing than those without (39% vs. 29%, respectively; p = 0.0058). Traditionally underserved patients were underrepresented in those receiving genetic evaluation and testing relative to the overall adult KPNW population.

Conclusions

Process improvements are needed to increase access to genetic services to diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes prior to development of cancer.

Reproductive issues in carriers of germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes: an expert meeting

BACKGROUND

Healthy individuals and patients with cancer who are carriers of germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes face multiple reproductive challenges that require appropriate counseling and specific expertise.

MAIN BODY

On December 5th-7th, 2019, patient advocates and physicians with expertise in the field of reproductive medicine, fertility preservation, and oncology were invited to "San Giuseppe Moscati" Hospital in Avellino (Italy) for a workshop on reproductive management of women with germline pathogenic variants in the BRCA1/2 genes. From the discussion regarding the current evidence and future prospective in the field, eight main research questions were formulated and eight recommendations were developed regarding fertility, fertility preservation, preimplantation genetic testing, and pregnancy in healthy carriers and patients with cancer.

CONCLUSION

Several misconceptions about the topic persist among health care providers and patients often resulting in a discontinuous and suboptimal management. With the aim to offer patient-tailored counseling about reproductive issues, both awareness of current evidences and research should be promoted.

Towards population-based genetic screenings for breast and ovarian cancer: A comprehensive review from economic evaluations to patient perspectives

Genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer following genetic counseling is based on guidelines that take into account particular features of the personal and family history, and clinical criteria conferring a probability of having a BRCA mutation greater than 10% as a threshold for accessing the test. However, besides reducing mortality and social impact, the extension of screening programs also for healthy family members would allow a huge saving of the rising costs associated with these pathologies, supporting the choice of the "Test" strategy versus a "No Test" one. Analyses of different health care systems show that by applying the "Test" strategy on patients and their families, a decrease in breast and ovarian cancer cases is achieved, as well as a substantial decrease in costs of economic resources, including the costs of the clinical management of early detected tumors. In this review, we analyzed the most recent papers published on this topic and we summarized the findings on the economic evaluations related to breast and ovarian cancer population screenings. These results proved and validated that the population-wide testing approach is a more accurate screening and preventive intervention than traditional guidelines based on personal/family history and clinical criteria to reduce breast and ovarian cancer risk.

Expanding the search for germline pathogenic variants for breast cancer. How far should we go and how high should we jump? The missed opportunity!

Since the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes 3 decades ago, genetic testing and genetic counseling have become an integral part of routine clinical practice. The risk of breast cancer among carriers of germline pathogenic variants, like BRCA1 and BRCA2, is well established. Risk-reducing interventions, including bilateral mastectomies and salpingo-oophorectomies are both effective and have become more acceptable. Many researchers and professional societies view current guidelines as restrictive and may miss many at-risk women, and are calling to expand testing to include all patients with breast cancer, regardless of their personal or family history of cancer, while others are calling for wider adoption to even include all healthy women at age 30 or older. This review will address expanding testing in two directions; horizontally to include more patients, and even healthy women, and vertically to include more genes using next-generation sequencing-based multi-gene panel testing.

Recurrent Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, PALB2 and CHEK2 in Polish Patients with Ovarian Cancer

The aim of the study was to analyze the frequency and magnitude of association of 21 recurrent founder germline mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and CHEK2 genes with ovarian cancer risk among unselected patients in Poland. We genotyped 21 recurrent germline mutations in BRCA1 (9 mutations), BRCA2 (4 mutations), RAD51C (3 mutations), PALB2 (2 mutations), and CHEK2 (3 mutations) among 2270 Polish ovarian cancer patients and 1743 healthy controls, and assessed the odds ratios (OR) for developing ovarian cancer for each gene. Mutations were detected in 369 out of 2095 (17.6%) unselected ovarian cancer cases and 117 out of 1743 (6.7%) unaffected controls. The ovarian cancer risk was associated with mutations in BRCA1 (OR = 40.79, 95% CI: 18.67-114.78; p = 0.29 × 10^-15), in BRCA2 (OR = 25.98; 95% CI: 1.55-434.8; p = 0.001), in RAD51C (OR = 6.28; 95% CI 1.77-39.9; p = 0.02), and in PALB2 (OR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.06-14.68; p = 0.06). There was no association found for CHEK2. We found that pathogenic mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C or PALB2 are responsible for 12.5% of unselected cases of ovarian cancer. We recommend that all women with ovarian cancer in Poland and first-degree female relatives should be tested for this panel of 18 mutations.

Women's Intentions to Engage in Risk-Reducing Behaviours after Receiving Personal Ovarian Cancer Risk Information: An Experimental Survey Study

Simple Summary

Risk stratification using genetic testing to identify women at increased risk of ovarian cancer may increase the number of patients to whom risk-reducing surgery (e.g., salpingo-oophorectomy) may be offered. However, little is known about public acceptability of such approaches. Our online experimental survey aimed to explore whether women aged 45–75 in the general population are willing to undergo ovarian cancer risk assessment, including genetic testing, and whether women’s potential acceptance of risk-reducing surgery differs depending on their estimated risk. We looked at whether psychological and cognitive factors mediated women’s decision-making. The majority of participants would be interested in having genetic testing. In response to our hypothetical scenarios, a substantial proportion of participants were open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased from 2% to 5 or 10%.

Abstract

Risk stratification using genetic and/or other types of information could identify women at increased ovarian cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine women’s potential reactions to ovarian cancer risk stratification. A total of 1017 women aged 45–75 years took part in an online experimental survey. Women were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions describing hypothetical personal results from ovarian cancer risk stratification, and asked to imagine they had received one of three results: (a) 5% lifetime risk due to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and lifestyle factors; (b) 10% lifetime risk due to SNPs and lifestyle factors; (c) 10% lifetime risk due to a single rare mutation in a gene. Results: 83% of women indicated interest in having ovarian cancer risk assessment. After receiving their hypothetical risk estimates, 29% of women stated they would have risk-reducing surgery. Choosing risk-reducing surgery over other behavioural responses was associated with having higher surgery self-efficacy and perceived response-efficacy, but not with perceptions of disease threat, i.e., perceived risk or severity, or with experimental condition. A substantial proportion of women age 45–75 years may be open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased to as little as 5 or 10%.

Equity in Health: Consideration of Race and Ethnicity in Precision Medicine

The causes for disparities in implementation of precision medicine are complex, due in part to differences in clinical care and a lack of engagement and recruitment of under-represented populations in studies. New tools and large genetic cohorts can change these circumstances and build access to personalized medicine for disadvantaged populations.