The contemporary landscape of genetic testing and breast cancer: Emerging issues

Breast Cancer Germline Genetic Counseling and Testing for Populations of African Heritage Globally: A Scoping Review on Research, Practice, and Bioethical Considerations

PURPOSE

Despite the disproportionately high risk of breast cancer among women of African heritage, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing germline genetic testing and counseling (GT/C).

METHODS

This scoping review followed guidelines recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Published manuscripts from database inception through 2021 were sourced from PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCO, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Search terms were used to retrieve articles addressing (1) African heritage, (2) breast cancer, and (3) GT or GC. The screening involved abstract and title review and full-text review. Data were extracted for all articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 154 studies were included. Most studies that took place were conducted in the United States (71.4%), and most first authors (76.9%) were from the United States. GT was conducted in 73 (49.7%) studies. BRCA1/BRCA2 were the most commonly studied genes for germline mutations. GC was conducted in 49 studies (33.3%), and perspectives on GC were evaluated in 43 (29.3%). The use of racial/ethnic categories varied broadly, although African American was most common (40.1%). Racism was mentioned in three studies (2.0%).

CONCLUSION

There is a growing body of literature on GT/C for breast cancer in women of African heritage. Future studies on GT/C of African populations should consider increased clarity around racial/ethnic categorizations, continued community engagement, and intentional processes for informed consent.

Connecting the dots: Carrier screening and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To highlight the possibility of genetic discrimination in the United States with respect to carrier screening under limitations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and to encourage providers to educate patients about this possibility during pretest counseling.

METHODS

Review of current professional guidelines and practice resources regarding the necessary components of pretest counseling for carrier screening in the context of GINA's limitations and the potential impact of carrier screening results on life, long-term care and disability insurance.

RESULTS

Current practice resources advise that patients in the United States should be informed that their employer or health insurance company generally cannot use their genetic information during the underwriting process. However, these resources do not elaborate on GINA's limitations or explain why there may be adverse consequences to patients regarding these limitations. Studies have demonstrated significant gaps in provider knowledge of GINA, especially for those without formal genetic training.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced education and provision of GINA educational resources for providers and patients will help ensure that patients have the opportunity to prioritize their insurance needs prior to undergoing carrier screening.

Is It Time to Expand Our Definition of "Clinical Utility"?

Currently, genetic tests that predict cancer risk or risk of recurrence in patients who have had their cancer treated with curative intent must have proven "clinical utility" to be recommended by the organizations responsible for publishing the standard-of-care guidelines for cancer care.Based on the current definition of clinical utility, most patients are denied testing for cancer-predisposing genes or pathogenic germline variants even though germline testing has been proven as highly accurate in identifying pathogenic germline variant carriers, there are measures recommended to prevent and diagnose early cancers associated with particular PGVs, and disparities in patient access to genetic tests are well described.Similarly, despite dozens of studies demonstrating that detected circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after curative intention therapy of different cancer types is a highly accurate biomarker that predicts recurrence, the major organizations that publish guidelines for cancer monitoring after curative intention therapy recommend against using ctDNA assays to detect minimal residual disease and thereby predict recurrence for all solid tumor malignancies.Here, the primary reasons that these genetic tests are considered to lack proven clinical utility and the primary evidence suggesting that a broader definition of clinical utility should be considered are discussed. By expanding the definition of clinical utility, many patients will benefit from the information gained from having these genetic tests.

Training courses on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to strengthen cross-sectoral care in underserved areas

OBJECTIVE

To strengthen cross-sectoral care by disseminating specialized knowledge about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer across underserved areas.

METHODS

We report on a training course about genetic counseling and testing of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients for gynecologists from certified cancer centers. In total, 50 gynecologists attended the course which was offered once annually between 2017 and 2019. Before and after the course, participants were asked to answer a self-assessment questionnaire and completed the training with a multiple-choice test. The results of the self-assessments and knowledge tests were analyzed to steadily improve the training.

RESULTS

The self-assessments imply a perceived increase in certainty regarding the inclusion criteria for specialized genetic counseling, pedigree analysis, and contents of the initial consultation. Both the knowledge tests and self-assessments showed that participants had difficulties in interpreting and differentiating between age-specific and lifetime risks.

CONCLUSION

The courses successfully conveyed knowledge necessary to identify patients at risk and to provide timely genetic analyses even in rural areas.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The results are a promising basis for creating additional training courses addressing specialists in hospitals and gynecological practices. Further education of physicians might improve cross-sectoral cooperation and thereby enable specialized care supply in rural areas.

A Case-Based Approach to Understanding Complex Genetic Information in an Evolving Landscape

The rapid integration of highly sensitive next-generation sequencing technologies into clinical oncology care has led to unparalleled progress, and yet these technological advances have also made genetic information considerably more complex. For instance, accurate interpretation of genetic testing for germline/inherited cancer predisposition syndromes and somatic/acquired pathogenic variants now requires a more nuanced understanding of the presence and incidence of clonal hematopoiesis and circulating tumor cells, with careful evaluation of pathogenic variants occurring at low variant allele frequency required. The interplay between somatic and germline pathogenic variants and awareness of distinct genotype-phenotype manifestations in various inherited cancer syndromes are now increasingly appreciated and can impact patient management. Through a case-based approach, we focus on three areas of particular relevance to the treating clinician oncologist: (1) understanding clonal hematopoiesis and somatic mosaicism, which can be detected on germline sequencing and lead to considerable confusion in clinical interpretation; (2) implications of the detection of a potentially germline pathogenic variant in a high-penetrance cancer susceptibility gene during routine tumor testing; and (3) a review of gene-specific risks and surveillance recommendations in Lynch syndrome. A discussion on the availability and difficulties often associated with direct-to-consumer genetic testing is also provided.

BRCA testing and outcomes in women with breast cancer

MAIN PURPOSE

Germline BRCA mutations (BRCAm) strongly influence the risk of developing breast cancer. This study aimed to understand the role of BRCAm testing in affected individuals and to assess its impact on the outcome of BRCAm carriers compared to non-carriers (BRCAwt) with breast cancer.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The research question is "Does standard of care testing for BRCAm improve survival outcomes of breast cancer patients?"

METHODS

In a single institution observational cohort study, demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between breast cancer patients with and without BRCAm. Frequency of BRCA testing was assessed. Survival outcomes were assessed by initial treatment setting stratified by BRCA status.

RESULTS

Of 5712 identified women with breast cancer, 14.6% (n = 835) were tested for a BRCA mutation and had a documented result. The total number and proportion of women tested for a BRCAm increased between 2000 and 2014, resulting in an increased number of BRCAm carriers identified. However, the proportion of women who underwent testing and had a BRCAm decreased during the study period from 27.5% in 2000-2004 to 13.3% in 2010-2014. Disease-free survival was similar in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment settings between BRCAm and BRCAwt patients. Progression-free survival on first line treatment and overall survival for patients with metastatic disease was also similar between BRCAm and BRCAwt patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of women tested and the number of BRCAm identified increased during the study period despite a decreasing proportion of positive results among women tested.