1
|
Siegel JB, Bertolino M, Mukherjee R, Meeder K, Hughes KS, Abbott AM. Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling. Ann Surg Oncol 2024; 31:5197-5204. [PMID: 38811498 PMCID: PMC11236839 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15434-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 04/24/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Currently, racial disparities exist in access to genetic testing. Recent developments have helped narrow the gap in accessibility. The purpose of this study was to determine whether racial disparities in genetic consultation attendance and completion of genetic testing persist, and, if so, factors that contribute to under-utilization of these resources. METHODS A single-institution retrospective review of breast patients referred for genetic counseling between 2017 and 2019 was performed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with genetic counseling attendance and genetic testing. RESULTS A total of 596 patients were referred for genetic counseling: 433 (72.7%) white; 138 (23.2%) black; and 25 (4.2%) other or unknown. In multivariate analysis, black patients, patients without breast cancer family history, and patients without a current cancer diagnosis, classified as high risk, were significantly less likely to attend their genetics appointment (p = 0.010, p = 0.007, p = 0.005, respectively). Age, insurance type, distance from facility, and need for chemotherapy did not significantly impact consult completion rate. Of the patients who completed a genetic consult, 84.4% (n = 248) had genetic testing and 17.7% (n = 44) had a pathogenic variant. For patients who attended counseling, there were no significant factors that were predictive with receipt of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS In this study, there was a significant association between race and attending genetic counseling. Once counseled, most patients went on to receive genetic testing, and racial disparities in testing disappeared, emphasizing the value of providing additional education about the importance and purpose of genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie B Siegel
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
| | - Melanie Bertolino
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Rupak Mukherjee
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Kiersten Meeder
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Kevin S Hughes
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Andrea M Abbott
- Department of Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Espinoza-Moya ME, Guertin JR, Floret A, Dorval M, Lapointe J, Chiquette J, Bouchard K, Nabi H, Laberge M. Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 199:104364. [PMID: 38729319 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104364] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2024] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria-Eugenia Espinoza-Moya
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Jason Robert Guertin
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Arthur Floret
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Centre de Recherche CISSS Chaudière-Appalaches, 143 Rue Wolfe, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada; Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, 1050 Av de la Médecine, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Julie Lapointe
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Centre des maladies du sein, CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Karine Bouchard
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Maude Laberge
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, Chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; Vitam, Centre de recherche en santé durable, Université Laval, 2525, Chemin de la Canardière, Québec, QC G1J 0A4, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Barili V, Ambrosini E, Bortesi B, Minari R, De Sensi E, Cannizzaro IR, Taiani A, Michiara M, Sikokis A, Boggiani D, Tommasi C, Serra O, Bonatti F, Adorni A, Luberto A, Caggiati P, Martorana D, Uliana V, Percesepe A, Musolino A, Pellegrino B. Genetic Basis of Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Approaches and Lessons Learnt from Three Decades of Inherited Predisposition Testing. Genes (Basel) 2024; 15:219. [PMID: 38397209 PMCID: PMC10888198 DOI: 10.3390/genes15020219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2023] [Revised: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024] Open
Abstract
Germline variants occurring in BRCA1 and BRCA2 give rise to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome, predisposing to breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers marked by elevated incidences of genomic aberrations that correspond to poor prognoses. These genes are in fact involved in genetic integrity, particularly in the process of homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair, a high-fidelity repair system for mending DNA double-strand breaks. In addition to its implication in HBOC pathogenesis, the impairment of HR has become a prime target for therapeutic intervention utilizing poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. In the present review, we introduce the molecular roles of HR orchestrated by BRCA1 and BRCA2 within the framework of sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. We examine the genetic architecture underneath breast and ovarian cancer ranging from high- and mid- to low-penetrant predisposing genes and taking into account both germline and somatic variations. Finally, we consider higher levels of complexity of the genomic landscape such as polygenic risk scores and other approaches aiming to optimize therapeutic and preventive strategies for breast and ovarian cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valeria Barili
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Enrico Ambrosini
- Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Beatrice Bortesi
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Roberta Minari
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Erika De Sensi
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | | | - Antonietta Taiani
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Maria Michiara
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Angelica Sikokis
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Daniela Boggiani
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Chiara Tommasi
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Olga Serra
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Francesco Bonatti
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Alessia Adorni
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Anita Luberto
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | | | - Davide Martorana
- Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Vera Uliana
- Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Antonio Percesepe
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Antonino Musolino
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| | - Benedetta Pellegrino
- Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
- Breast Unit, University Hospital of Parma, 43126 Parma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gressel GM, Frey MK, Norquist B, Senter L, Blank SV, Urban RR. Germline and somatic testing for ovarian Cancer: An SGO clinical practice statement. Gynecol Oncol 2024; 181:170-178. [PMID: 38215513 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.12.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2023] [Revised: 12/09/2023] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/14/2024]
Abstract
Germline and somatic genetic testing have become critical components of care for people with ovarian cancer. The identification of germline and somatic pathogenic variants as well as homologous recombination deficiency can contribute to the prediction of treatment response, prognostic outcome, and suitability for targeted agents (e.g. poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors). Furthermore, identifying germline pathogenic variants can prompt cascade genetic testing for at-risk relatives. Despite the clinical benefits and consensus recommendations from several organizations calling for universal genetic testing in ovarian cancer, only about one third of patients complete germline or somatic genetic testing. The members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice Committee have composed this statement to provide an overview of germline and somatic genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, focusing on available testing modalities and options for care delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G M Gressel
- Corewell Health Cancer Center, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Michigan State University- College of Human Medicine, United States.
| | - M K Frey
- Weill Cornell Medicine, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, United States
| | - B Norquist
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, United States
| | - L Senter
- The Ohio State University, Comprehensive Cancer Center,United States
| | - S V Blank
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States
| | - R R Urban
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, United States
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Chipoulet E, Collet G, Couderc B. [The role of physicians in patient and family adherence to genetic testing]. Bull Cancer 2023; 110:1002-1014. [PMID: 37532643 DOI: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2023.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION More and more French cancer patients are offered by their physicians having their genetic characteristics analyzed (diagnosis, adaptation of treatment plans, etc.). In oncology, considering the development of personalized medicine, these analyses are commonplace. Analyses of germline (hereditary) genetic characteristics require information from patients who must sign an informed consent (article 16.10 of the Civil Code and articles L. 1131-3 and L. 1122-1-1 of the Public Health Code). However, prescribing physicians are rarely geneticists and have little training in genetics. Patients report that few are able to answer their questions and often sign a consent that is not truly informed. METHODS To identify the genetic knowledge and training needs of prescribers, we conducted an online survey of physicians prescribing genetic testing in oncology between January and March 2020. The survey consisted of 17 closed questions and 3 open questions. RESULTS We obtained 35 usable questionnaires which show that 50% of the prescribing physicians questioned lack knowledge of genetics, but do not express a need for training. They were interested in the provision of a digital teaching aid for patients. DISCUSSION We have therefore made a film for patients, available in free access, which aims to shed light on the analysis of genetic characteristics. The film helps physicians to explain the offered analyses and their consequences (https://youtu.be/5lWUSsteavs).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Bettina Couderc
- IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France; Université Toulouse 3, UMR 1295 Inserm, Toulouse, France.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Marjon N, Guerra R, Freeman A, Mak J, Cheung S, Gordon K, Blanco A, Ueda S, Chen LM. Same day service: A genetic testing station model to improve germline genetic testing in patients with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2023; 177:53-59. [PMID: 37639903 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2023] [Revised: 07/24/2023] [Accepted: 07/28/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Genetic testing for ovarian cancer (OC) patients is essential to consideration of PARP inhibitor therapy. To improve access, we piloted a Genetic Testing Station (GTS) allowing patients to have a same-day genetic testing visit facilitated by Genetic Counselor Assistants (GCAs) under the supervision of Genetic Counselors (GCs). METHODS The GTS was implemented December 2018 and operated through February 2020. Gynecologic Oncologists offered ovarian cancer patients a same-day GTS visit with a GCA. The patient received education via videos designed by GCs and then provided consent, a brief family history, and a sample for a standardized 133-gene panel. Results were provided by a GC. Patients were retrospectively identified by querying the medical record for OC patients seen 12 months prior to and 18 months after GTS implementation. RESULTS A total of 482 patients pre-GTS were compared to 625 patients post-GTS. Genetic testing increased from 68.5% to 75.4% (p = 0.012) after implementation, primarily in patients with epithelial histologies (80% vs 89% in pre-GTS vs post-GTS, p = 0.005). Time from referral for genetic testing to obtaining results was evaluated in the post-GTS cohort, comparing patients who had traditional counseling to those who utilized the GTS. Time to obtaining results was 21 days in the GTS group (95% CI [10, 34]) compared to 56 days (95% CI [41,76]) in the traditional genetic counseling group. CONCLUSIONS The GTS reduces barriers to care and facilitates discussion of precision treatment within a timely fashion while optimizing GC clinic time. Access improvement remains integral to improving uptake of genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Marjon
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecoloigc Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
| | - Rosa Guerra
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecoloigc Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| | - Alexandra Freeman
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecoloigc Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| | - Julie Mak
- Department Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA
| | - Stephanie Cheung
- Department Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA
| | - Kelly Gordon
- Department Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA
| | - Amie Blanco
- Department Cancer Genetics and Prevention, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA
| | - Stefanie Ueda
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecoloigc Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| | - Lee-May Chen
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecoloigc Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Innella G, Godino L, Erini G, De Leo A, Santini D, Perrone AM, De Iaco P, Zamagni C, Turchetti D. Factors predicting BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Clin Pathol 2023; 76:510-517. [PMID: 37221047 DOI: 10.1136/jcp-2022-208753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
AIM To provide accurate figures of the frequency of specific clinical features in ovarian cancer (OC) associated with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and to define their relevance in predicting the presence of a germline pathogenic variant in these genes. METHODS A systematic review of papers published from 1995 to February 2022 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data from eligible papers were synthesised through meta-analysis. RESULTS Thirty-seven papers were reviewed, including a total of 12 886 patients with OC. Among BRCA carriers, 86.4% displayed serous type, 83.3% high grade (G3), 83.7% FIGO (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage III/IV, 39.7% age at diagnosis ≤50 years and 18.1% personal breast cancer history, while the frequency of these features in non-carriers resulted significantly lower (p<0.001). The meta-analysis showed that the strongest predictor of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants was a personal breast cancer history (OR 5.21, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.55, compared with no previous breast cancer), followed by high grade (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.97 to 3.10, compared with low/intermediate grade), serous histotype (OR 2.33, 95% CI 2.07 to 2.64, compared with other histotypes), advanced (III/IV) FIGO stage (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.15, compared with stage I/II) and age at diagnosis ≤50 years (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42, compared with >50 years). CONCLUSION The results of this meta-analysis provide data on features increasing the prior probability of finding BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants that may prove helpful in counselling patients and prioritising testing. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42021271815.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Innella
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Medical Genetics Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Lea Godino
- Medical Genetics Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Giulia Erini
- Medical Genetics Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Antonio De Leo
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Solid Tumor Molecular Pathology Laboratory, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Donatella Santini
- Department of Pathology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Anna Myriam Perrone
- Medical Genetics Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Division of Oncologic Gynecology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Pierandrea De Iaco
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Division of Oncologic Gynecology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Claudio Zamagni
- IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Daniela Turchetti
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Medical Genetics Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
McVeigh TP, Sweeney KJ, Brennan DJ, McVeigh UM, Ward S, Strydom A, Seal S, Astbury K, Donnellan P, Higgins J, Keane M, Kerin MJ, Malone C, McGough P, McLaughlin R, O'Leary M, Rushe M, Barry MK, MacGregor G, Sugrue M, Yousif A, Al-Azawi D, Berkeley E, Boyle TJ, Connolly EM, Nolan C, Richardson E, Giffney C, Doyle SB, Broderick S, Boyd W, McVey R, Walsh T, Farrell M, Gallagher DJ, Rahman N, George AJ. A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland. Fam Cancer 2023; 22:135-149. [PMID: 36029389 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-022-00313-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101 patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Terri Patricia McVeigh
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | - Karl J Sweeney
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Donal J Brennan
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- The National Maternity Hospital, Holles St, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Simon Ward
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | | | - Katherine Astbury
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Paul Donnellan
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Joanne Higgins
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Maccon Keane
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Michael J Kerin
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
- National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
| | - Carmel Malone
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
- National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
| | - Pauline McGough
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Ray McLaughlin
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Michael O'Leary
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Margaret Rushe
- Saolta Health Care Group, Galway University Hospital, Galway, Ireland
| | - Michael Kevin Barry
- Saolta Health Care Group, Mayo University Hospital, Co Mayo, Castlebar, Ireland
| | - Geraldine MacGregor
- Saolta University Health Care Group, Letterkenny University Hospital, Co Donegal, Letterkenny, Ireland
| | - Michael Sugrue
- Saolta University Health Care Group, Letterkenny University Hospital, Co Donegal, Letterkenny, Ireland
| | - Ala Yousif
- Saolta University Hospital Group, Sligo University Hospital, Sligo, Ireland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - William Boyd
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Ruaidhri McVey
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Thomas Walsh
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - David J Gallagher
- St James's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Angela J George
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Srinivasa S, Bowman M, Titterton L, Harnett P, Brand A, Kirk J, Ragunathan A. Mainstream genetic testing for high-grade ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers: A tertiary referral centre experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2023; 63:241-246. [PMID: 36785489 DOI: 10.1111/ajo.13650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fifteen percent of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal (OTP) invasive epithelial cancers are linked to an underlying heritable pathogenic variant (PV) in the BRCA1/2 cancer susceptibility genes. Identifying a PV has management implications for an affected individual and relatives. Cancer team-facilitated genetic testing (mainstreaming) aims to provide equitable systematic access to genetic testing for appropriate patients. AIM To evaluate a multi-disciplinary team (MDT)-led mainstream germline genetic testing program for OTP cancer at a tertiary referral centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of our MDT-led mainstream genetic testing program initiated in June 2017. We included all patients diagnosed with OTP cancer registered with the hospital gynaecological oncology MDT from program initiation to December 2020. Patients were considered eligible for testing if they were diagnosed with a high-grade epithelial OTP AND ≤70 years, OR if >70 with a first/second degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer OR Jewish ancestry. RESULTS Of 205 women diagnosed with high-grade epithelial OTP cancer, 140 were eligible for mainstreaming. Eight-five percent were mainstreamed, with the gynae-oncologists facilitating 64.5% of tests. The overall PV detection rate in BRCA1/2 was 10.1% (BRCA1 n = 9, BRCA2 n = 3). The median turnaround time (TAT) was 44.5 days (range 16-118). All women with PV were referred to the Familial Cancer Service for further assessment and five (of six eligible; 83%) were subsequently treated with polyadenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitors. Cascade testing was undertaken in 75% of families with a mean of three relatives tested per proband. CONCLUSION Mainstreamed genetic testing is feasible, with an acceptable TAT, ensuring adequate opportunity to inform treatment decisions. Tumour testing and inclusion of moderate-risk cancer predisposition genes in mainstreaming represent potential pathways that will require further exploration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shweta Srinivasa
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michelle Bowman
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Leanna Titterton
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Paul Harnett
- Department of Medical Oncology, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Alison Brand
- University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Department of Gynaeoncology, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Judy Kirk
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Abiramy Ragunathan
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Morgan RD, Burghel GJ, Flaum N, Bulman M, Smith P, Clamp AR, Hasan J, Mitchell CL, Salih Z, Woodward ER, Lalloo F, Crosbie EJ, Edmondson RJ, Schlecht H, Jayson GC, Evans DGR. Is Reflex Germline BRCA1/2 Testing Necessary in Women Diagnosed with Non-Mucinous High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Aged 80 Years or Older? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:730. [PMID: 36765687 PMCID: PMC9913244 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Revised: 01/21/2023] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in England are often reflex-tested for germline and tumour BRCA1/2 variants. The value of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women diagnosed aged ≥80 is questionable. We performed an observational study of all women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC who underwent germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing by the North West of England Genomic Laboratory Hub. A subgroup of women also underwent germline testing using a panel of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and/or tumour testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) using Myriad's myChoice® companion diagnostic. Seven-hundred-two patients successfully underwent both germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing. Of these, 48 were diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80. In this age group, somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) were detected nine times more often than germline BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs. The only germline PV reported in a patient aged ≥80 was detected in germline and tumour DNA (BRCA2 c.4478_4481del). No patient aged ≥80 had a germline PV/LPVs in a non-BRCA1/2 HRR gene. Thirty-eight percent of patients aged ≥80 had a tumour positive for HRD. Our data suggest that tumour BRCA1/2 and HRD testing is adequate for patients diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80, with germline BRCA1/2 testing reserved for women with a tumour BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert D. Morgan
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - George J. Burghel
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Nicola Flaum
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Michael Bulman
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Philip Smith
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Andrew R. Clamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Jurjees Hasan
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Claire L. Mitchell
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Zena Salih
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Emma R. Woodward
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Fiona Lalloo
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Emma J. Crosbie
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Richard J. Edmondson
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Helene Schlecht
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Gordon C. Jayson
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - D. Gareth R. Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Vlaming M, Bleiker EMA, van Oort IM, Kiemeney LALM, Ausems MGEM. Mainstream germline genetic testing in men with metastatic prostate cancer: design and protocol for a multicenter observational study. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:1365. [PMID: 36581909 PMCID: PMC9801568 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10429-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In international guidelines, germline genetic testing is recommended for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Before undergoing germline genetic testing, these patients should receive pre-test counseling. In the standard genetic care pathway, pre-test counseling is provided by a healthcare professional of a genetics department. Because the number of patients with metastatic prostate cancer is large, the capacity in the genetics departments might be insufficient. Therefore, we aim to implement so-called mainstream genetic testing in the Netherlands for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, non-genetic healthcare professionals discuss and order germline genetic testing. In our DISCOVER study, we will assess the experiences among patients and non-genetic healthcare professionals with this new pathway. METHODS A multicenter prospective observational cohort study will be conducted in 15 hospitals, in different regions of the Netherlands. We developed an online training module on genetics in prostate cancer and the counseling of patients. After completion of this module, non-genetic healthcare professionals will provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Both non-genetic healthcare professionals and patients receive three questionnaires. We will determine the experience with mainstream genetic testing, based on satisfaction and acceptability. Patients with a pathogenic germline variant will also be interviewed. We will determine the efficacy of the mainstreaming pathway, based on time investment for non-genetic healthcare professionals and the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants. DISCUSSION This study is intended to be one of the largest studies on mainstream genetic testing in prostate cancer. The results of this study can improve the mainstream genetic testing pathway in patients with prostate cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION The study is registered in the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under number NL9617.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michiel Vlaming
- grid.7692.a0000000090126352Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, dept. of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline M. A. Bleiker
- grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands ,grid.10419.3d0000000089452978Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands ,grid.430814.a0000 0001 0674 1393Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Inge M. van Oort
- grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Department of Urology, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Lambertus A. L. M. Kiemeney
- grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Department of Urology, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands ,grid.10417.330000 0004 0444 9382Department for Health Evidence, Radboud university medical center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 21, 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Margreet G. E. M. Ausems
- grid.7692.a0000000090126352Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, dept. of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Primiero CA, Finnane A, Yanes T, Peach B, Soyer HP, McInerney-Leo AM. Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0275926. [PMID: 36477719 PMCID: PMC9728910 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275926] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Genetic testing for hereditary cancers can improve long-term health outcomes through identifying high-risk individuals and facilitating targeted prevention and screening/surveillance. The rising demand for genetic testing exceeds the clinical genetic workforce capacity. Therefore, non-genetic specialists need to be empowered to offer genetic testing. However, it is unknown whether patient outcomes differ depending on whether genetic testing is offered by a genetics specialist or a trained non-genetics clinician. This paper describes a protocol for upskilling non-genetics clinicians to provide genetic testing, randomise high-risk individuals to receive testing from a trained clinician or a genetic counsellor, and then determine whether patient outcomes differed depending on provider-type. METHODS An experiential training program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to offer genetic testing for familial melanoma is being piloted on 10-15 clinicians, prior to wider implementation. Training involves a workshop, comprised of a didactic learning presentation, case studies, simulated sessions, and provision of supporting documentation. Clinicians later observe a genetic counsellor led consultation before being observed leading a consultation. Both sessions are followed by debriefing with a genetic counsellor. Thereafter, clinicians independently offer genetic testing in the clinical trial. Individuals with a strong personal and/or family history of melanoma are recruited to a parallel-group trial and allocated to receive pre- and post- genetic testing consultation from a genetic counsellor, or a dermatologically-trained clinician. A mixed method approach measures psychosocial and behavioural outcomes. Longitudinal online surveys are administered at five timepoints from baseline to one year post-test disclosure. Semi-structured interviews with both patients and clinicians are qualitatively analysed. SIGNIFICANCE This is the first program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to provide genetic testing for familial melanoma. This protocol describes the first clinical trial to compare patient-reported outcomes of genetic testing based on provider type (genetic counsellors vs trained non-genetic clinicians).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare A. Primiero
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Anna Finnane
- The University of Queensland, School of Public Health, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Betsy Peach
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
| | - H. Peter Soyer
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
- Department of Dermatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Aideen M. McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hanson H, Kulkarni A, Loong L, Kavanaugh G, Torr B, Allen S, Ahmed M, Antoniou AC, Cleaver R, Dabir T, Evans DG, Golightly E, Jewell R, Kohut K, Manchanda R, Murray A, Murray J, Ong KR, Rosenthal AN, Woodward ER, Eccles DM, Turnbull C, Tischkowitz M, Lalloo F. UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2. J Med Genet 2022; 60:417-429. [PMID: 36411032 PMCID: PMC10176381 DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Hanson
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Anjana Kulkarni
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Lucy Loong
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Grace Kavanaugh
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Bethany Torr
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Sophie Allen
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ruth Cleaver
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - Tabib Dabir
- Northern Ireland Regional Genetics Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Ellen Golightly
- Lothian Menopause Service, Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Rosalyn Jewell
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Kelly Kohut
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Murray
- All Wales Medical Genomics Services, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Jennie Murray
- South East Scotland Clinical Genetics Service, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Kai-Ren Ong
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam N Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Roisin Woodward
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Diana M Eccles
- Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Fiona Lalloo
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Primiero CA, Baker AM, Wallingford CK, Maas EJ, Yanes T, Fowles L, Janda M, Young MA, Nisselle A, Terrill B, Lodge JM, Tiller JM, Lacaze P, Andersen H, McErlean G, Turbitt E, Soyer HP, McInerney-Leo AM. Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma. Front Genet 2022; 13:919134. [PMID: 36353112 PMCID: PMC9638172 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.919134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clare A. Primiero
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Amy M. Baker
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Courtney K. Wallingford
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Ellie J. Maas
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Lindsay Fowles
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Monika Janda
- Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Mary-Anne Young
- Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Amy Nisselle
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Bronwyn Terrill
- Kinghorn Centre for Clinical Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jason M. Lodge
- School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Jane M. Tiller
- Public Health Genomics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul Lacaze
- Public Health Genomics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Hayley Andersen
- Melanoma and Skin Cancer Advocacy Network, Carlton, VIC, Australia
| | - Gemma McErlean
- SWS Nursing and Midwifery Research Alliance, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- School of Nursing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
| | - Erin Turbitt
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - H. Peter Soyer
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Department of Dermatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Aideen M. McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- *Correspondence: Aideen M. McInerney-Leo,
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Sadinsky MB, Power J, Ambrosio E, Palma L, Zeng X, Foulkes WD, Weber E. Patient Experience with a Gynecologic Oncology-Initiated Genetic Testing Model for Women with Tubo-Ovarian Cancer. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:3565-3575. [PMID: 35621678 PMCID: PMC9139592 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29050288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2022] [Revised: 04/22/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Up to 20% of women diagnosed with tubo-ovarian carcinoma carry a germline pathogenic variant in a cancer-predisposing gene (e.g., BRCA1/BRCA2). Identifying these variants can help to inform eligibility for therapies, guide surveillance and prevention of new primary cancers, and assess risk to family members. The Gynecologic Oncology-Initiated Genetic Testing Model (GOIGT) was initiated at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) to streamline universal germline genetic testing for this population, while addressing the limited resources in the public healthcare system. This study aimed to evaluate the patient experience of participating in this model. Methods: Study participants were patients diagnosed with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial tubo-ovarian cancer who underwent genetic testing through the GOIGT model between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. Eligible participants completed the retrospective questionnaires at least one month after result disclosure. Results: A total of 126 patients were tested through the GOIGT model during the study period, of which 56 were invited to participate. Thirty-four participants returned the study questionnaire. Overall, participants did not report decision regret following the genetic testing and were satisfied with the GOIGT model. Participants reported low levels of uncertainty and distress related to the implications of their test results for themselves and their family members. Conclusions: The results of this study support the continued implementation of mainstreamed genetic testing models for women with high-grade non-mucinous tubo-ovarian cancer. Further studies are required to compare experiences for patients with different genetic test results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michaela Bercovitch Sadinsky
- Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A0C7, Canada; (L.P.); (W.D.F.); (E.W.)
- Division of Medical Genetics, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T1E2, Canada
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-438-401-8300
| | - Joanne Power
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada; (J.P.); (E.A.); (X.Z.)
| | - Enza Ambrosio
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada; (J.P.); (E.A.); (X.Z.)
| | - Laura Palma
- Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A0C7, Canada; (L.P.); (W.D.F.); (E.W.)
- Division of Medical Genetics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada
| | - Xing Zeng
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada; (J.P.); (E.A.); (X.Z.)
| | - William D. Foulkes
- Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A0C7, Canada; (L.P.); (W.D.F.); (E.W.)
- Division of Medical Genetics, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T1E2, Canada
- Division of Medical Genetics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada
- Department of Specialized Medicine, Lady David Institute, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3T1E2, Canada
- Cancer Research Program, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada
| | - Evan Weber
- Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A0C7, Canada; (L.P.); (W.D.F.); (E.W.)
- Division of Medical Genetics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A3J1, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Bokkers K, Vlaming M, Engelhardt EG, Zweemer RP, van Oort IM, Kiemeney LALM, Bleiker EMA, Ausems MGEM. The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14041059. [PMID: 35205807 PMCID: PMC8870548 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14041059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2022] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/17/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability. Abstract Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyra Bokkers
- Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands; (K.B.); (M.V.)
| | - Michiel Vlaming
- Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands; (K.B.); (M.V.)
| | - Ellen G. Engelhardt
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (E.G.E.); (E.M.A.B.)
| | - Ronald P. Zweemer
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands;
| | - Inge M. van Oort
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (I.M.v.O.); (L.A.L.M.K.)
| | - Lambertus A. L. M. Kiemeney
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands; (I.M.v.O.); (L.A.L.M.K.)
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 21, 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Eveline M. A. Bleiker
- Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; (E.G.E.); (E.M.A.B.)
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Margreet G. E. M. Ausems
- Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands; (K.B.); (M.V.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +31-88-75-538-00
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Rahman B, McEwen A, Phillips JL, Tucker K, Goldstein D, Jacobs C. Genetic and genomic learning needs of oncologists and oncology nurses in the era of precision medicine: a scoping review. Per Med 2022; 19:139-153. [PMID: 35060769 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2021-0096] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Genetic and genomic data are increasingly guiding clinical care for cancer patients. To meet the growing demand for precision medicine, patient-facing oncology staff will be a part of leading the provision of genomic testing. A scoping review was undertaken to identify the range of genetic and genomic learning needs of oncologists and oncology nurses. Learning needs were reported relating to interpretation of genomic data, clinical decision-making, patient communication and counseling, and fundamentals of genetics and genomics. There was a lack of empirical research specific to oncology nurses and their learning needs in tumor sequencing. Our findings suggest that oncologists and oncology nurses need tailored support, education and training to improve their confidence and skills in adopting genomic testing into clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Belinda Rahman
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Alison McEwen
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jane L Phillips
- School of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Australia.,IMPACCT, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Katherine Tucker
- Hereditary Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia.,Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
| | - David Goldstein
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
| | - Chris Jacobs
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Czekalski MA, Huziak RC, Durst AL, Taylor S, Mai PL. Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer by Oncology Providers: A Survey of Current Practice. JCO Precis Oncol 2022; 6:e2100409. [PMID: 35025618 DOI: 10.1200/po.21.00409] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE With limitations in early detection and poor treatment response, ovarian cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Up to 25% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is related to a hereditary predisposition. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EOC be offered germline genetic testing. Although this would ideally be performed by genetics professionals, a shortage of genetic counselors can affect timely access to these services. This study sought to investigate the current genetic testing practices of oncology providers to determine the feasibility of oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC. METHODS A survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists with questions regarding timing, frequency, and type of cancer genetic testing, referrals to genetics professionals, confidence with aspects of genetic testing, and any barriers to these processes. RESULTS We received 170 evaluable responses. Eighty-five percent of providers always ordered genetic testing for patients with EOC. Most providers ordered germline multigene panel testing (95.8%), generally at diagnosis (64.5%). Provider confidence with the genetic testing process was generally high and significantly differed by providers' testing practices, namely, respondents who reported always ordering genetic testing tended to be more confident in ordering testing (P = .008), interpreting results (P = .005), and counseling a patient (P = .002). Patient disinterest and concerns for insurance coverage were commonly cited as barriers to testing and referrals. CONCLUSION The findings from this study suggest that oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC, with referrals to genetics professionals when appropriate, has the potential to be a viable alternative service delivery model to increase access to genetic testing for patients diagnosed with EOC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Megan A Czekalski
- Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Megan A. Czekalski is currently at Department of Pediatric Genetics, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Andrea L Durst
- Department of Human Genetics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Megan A. Czekalski is currently at Department of Pediatric Genetics, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD
| | - Sarah Taylor
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Phuong L Mai
- Center for Clinical Genetics and Genomics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
De Pauw A. Les nouvelles évolutions de l’oncogénétique en 2022. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGIE 2022. [DOI: 10.3166/pson-2021-0171] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
L’oncogénétique est une spécialité de la génétique médicale en perpétuelle évolution. Mais de grands bouleversements ont eu lieu ces dernières années d’une part avec l’arrivée des PARPi dans le traitement du cancer. Ces thérapies ciblées peuvent être proposées à des patients porteurs d’altérations dans des gènes de prédisposition au cancer. La nécessité d’identifier ces patients, pour les informer des enjeux d’un test constitutionnel, a provoqué une réorganisation des consultations et des laboratoires avec la mise en place de nouveaux circuits, urgents, de consultation et d’analyse. D’autre part, la possibilité de séquençage du génome tumoral va conduire à identifier des patients porteurs de variants pathogènes pouvant être en lien avec la maladie ou non, potentiellement d’origine constitutionnelle. Dans les deux cas, une information prétest des patients reste indispensable pour préparer ceux qui seraient concernés, avec leurs familles, par une prédisposition génétique au cancer.
Collapse
|
20
|
Hay E, Cullup T, Barnicoat A. A practical approach to the genomics of kidney disorders. Pediatr Nephrol 2022; 37:21-35. [PMID: 33675412 DOI: 10.1007/s00467-021-04995-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2020] [Revised: 01/30/2021] [Accepted: 02/09/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Rapid technological advances in genomic testing continue to increase our understanding of the genetic basis of a wide range of kidney disorders. Establishing a molecular diagnosis benefits the individual by bringing an end to what is often a protracted diagnostic odyssey, facilitates accurate reproductive counselling for families and, in the future, is likely to lead to the delivery of more targeted management and surveillance regimens. The selection of the most appropriate testing modality requires an understanding both of the technologies available and of the genetic architecture and heterogeneity of kidney disease. Whilst we are witnessing a far greater diagnostic yield with broader genetic testing, such approaches invariably generate variants of uncertain significance and secondary incidental findings, which are not only difficult to interpret but present ethical challenges with reporting and feeding back to patients and their families. Here, we review the spectrum of nephrogenetic disorders, consider the optimal approach to genetic testing, explore the clinical utility of obtaining a molecular diagnosis, reflect on the challenges of variant interpretation and look to the future of this dynamic field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eleanor Hay
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
| | - Thomas Cullup
- North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
| | - Angela Barnicoat
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in cancer predisposing genes: What are we learning from multigene panels? Eur J Med Genet 2021; 65:104400. [PMID: 34813939 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2021.104400] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Revised: 09/19/2021] [Accepted: 11/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
One of the main factors influencing the clinical utility of genetic tests for cancer predisposition is the ability to provide actionable classifications (ie pathogenic or benign). However, a large fraction of the variants identified in cancer predisposing genes (CPGs) are of uncertain significance (VUS), and cannot be used for clinical purposes either to identify individuals at risk or to drive treatment. Here we analyze the current status of VUS identification in a subset of 24 CPGs included by the American College of Medical Genetics/Association for Molecular Pathology in the list of genes that should be considered for the return of incidental findings. To this purpose we retrieved published literature using different search strings according to the frequency of the condition and we extracted corresponding data from ClinVar. The total number of VUS has not decreased with time, due to widespread multigene panel testing, and the relative yield of VUS compared to pathogenic variants is higher in more recent studies, which tend to involve series not selected for the presence of specific high risk criteria. In addition, only few studies adopt gene specific interpretation criteria when these are available. Despite the large yield of VUS associated with multigene testing, the data obtained from such studies can be very useful for variant classification, especially for those variants that are more likely to be benign, since these are expected to be detected more frequently in a population that does not show gene specific manifestations. In addition, wider use of gene specific interpretation criteria should be promoted in order to optimize the interpretation process.
Collapse
|
22
|
Elliott MD, James LC, Simms EL, Sharma P, Girard LP, Cheema K, Elliott MJ, Lauzon JL, Chun J. Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Adult Patients With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2021; 8:20543581211055001. [PMID: 34733539 PMCID: PMC8558595 DOI: 10.1177/20543581211055001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Genetic testing results are currently obtained approximately 1 year after referral to a medical genetics team for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). We evaluated a mainstream genetic testing (MGT) pathway whereby the nephrology team provided pre-test counseling and selection of patients with suspected ADPKD for genetic testing prior to direct patient interaction by a medical geneticist. SOURCES OF INFORMATION A multidisciplinary team of nephrologists, genetic counselors, and medical geneticists developed an MGT pathway for ADPKD using current testing criteria for adult patient with suspected ADPKD and literature from MGT in oncology. METHODS An MGT pathway was assessed using a prospective cohort and compared to a retrospective cohort of 56 patients with ADPKD who received genetic testing using the standard, traditional pathway prior to implementing the MGT for ADPKD. The mainstream pathway was evaluated using time to diagnosis, diagnostic yield, and a patient survey to assess patient perceptions of the MGT pathway. KEY FINDINGS We assessed 26 patients with ADPKD using the MGT and 18 underwent genetic testing with return of results. Of them, 52 patients had data available for analysis in the traditional control cohort. The time for return of results using our MGT pathway was significantly shorter with a median time to results of 6 months compared to 12 months for the traditional pathway. We identified causative variants in 61% of patients, variants of uncertain significance in 28%, and 10% had negative testing which is in line with expectations from the literature. The patient surveys showed high satisfaction rates with the MGT pathway. LIMITATIONS This report is an evaluation of a new genetic testing pathway restricted to a single, publicly funded health care center. The MGT pathway involved a prospective collection of a limited number of patients with ADPKD with comparison to a retrospective cohort of patients with ADPKD evaluated by standard testing. IMPLICATIONS A MGT pathway using clearly defined criteria and commercially available gene panels for ADPKD can be successfully implemented in a publicly funded health care system to reduce the time required to obtain genetic results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark D. Elliott
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Leslie C. James
- Department of Medical Genetics, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Emily L. Simms
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Priyana Sharma
- Department of Medical Genetics, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Louis P. Girard
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Kim Cheema
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Meghan J. Elliott
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Julie L. Lauzon
- Department of Medical Genetics, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
- Department of Medical Genetics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Justin Chun
- Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
- Snyder Institute for Chronic Diseases, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Witjes VM, van Bommel MHD, Ligtenberg MJL, Vos JR, Mourits MJE, Ausems MGEM, de Hullu JA, Bosse T, Hoogerbrugge N. Probability of detecting germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in histological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma. A meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 164:221-230. [PMID: 34702566 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.10.072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Histology restricted genetic predisposition testing of ovarian carcinoma patients is a topic of debate as the prevalence of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in various histological subtypes is ambiguous. Our primary aim was to investigate the proportion of germline BRCA1/2 PVs per histological subtype. Additionally, we evaluated (i) proportion of somatic BRCA1/2 PVs and (ii) proportion of germline PVs in other ovarian carcinoma risk genes. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were systematically searched and we included all studies reporting germline BRCA1/2 PVs per histological subtype. Pooled proportions were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Subsets of studies were used for secondary analyses. RESULTS Twenty-eight studies were identified. The overall estimated proportion of germline BRCA1/2 PVs was 16.8% (95% CI 14.6 to 19.2). Presence differed substantially among patients with varying histological subtypes of OC; proportions being highest in high-grade serous (22.2%, 95% CI 19.6 to 25.0) and lowest in clear cell (3.0%, 95% CI 1.6 to 5.6) and mucinous (2.5%, 95% CI 0.6 to 9.6) carcinomas. Somatic BRCA1/2 PVs were present with total estimated proportion of 6.0% (95% CI 5.0 to 7.3), based on a smaller subset of studies. Germline PVs in BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, PALB2, and ATM were present in approximately 3%, based on a subset of nine studies. CONCLUSION Germline BRCA1/2 PVs are most frequently identified in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma patients, but are also detected in patients having ovarian carcinomas of other histological subtypes. Limiting genetic predisposition testing to high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma patients will likely be insufficient to identify all patients with a germline PV.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vera M Witjes
- Department of Human Genetics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Majke H D van Bommel
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg
- Department of Human Genetics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Janet R Vos
- Department of Human Genetics, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Department of Genetics, Division Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Joanne A de Hullu
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Tjalling Bosse
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Nicoline Hoogerbrugge
- Department of Human Genetics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Frugtniet B, Morgan S, Murray A, Palmer-Smith S, White R, Jones R, Hanna L, Fuller C, Hudson E, Mullard A, Quinton AE. The detection of germline and somatic BRCA1/2 genetic variants through parallel testing of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a national retrospective audit. BJOG 2021; 129:433-442. [PMID: 34657373 PMCID: PMC9298909 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16975] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Revised: 08/11/2021] [Accepted: 09/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
Objective To determine the frequency of germline and somatic pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants in patients with high‐grade serous ovarian cancer tested by next‐generation sequencing (NGS), with the aim of defining the best strategy to be implemented in future routine testing. Design National retrospective audit. Setting The All Wales Medical Genomics Service (AWMGS). Population Patients with high‐grade serous ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer referred by oncologists to the AWMGS between February 2015 and February 2021 for germline and/or tumour testing of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes by NGS. Methods Analysis of NGS data from germline and/or tumour testing. Main outcome measures Frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Results The overall observed germline/somatic pathogenic variant detection rate was 11.6% in the 844 patients included in this study, with a 9.2% (73/791) germline pathogenic variant detection rate. Parallel tumour and germline testing was carried out for 169 patients and the overall pathogenic variant detection rate for this cohort was 14.8%, with 6.5% (11/169) shown to have a somatic pathogenic variant. Two BRCA1 dosage variants were found during germline screens, representing 2.0% (2/98) of patients with a pathogenic variant that would have been missed through tumour testing alone. Conclusions Parallel germline and tumour BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing maximises the detection of pathogenic variants in patients with high‐grade serous ovarian cancer. Tweetable abstract Parallel germline and tumour testing maximises BRCA pathogenic variant detection in ovarian cancer. Parallel germline and tumour testing maximises BRCA pathogenic variant detection in ovarian cancer. Linked article This article is commented on by C Gourley, p. 443 in this issue. To view this mini commentary visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16978.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Frugtniet
- All Wales Medical Genomics Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - S Morgan
- All Wales Medical Genomics Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - A Murray
- All Wales Medical Genomics Service, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - S Palmer-Smith
- All Wales Medical Genomics Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - R White
- All Wales Medical Genomics Laboratory, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - R Jones
- South West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Swansea, UK
| | - L Hanna
- Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| | - C Fuller
- Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK
| | - E Hudson
- Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| | - A Mullard
- Bwrdd Iechyd Prifysgol Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK
| | - A E Quinton
- Velindre Cancer Centre, Velindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Positive experiences of healthcare professionals with a mainstreaming approach of germline genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer. Fam Cancer 2021; 21:295-304. [PMID: 34617209 PMCID: PMC9203381 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-021-00277-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
According to current guidelines, all women with epithelial ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for BRCA germline pathogenic variants. Unfortunately, not all affected women are tested. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility for non-genetic healthcare professionals to incorporate germline genetic testing into their daily practice. We developed and implemented a mainstreaming pathway, including a training module, in collaboration with various healthcare professionals and patient organizations. Healthcare professionals from 4 different hospitals were invited to participate. After completing the training module, gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists with a subspecialty training in oncology, and nurse specialists discussed and ordered genetic testing themselves. They received a questionnaire before completing the training module and 6 months after working according to the new pathway. We assessed healthcare professionals’ attitudes, perceived knowledge, and self-efficacy, along with the feasibility of this new mainstream workflow in clinical practice, and evaluated the use and content of the training module. The participation rate for completing the training module was 90% (N = 19/21). At baseline and after 6 months, healthcare professionals had a positive attitude, high perceived knowledge and high self-efficacy toward discussing and ordering genetic testing. Knowledge had increased significantly after 6 months. The training module was rated with an average of 8.1 out of 10 and was considered useful. The majority of healthcare professionals (9/15) was able to discuss a genetic test in five to 10 min. After completion of a training module, non-genetic healthcare professionals feel motivated and competent to discuss and order genetic testing themselves.
Collapse
|
26
|
Chandrasekaran D, Sobocan M, Blyuss O, Miller RE, Evans O, Crusz SM, Mills-Baldock T, Sun L, Hammond RFL, Gaba F, Jenkins LA, Ahmed M, Kumar A, Jeyarajah A, Lawrence AC, Brockbank E, Phadnis S, Quigley M, El Khouly F, Wuntakal R, Faruqi A, Trevisan G, Casey L, Burghel GJ, Schlecht H, Bulman M, Smith P, Bowers NL, Legood R, Lockley M, Wallace A, Singh N, Evans DG, Manchanda R. Implementation of Multigene Germline and Parallel Somatic Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: SIGNPOST Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13174344. [PMID: 34503154 PMCID: PMC8431198 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13174344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2021] [Revised: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
We present findings of a cancer multidisciplinary-team (MDT) coordinated mainstreaming pathway of unselected 5-panel germline BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 and parallel somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 testing in all women with epithelial-OC and highlight the discordance between germline and somatic testing strategies across two cancer centres. Patients were counselled and consented by a cancer MDT member. The uptake of parallel multi-gene germline and somatic testing was 97.7%. Counselling by clinical-nurse-specialist more frequently needed >1 consultation (53.6% (30/56)) compared to a medical (15.0% (21/137)) or surgical oncologist (15.3% (17/110)) (p < 0.001). The median age was 54 (IQR = 51-62) years in germline pathogenic-variant (PV) versus 61 (IQR = 51-71) in BRCA wild-type (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in distribution of PVs by ethnicity, stage, surgery timing or resection status. A total of 15.5% germline and 7.8% somatic BRCA1/BRCA2 PVs were identified. A total of 2.3% patients had RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1 PVs. A total of 11% germline PVs were large-genomic-rearrangements and missed by somatic testing. A total of 20% germline PVs are missed by somatic first BRCA-testing approach and 55.6% germline PVs missed by family history ascertainment. The somatic testing failure rate is higher (23%) for patients undergoing diagnostic biopsies. Our findings favour a prospective parallel somatic and germline panel testing approach as a clinically efficient strategy to maximise variant identification. UK Genomics test-directory criteria should be expanded to include a panel of OC genes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dhivya Chandrasekaran
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Monika Sobocan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
- Divison for Gynaecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK;
- Department of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119991, Russia
- World-Class Research Center “Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare”, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow 119991, Russia
| | - Rowan E. Miller
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK; (R.E.M.); (S.M.C.)
| | - Olivia Evans
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
| | - Shanthini M. Crusz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK; (R.E.M.); (S.M.C.)
| | - Tina Mills-Baldock
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK; (T.M.-B.); (M.Q.); (F.E.K.)
| | - Li Sun
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK;
| | - Rory F. L. Hammond
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
| | - Lucy A. Jenkins
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK; (L.A.J.); (M.A.); (A.K.)
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK; (L.A.J.); (M.A.); (A.K.)
| | - Ajith Kumar
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London WC1N 3JH, UK; (L.A.J.); (M.A.); (A.K.)
| | - Arjun Jeyarajah
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Alexandra C. Lawrence
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Elly Brockbank
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Saurabh Phadnis
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
| | - Mary Quigley
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK; (T.M.-B.); (M.Q.); (F.E.K.)
| | - Fatima El Khouly
- Department of Medical Oncology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK; (T.M.-B.); (M.Q.); (F.E.K.)
| | - Rekha Wuntakal
- Department of Gynaecology, Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals, Essex RM7 0AG, UK;
| | - Asma Faruqi
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - Giorgia Trevisan
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - Laura Casey
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - George J. Burghel
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Helene Schlecht
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Michael Bulman
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Philip Smith
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Naomi L. Bowers
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK;
| | - Michelle Lockley
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK;
| | - Andrew Wallace
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Naveena Singh
- Department of Pathology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, UK; (R.F.L.H.); (A.F.); (G.T.); (L.C.); (N.S.)
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Saint Marys Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, UK; (G.J.B.); (H.S.); (M.B.); (P.S.); (N.L.B.); (A.W.); (D.G.E.)
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (D.C.); (M.S.); (O.E.); (L.S.); (F.G.)
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1 1BB, UK; (A.J.); (A.C.L.); (E.B.); (S.P.)
- Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1H 9SH, UK;
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Jacobs C, Rahman B. One size does not fit all: The case for targeted education in genetics and genomics for cancer nurses. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2021; 30:e13480. [PMID: 34131987 DOI: 10.1111/ecc.13480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2021] [Accepted: 05/30/2021] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Jacobs
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Belinda Rahman
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Lin J, Sharaf RN, Saganty R, Ahsan D, Feit J, Khoury A, Bergeron H, Chapman-Davis E, Cantillo E, Holcomb K, Blank SV, Liu Y, Thomas C, Christos PJ, Wright DN, Lipkin S, Offit K, Frey MK. Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162:506-516. [PMID: 34023131 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Accepted: 05/08/2021] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Stephanie V Blank
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Blavatnik Family Women's Health Research Institute, USA
| | - Ying Liu
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
O’Shea R, Taylor N, Crook A, Jacobs C, Jung Kang Y, Lewis S, Rankin NM. Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0250379. [PMID: 34010335 PMCID: PMC8133413 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250379] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2020] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Integration of genetic testing into routine oncology care could improve access to testing. This systematic review investigated interventions and the tailored implementation strategies aimed at increasing access to genetic counselling and testing and identifying hereditary cancer in oncology. METHODS The search strategy results were reported using the PRISMA statement and four electronic databases were searched. Eligible studies included routine genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer or uptake after universal tumour screening for colorectal or endometrial cancer. The titles and abstracts were reviewed and the full text articles screened for eligibility. Data extraction was preformed using a designed template and study appraisal was assessed using an adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were mapped to Proctor's et al outcomes and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and qualitatively synthesised. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies, published up to May 2020, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies ranged from poor (72%), fair to good (28%) quality. Most interventions identified were complex (multiple components) such as; patient or health professional education, interdisciplinary practice and a documentation or system change. Forty-eight percent of studies with complex interventions demonstrated on average a 35% increase in access to genetic counselling and a 15% increase in testing completion. Mapping of study outcomes showed that 70% and 32% of the studies aligned with either the service and client or the implementation level outcome and 96% to the process or inner setting domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. CONCLUSION Existing evidence suggests that complex interventions have a potentially positive effect towards genetic counselling and testing completion rates in oncology services. Studies of sound methodological quality that explore a greater breadth of pre and post implementation outcomes and informed by theory are needed. Such research could inform future service delivery models for the integration of genetics into oncology services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosie O’Shea
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Natalie Taylor
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ashley Crook
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Chris Jacobs
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Yoon Jung Kang
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah Lewis
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Nicole M. Rankin
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Tumour Versus Germline BRCA Testing in Ovarian Cancer: A Single-Site Institution Experience in the United Kingdom. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11:diagnostics11030547. [PMID: 33808557 PMCID: PMC8003427 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
The aim of this audit was to evaluate the usefulness and serviceability of testing for pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genes in ovarian cancer (OC) patients. One hundred and thirty-five patients with more common histological sub-types of OC were retrospectively identified between 2011 and 2019. The fail rate of the molecular analysis was 7.4% (10/135). One hundred and twenty-five records were evaluated: 99 (79.2%) patients had wild-type BRCA (both somatic and germline); tumour BRCA1/2 (tBRCA1/2) pathogenic mutations were found in 20 (16%) patients with distribution between BRCA1 and BRCA2 being 40% and 60%, respectively; 13 (10.4%) patients with pathogenic variants had germline mutations; and tBRCA1/2 with variant of unknown significance (VUS), in the absence of pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants, was detected in 6 (4.8%) patients. Our data show that expanding the molecular service to the routine first-tumour testing for patients with OC will potentially increase the detection rate of BRCA mutations, thereby providing early benefits of PARP inhibitors therapy. The tumour testing service should continue to be offered to newly diagnosed patients with high-grade epithelial cancers, including high-grade serous carcinoma, but also with carcinosarcomas and poorly-differentiated metastatic adenocarcinomas of unknown origin.
Collapse
|
31
|
Grindedal EM, Jørgensen K, Olsson P, Gravdehaug B, Lurås H, Schlichting E, Vamre T, Wangensteen T, Heramb C, Mæhle L. Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway. Fam Cancer 2021; 19:133-142. [PMID: 32002722 PMCID: PMC7101297 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-020-00160-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Studies have shown that a significant number of eligible breast cancer patients are not offered genetic testing or referral to genetic counseling. To increase access to genetic testing in South Eastern Norway, testing has since 2014 been offered directly to breast cancer patients by surgeons and oncologists. This practice is termed “mainstreamed genetic testing”. The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients in South Eastern Norway are offered testing. Three hundred and sixty one patients diagnosed in 2016 and 2017 at one regional and one university hospital in South Eastern Norway were included. Data on whether the patients fulfilled the criteria, whether they had been offered testing and if they were tested were collected. In total, 26.6% (96/361) fulfilled the criteria for testing. Seventy five percent (69/92) of these were offered testing, and 71.7% (66/92) were tested. At the university hospital, 90.2% (37/41) of eligible patients were offered testing, and at the regional hospital 62.7% (32/51). Fifty two percent (12/23) of eligible patient not offered testing were younger than 50 years at time of diagnosis. As many as 95.4% (125/131) of all patients who were offered testing, wanted to be tested. The majority of patients who fulfilled the criteria were offered testing, supporting the practice of mainstreamed genetic testing. There were nevertheless differences in rates of testing between the hospitals that affected all groups of patients, indicating that genetic testing may not be equally accessible to all patients. We suggest that efforts should be made to increase awareness and improve routines for genetic testing of breast cancer patients in Norway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kjersti Jørgensen
- Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Pernilla Olsson
- Department of Surgery, Section of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Innlandet Hospital, Hamar, Norway
| | - Berit Gravdehaug
- Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
| | - Hilde Lurås
- Health Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.,Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ellen Schlichting
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.,Department of Oncology, Section of Breast- and Endocrine Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Tone Vamre
- Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Cecilie Heramb
- Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Lovise Mæhle
- Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Yoon SY, Wong SW, Lim J, Ahmad S, Mariapun S, Padmanabhan H, Hassan NT, Lau SY, Ch'ng GS, Haniffa M, Ong WP, Rethanavelu K, Moey LH, Keng WT, Omar J, Mohd Abas MN, Yong CM, Ramasamy V, Md Noor MR, Aliyas I, Lim MCK, Suberamaniam A, Mat Adenan NA, Ahmad ZA, Ho GF, Abdul Malik R, Subramaniam S, Khoo BP, Raja A, Chin YS, Sim WW, Teh BH, Kho SK, Ong ESE, Voon PJ, Ismail G, Lee CL, Abdullah BZ, Loo KS, Lim CS, Lee SJ, Lim KJL, Shafiee MN, Ismail F, Latiff ZA, Ismail MP, Mohamed Jamli MF, Kumarasamy S, Leong KW, Low J, Md Yusof M, Ahmad Mustafa AM, Mat Ali NH, Makanjang M, Tayib S, Cheah N, Lim BK, Fong CK, Foo YC, Mellor Abdullah M, Tan TS, Chow DSY, Ho KF, Raman R, Radzi A, Deniel A, Teoh DCY, Ang SF, Joseph JK, Ng PHO, Tho LM, Ahmad AR, Muin I, Bleiker E, George A, Thong MK, Woo YL, Teo SH. Oncologist-led BRCA counselling improves access to cancer genetic testing in middle-income Asian country, with no significant impact on psychosocial outcomes. J Med Genet 2021; 59:220-229. [PMID: 33526602 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107416] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2020] [Revised: 11/28/2020] [Accepted: 11/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Identifying patients with BRCA mutations is clinically important to inform on the potential response to treatment and for risk management of patients and their relatives. However, traditional referral routes may not meet clinical needs, and therefore, mainstreaming cancer genetics has been shown to be effective in some high-income and high health-literacy settings. To date, no study has reported on the feasibility of mainstreaming in low-income and middle-income settings, where the service considerations and health literacy could detrimentally affect the feasibility of mainstreaming. METHODS The Mainstreaming Genetic Counselling for Ovarian Cancer Patients (MaGiC) study is a prospective, two-arm observational study comparing oncologist-led and genetics-led counselling. This study included 790 multiethnic patients with ovarian cancer from 23 sites in Malaysia. We compared the impact of different method of delivery of genetic counselling on the uptake of genetic testing and assessed the feasibility, knowledge and satisfaction of patients with ovarian cancer. RESULTS Oncologists were satisfied with the mainstreaming experience, with 95% indicating a desire to incorporate testing into their clinical practice. The uptake of genetic testing was similar in the mainstreaming and genetics arm (80% and 79%, respectively). Patient satisfaction was high, whereas decision conflict and psychological impact were low in both arms of the study. Notably, decisional conflict, although lower than threshold, was higher for the mainstreaming group compared with the genetics arm. Overall, 13.5% of patients had a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2, and there was no difference between psychosocial measures for carriers in both arms. CONCLUSION The MaGiC study demonstrates that mainstreaming cancer genetics is feasible in low-resource and middle-resource Asian setting and increased coverage for genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sook-Yee Yoon
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Siu Wan Wong
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Joanna Lim
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Syuhada Ahmad
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Shivaani Mariapun
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | | | - Nur Tiara Hassan
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Shao Yan Lau
- Genetic Counselling, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Gaik-Siew Ch'ng
- Genetics, Penang Hospital, Penang, Penang, Malaysia.,Genetics, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Muzhirah Haniffa
- Genetics, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Winnie P Ong
- Genetics, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Kavitha Rethanavelu
- Genetics, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Lip Hen Moey
- Genetics, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Wee Teik Keng
- Genetics, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Jamil Omar
- Gynaeoncology, Institut Kanser Negara, Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan Putra, Malaysia
| | | | | | | | - Mohd Rushdan Md Noor
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, Alor Setar, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia
| | - Ismail Aliyas
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, Alor Setar, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia
| | - Michael C K Lim
- Department of O&G, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Anuradha Suberamaniam
- Gynaeoncology, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Noor Azmi Mat Adenan
- Department of O&G, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Zatul Akmar Ahmad
- Department of O&G, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Gwo Fuang Ho
- Clinical Oncology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Rozita Abdul Malik
- Clinical Oncology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Suguna Subramaniam
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Wanita Dan Kanak-Kanak Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
| | - Boom Ping Khoo
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Wanita Dan Kanak-Kanak Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
| | - Arivendran Raja
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Wanita Dan Kanak-Kanak Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
| | - Yeung Sing Chin
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Wanita Dan Kanak-Kanak Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
| | - Wee Wee Sim
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Umum Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
| | - Beng Hock Teh
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Umum Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
| | - Swee Kiong Kho
- Oncology, Hospital Umum Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
| | - Eunice S E Ong
- Oncology, Hospital Umum Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
| | - Pei Jye Voon
- Oncology, Hospital Umum Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
| | - Ghazali Ismail
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Johor Bharu, Johor Darul Ta'zim, Malaysia
| | - Chui Ling Lee
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Johor Bharu, Johor Darul Ta'zim, Malaysia
| | | | - Kwong Sheng Loo
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Johor Bharu, Johor Darul Ta'zim, Malaysia
| | - Chun Sen Lim
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Sultan Ismail, Johor Bharu, Johor Darul Ta'zim, Malaysia
| | - Saw Joo Lee
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Raja Permaisuri Bainun, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia
| | | | - Mohamad Nasir Shafiee
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Fuad Ismail
- Oncology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Zarina Abdul Latiff
- Clinical Genetics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Mohd Pazudin Ismail
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bahru, Kelantan, Malaysia
| | | | | | - Kin Wah Leong
- Oncology, Gleneagles Penang, Penang, Penang, Malaysia
| | - John Low
- Oncology, Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Mastura Md Yusof
- Oncology, Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | | | - Nor Huda Mat Ali
- Gynaeoncology, Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
| | - Mary Makanjang
- Gynaeoncology, KPJ Sabah Specialist Hospital, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
| | - Shahila Tayib
- Gynaeoncology, Penang General Hospital, Georgetown, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
| | - Nellie Cheah
- Oncology, Loh Guan Lye Specialist Centre, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Boon Kiong Lim
- Department of O&G, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Chee Kin Fong
- Gynaeoncology, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | - Yoke Ching Foo
- Oncology, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | | | - Teck Sin Tan
- Gynaeoncology, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | - Doris S Y Chow
- Oncology, Mount Miriam Cancer Hospital, Tanjong Bungah, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Kean Fatt Ho
- Oncology, Mount Miriam Cancer Hospital, Tanjong Bungah, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Rakesh Raman
- Oncology, Mount Miriam Cancer Hospital, Tanjong Bungah, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Ahmad Radzi
- Oncology, Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Azura Deniel
- Oncology, KPJ Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital, Ampang, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Daren C Y Teoh
- Oncology, KPJ Sabah Specialist Hospital, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
| | - Soo Fan Ang
- Oncology, Penang Adventist Hospital, Penang, Penang, Malaysia
| | - Joseph K Joseph
- Oncology, Sunway Medical Centre, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Paul Hock Oon Ng
- Oncology, Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Lye-Mun Tho
- Oncology, Beacon Hospital Sdn Bhd, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
| | | | - Ileena Muin
- Oncology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Eveline Bleiker
- Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
| | - Angela George
- Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital Chelsea, London, London, UK
| | - Meow-Keong Thong
- Genetic Medicine Unit, University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Yin Ling Woo
- Department of O&G, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| | - Soo Hwang Teo
- Cancer Prevention and Population Science, Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.,University Malaya Cancer Research Institute, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Sundar S, Manchanda R, Gourley C, George A, Wallace A, Balega J, Williams S, Wallis Y, Edmondson R, Nicum S, Frost J, Attygalle A, Fotopoulou C, Bowen R, Bell D, Gajjar K, Ramsay B, Wood NJ, Ghaem-Maghami S, Miles T, Ganesan R. British Gynaecological Cancer Society/British Association of Gynaecological Pathology consensus for germline and tumor testing for BRCA1/2 variants in ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021; 31:272-278. [PMID: 33468564 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 12/06/2020] [Accepted: 12/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
The British Gynecological Cancer Society and the British Association of Gynecological Pathologists established a multidisciplinary consensus group comprising experts in surgical gynecological oncology, medical oncology, genetics, and laboratory science, and clinical nurse specialists to identify the optimal pathways to BRCA germline and tumor testing in patients with ovarian cancer in routine clinical practice. In particular, the group explored models of consent, quality standards identified at pathology laboratories, and experience and data from pioneering cancer centers. The group liaised with representatives from ovarian cancer charities to also identify patient perspectives that would be important to implementation. Recommendations from these consensus group deliberations are presented in this manuscript.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sudha Sundar
- Gynaecological Oncology, Pan-Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Birmingham, UK .,Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Barts Cancer Institute, London, UK
| | - Charlie Gourley
- University of Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Andrew Wallace
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - Janos Balega
- Gynaecological Oncology, Pan-Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Birmingham, UK
| | - Sarah Williams
- University Hospital Birmingham Foundation NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Yvonne Wallis
- Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | | | | | - Jonathan Frost
- Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
| | | | | | - Rebecca Bowen
- Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK
| | - Dani Bell
- Macmillan Cancer Support, London, UK
| | | | - Bruce Ramsay
- Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK
| | - Nicholas J Wood
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | | | - Tracie Miles
- Gynaecological Oncology, Royal United Hospitals, Bath, UK
| | - Raji Ganesan
- Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Benusiglio PR, Korenbaum C, Vibert R, Ezenfis J, Geoffron S, Paul C, Richard S, Byrde V, Lejeune M, Guillerm E, Basset N, Lotz JP, Chabbert-Buffet N, Gligorov J, Coulet F. Utility of a mainstreamed genetic testing pathway in breast and ovarian cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J Med Genet 2020; 63:104098. [PMID: 33186762 PMCID: PMC7654320 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2020.104098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Revised: 11/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) obviates the need for a cancer genetics consultation, since trained oncologists (O) and gynaecologists (G) provide counseling, prescribe testing and deliver results. We report results from our MGT program and emphasize its utility during the COVID-19 lockdown, when cancer genetics clinics had suspended their activity. METHODS An MGT pathway for breast and ovarian cancer (BC/OC) patients was established in Jan-2018 between the Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris.Sorbonne Université Cancer Genetics team and the Oncology/Gynecology departments at one teaching and two regional hospitals. Trained O + G evaluated patients with the Manchester Scoring System. A 12-point threshold was recommended for testing. Next-generation sequencing of BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C and RAD51D was performed. Results were delivered to the patient by O/G. Pathogenic variants (PV) carriers were referred to the genetics clinic. Results are reported for the 2nd-Jan-2018 to 1st-June-2020 period. That includes the eight-week COVID-19 lockdown and three-week de-confinement phase 1. RESULTS Results were available for 231/234 patients. Twenty-eight (12.1%) carried a PV. Of the 27 patients tested during the COVID-19 period, three carried a PV, two in BRCA1 and one in RAD51C. The clinical impact was immediate for the two BRCA1 BC cases undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, since double mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy will now be performed using two-step strategies. CONCLUSIONS MGT guaranteed care continuity in BC/OC patients during the critical phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, with immediate implications for PV carriers. More broadly, we report for the first time the successful implementation of MGT in France.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick R Benusiglio
- UF d'Oncogénétique, Département de Génétique et Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Unité Mixte de Recherche Scientifique 938 et SIRIC CURAMUS, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine, Equipe Instabilité des Microsatellites et Cancer, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine, F-75012 Paris, France; Réseau Sein à Risque AP-HP, Service de Gynécologie Obstétrique et de Médecine de la Reproduction, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France.
| | - Clément Korenbaum
- Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France
| | - Roseline Vibert
- UF d'Oncogénétique, Département de Génétique et Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France
| | - Joël Ezenfis
- Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Centre Hospitalier Sud Francilien, avenue Serge Dassault, F-91106 Corbeil-Essonnes, France
| | - Sophie Geoffron
- Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Groupe Hospitalier de l'Est Francilien, Site Marne-la-Vallée, 2-4 Cours de la Gondoire, F-77600 Jossigny, France
| | - Charlotte Paul
- Service de Gynécologie-Obstétrique, Groupe Hospitalier de l'Est Francilien, Site Marne-la-Vallée, 2-4 Cours de la Gondoire, F-77600 Jossigny, France
| | - Sandrine Richard
- Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France
| | - Veronique Byrde
- Réseau Sein à Risque AP-HP, Service de Gynécologie Obstétrique et de Médecine de la Reproduction, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France
| | - Manon Lejeune
- UF d'Oncogénétique, Département de Génétique et Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France
| | - Erell Guillerm
- UF d'Oncogénétique, Département de Génétique et Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France
| | - Noemie Basset
- UF d'Oncogénétique, Département de Génétique et Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France
| | - Jean-Pierre Lotz
- Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France
| | - Nathalie Chabbert-Buffet
- Réseau Sein à Risque AP-HP, Service de Gynécologie Obstétrique et de Médecine de la Reproduction, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France
| | - Joseph Gligorov
- Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Hôpital Tenon, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, F-75020 Paris, France
| | - Florence Coulet
- UF d'Oncogénétique, Département de Génétique et Institut Universitaire de Cancérologie, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP.Sorbonne Université, 47-83 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Unité Mixte de Recherche Scientifique 938 et SIRIC CURAMUS, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine, Equipe Instabilité des Microsatellites et Cancer, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine, F-75012 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Flaum N, Morgan RD, Burghel GJ, Bulman M, Clamp AR, Hasan J, Mitchell CL, Badea D, Moon S, Hogg M, Hadjiyiannakis D, Clancy T, Schlecht H, Woodward ER, Crosbie EJ, Edmondson RJ, Wallace AJ, Jayson GC, Lalloo FI, Harkness EF, Evans DGR. Mainstreaming germline BRCA1/2 testing in non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer in the North West of England. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 28:1541-1547. [PMID: 32651552 PMCID: PMC7575602 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0692-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/10/2020] [Revised: 06/14/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors improve survival in BRCA-mutant high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. As a result, germline and somatic BRCA1/2 testing has become standard practice in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. We outline changes in testing and detection rates of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) in cases of non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed during three eras, spanning 12 years, within the North West of England, and compare the uptake of cascade testing in families identified by oncology-led mainstreaming versus regional genetics clinics. Eras included: Period 1 (20% risk threshold for testing): between January 2007 and May 2013; Period 2 (10% risk threshold for testing): between June 2013 and October 2017 and; Period 3 (mainstream testing): between November 2017 and November 2019. A total of 1081 women underwent germline BRCA1/2 testing between January 2007 and November 2019 and 222 (20.5%) were found to have a PV. The monthly testing rate increased by 3.3-fold and 2.5-fold between Periods 1-2 and Periods 2-3, respectively. A similar incidence of germline BRCA1/2 PVs were detected in Period 2 (17.2%) and Period 3 (18.5%). Uptake of cascade testing from first-degree relatives was significantly lower in those women undergoing mainstream testing compared with those tested in regional genetics clinics (31.6% versus 47.3%, P = 0.038). Mainstream testing allows timely detection of germline BRCA1/2 status to select patients for PARP inhibitors, but shortfalls in the uptake of cascade testing in first-degree relatives requires optimisation to broaden benefits within families.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Flaum
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Robert D Morgan
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - George J Burghel
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Michael Bulman
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | | | - Doina Badea
- Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackburn, UK
| | - Sarah Moon
- Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | - Martin Hogg
- Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | - Dennis Hadjiyiannakis
- Rosemere Cancer Centre, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | - Tara Clancy
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Helene Schlecht
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Emma R Woodward
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Emma J Crosbie
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard J Edmondson
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Andrew J Wallace
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Gordon C Jayson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona I Lalloo
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Elaine F Harkness
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth R Evans
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Manchanda R, Lieberman S, Gaba F, Lahad A, Levy-Lahad E. Population Screening for Inherited Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2020; 21:373-412. [DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The discovery of genes underlying inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer has revolutionized the ability to identify women at high risk for these diseases before they become affected. Women who are carriers of deleterious variants in these genes can undertake surveillance and prevention measures that have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, under current strategies, the vast majority of women carriers remain undetected until they become affected. In this review, we show that universal testing, particularly of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, fulfills classical disease screening criteria. This is especially true for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Ashkenazi Jews but is translatable to all populations and may include additional genes. Utilizing genetic information for large-scale precision prevention requires a paradigmatic shift in health-care delivery. To address this need, we propose a direct-to-patient model, which is increasingly pertinent for fulfilling the promise of utilizing personal genomic information for disease prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom;,
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, United Kingdom
| | - Sari Lieberman
- Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 9103102, Israel;,
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112102, Israel
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, United Kingdom;,
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London E1 1FR, United Kingdom
| | - Amnon Lahad
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112102, Israel
- Clalit Health Services, Jerusalem 9548323, Israel
| | - Ephrat Levy-Lahad
- Medical Genetics Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 9103102, Israel;,
- Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9112102, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Gleeson M, Kentwell M, Meiser B, Do J, Nevin S, Taylor N, Barlow-Stewart K, Kirk J, James P, Scott CL, Williams R, Gamet K, Burke J, Murphy M, Antill YC, Pearn A, Pachter N, Ebzery C, Poplawski N, Friedlander M, Tucker KM. The development and evaluation of a nationwide training program for oncology health professionals in the provision of genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 158:431-439. [PMID: 32451123 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND BRCA1/2 mutation status has increasing relevance for ovarian cancer treatments, making traditional coordination of genetic testing by genetic services unsustainable. Consequently alternative models of genetic testing have been developed to improve testing at the initial diagnosis for all eligible women. METHODS A training module to enable mainstreamed genetic testing by oncology healthcare professionals was developed by genetic health professionals. Oncology healthcare professionals completed questionnaires before and 12 months post-training to assess perceived skills, competence and barriers to their coordinating genetic testing for women with high-grade non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer. Genetic health professionals were surveyed 12 months post-training to assess perceived barriers to implementation of mainstreaming. RESULTS 185 oncology healthcare professionals were trained in 42 workshops at 35 Australasian hospitals. Of the 273 tests ordered by oncology healthcare professionals post-training, 241 (93.1%) met national testing guidelines. The number of tests ordered by genetic health professionals reduced significantly (z = 45.0, p = 0.008). Oncology healthcare professionals' perceived barriers to mainstreamed testing decreased from baseline to follow-up (t = 2.39, p = 0.023), particularly perceived skills, knowledge and attitudes. However, only 58% reported either 'always' or 'nearly always' having ordered BRCA testing for eligible patients at 12 months, suggesting oncology healthcare professionals' perceived barriers were not systematically addressed through training. CONCLUSIONS Oncology healthcare professionals have demonstrated a willingness to be involved in the provision of genetic testing in a mainstreaming model. If oncology services are to hold responsibility for coordinating genetic testing, their readiness will require understanding of barriers not addressed by training alone to inform future intervention design.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Gleeson
- Hunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle, Australia.
| | - M Kentwell
- Parkville Familial Cancer Clinic, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; The Royal Women's Hospital, Oncology and Dysplasia, Melbourne, Australia
| | - B Meiser
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia
| | - J Do
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia
| | - S Nevin
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia
| | - N Taylor
- The Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney and Faculty of Health Science, University of Sydney, Australia
| | | | - J Kirk
- Familial Cancer Service, Westmead Hospital, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney and Centre for Cancer Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Australia
| | - P James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Clinic, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - C L Scott
- Parkville Familial Cancer Clinic, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Department of Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - R Williams
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia; Hereditary Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - K Gamet
- Genetic Health Service NZ Northern Hub, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - J Burke
- Tasmanian Clinical Genetics Service, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia
| | - M Murphy
- Parkville Familial Cancer Clinic, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Bendigo Health Cancer Centre, Bendigo, Australia
| | - Y C Antill
- Parkville Familial Cancer Clinic, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Familial Cancer Centre, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - A Pearn
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - N Pachter
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - C Ebzery
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Queensland, Australia
| | - N Poplawski
- Adult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Australia
| | - M Friedlander
- Dept Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| | - K M Tucker
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Sydney, Australia; Hereditary Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Oncologist-led BRCA 'mainstreaming' in the ovarian cancer clinic: A study of 255 patients and its impact on their management. Sci Rep 2020; 10:3390. [PMID: 32098980 PMCID: PMC7042365 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60149-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2019] [Accepted: 02/07/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Although guidelines recommend BRCA testing for all women with non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer, there is significant variability in access to testing across the UK. A germline BRCA mutation (BRCAm) in ovarian cancer patients provides prognostic and predictive information and influences clinical management, such as the use of PARP inhibitors, which have demonstrated a progression-free survival benefit in the BRCAm cohort. Additionally, the finding of a BRCAm has significant implications for patients and their families in terms of cancer risk and prevention. We studied the impact of a newly-formed, oncologist-led 'mainstreaming' germline BRCA testing pathway in 255 ovarian cancer patients at Imperial College NHS Trust. Prior to the establishment of 'mainstreaming', uptake of germline BRCA testing was 14% with a mean turnaround time of 148.2 calendar days. The 'mainstreaming' approach led to a 95% uptake of germline BRCA testing and a mean turnaround time of 20.6 days. Thirty-four (13.33%) BRCAm patients were identified. At the time of data collection nine BRCAm patients had received a PARP inhibitor off-trial, three had entered a PARP inhibitor trial and 5 were receiving platinum-based chemotherapy with a plan to receive PARP inhibitor maintenance. This study provides further evidence of the impact of oncologist-led 'mainstreaming' programs.
Collapse
|
39
|
[Clinical Cancer Genetics: A guide for the pathologist]. Ann Pathol 2020; 40:63-69. [PMID: 32046877 DOI: 10.1016/j.annpat.2020.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2019] [Revised: 01/14/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
It is paramount to identify patients whose cancer is associated with genetic susceptibility to the disease, since their long-term management depends on it. Anatomical and molecular pathologists play a key role in the process. Indeed, their diagnosis supports or even sometimes warrants germline genetic testing. For example, a colorectal cancer with mismatch repair protein expression loss suggests Lynch syndrome, while a rare type of renal cell carcinoma with fumarate hydrate expression loss is highly evocative of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome. Similarly, the presence of the T790M EGFR variant before treatment in a non-small-cell lung carcinoma warrants further testing as the variant is likely of germline origin. Patients with suspected genetic susceptibility to cancer are referred to the nearest clinical cancer genetics clinic. The cancer geneticist, assisted by a genetic counsellor, then collects detailed personal and familial information, sometimes feeds them into bioinformatics tools or clinico-pathological scores, decides whether germline genetic analysis is justified, determines which genes should be analysed and prescribes testing. Germline testing is carried out on a blood sample by expert laboratories using next generation sequencing on panels of cancer susceptibility genes. The cancer geneticists then return the result to the patient. When a pathogenic variant is identified, the patient's management is modified, with recommendations ranging from intensified surveillance to risk-reducing surgery. Treatment is sometimes adapted to the pathogenic variant. In addition, relatives can undergo genetic testing, should they wish to know whether they carry the familial variant. In the near future, we expect clinical cancer genetics to move towards strengthened partnerships with molecular pathologists and medical oncologists. Somatic genetic analyses are now routine, at least in metastatic cancer, and a proportion of the tumoral variants identified are actually of germline origin. As for the oncologists, the development of mainstreaming programs where they are allowed to prescribe germline testing under the supervision of a cancer genetics team is unavoidable.
Collapse
|
40
|
Bancroft EK, Kohut K, Eeles RA. The New Genomics Era: Integration of genomics into mainstream oncology and implications for psycho-oncological care. Psychooncology 2020; 29:453-460. [PMID: 32017261 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2020] [Accepted: 01/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth K Bancroft
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
McLeavy L, Rahman B, Kristeleit R, Ledermann J, Lockley M, McCormack M, Mould T, Side L, Lanceley A. Mainstreamed genetic testing in ovarian cancer: patient experience of the testing process. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2020; 30:221-226. [PMID: 31744886 DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2019-000630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2019] [Revised: 10/08/2019] [Accepted: 10/17/2019] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Pathogenic BRCA variants account for 5.8-24.8% of ovarian cancers. The identification of such a variant can have a significant impact on the affected individual and their relatives, determining eligibility for targeted therapies, predicting treatment response, and granting access to disease prevention strategies. Cancer services are responding to the increased demand for genetic testing with the introduction of mainstreamed genetic testing via oncology clinics. This study aimed to evaluate patient experience of the mainstreamed genetic testing pathway at a tertiary referral center in London, UK. METHODS Study participants were patients diagnosed with high-grade non-mucinous ovarian cancer, tested via a mainstreamed genetic testing pathway at the tertiary referral center between February 2015 and June 2017. Eligible participants were invited to complete the retrospective study questionnaire. Five quantitative measures with additional free-text items were used to evaluate the patient experience of mainstreamed genetic testing. RESULTS The tertiary referral center tested 170 ovarian cancer patients. Twenty-three pathogenic BRCA mutations were identified (23/170, 13.5%). One-hundred and six patients (106/170, 62.4%) met the study inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine of those invited to participate (29/106, 27.4%) returned the retrospective study questionnaire. Pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants were identified within four respondents (4/29, 13.8%). Motivations for genetic testing related to improved medical management, and the ability to provide relatives with genetic information. Participants did not appear to be adversely affected by result disclosure post-mainstreamed genetic testing. Two individuals with a pathogenic variant reported that the support provided by the tertiary referral center post-result disclosure could have been improved. CONCLUSION Results of the current study support further psychosocial research into the expansion of the mainstreamed genetic testing pathway. The results, although promising, have also highlighted the importance of genetic awareness within the multi-disciplinary team and the provision of timely psychological support from genetic specialists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura McLeavy
- Department of Women's Cancer, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institution for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Belinda Rahman
- Department of Women's Cancer, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institution for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca Kristeleit
- Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Ledermann
- Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Michelle Lockley
- Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Bart's Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Mary McCormack
- Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Tim Mould
- Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Lucy Side
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Anne Lanceley
- Department of Women's Cancer, UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institution for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Hallowell N, Wright S, Stirling D, Gourley C, Young O, Porteous M. Moving into the mainstream: healthcare professionals' views of implementing treatment focussed genetic testing in breast cancer care. Fam Cancer 2019; 18:293-301. [PMID: 30689103 PMCID: PMC6560008 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-019-00122-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
A proportion of breast cancers are attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Technological advances has meant that mutation testing in newly diagnosed cancer patients can be used to inform treatment plans. Although oncologists increasingly deliver treatment-focused genetic testing (TFGT) as part of mainstream ovarian cancer care, we know little about non-genetics specialists' views about offering genetic testing to newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. This study sought to determine genetics and non-genetics specialists' views of a proposal to mainstream BRCA1 and 2 testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Qualitative interview study. Nineteen healthcare professionals currently responsible for offering TFGT in a standard (triage + referral) pathway (breast surgeons + clinical genetics team) and oncologists preparing to offer TFGT to breast cancer patients in a mainstreamed pathway participated in in-depth interviews. Genetics and non-genetics professionals' perceptions of mainstreaming are influenced by their views of: their clinical roles and responsibilities, the impact of TFGT on their workload and the patient pathway and the perceived relevance of genetic testing for patient care in the short-term. Perceived barriers to mainstreaming may be overcome by: more effective communication between specialities, clearer guidelines/patient pathways and the recruitment of mainstreaming champions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nina Hallowell
- Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities and the Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
| | - S Wright
- Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - D Stirling
- MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - C Gourley
- MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
- Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - O Young
- Edinburgh Breast Unit, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - M Porteous
- MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Kemp Z, Turnbull A, Yost S, Seal S, Mahamdallie S, Poyastro-Pearson E, Warren-Perry M, Eccleston A, Tan MM, Teo SH, Turner N, Strydom A, George A, Rahman N. Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e194428. [PMID: 31125106 PMCID: PMC6632150 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Increasing BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed herein as BRCA) gene testing is required to improve cancer management and prevent BRCA-related cancers. OBJECTIVE To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes. RESULTS Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zoe Kemp
- Breast Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Alice Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Shawn Yost
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sheila Seal
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Shazia Mahamdallie
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emma Poyastro-Pearson
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Warren-Perry
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Min-Min Tan
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Soo Hwang Teo
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia
| | - Nicholas Turner
- Breast Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ann Strydom
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Angela George
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Nazneen Rahman
- Cancer Genetics Unit, Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
- TGLclinical, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Burns BL, Bilkey GA, Coles EP, Bowman FL, Beilby JP, Pachter NS, Baynam G, Dawkins HJS, Weeramanthri TS, Nowak KJ. Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus. Front Public Health 2019; 7:41. [PMID: 30915324 PMCID: PMC6421399 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper examines key considerations for the successful integration of genomic technologies into healthcare systems. All healthcare systems strive to introduce new technologies that are effective and affordable, but genomics offers particular challenges, given the rapid evolution of the technology. In this context we frame internationally relevant discussion points relating to effective and sustainable implementation of genomic testing within the strategic priority areas of the recently endorsed Australian National Health Genomics Policy Framework. The priority areas are services, data, workforce, finances, and person-centred care. In addition, we outline recommendations from a government perspective through the lens of the Australian health system, and argue that resources should be allocated not to just genomic testing alone, but across the five strategic priority areas for full effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Belinda L. Burns
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Gemma A. Bilkey
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Emily P. Coles
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Faye L. Bowman
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - John P. Beilby
- PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Nicholas S. Pachter
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Gareth Baynam
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies, Department of Health, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
| | - Hugh J. S. Dawkins
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Sir Walter Murdoch School of Policy and International Affairs, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
- School of Public Health, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA, Australia
| | - Tarun S. Weeramanthri
- Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Kristen J. Nowak
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Morgan RD, Burghel GJ, Flaum N, Bulman M, Clamp AR, Hasan J, Mitchell CL, Schlecht H, Woodward ER, Lallo FI, Crosbie EJ, Edmondson RJ, Wallace AJ, Jayson GC, Evans DGR. Prevalence of germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in sequential epithelial ovarian cancer cases. J Med Genet 2019; 56:301-307. [DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2018] [Revised: 12/14/2018] [Accepted: 01/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
IntroductionPoly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors significantly improve progression-free survival in platinum-sensitive high-grade serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinoma, with greatest benefits observed in women with a pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant. Consequently, the demand for germline BRCA1/2 testing in ovarian cancer has increased substantially, leading to the screening of unselected populations of patients. We aimed to determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 variants in women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, categorised according to the established risk factors for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome and the Manchester BRCA Score, to inform risk stratification.MethodsA cohort of sequential epithelial ovarian cancer cases recruited between June 2013 and September 2018 underwent germline BRCA1/2 testing by next-generation sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification.ResultsFive hundred and fifty-seven patients were screened. Of these, 18% had inherited a pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant. The prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants was >10% in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer earlier than 60 years of age (21%) and those diagnosed later than 60 years of age with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer (17%) or a medical history of breast cancer (34%). The prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants was also >10% in women with a Manchester BRCA Score of ≥15 points (14%).DiscussionOur study suggests that age at diagnosis, family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, medical history of breast cancer or a Manchester BRCA Score of ≥15 points are associated with a >10% prevalence of germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in epithelial ovarian cancer.
Collapse
|
46
|
Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10:cancers10110435. [PMID: 30428547 PMCID: PMC6266465 DOI: 10.3390/cancers10110435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2018] [Revised: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 11/09/2018] [Indexed: 01/19/2023] Open
Abstract
The combination of increased referral for genetic testing and the current shortage of genetic counselors has necessitated the development and implementation of alternative models of genetic counseling and testing for hereditary cancer assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the patient outcomes that are associated with alternative models of genetic testing and genetic counseling for hereditary cancer, including germline-only and tumor testing models. Seven databases were searched, selecting studies that were: (1) full-text articles published ≥2007 or conference abstracts published ≥2015, and (2) assessing patient outcomes of an alternative model of genetic counseling or testing. A total of 79 publications were included for review and synthesis. Data-charting was completed using a data-charting form that was developed by the study team for this review. Seven alternative models were identified, including four models that involved a genetic counselor: telephone, telegenic, group, and embedded genetic counseling models; and three models that did not: mainstreaming, direct, and tumor-first genetic testing models. Overall, these models may be an acceptable alternative to traditional models on knowledge, patient satisfaction, psychosocial measures, and the uptake of genetic testing; however, particular populations may be better served by traditional in-person genetic counseling. As precision medicine initiatives continue to advance, institutions should consider the implementation of new models of genetic service delivery, utilizing a model that will best serve the needs of their unique patient populations.
Collapse
|