Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications

Taking the risk. A systematic review of ethical reasons and moral arguments in the clinical use of polygenic risk scores

Debates about the prospective clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) have grown considerably in the last years. The potential benefits of PRS to improve patient care at individual and population levels have been extensively underlined. Nonetheless, the use of PRS in clinical contexts presents a number of unresolved ethical challenges and consequent normative gaps that hinder their optimal implementation. Here, we conducted a systematic review of reasons of the normative literature discussing ethical issues and moral arguments related to the use of PRS for the prevention and treatment of common complex diseases. In total, we have included and analyzed 34 records, spanning from 2013 to 2023. The findings have been organized in three major themes: in the first theme, we consider the potential harms of PRS to individuals and their kin. In the theme "Threats to health equity," we consider ethical concerns of social relevance, with a focus on justice issues. Finally, the theme "Towards best practices" collects a series of research priorities and provisional recommendations to be considered for an optimal clinical translation of PRS. We conclude that the use of PRS in clinical care reinvigorates old debates in matters of health justice; however, open questions, regarding best practices in clinical counseling, suggest that the ethical considerations applicable in monogenic settings will not be sufficient to face PRS emerging challenges.

Stakeholder Perception of the Implementation of Genetic Risk Testing for Twelve Multifactorial Diseases

Genome-wide association studies have been employed to develop numerous risk prediction models using polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for multifactorial diseases. However, healthcare providers lack confidence in their understanding of PRS risk stratification for multifactorial diseases, which underscores the need to assess the readiness of PRSs for clinical use. To address this issue, we surveyed the perceptions of healthcare providers as stakeholders in the clinical implementation of genetic-based risk prediction for multifactorial diseases. We conducted a web-based study on the need for risk prediction based on genetic information and the appropriate timing of testing for 12 multifactorial diseases. Responses were obtained from 506 stakeholders. Positive perceptions of genetic risk testing were found for adult-onset chronic diseases. As per participant opinion, testing for adult-onset diseases should be performed after the age of 20 years, whereas testing for psychiatric and allergic disorders that manifest during childhood should be performed from birth to 19 years of age. The stakeholders recognized the need for genetic risk testing for diseases that develop in adulthood, believing that the appropriate testing time is after maturity. This study contributes to the discussion on the clinical implementation of the PRS for genetic risk prediction of multifactorial diseases.

Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores

Advances in genomics have enabled the development of polygenic scores (PGS), sometimes called polygenic risk scores, in the context of multifactorial diseases and disorders such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and schizophrenia. PGS estimate an individual's genetic predisposition, as compared to other members of a population, for conditions which are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There is significant interest in using genetic risk prediction afforded through PGS in public health, clinical care, and research settings, yet many acknowledge the need to thoughtfully consider and address ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). To contribute to this effort, this paper reports on a narrative review of the literature, with the aim of identifying and categorizing ELSI relating to genetic risk prediction in the context of multifactorial disease, which have been raised by scholars in the field. Ninety-two articles, spanning from 1977 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria for this study. Identified ELSI included potential benefits, challenges and risks that focused on concerns about interpretation and use, and ethical obligations to maximize benefits, minimize risks, promote justice, and support autonomy. This research will support geneticists, clinicians, genetic counselors, patients, patient advocates, and policymakers in recognizing and addressing ethical concerns associated with PGS; it will also guide future empirical and normative research.

Ethical layering in AI-driven polygenic risk scores-New complexities, new challenges

Researchers aim to develop polygenic risk scores as a tool to prevent and more effectively treat serious diseases, disorders and conditions such as breast cancer, type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Recently, machine learning techniques, in particular deep neural networks, have been increasingly developed to create polygenic risk scores using electronic health records as well as genomic and other health data. While the use of artificial intelligence for polygenic risk scores may enable greater accuracy, performance and prediction, it also presents a range of increasingly complex ethical challenges. The ethical and social issues of many polygenic risk score applications in medicine have been widely discussed. However, in the literature and in practice, the ethical implications of their confluence with the use of artificial intelligence have not yet been sufficiently considered. Based on a comprehensive review of the existing literature, we argue that this stands in need of urgent consideration for research and subsequent translation into the clinical setting. Considering the many ethical layers involved, we will first give a brief overview of the development of artificial intelligence-driven polygenic risk scores, associated ethical and social implications, challenges in artificial intelligence ethics, and finally, explore potential complexities of polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence. We point out emerging complexity regarding fairness, challenges in building trust, explaining and understanding artificial intelligence and polygenic risk scores as well as regulatory uncertainties and further challenges. We strongly advocate taking a proactive approach to embedding ethics in research and implementation processes for polygenic risk scores driven by artificial intelligence.

Population genomic screening: Ethical considerations to guide age at implementation

Currently, most genetic testing involves next generation sequencing or panel testing, indicating future population-based screening will involve simultaneous testing for multiple disease risks (called here “panel testing”). Genomic screening typically focuses on single or groups of related disorders, with little utilization of panel testing. Furthermore, the optimal age for test ordering is rarely addressed in terms of whether it should coincide with the age of majority (18 years old) or after the age of majority (26 years old). We conducted an ethical analysis utilizing a hypothetical “narrow” panel test comprised of the CDC Tier 1 Genomic Applications: Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH), increases individuals’ cardiovascular risk due to elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels; Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC), increases lifetime risk of developing cancer; and Lynch Syndrome (LS), increases lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer. We conducted a utilitarian analysis, on the assumption that health systems seek to maximize utility for patients. Screening at the “age of majority” is preferred for FH due to lowering FH patients’ cholesterol levels via statins providing high lifetime benefits and low risks. Screening “after the age of majority” is preferred for HBOC and LS due to availability of effective surveillance, the recommendation for screening activities to begin at age 26, and prophylactic interventions connected to surveillance. We also utilized a supplemental principlist-based approach that identified relevant concerns and trade-offs. Consideration of clinical, non-clinical, and family planning implications suggests narrow panel testing would be best deployed after 26 (rather than at 18) years of age.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial

The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40-50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants' intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.

Modelling optimal use of temporarily restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program: Application during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic forced colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs to downscale their colonoscopy capacity. In this study, we assessed strategies to deal with temporary restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program while aiming to retain the maximum possible preventive effect of the screening program.

Design

We simulated the Dutch national CRC screening program inviting individuals between ages 55 and 75 for biennial FIT using the MISCAN-Colon model including the 3-month disruption in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the second half of 2020 and 2021, we simulated three different strategies for the total target population: 1) increasing the FIT cut-off, 2) skipping one screening for specific screening ages, and 3) extending the screening interval. We estimated the impact on required colonoscopy capacity in 2020–2021 and life years (LYs) lost in the long-term.

Results

Increasing the FIT cut-off, skipping screening ages and extending the screening interval resulted in a maximum reduction of 25,100 (-17.0%), 16,100(-10.9%) and 19,000 (-12.9%) colonoscopies, respectively. Modelling an increased FIT cut-off, the number of LYs lost ranged between 1,400 and 4,400. Skipping just a single screening age resulted in approximately 2,700 LYs lost and this was doubled in case of skipping two screening ages. Extending the screening interval up to 34 months had the smallest impact on LYs lost (up to 1,100 LYs lost).

Conclusion

This modelling study shows that to anticipate on restricted colonoscopy capacity, temporarily extending the screening interval retains the maximum possible preventive effect of the CRC screening program.

Overlap of high-risk individuals predicted by family history, and genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction models: implications for risk stratification

BACKGROUND

Family history, and genetic and non-genetic risk factors can stratify women according to their individual risk of developing breast cancer. The extent of overlap between these risk predictors is not clear.

METHODS

In this case-only analysis involving 7600 Asian breast cancer patients diagnosed between age 30 and 75 years, we examined identification of high-risk patients based on positive family history, the Gail model 5-year absolute risk [5yAR] above 1.3%, breast cancer predisposition genes (protein-truncating variants [PTV] in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, PALB2, BARD1, RAD51C, RAD51D, or TP53), and polygenic risk score (PRS) 5yAR above 1.3%.

RESULTS

Correlation between 5yAR (at age of diagnosis) predicted by PRS and the Gail model was low (r=0.27). Fifty-three percent of breast cancer patients (n=4041) were considered high risk by one or more classification criteria. Positive family history, PTV carriership, PRS, or the Gail model identified 1247 (16%), 385 (5%), 2774 (36%), and 1592 (21%) patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. In a subset of 3227 women aged below 50 years, the four models studied identified 470 (15%), 213 (7%), 769 (24%), and 325 (10%) unique patients who were considered at high risk, respectively. For younger women, PRS and PTVs together identified 745 (59% of 1276) high-risk individuals who were not identified by the Gail model or family history.

CONCLUSIONS

Family history and genetic and non-genetic risk stratification tools have the potential to complement one another to identify women at high risk.

Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action.

SUMMARY

Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals

This study explored the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the point of view of Spanish health professionals. A cross-sectional study with 220 Spanish health professionals was designed. Data were collected in 2020 via a web-based survey and included the advantages and disadvantages of risk-based screening and barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the program. Descriptive statistics and Likert scale responses analyzed as category-ordered data were obtained. The risk-based screening was considered important or very important to reduce breast cancer mortality and promote a more proactive role for women in breast cancer prevention, to increase coverage for women under 50 years, to promote a breast cancer prevention strategy for women at high risk, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Switching to a risk-based program from an age-based program was rated as important or very important by 85% of participants. As barriers for implementation, risk communication, the workload of health professionals, and limited human and financial resources were mentioned. Despite the barriers, there is good acceptance, and it seems feasible, from the perspective of health professionals, to implement a risk-based breast cancer screening program in Spain. However, this poses a number of organizational and resource challenges.

Clarifying the Trade-Offs of Risk-Stratified Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

Cancer risk prediction is necessary for precision early detection, which matches screening intensity to risk. However, practical steps for translating risk predictions to risk-stratified screening policies are not well established. We used a validated population prostate-cancer model to simulate the outcomes of strategies that increase intensity for men at high risk and reduce intensity for men at low risk. We defined risk by the Prompt Prostate Genetic Score (PGS) (Stratify Genomics, San Diego, California), a germline genetic test. We first recalibrated the model to reflect the disease incidence observed within risk strata using data from a large prevention trial where some participants were tested with Prompt PGS. We then simulated risk-stratified strategies in a population with the same risk distribution as the trial and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening versus universal (risk-agnostic) screening. Prompt PGS risk-adapted screening was more cost-effective when universal screening was conservative. Risk-stratified strategies improved outcomes at a cost of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year compared with biennial screening starting at age 55 years, but risk stratification was not cost-effective compared with biennial screening starting at age 45. Heterogeneity of risk and fraction of the population within each stratum were also important determinants of cost-effectiveness.

Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been demonstrated to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. However, besides such benefits, CRC screening is also associated with potential harmful effects. In an ideal world, screening would only be directed to the small proportion of the population that might potentially benefit. Risk‐based screening can be seen as a first step towards this ideal world, by redistributing screening resources from low‐risk to high‐risk individuals. In theory, this should result in scarce resources being used in individuals who benefit most, while intensity of screening is reduced in individuals who benefit less, hence improving the benefit‐harm ratio among all invitees. Available strategies that have been proposed for risk‐based CRC screening include using information on age, sex, prior screening history, lifestyle and/or genetic information. Implementation of risk‐based screening requires careful consideration of reliable risk prediction models, participation with screening and informed decision‐making. While it is important to recognise the limitations of current approaches, available evidence suggests that it might be feasible to start planning the introduction of tailored strategies within screening programmes. Implementing risk‐based screening based on age, sex and prior screening history alone would already represent a substantial improvement over current uniform screening approaches. We propose that it is time that screening programmes start there and continue striving towards more comprehensive approaches embedding primary prevention as an effective approach to lower risk for everyone.

Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes.

Methods

In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18–69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline.

Results

At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress.

Conclusion

Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.

Utility of incorporating a gene-based lung cancer risk test on uptake and adherence in a community-based lung cancer screening pilot study

Based on the results of randomized control trials, screening for lung cancer using computed tomography (CT) is now widely recommended. However, adherence to screening remains an issue outside the clinical trial setting. This study examines the utility of biomarker-based risk assessment on uptake and subsequent adherence in a community screening study.

In a single arm pilot study, current or former smokers > 50 years old with 20 + pack year history were recruited following local advertising. One hundred and fifty seven participants volunteered to participate in the study that offered an optional gene-based lung cancer risk assessment followed by low-dose CT according to a standardised screening protocol.

All 157 volunteers who attended visit 1 underwent the gene-based risk assessment comprising of a clinical questionnaire and buccal swab. Of this group, 154 subsequently attended for CT screening (98%) and were followed prospectively for a median of 2.7 years. A participant’s adherence to screening was influenced by their baseline lung cancer risk category, with overall adherence in those with a positive scan being significantly greater in the “very high” risk group compared to “moderate” and “high” risk categories (71% vs 52%, Odds ratio = 2.27, 95% confidence interval of 1.02–5.05, P = 0.047). Those in the “moderate” risk group were not different to those in the “high” risk group (52% and 52%, P > 0.05).

In this proof-of-concept study, personalised gene-based lung cancer risk assessment was well accepted, associated with a 98% uptake for screening and increased adherence for those in the highest risk group.

Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues

Clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) will look very different to the more familiar monogenic testing. Here we argue that despite these differences, most of the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) raised in the monogenic setting, such as the relevance of results to family members, the approach to secondary and incidental findings, and the role of expert mediators, continue to be relevant in the polygenic context, albeit in modified form. In addition, PRS will reanimate other old debates. Their use has been proposed both in the practice of clinical medicine and of public health, two contexts with differing norms. In each of these domains, it is unclear what endpoints clinical use of PRS should aim to maximize and under what constraints. Reducing health disparities is a key value for public health, but clinical use of PRS could exacerbate race-based health disparities owing to differences in predictive power across ancestry groups. Finally, PRS will force a reckoning with pre-existing questions concerning biomarkers, namely the relevance of self-reported race, ethnicity and ancestry, and the relationship of risk factors to disease diagnoses. In this Opinion, we argue that despite the parallels to the monogenic setting, new work is urgently needed to gather data, consider normative implications, and develop best practices around this emerging branch of genomics.

Feasibility and acceptability of personalised breast cancer screening (DECIDO study): protocol of a single-arm proof-of-concept trial

INTRODUCTION

Personalised cancer screening aims to improve benefits, reduce harms and being more cost-effective than age-based screening. The objective of the DECIDO study is to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based personalised breast cancer screening and its integration in regular clinical practice in a National Health System setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is designed as a single-arm proof-of-concept trial. The study sample will include 385 women aged 40-50 years resident in a primary care health area in Spain. The study intervention consists of (1) a baseline visit; (2) breast cancer risk estimation; (3) a second visit for risk communication and screening recommendations based on breast cancer risk and (4) a follow-up to obtain the study outcomes.A polygenic risk score (PRS) will be constructed as a composite likelihood ratio of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model, including age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease and breast density will be used to estimate a preliminary 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. A Bayesian approach will be used to update this risk with the PRS value.The primary outcome measures will be attitude towards, intention to participate in and satisfaction with personalised breast cancer screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportions of women who accept to participate and who complete the different phases of the study. The exact binomial and the Student's t-test will be used to obtain 95% CIs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova. The trial will be conducted in compliance with this study protocol, the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice.The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated in scientific conferences and media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03791008.

Personalized medicine, digital technology and trust: a Kantian account

Trust relations in the health services have changed from asymmetrical paternalism to symmetrical autonomy-based participation, according to a common account. The promises of personalized medicine emphasizing empowerment of the individual through active participation in managing her health, disease and well-being, is characteristic of symmetrical trust. In the influential Kantian account of autonomy, active participation in management of own health is not only an opportunity, but an obligation. Personalized medicine is made possible by the digitalization of medicine with an ensuing increased tailoring of diagnostics, treatment and prevention to the individual. The ideal is to increase wellness by minimizing the layer of interpretation and translation between relevant health information and the patient or user. Arguably, this opens for a new level of autonomy through increased participation in treatment and prevention, and by that, increased empowerment of the individual. However, the empirical realities reveal a more complicated landscape disturbed by information 'noise' and involving a number of complementary areas of expertise and technologies, hiding the source and logic of data interpretation. This has lead to calls for a return to a mild form of paternalism, allowing expertise coaching of patients and even withholding information, with patients escaping responsibility through blind or lazy trust. This is morally unacceptable, according to Kant's ideal of enlightenment, as we have a duty to take responsibility by trusting others reflexively, even as patients. Realizing the promises of personalized medicine requires a system of institutional controls of information and diagnostics, accessible for non-specialists, supported by medical expertise that can function as the accountable gate-keeper taking moral responsibility required for an active, reflexive trust.

European polygenic risk score for prediction of breast cancer shows similar performance in Asian women

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been shown to predict breast cancer risk in European women, but their utility in Asian women is unclear. Here we evaluate the best performing PRSs for European-ancestry women using data from 17,262 breast cancer cases and 17,695 controls of Asian ancestry from 13 case-control studies, and 10,255 Chinese women from a prospective cohort (413 incident breast cancers). Compared to women in the middle quintile of the risk distribution, women in the highest 1% of PRS distribution have a ~2.7-fold risk and women in the lowest 1% of PRS distribution has ~0.4-fold risk of developing breast cancer. There is no evidence of heterogeneity in PRS performance in Chinese, Malay and Indian women. A PRS developed for European-ancestry women is also predictive of breast cancer risk in Asian women and can help in developing risk-stratified screening programmes in Asia.

Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway

BACKGROUND

There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk.

METHODS

Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.

Hereditary Predisposition to Prostate Cancer: From Genetics to Clinical Implications

Prostate cancer (PrCa) ranks among the top five cancers for both incidence and mortality worldwide. A significant proportion of PrCa susceptibility has been attributed to inherited predisposition, with 10-20% of cases expected to occur in a hereditary/familial context. Advances in DNA sequencing technologies have uncovered several moderate- to high-penetrance PrCa susceptibility genes, most of which have previously been related to known hereditary cancer syndromes, namely the hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2) and Lynch syndrome (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) genes. Additional candidate genes have also been suggested, but further evidence is needed to include them in routine genetic testing. Recommendations based on clinical features, family history, and ethnicity have been established for more cost-efficient genetic testing of patients and families who may be at an increased risk of developing PrCa. The identification of alterations in PrCa predisposing genes may help to inform screening strategies, as well as treatment options, in the metastatic setting. This review provides an overview of the genetic basis underlying hereditary predisposition to PrCa, the current genetic screening recommendations, and the implications for clinical management of the disease.

European women's perceptions of the implementation and organisation of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention: a qualitative study

Background

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors has meant that we are currently exploring risk-based screening, i.e. determining screening strategies based on women’s varying levels of risk. This also enables risk management through primary prevention strategies, e.g. a lifestyle programme or risk-reducing medication. However, future implementation of risk-based screening and prevention will warrant significant changes in current practice and policy. The present study explores women’s perceptions of the implementation and organisation of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention to optimise acceptability and uptake.

Methods

A total of 143 women eligible for breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden participated in focus group discussions. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and the qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Women from all three countries generally agreed on the overall proceedings, e.g. a risk assessment after which the risk estimate is communicated via letter (for below average and average risk) or consultation (for moderate and high risk). However, discrepancies in information needs, preferred risk communication format and risk counselling professional were identified between countries. Additionally, a need to educate healthcare professionals on all aspects of the risk-based screening and prevention programme was established.

Conclusion

Women’s insights identified the need for country-specific standardised protocols regarding the assessment and communication of risk, and the provision of heterogeneous screening and prevention recommendations, monitoring the principle of solidarity in healthcare policy.

Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field

Polygenic factors are estimated to account for an additional 18% of the familial relative risk of breast cancer, with those at the highest level of polygenic risk distribution having a least a twofold increased risk of the disease. Polygenic testing promises to revolutionize health services by providing personalized risk assessments to women at high-risk of breast cancer and within population breast screening programs. However, implementation of polygenic testing needs to be considered in light of its current limitations, such as limited risk prediction for women of non-European ancestry. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for polygenic breast cancer risk, including the discovery of variants associated with breast cancer at the genome-wide level of significance and the use of polygenic risk scores to estimate breast cancer risk. We also review the different applications of this technology including testing of women from high-risk breast cancer families with uninformative genetic testing results, as a moderator of monogenic risk, and for population screening programs. Finally, a potential framework for introducing testing for polygenic risk in familial cancer clinics and the potential challenges with implementing this technology in clinical practice are discussed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening.

METHODS

Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ∼$48.

CONCLUSIONS

Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk.

IMPACT

Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.

Envisioning Implementation of a Personalized Approach in Breast Cancer Screening Programs: Stakeholder Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Advances in genomics and epidemiology can foster the implementation of a risk-based approach to current age-based breast cancer screening programs. This personalized approach would challenge the trajectory for women in the healthcare system by adding both a risk-assessment step (including a genomic test) and screening options.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to explore, from an organizational perspective, the acceptability of different proposals for each step of the trajectory for women in the healthcare system should a personalized approach be implemented in the province of Quebec.

METHODS

We interviewed 20 professional stakeholders who are either involved in the current breast cancer screening program in Quebec or who are likely to play a role in the future implementation of a personalized risk-based approach.

RESULTS|DISCUSSION

Preferences are split between proposals supporting self-management by the women themselves (e.g., solicitation through media campaign, self-collection of information and sample and results provided by letter) and proposals prioritizing more interaction between women and healthcare providers (e.g., solicitation by health professionals, collection of information and samples by a nurse and results provided by health professionals).

Population Whole Exome Screening: Primary Care Provider Attitudes About Preparedness, Information Avoidance, and Nudging

Compared to clinicians previously surveyed, primary care providers employed in a health system known for clinical genomics were more likely to have ordered or referred a patient for genetic testing, but had only modestly more genetics training and reported similarly low levels of comfort answering patient questions about genetic risk. Most supported population genomic screening, reported willingness to get screened themselves, and judged a hypothetical patient's decision to be screened favorably relative to a similar patient's decision to decline screening. Stakeholder perceptions of the ethical appropriateness of nudging at-risk patients to discuss testing with counselors were mixed.

Polygenic risk-stratified screening for cancer: Responsibilization in public health genomics

In this article, we examine professional discourse around the development of polygenic risk-stratified screening (PRSS) for cancer. Analyzing a range of contemporary professional literatures from Europe, North America and Australia, we explore how the drive to screen for molecular markers of cancer risk makes professionals, screening recipients and publics responsible, in different ways, for acquiring, curating and analyzing molecular data. Investigating how these responsibilities are invoked in discussions of new data practices, technologies, organizational arrangements, engagement, education and protocols for participation, we argue that agendas for PRSS for cancer are both expanding and stratifying responsibilities. Data collection is to be achieved by intensified responsibilities for including, reassuring and recruiting populations, as well as by opening and enriching the datasets on which models and preventative screening arrangements are based. Enhanced responsibilities for screening recipients and publics are also invoked, not just in relation to personal health but for population health more generally, via research participation and consenting to data re-use in the public interest. Professionals, screening recipients and publics are also to become responsible for moderating expectations of screening according to genomic designations. Together these discourses go beyond individual risk management to extend and diversify the responsibilities of practitioners, screening recipients and publics as public health genomics develops.

Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the costs of genomic testing have fallen, and our understanding of genetic susceptibility to cancers has grown, there has been increasing interest in incorporating testing for cancer susceptibility genes, and polygenic risk estimates, into population cancer screening. A growing body of evidence suggests that this would be both clinically and cost-effective. In this article, we aim to explore the frameworks used to evaluate screening programmes, evaluate whether population screening for cancer susceptibility can be assessed using these standards, and consider additional issues and outcomes of importance in this context.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are tensions between traditional approaches of genetic testing (utilising tests with high sensitivity and specificity) and the principles of population screening (in which the screening test typically has low specificity), as well as the frameworks used to evaluate the two. Despite the existence of many screening guidelines, including consensus papers, these often do not align fully with broader considerations of genetic test evaluation. Population screening for genetic risk in cancer shifts the focus from diagnostics to prognostication and has wider implications for personal and familial health than existing screening programmes. In addition, understanding of the prevalence and penetrance of cancer susceptibility genes, required by many screening guidelines, may only be obtainable through population-level testing; prospective multi-disciplinary research alongside implementation will be essential.

SUMMARY

Appropriate evaluation of genetic screening for cancer risk will require modification of existing screening frameworks to incorporate additional complexity of outcomes and population values. As evidence supporting population screening for cancer susceptibility mounts, development of an appropriate evaluative framework, and expansion of public dialogue will be key to informing policy.

Accuracy of clinical breast examination's abnormalities for breast cancer screening: cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The guidelines for breast cancer screening with clinical breast examination (CBE) are diverging CBE is recommended in France, whereas it is not recommended in the United States and Canada, given the lack of clear benefit and the risk of overmedication. To assess the accuracy of abnormalities found during CBE for in breast cancer screening.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study included women over 18 years with no history of breast cancer coming for a mammography at 3 ambulatory radiology practices in Paris. A questionnaire collected the risk of breast cancer on mammography according to the Breast Imaging-Reporting And Data System (Bi-RADS) (high risk: Bi-RADS 4 or 5 versus lower risk: other Bi-RADS categories), the risk factors for breast cancer and the breast clinical abnormalities (none, mass, skin abnormality, oedema, pain, nipple discharge, lymph nodes…) For each abnormality, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated.

RESULT

Among the 3218 included patients (mean age 55.1 +/-10 years), 713 (22.2%) had an abnormal CBE and 133 (4.1%) had high-risk mammography. The sensitivity of CBE was 36%[28%;45%] and the specificity was 78%[77%;80%]. The PPV and NPV for each clinical abnormality were low, except for nipple discharge, retraction and lymph nodes, for which the PPV were 10.5[3.7;29.9], 6.6[1.4;31.6], and 5.0[1.5;17.1], respectively, but these abnormalities were rare (0.5%, 0.2% and 0.5% respectively). These values were similar across all age groups.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of CBE for breast cancer screening appeared to be low which did not support recommending regular CBE in France.

The illusion of polygenic disease risk prediction

A problem at the interface of genomic medicine and medical screening is that genetic associations of etiological significance are often interpreted as having predictive significance. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many thousands of associations between common DNA variants and hundreds of diseases and benign traits. This knowledge has generated many publications with the understandable expectation that it can be used to derive polygenic risk scores for predicting disease to identify those at sufficiently high risk to benefit from preventive intervention. However, the expectation rests on the incorrect assumption that odds ratios derived from polygenic risk scores that are important etiologically are also directly useful in risk prediction and population screening.

Consumer and clinician perspectives on personalising breast cancer prevention information

BACKGROUND

Personalised prevention of breast cancer has focused on women at very high risk, yet most breast cancers occur in women at average, or moderately increased risk (≤moderate risk).

OBJECTIVES

To determine; 1) interest of women at ≤ moderate risk (consumers) in personalised information about breast cancer risk; 2) familial cancer clinicians' (FCCs) perspective on managing women at ≤ moderate risk, and; 3) both consumers' and FCCs reactions to iPrevent, a personalised breast cancer risk assessment and risk management decision support tool.

METHODS

Seven focus groups on breast cancer risk were conducted with 49 participants; 27 consumers and 22 FCCs. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Consumers reported some misconceptions, low trust in primary care practitioners for breast cancer prevention advice and frustration that they often lacked tailored advice about breast cancer risk. They expressed interest in receiving personalised risk information using iPrevent. FCCs reported an inadequate workforce to advise women at ≤ moderate risk and reacted positively to the potential of iPrevent to assist.

CONCLUSIONS

While highlighting a potential role for iPrevent, several outstanding issues remain. For personalised prevention of breast cancer to extend beyond women at high risk, we must harness women's interest in receiving tailored information about breast cancer prevention and identify a workforce willing to advise women.

Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model

Importance

The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.

Objective

To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.

Design, Setting, and Population

A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.

Interventions

The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.

Results

The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening.

Clinical interpretation of pathogenic ATM and CHEK2 variants on multigene panel tests: navigating moderate risk

Comprehensive genomic cancer risk assessment (GCRA) helps patients, family members, and providers make informed choices about cancer screening, surgical and chemotherapeutic risk reduction, and genetically targeted cancer therapies. The increasing availability of multigene panel tests for clinical applications allows testing of well-defined high-risk genes, as well as moderate-risk genes, for which the penetrance and spectrum of cancer risk are less well characterized. Moderate-risk genes are defined as genes that, when altered by a pathogenic variant, confer a 2 to fivefold relative risk of cancer. Two such genes included on many comprehensive cancer panels are the DNA repair genes ATM and CHEK2, best known for moderately increased risk of breast cancer development. However, the impact of screening and preventative interventions and spectrum of cancer risk beyond breast cancer associated with ATM and/or CHEK2 variants remain less well characterized. We convened a large, multidisciplinary, cross-sectional panel of GCRA clinicians to review challenging, peer-submitted cases of patients identified with ATM or CHEK2 variants. This paper summarizes the inter-professional case discussion and recommendations generated during the session, the level of concordance with respect to recommendations between the academic and community clinician participants for each case, and potential barriers to implementing recommended care in various practice settings.

Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues for the Implementation of Omics-Based Risk Prediction of Women's Cancer: Points to Consider

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Advances in omics open new opportunities for cancer risk prediction and risk-based screening interventions. However, implementation of risk prediction in clinical practice may impact the ethical, legal, and regulatory aspects of current cancer screening programs. In order to support decision-making, we analyzed the ethical, legal, and regulatory issues and developed a set of Points to Consider to support management of these issues.

METHODS

We analyzed the legal and policy frameworks applicable to breast and cervical cancer screening programs in 7 European countries. We identified the most relevant issues to be considered, and we developed considerations for their management, based on the literature, the legal and policy frameworks, and our experience with similar issues.

RESULTS

The considerations focus on five topics: (A) health services planning, (B) information and invitation, (C) consent and data/sample collection, (D) risk calculation and communication of results, and (E) storage of data and residual samples.

CONCLUSION

Current frameworks might not be adequate to implement a risk prediction approach using omics factors due to the different characteristics of such approaches.

High-risk women's risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information

Evidence is accumulating of the clinical utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms to effectively stratify risk of breast cancer. Yet for this personalized polygenic information to be translated to clinical practice, consideration is needed about how this personalized risk information should be communicated and the impact on risk perception. This study examined the psychosocial implications and the impact on risk perception of communicating personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women. High-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer and an uninformative BRCA1/2 result were genotyped in the Variants in Practice study for 22 breast cancer single nucleotide polymorphisms. Participants in the highest quartile of polygenic breast cancer risk were invited to receive their individual research results. Two personalized visual risk communication tools were used to facilitate communication of the polygenic information. Participants subsequently undertook a semi-structured interview examining their experience of receiving their polygenic breast cancer risk and their breast cancer risk perception. Thirty-nine women opted to receive their results and were interviewed. The women described the risk communication tools as helpful as the tool enabled comparison of their personalized breast cancer risk to the general population. Participants incorporated the polygenic risk information into their breast cancer risk perception, which for some reawakened feelings of being at risk years after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result. However, few reported any detrimental emotional impact. The delivery of personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women informed and modified their breast cancer risk perception with little emotional impact.

Women's decision-making regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening and prevention from the perspective of international healthcare professionals

Introduction

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors may enable a paradigm shift from one-size-fits-all breast cancer screening to screening and subsequent prevention guided by a woman’s individual risk of breast cancer. Professionals will play a key role in informing women about this new personalised screening and prevention programme. Therefore, it is essential to explore professionals’ views of the acceptability of this new programme, since this may affect shared decision-making.

Methods

Professionals from three European countries (the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden) participated in digital concept mapping, a systematic mixed methods approach used to explore complex multidimensional constructs.

Results

Across the three countries, professionals prioritised the following five themes which may impact decision-making from the perspective of eligible women: (1) Anxiety/worry; (2) Proactive approach; (3) Reassurance; (4) Lack of knowledge; and (5) Organisation of risk assessment and feedback. Furthermore, Dutch and British professionals expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of a heterogeneous screening policy, suggesting women will question their risk feedback and assigned pathway of care. Swedish professionals emphasised the potential impact of the programme on family relations.

Conclusions

The perspectives of Dutch, British, and Swedish professionals of women’s decision-making regarding personalised breast cancer screening and prevention generally appear in line with women’s own views of acceptability as previously reported. This will facilitate shared decision-making. However, concerns regarding potential consequences of this new programme for screening outcomes and organisation need to be addressed, since this may affect how professionals communicate the programme to eligible women.

Are we ready for the challenge of implementing risk-based breast cancer screening and primary prevention?

BACKGROUND

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors provides opportunities to shift from a one-size-fits-all screening programme to a personalised approach, where screening and prevention is based on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. However, potential implementation of this new paradigm could present considerable challenges which the present review aims to explore.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating potential implications of the implementation of personalised risk-based screening and primary prevention for breast cancer. Identified themes were evaluated using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 5699 unique publications, of which 59 were selected for inclusion. Significant changes in policy and practice are warranted. The organisation of breast cancer screening spans several healthcare delivery systems and clinical settings. Feasibility of implementation depends on how healthcare is funded and arranged, and potentially varies between countries. Piloting risk assessment and prevention counselling in primary care settings has highlighted implications relating to the need for extensive additional training on risk (communication) and prevention, impact on workflow, and professionals' personal discomfort breaching the topic with women. Additionally, gaps in risk estimation, psychological, ethical and legal consequences will need to be addressed.

CONCLUSION

The present review identified considerable unresolved issues and challenges. Potential implementation will require a more complex framework, in which a country's healthcare regulations, resources, and preferences related to screening and prevention services are taken into account. However, with the insights gained from the present overview, countries expecting to implement risk-based screening and prevention can start to inventory and address the issues that were identified.

Epigenome-based cancer risk prediction: rationale, opportunities and challenges

The incidence of cancer is continuing to rise and risk-tailored early diagnostic and/or primary prevention strategies are urgently required. The ideal risk-predictive test should: integrate the effects of both genetic and nongenetic factors and aim to capture these effects using an approach that is both biologically stable and technically reproducible; derive a score from easily accessible biological samples that acts as a surrogate for the organ in question; and enable the effectiveness of risk-reducing measures to be monitored. Substantial evidence has accumulated suggesting that the epigenome and, in particular, DNA methylation-based tests meet all of these requirements. However, the development and implementation of DNA methylation-based risk-prediction tests poses considerable challenges. In particular, the cell type specificity of DNA methylation and the extensive cellular heterogeneity of the easily accessible surrogate cells that might contain information relevant to less accessible tissues necessitates the use of novel methods in order to account for these confounding issues. Furthermore, the engagement of the scientific community with health-care professionals, policymakers and the public is required in order to identify and address the organizational, ethical, legal, social and economic challenges associated with the routine use of epigenetic testing.

Disentangling the determinants of interest and willingness-to-pay for breast cancer susceptibility testing in the general population: a cross-sectional Web-based survey among women of Québec (Canada)

OBJECTIVES

To identify common and specific individual factors that favour or impede women's interest in and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for breast cancer susceptibility testing (BCST) and to identify the most impactful factors on both outcome measures.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study used a self-administered cross-sectional Web-based questionnaire that included hypothetical scenarios about the availability of a new genetic test for breast cancer.

PARTICIPANTS

French-speaking women of the general population of Québec (Canada), aged between 35 and 69 years, were identified from a Web-based panel (2410 met the selection criteria, 1160 were reached and 1031 completed the survey).

MEASURES

The outcomes are the level of interest in and the range of WTP for BCST. Three categories of individual factors identified in the literature were used as potential explanatory factors, that is, demographic, clinical and psychosocial.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics indicated that the vast majority of sampled women are interested in BCST (90%). Among those, more than half of them are willing-to-pay for such a test (57%). The regression models pointed out several factors associated with both outcomes (eg, age, income, family history, locus of control-powerful others) and marginal effects were used to highlight the most impactful factors for each outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide a proxy of the readiness of women of the general population to use and to pay for BCST. They also offer insights for developing inclusive and specific strategies to foster informed decision-making and guide the services offered by health organisations corresponding to women's preferences and needs.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks

Genome wide association studies have identified a number of common genetic variants - single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) - that combine to increase breast cancer risk. SNP profiling may enhance the accuracy of risk assessment and provides a personalized risk estimate. SNP testing for breast cancer risks may supplement other genetic tests in the future, however, before it can be implemented in the clinic we need to know how it will be perceived and received. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 women who had previously had a breast cancer diagnosis and undergone BRCA1/2 testing, participated in the Variants in Practice (ViP) study and received personalized risk (SNP) profiles. Interviews explored their understanding and experiences of receiving this SNP information. Women reported feeling positive about receiving their personalized risk profile, because it: provided an explanation for their previous diagnosis of cancer, vindicated previous risk management decisions and clarified their own and other family members' risks. A small group was initially shocked to learn of the increased risk of a second primary breast cancer. This study suggests that the provision of personalized risk information about breast cancer generated by SNP profiling is understood and well received. However, a model of genetic counseling that incorporates monogenic and polygenic genetic information will need to be developed prior to clinical implementation.

Evaluation of Polygenic Risk Scores for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers

Background

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates.

Methods

We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS.

Results

The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P =  8.2×10 -53 ). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P =  7.2×10 -20 ). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS.

Conclusions

BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management.

Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs.

RESULTS

We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing.

DISCUSSION

This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing.

Communication Among Melanoma Family Members

Interventions to improve communication among family members may facilitate information flow about familial risk and preventive health behaviors. This is a secondary analysis of the effects of an interactive website intervention aimed at increasing communication frequency and agreement about health risk among melanoma families. Participants were family units, consisting of one family member with melanoma identified from a previous research study (the Case) and an additional first degree relative and a parent of a child 0-17. Family triads were randomized to receive access to the website intervention or to serve as control families. Family communication frequency and agreement about melanoma prevention behaviors and beliefs were measured at baseline and again at 1 year post randomization. Intervention participants of all three types significantly increased the frequency of communication to their first degree relatives (Parents, siblings, children; range = 14-18 percentage points; all p < .05). At baseline, approximately two-thirds of all three family members talked with at least some member of the family about cancer risk. Agreement between Cases and First Degree Relatives and between Cases and Parents increased from pre to post intervention in the intervention participants compared to the control participants (p < .05). These findings provide support for interventions to improve family communication about cancer risk.

Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps

Precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle, is under consideration for preventive interventions, including cancer screening. On September 29, 2015, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a symposium entitled "Precision Cancer Screening in the General Population: Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps". The goal was two-fold: to share current information on the evidence, practices, and challenges surrounding precision screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, and to allow for in-depth discussion among experts in relevant fields regarding how epidemiology and other population sciences can be used to generate evidence to inform precision screening strategies. Attendees concluded that the strength of evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of precision strategies varies by cancer site, that no one research strategy or methodology would be able or appropriate to address the many knowledge gaps in precision screening, and that issues surrounding implementation must be researched as well. Additional discussion needs to occur to identify the high priority research areas in precision cancer screening for pertinent organs and to gather the necessary evidence to determine whether further implementation of precision cancer screening strategies in the general population would be feasible and beneficial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1449-55. ©2016 AACR.

Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes

Background

Advances in genetic technologies are expected to make population-wide genetic testing feasible. This could provide a basis for risk stratified cancer screening; but acceptability in the target populations has not been explored.

Methods

We assessed attitudes to risk-stratified ovarian cancer (OC) screening based on prior genetic risk assessment using a survey design. Home-based interviews were carried out by the UK Office of National Statistics in a population-based sample of 1095 women aged 18–74. Demographic and personal correlates of attitudes to risk-stratified OC screening based on prior genetic risk assessment were determined using univariate analyses and adjusted logistic regression models.

Results

Full data on the key analytic questions were available for 829 respondents (mean age 46 years; 27 % ‘university educated’; 93 % ‘White’). Relatively few respondents felt they were at ‘higher’ or ‘much higher’ risk of OC than other women of their age group (7.4 %, n = 61). Most women (85 %) said they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ take up OC genetic testing; which increased to 88 % if the test also informed about breast cancer risk. Almost all women (92 %) thought they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ participate in risk-stratified OC screening. In multivariate logistic regression models, university level education was associated with lower anticipated uptake of genetic testing (p = 0.009), but with more positive attitudes toward risk-stratified screening (p <0.001). Perceived risk was not significantly associated with any of the outcome variables.

Conclusions

These findings give confidence in taking forward research on integration of novel genomic technologies into mainstream healthcare.

Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation

Background

The use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Results

A total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12920-016-0186-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3' UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370.

METHODS

Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers).

RESULTS

We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR=0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p=0.74) or breast cancer (OR=0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p=0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR=1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p=0.14, breast cancer HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p=0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p=0.34, breast cancer HR=1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p=0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p=0.38), breast cancer (HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p=0.38), and all other previously-reported associations.

CONCLUSIONS

rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers.