Mainstreamed genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer: first-year experience

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Genetic Testing May be Mitigated by Counseling

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.

Mapping inter-professional collaboration in oncogenetics: Results from a scoping review

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.

Genetic Basis of Breast and Ovarian Cancer: Approaches and Lessons Learnt from Three Decades of Inherited Predisposition Testing

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.

Germline and somatic testing for ovarian Cancer: An SGO clinical practice statement

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.

[The role of physicians in patient and family adherence to genetic testing]

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).

Same day service: A genetic testing station model to improve germline genetic testing in patients with ovarian cancer

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.

Factors predicting BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

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.

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

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.

Mainstream genetic testing for high-grade ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers: A tertiary referral centre experience

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.

Is Reflex Germline BRCA1/2 Testing Necessary in Women Diagnosed with Non-Mucinous High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Aged 80 Years or Older?

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.

Mainstream germline genetic testing in men with metastatic prostate cancer: design and protocol for a multicenter observational study

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.

Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma

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).

UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Patient Experience with a Gynecologic Oncology-Initiated Genetic Testing Model for Women with Tubo-Ovarian Cancer

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.

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review

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.

Genetic and genomic learning needs of oncologists and oncology nurses in the era of precision medicine: a scoping review

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.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer by Oncology Providers: A Survey of Current Practice

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.

Les nouvelles évolutions de l’oncogénétique en 2022

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.

A practical approach to the genomics of kidney disorders

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.

Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in cancer predisposing genes: What are we learning from multigene panels?

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.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Adult Patients With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

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.

Probability of detecting germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in histological subtypes of ovarian carcinoma. A meta-analysis

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.

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

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.

Positive experiences of healthcare professionals with a mainstreaming approach of germline genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer

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.

Implementation of Multigene Germline and Parallel Somatic Genetic Testing in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: SIGNPOST Study

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.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Health system interventions to integrate genetic testing in routine oncology services: A systematic review

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.

Tumour Versus Germline BRCA Testing in Ovarian Cancer: A Single-Site Institution Experience in the United Kingdom

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.

Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients in two hospitals in South Eastern Norway

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.

Oncologist-led BRCA counselling improves access to cancer genetic testing in middle-income Asian country, with no significant impact on psychosocial outcomes

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.

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

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.

Utility of a mainstreamed genetic testing pathway in breast and ovarian cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

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.

Mainstreaming germline BRCA1/2 testing in non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer in the North West of England

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.

Population Screening for Inherited Predisposition to Breast and Ovarian Cancer

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.

The development and evaluation of a nationwide training program for oncology health professionals in the provision of genetic testing for ovarian cancer patients

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.

Oncologist-led BRCA 'mainstreaming' in the ovarian cancer clinic: A study of 255 patients and its impact on their management

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.

[Clinical Cancer Genetics: A guide for the pathologist]

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.

Mainstreamed genetic testing in ovarian cancer: patient experience of the testing process

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.

Moving into the mainstream: healthcare professionals' views of implementing treatment focussed genetic testing in breast cancer care

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.

Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer

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.

Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus

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.

Prevalence of germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in sequential epithelial ovarian cancer cases

Introduction

Poly(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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

Five 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%).

Discussion

Our 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.

Next-Generation Service Delivery: A Scoping Review of Patient Outcomes Associated with Alternative Models of Genetic Counseling and Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancer

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.