Genetic counseling and testing for hereditary causes of melanoma can lead to earlier detection of skin cancer and other malignancies

Overview of familial syndromes with increased skin malignancies

The vast majority of skin cancers can be classified into two main types: melanoma and keratinocyte carcinomas. The most common keratinocyte carcinomas include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Multiple familial syndromes have been identified that can increase the risk of developing SCC, BCC, and/or melanoma. The major syndromes include oculocutaneous albinism for SCC, basal cell nevus syndrome for BCC, familial atypical multiple mole-melanoma syndrome, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome for melanoma. In addition, familial syndromes that can predispose individuals to all three major skin cancers include xeroderma pigmentosum and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. This review highlights the epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis, and etiology of the major and minor syndromes to better identify and manage these conditions. Current investigational trials in genomic medicine are making their way in revolutionizing the clinical diagnosis of these familial syndromes for earlier preventative measures and improvement of long-term prognosis in these patients.

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists’ perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours.

Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education.

Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling.

Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.