1
|
Kiser D, Elhanan G, Bolze A, Neveux I, Schlauch KA, Metcalf WJ, Cirulli ET, McCarthy C, Greenberg LA, Grime S, Blitstein JMS, Plauth W, Grzymski JJ. Screening Familial Risk for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2435901. [PMID: 39320887 PMCID: PMC11425146 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.35901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Most patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants for breast cancer have not undergone genetic testing. Objective To identify patients meeting family history criteria for genetic testing in the electronic health record (EHR). Design, Setting, and Participants This study included both cross-sectional (observation date, February 1, 2024) and retrospective cohort (observation period, January 1, 2018, to February 1, 2024) analyses. Participants included patients aged 18 to 79 years enrolled in Renown Health, a large health system in Northern Nevada. Genotype was known for 38 003 patients enrolled in Healthy Nevada Project (HNP), a population genomics study. Exposure An EHR indicating that a patient is positive for criteria according to the Seven-Question Family History Questionnaire (hereafter, FHS7 positive) assessing familial risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were the presence of P/LP variants in the ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, or PALB2 genes (cross-sectional analysis) or a diagnosis of cancer (cohort analysis). Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates per 100 000 patients per year were calculated using the 2020 US population as the standard. Hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer attributable to FHS7-positive status were estimated using cause-specific hazard models. Results Among 835 727 patients, 423 393 (50.7%) were female and 29 913 (3.6%) were FHS7 positive. Among those who were FHS7 positive, 24 535 (82.0%) had no evidence of prior genetic testing for HBOC in their EHR. Being FHS7 positive was associated with increased prevalence of P/LP variants in BRCA1/BRCA2 (odds ratio [OR], 3.34; 95% CI, 2.48-4.47), CHEK2 (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05-2.43), and PALB2 (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.23-6.16) among HNP female individuals, and in BRCA1/BRCA2 (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.93-5.56) among HNP male individuals. Being FHS7 positive was also associated with significantly increased risk of cancer among 131 622 non-HNP female individuals (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.22-1.70) but not among 114 982 non-HNP male individuals (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42). Among 1527 HNP survey respondents, 352 of 383 EHR-FHS7 positive patients (91.9%) were survey-FHS7 positive, but only 352 of 883 survey-FHS7 positive patients (39.9%) were EHR-FHS7 positive. Of the 29 913 FHS7-positive patients, 19 764 (66.1%) were identified only after parsing free-text family history comments. Socioeconomic differences were also observed between EHR-FHS7-negative and EHR-FHS7-positive patients, suggesting disparities in recording family history. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study, EHR-derived FHS7 identified thousands of patients with familial risk for breast cancer, indicating a substantial gap in genetic testing. However, limitations in EHR family history data suggested that other identification methods, such as direct-to-patient questionnaires, are required to fully address this gap.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Kiser
- University of Nevada Reno School of Medicine, Reno
| | - Gai Elhanan
- University of Nevada Reno School of Medicine, Reno
| | | | - Iva Neveux
- University of Nevada Reno School of Medicine, Reno
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Joseph J Grzymski
- University of Nevada Reno School of Medicine, Reno
- Renown Health, Reno, Nevada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Miyahira AK, Kamran SC, Jamaspishvili T, Marshall CH, Maxwell KN, Parolia A, Zorko NA, Pienta KJ, Soule HR. Disrupting prostate cancer research: Challenge accepted; report from the 2023 Coffey-Holden Prostate Cancer Academy Meeting. Prostate 2024; 84:993-1015. [PMID: 38682886 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2024] [Accepted: 04/16/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The 2023 Coffey-Holden Prostate Cancer Academy (CHPCA) Meeting, themed "Disrupting Prostate Cancer Research: Challenge Accepted," was convened at the University of California, Los Angeles, Luskin Conference Center, in Los Angeles, CA, from June 22 to 25, 2023. METHODS The 2023 marked the 10th Annual CHPCA Meeting, a discussion-oriented scientific think-tank conference convened annually by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, which centers on innovative and emerging research topics deemed pivotal for advancing critical unmet needs in prostate cancer research and clinical care. The 2023 CHPCA Meeting was attended by 81 academic investigators and included 40 talks across 8 sessions. RESULTS The central topic areas covered at the meeting included: targeting transcription factor neo-enhancesomes in cancer, AR as a pro-differentiation and oncogenic transcription factor, why few are cured with androgen deprivation therapy and how to change dogma to cure metastatic prostate cancer without castration, reducing prostate cancer morbidity and mortality with genetics, opportunities for radiation to enhance therapeutic benefit in oligometastatic prostate cancer, novel immunotherapeutic approaches, and the new era of artificial intelligence-driven precision medicine. DISCUSSION This article provides an overview of the scientific presentations delivered at the 2023 CHPCA Meeting, such that this knowledge can help in facilitating the advancement of prostate cancer research worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea K Miyahira
- Science Department, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, California, USA
| | - Sophia C Kamran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Tamara Jamaspishvili
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA
| | - Catherine H Marshall
- Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kara N Maxwell
- Department of Medicine-Hematology/Oncology and Department of Genetics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
- Medicine Service, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Abhijit Parolia
- Department of Pathology, Rogel Cancer Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Nicholas A Zorko
- Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
- University of Minnesota Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Kenneth J Pienta
- The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Howard R Soule
- Science Department, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Arslan S, Schmidt J, Bass C, Mehrotra D, Geraldes A, Singhal S, Hense J, Li X, Raharja-Liu P, Maiques O, Kather JN, Pandya P. A systematic pan-cancer study on deep learning-based prediction of multi-omic biomarkers from routine pathology images. COMMUNICATIONS MEDICINE 2024; 4:48. [PMID: 38491101 PMCID: PMC10942985 DOI: 10.1038/s43856-024-00471-5] [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: 11/25/2022] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The objective of this comprehensive pan-cancer study is to evaluate the potential of deep learning (DL) for molecular profiling of multi-omic biomarkers directly from hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained whole slide images. METHODS A total of 12,093 DL models predicting 4031 multi-omic biomarkers across 32 cancer types were trained and validated. The study included a broad range of genetic, transcriptomic, and proteomic biomarkers, as well as established prognostic markers, molecular subtypes, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS Here we show that 50% of the models achieve an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.644 or higher. The observed AUC for 25% of the models is at least 0.719 and exceeds 0.834 for the top 5%. Molecular profiling with image-based histomorphological features is generally considered feasible for most of the investigated biomarkers and across different cancer types. The performance appears to be independent of tumor purity, sample size, and class ratio (prevalence), suggesting a degree of inherent predictability in histomorphology. CONCLUSIONS The results demonstrate that DL holds promise to predict a wide range of biomarkers across the omics spectrum using only H&E-stained histological slides of solid tumors. This paves the way for accelerating diagnosis and developing more precise treatments for cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Debapriya Mehrotra
- Panakeia Technologies, London, UK
- Department of Pathology, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University NHS Trust, Romford, UK
| | | | - Shikha Singhal
- Panakeia Technologies, London, UK
- Department of Pathology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
| | | | - Xiusi Li
- Panakeia Technologies, London, UK
| | | | - Oscar Maiques
- Cytoskeleton and Cancer Metastasis Group, Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Breast Cancer Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- Cancer Biomarkers & Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, John Vane Science Building, London, UK
| | - Jakob Nikolas Kather
- Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Else Kroener Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wei X, Sun L, Slade E, Fierheller CT, Oxley S, Kalra A, Sia J, Sideris M, McCluggage WG, Bromham N, Dworzynski K, Rosenthal AN, Brentnall A, Duffy S, Evans DG, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Cost-Effectiveness of Gene-Specific Prevention Strategies for Ovarian and Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2355324. [PMID: 38334999 PMCID: PMC10858404 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/16/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Pathogenic variants (PVs) in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) confer an increased ovarian cancer (OC) risk, with BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, and RAD51D PVs also conferring an elevated breast cancer (BC) risk. Risk-reducing surgery, medical prevention, and BC surveillance offer the opportunity to prevent cancers and deaths, but their cost-effectiveness for individual CSGs remains poorly addressed. Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for OC and BC among individuals carrying PVs in the previously listed CSGs. Design, Setting, and Participants In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and, where relevant, risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) compared with nonsurgical interventions (including BC surveillance and medical prevention for increased BC risk) from December 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023. The analysis took a UK payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. The simulated cohort consisted of women aged 30 years who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. Appropriate sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Exposures CSG-specific interventions, including RRSO at age 35 to 50 years with or without BC surveillance and medical prevention (ie, tamoxifen or anastrozole) from age 30 or 40 years, RRM at age 30 to 40 years, both RRSO and RRM, BC surveillance and medical prevention, or no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. OC and BC cases and deaths were estimated. Results In the simulated cohort of women aged 30 years with no cancer, undergoing both RRSO and RRM was most cost-effective for individuals carrying BRCA1 (RRM at age 30 years; RRSO at age 35 years), BRCA2 (RRM at age 35 years; RRSO at age 40 years), and PALB2 (RRM at age 40 years; RRSO at age 45 years) PVs. The corresponding ICERs were -£1942/QALY (-$2680/QALY), -£89/QALY (-$123/QALY), and £2381/QALY ($3286/QALY), respectively. RRSO at age 45 years was cost-effective for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PV carriers compared with nonsurgical strategies. The corresponding ICERs were £962/QALY ($1328/QALY), £771/QALY ($1064/QALY), and £2355/QALY ($3250/QALY), respectively. The most cost-effective preventive strategy per 1000 PV carriers could prevent 923 OC and BC cases and 302 deaths among those carrying BRCA1; 686 OC and BC cases and 170 deaths for BRCA2; 464 OC and BC cases and 130 deaths for PALB2; 102 OC cases and 64 deaths for RAD51C; 118 OC cases and 76 deaths for RAD51D; and 55 OC cases and 37 deaths for BRIP1. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated both RRSO and RRM were most cost-effective in 96.5%, 89.2%, and 84.8% of simulations for BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PVs, respectively, while RRSO was cost-effective in approximately 100% of simulations for RAD51C, RAD51D, and BRIP1 PVs. Conclusions and Relevance In this cost-effectiveness study, RRSO with or without RRM at varying optimal ages was cost-effective compared with nonsurgical strategies for individuals who carried BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, or BRIP1 PVs. These findings support personalizing risk-reducing surgery and guideline recommendations for individual CSG-specific OC and BC risk management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Eric Slade
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caitlin T. Fierheller
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jacqueline Sia
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - W. Glenn McCluggage
- Department of Pathology, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Nathan Bromham
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Adam N. Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Women’s Cancer, UCL EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wei X, Oxley S, Sideris M, Kalra A, Brentnall A, Sun L, Yang L, Legood R, Manchanda R. Quality of life after risk-reducing surgery for breast and ovarian cancer prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 229:388-409.e4. [PMID: 37059410 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.03.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the impact of risk-reducing surgery for breast cancer and ovarian cancer prevention on quality of life. We considered risk-reducing mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, and risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy. DATA SOURCES We followed a prospective protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42022319782) and searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We followed a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design) framework. The population included women at increased risk of breast cancer or ovarian cancer. We focused on studies reporting quality of life outcomes (health-related quality of life, sexual function, menopause symptoms, body image, cancer-related distress or worry, anxiety, or depression) after risk-reducing surgery, including risk-reducing mastectomy for breast cancer and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy or risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer. METHODS We used the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for study appraisal. Qualitative synthesis and fixed-effects meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS A total of 34 studies were included (risk-reducing mastectomy: 16 studies; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: 19 studies; risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy: 2 studies). Health-related quality of life was unchanged or improved in 13 of 15 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=986) and 10 of 16 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1617), despite short-term deficits (N=96 after risk-reducing mastectomy and N=459 after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy). Sexual function (using the Sexual Activity Questionnaire) was affected in 13 of 16 studies (N=1400) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in terms of decreased sexual pleasure (-1.21 [-1.53 to -0.89]; N=3070) and increased sexual discomfort (1.12 [0.93-1.31]; N=1400). Hormone replacement therapy after premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with an increase (1.16 [0.17-2.15]; N=291) in sexual pleasure and a decrease (-1.20 [-1.75 to -0.65]; N=157) in sexual discomfort. Sexual function was affected in 4 of 13 studies (N=147) after risk-reducing mastectomy, but stable in 9 of 13 studies (N=799). Body image was unaffected in 7 of 13 studies (N=605) after risk-reducing mastectomy, whereas 6 of 13 studies (N=391) reported worsening. Increased menopause symptoms were reported in 12 of 13 studies (N=1759) after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy with a reduction (-1.96 [-2.81 to -1.10]; N=1745) in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Endocrine Symptoms. Cancer-related distress was unchanged or decreased in 5 of 5 studies after risk-reducing mastectomy (N=365) and 8 of 10 studies after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (N=1223). Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy (2 studies, N=413) led to better sexual function and menopause-specific quality of life. CONCLUSION Risk-reducing surgery may be associated with quality of life outcomes. Risk-reducing mastectomy and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy reduce cancer-related distress, and do not affect health-related quality of life. Women and clinicians should be aware of body image problems after risk-reducing mastectomy, and of sexual dysfunction and menopause symptoms after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Risk-reducing early salpingectomy and delayed oophorectomy may be a promising alternative to mitigate quality of life-related risks of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xia Wei
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Oxley
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michail Sideris
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ashwin Kalra
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Adam Brentnall
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Sun
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Li Yang
- School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Cancer Research UK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
O’Shea R, Crook A, Jacobs C, Kentwell M, Gleeson M, Tucker KM, Hampel H, Rahm AK, Taylor N, Lewis S, Rankin NM. A mainstreaming oncogenomics model: improving the identification of Lynch syndrome. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1140135. [PMID: 37305562 PMCID: PMC10256118 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1140135] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 06/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction "Mainstreaming" is a proposed strategy to integrate genomic testing into oncology. The aim of this paper is to develop a mainstreaming oncogenomics model by identifying health system interventions and implementation strategies for mainstreaming Lynch syndrome genomic testing. Methods A rigorous theoretical approach inclusive of conducting a systematic review and qualitative and quantitative studies was undertaken using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Theory-informed implementation data were mapped to the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework to generate potential strategies. Results The systematic review identified a lack of theory-guided health system interventions and evaluation for Lynch syndrome and other mainstreaming programs. The qualitative study phase included 22 participants from 12 health organizations. The quantitative Lynch syndrome survey included 198 responses: 26% and 66% from genetic and oncology health professionals, respectively. Studies identified the relative advantage and clinical utility of mainstreaming to improve genetic test access and to streamline care, and adaptation of current processes was recognized for results delivery and follow-up. Barriers identified included funding, infrastructure and resources, and the need for process and role delineation. The interventions to overcome barriers were as follows: embedded mainstream genetic counselors, electronic medical record genetic test ordering, results tracking, and mainstreaming education resources. Implementation evidence was connected through the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research framework resulting in a mainstreaming oncogenomics model. Discussion The proposed mainstreaming oncogenomics model acts as a complex intervention. It features an adaptable suite of implementation strategies to inform Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer service delivery. Implementation and evaluation of the model are required in future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosie O’Shea
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ashley Crook
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Chris Jacobs
- Discipline of Genetic Counselling, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Maira Kentwell
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Department of Oncology, Royal Women’s Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Margaret Gleeson
- Hunter Genetics, Hunter Family Cancer Service, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Heather Hampel
- Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, United States
| | | | - Natalie Taylor
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sarah Lewis
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Nicole M. Rankin
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Stoltze UK, Hagen CM, van Overeem Hansen T, Byrjalsen A, Gerdes AM, Yakimov V, Rasmussen S, Bækvad-Hansen M, Hougaard DM, Schmiegelow K, Hjalgrim H, Wadt K, Bybjerg-Grauholm J. Combinatorial batching of DNA for ultralow-cost detection of pathogenic variants. Genome Med 2023; 15:17. [PMID: 36918911 PMCID: PMC10013285 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-023-01167-6] [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: 11/12/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2023] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Next-generation sequencing (NGS) based population screening holds great promise for disease prevention and earlier diagnosis, but the costs associated with screening millions of humans remain prohibitive. New methods for population genetic testing that lower the costs of NGS without compromising diagnostic power are needed. METHODS We developed double batched sequencing where DNA samples are batch-sequenced twice - directly pinpointing individuals with rare variants. We sequenced batches of at-birth blood spot DNA using a commercial 113-gene panel in an explorative (n = 100) and a validation (n = 100) cohort of children who went on to develop pediatric cancers. All results were benchmarked against individual whole genome sequencing data. RESULTS We demonstrated fully replicable detection of cancer-causing germline variants, with positive and negative predictive values of 100% (95% CI, 0.91-1.00 and 95% CI, 0.98-1.00, respectively). Pathogenic and clinically actionable variants were detected in RB1, TP53, BRCA2, APC, and 19 other genes. Analyses of larger batches indicated that our approach is highly scalable, yielding more than 95% cost reduction or less than 3 cents per gene screened for rare disease-causing mutations. We also show that double batched sequencing could cost-effectively prevent childhood cancer deaths through broad genomic testing. CONCLUSIONS Our ultracheap genetic diagnostic method, which uses existing sequencing hardware and standard newborn blood spots, should readily open up opportunities for population-wide risk stratification using genetic screening across many fields of clinical genetics and genomics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ulrik Kristoffer Stoltze
- Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark. .,Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark.
| | - Christian Munch Hagen
- Department of Congenital Disorders, Statens Serum Institute, 2300, KBH S, Artillerivej 5, Denmark
| | - Thomas van Overeem Hansen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, KBH N, Denmark
| | - Anna Byrjalsen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark
| | - Anne-Marie Gerdes
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark
| | - Victor Yakimov
- Department of Congenital Disorders, Statens Serum Institute, 2300, KBH S, Artillerivej 5, Denmark
| | - Simon Rasmussen
- Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, Copenhagen University, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, KBH N, Denmark
| | - Marie Bækvad-Hansen
- Department of Congenital Disorders, Statens Serum Institute, 2300, KBH S, Artillerivej 5, Denmark
| | - David Michael Hougaard
- Department of Congenital Disorders, Statens Serum Institute, 2300, KBH S, Artillerivej 5, Denmark
| | - Kjeld Schmiegelow
- Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, KBH N, Denmark
| | - Henrik Hjalgrim
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200, KBH N, Denmark.,Danish Cancer Society Research Centre, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark.,Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, 2300, KBH S, Artillerivej 5, Denmark.,Department of Haematology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
| | - Karin Wadt
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, KBH Ø, Denmark
| | - Jonas Bybjerg-Grauholm
- Department of Congenital Disorders, Statens Serum Institute, 2300, KBH S, Artillerivej 5, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Burnell M, Gaba F, Sobocan M, Desai R, Sanderson S, Loggenberg K, Gessler S, Side L, Brady AF, Dorkins H, Wallis Y, Jacobs C, Legood R, Beller U, Tomlinson I, Wardle J, Menon U, Jacobs I, Manchanda R. Randomised trial of population-based BRCA testing in Ashkenazi Jews: long-term secondary lifestyle behavioural outcomes. BJOG 2022; 129:1970-1980. [PMID: 35781768 PMCID: PMC9796935 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2021] [Revised: 04/22/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Ashkenazi-Jewish (AJ) population-based BRCA testing is acceptable, cost-effective and amplifies primary prevention for breast & ovarian cancer. However, data describing lifestyle impact are lacking. We report long-term results of population-based BRCA testing on lifestyle behaviour and cancer risk perception. DESIGN Two-arm randomised controlled trials (ISRCTN73338115, GCaPPS): (a) population-screening (PS); (b) family history (FH)/clinical criteria testing. SETTING North London AJ-population. POPULATION/SAMPLE AJ women/men >18 years. EXCLUSIONS prior BRCA testing or first-degree relatives of BRCA-carriers. METHODS Participants were recruited through self-referral. All participants received informed pre-test genetic counselling. The intervention included genetic testing for three AJ BRCA-mutations: 185delAG(c.68_69delAG), 5382insC(c.5266dupC) and 6174delT(c.5946delT). This was undertaken for all participants in the PS arm and participants fulfilling FH/clinical criteria in the FH arm. Patients filled out customised/validated questionnaires at baseline/1-year/2-year/3-year follow-ups. Generalised linear-mixed models adjusted for covariates and appropriate contrast tests were used for between-group/within-group analysis of lifestyle and behavioural outcomes along with evaluating factors associated with these outcomes. Outcomes are adjusted for multiple testing (Bonferroni method), with P < 0.0039 considered significant. OUTCOME MEASURES Lifestyle/behavioural outcomes at baseline/1-year/2-year/3-year follow-ups. RESULTS 1034 participants were randomised to PS (n = 530) or FH (n = 504) arms. No significant difference was identified between PS- and FH-based BRCA testing approaches in terms of dietary fruit/vegetable/meat consumption, vitamin intake, alcohol quantity/ frequency, smoking behaviour (frequency/cessation), physical activity/exercise or routine breast mammogram screening behaviour, with outcomes not affected by BRCA test result. Cancer risk perception decreased with time following BRCA testing, with no difference between FH/PS approaches, and the perception of risk was lowest in BRCA-negative participants. Men consumed fewer fruits/vegetables/vitamins and more meat/alcohol than women (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Population-based and FH-based AJ BRCA testing have similar long-term lifestyle impacts on smoking, alcohol, dietary fruit/vegetable/meat/vitamin, exercise, breast screening participation and reduced cancer risk perception.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Burnell
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and MethodologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Faiza Gaba
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer CentreQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK,Department of Gynaecological OncologyBarts Health NH TrustLondonUK
| | - Monika Sobocan
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer CentreQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK,Department of Gynaecological OncologyBarts Health NH TrustLondonUK
| | - Rakshit Desai
- Department of Gynaecological OncologyBarts Health NH TrustLondonUK
| | - Saskia Sanderson
- Behavioural Sciences UnitDepartment Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Kelly Loggenberg
- Department Clinical GeneticsNorth East Thames Regional Genetics UnitGreat Ormond Street HospitalLondonUK
| | - Sue Gessler
- Department of Gynaecological OncologyInstitute for Women's HealthUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Lucy Side
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustSouthamptonUK
| | - Angela F. Brady
- Department Clinical GeneticsNorth West Thames Regional Genetics UnitNorthwick Park HospitalLondonUK
| | - Huw Dorkins
- St Peter's CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Yvonne Wallis
- West Midlands Regional Genetics LaboratoryBirmingham Women's NHS Foundation TrustBirminghamUK,Depatment Clinical GeneticsWest Midlands Regional Genetics ServiceBirmingham Women's NHS Foundation TrustBirminghamUK
| | - Chris Jacobs
- Depatment Clinical GeneticsGuy's HospitalLondonUK,University of Technology SydneySydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Rosa Legood
- Department of Health Services Research and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLondonUK
| | - Uziel Beller
- Department of GynaecologyShaare Zedek Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
| | - Ian Tomlinson
- Institute of Cancer and Genomic SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Jane Wardle
- Behavioural Sciences UnitDepartment Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Usha Menon
- Department of Gynaecological OncologyBarts Health NH TrustLondonUK
| | - Ian Jacobs
- University of New South WalesSydneyNew South WalesAustralia
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and MethodologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK,Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer CentreQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK,Department of Gynaecological OncologyBarts Health NH TrustLondonUK,Department of Health Services Research and PolicyLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLondonUK,Department of GynaecologyAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew DelhiIndia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Meadows RJ, Figueroa W, Shane‐Carson KP, Padamsee TJ. Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women. Cancer Med 2022; 11:4043-4052. [PMID: 35388639 PMCID: PMC9636513 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4721] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Identifying women with high risk of breast cancer is necessary to study high-risk experiences and deliver risk-management care. Risk prediction models estimate individuals' lifetime risk but have rarely been applied in community-based settings among women not yet receiving specialized care. Therefore, we aimed: (1) to apply three breast cancer risk prediction models (i.e., Gail, Claus, and IBIS) to a racially diverse, community-based sample of women, and (2) to assess risk prediction estimates using survey data. METHODS An online survey was administered to women who were determined by a screening instrument to have potentially high risk for breast cancer. Risk prediction models were applied using their self-reported family and medical history information. Inclusion in the high-risk subsample required ≥20% lifetime risk per ≥1 model. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the proportions of women identified as high risk by each model. RESULTS N = 1053 women were initially eligible and completed the survey. All women, except one, self-reported the information necessary to run at least one model; 90% had sufficient information for >1 model. The high-risk subsample included 717 women, of which 75% were identified by one model only; 96% were identified by IBIS, 3% by Claus, <1% by Gail. In the high-risk subsample, 20% were identified by two models and 3% by all three models. CONCLUSIONS Assessing breast cancer risk using self-reported data in a community-based sample was feasible. Different models identify substantially different groups of women who may be at high risk for breast cancer; use of multiple models may be beneficial for research and clinical care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel J. Meadows
- Center for Epidemiology & Healthcare Delivery ResearchJPS Health NetworkFort WorthTexasUSA
| | - Wilson Figueroa
- The Ohio State UniversityCenter for Health Outcomes and Policy Evaluation Studies, College of Public HealthColumbusOhioUSA
- Division of Health Services Management & PolicyCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Kate P. Shane‐Carson
- Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal MedicineOhio State University Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Tasleem J. Padamsee
- Division of Health Services Management & PolicyCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Dibble KE, Donorfio LK, Britner PA, Bellizzi KM. Perceptions and care Recommendations from Previvors: Qualitative analysis of female BRCA1/2 mutation Carriers' experience with genetic testing and counseling. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2022; 41:100989. [PMID: 35540028 PMCID: PMC9079684 DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2022.100989] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Revised: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction It is estimated that 12.5% of women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 1.10% with ovarian cancer during their lifetime. Although less common, women with these mutations have a 11-72% increased risk of breast/ovarian cancers and are hereditary. Genetic testing/counseling presents the opportunity to identify carriers of BRCA1/2 genetic mutations before a cancer diagnosis. Methods Thirty-four BRCA1/2-positive women (with and without histories of breast/ovarian cancers) were recruited through online national support groups to gain a better understanding of their genetic testing/counseling perceptions and experiences. After confirming eligibility, they were invited to participate in either a telephone or webcam interview. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic text analysis and descriptive coding techniques. Results Six major themes emerged, capturing the perceptions and experiences of genetic testing/counseling for these women: 1) Emotional Reactions to Results and Genetic Counseling, 2) Future Recommendations, 3) Family Solidarity and Support, 4) Experiences with the Healthcare System, 5) Preventive Concerns and Decisions, and 6) Sources Affecting Perceived Risk. Two subthemes also emerged within the first theme, which are termed "Pre-vivor," and "Testing Intuition." Conclusions Participants indicated that genetic testing/counseling improvements would be helpful for women in this population surrounding quality care, including sensitivity training for healthcare professionals involved in testing/counseling, additional educational resources, and increased emotional and financial support. Although these recommendations may be beneficial, more widespread research with greater generalizability to disparate groups may be necessary prior to implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate E. Dibble
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
- Department of Human Development & Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Rd U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
| | - Laura K.M. Donorfio
- Department of Human Development & Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Rd U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
| | - Preston A. Britner
- Department of Human Development & Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Rd U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
| | - Keith M. Bellizzi
- Department of Human Development & Family Sciences, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Rd U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Frey MK, Finch A, Kulkarni A, Akbari MR, Chapman-Davis E. Genetic Testing for All: Overcoming Disparities in Ovarian Cancer Genetic Testing. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2022; 42:1-12. [PMID: 35452249 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_350292] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Nearly 3% of the population carries genetic variants that lead to conditions that include hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome. These pathogenic variants account for approximately 20% of ovarian cancer cases, and those with germline pathogenic variants have an odds ratio between 4 and 40 for developing ovarian cancer compared with noncarriers. Given the high prevalence of genetic variants, multiple organizations, including ASCO, recommend universal genetic counseling and testing for women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, most individuals with a hereditary ovarian cancer syndrome are unaware of their underlying mutation, and racial and ethnic minority individuals as well as patients of low socioeconomic status experience disproportionate rates of underrecognition, leading to late and missed diagnoses. In this article, we review the current understanding of disparities in genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer, the role of population-based genetic testing, and innovative strategies to overcome the critical inequities present in current cancer genetic medicine. Underuse and disparities related to accessing recommended genetic services are complex and multifactorial, requiring improvements in processes related to provider identification, genetic counseling and testing referral, and patient uptake/adherence. Through the expansion of remote genetic counseling, offering online strategies for genetic testing, and reaching at-risk relatives through direct relative contact cascade testing and population-based genetic testing, there are a growing number of innovations in the field of genetic medicine, many of which emphasize health equity and offer promising alternatives to the current paradigm of genetic testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa K Frey
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Amy Finch
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amita Kulkarni
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Mohammad R Akbari
- Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Institute of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eloise Chapman-Davis
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Bellcross CA. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2022; 49:117-147. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2021.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
13
|
Shen EC, Srinivasan S, Passero LE, Allen CG, Dixon M, Foss K, Halliburton B, Milko LV, Smit AK, Carlson R, Roberts MC. Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review. Front Genet 2022; 13:865384. [PMID: 35860476 PMCID: PMC9289280 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.865384] [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: 01/29/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020198198.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily C Shen
- College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.,UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Swetha Srinivasan
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Lauren E Passero
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Caitlin G Allen
- Department of Public Health Science, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States
| | - Madison Dixon
- Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Science, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Kimberly Foss
- Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Brianna Halliburton
- College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Laura V Milko
- Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rebecca Carlson
- Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Megan C Roberts
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ritchie JB, Welch BM, Allen CG, Frey LJ, Morrison H, Schiffman JD, Alekseyenko AV, Dean B, Hughes Halbert C, Bellcross C. Comparison of a Cancer Family History Collection and Risk Assessment Tool - ItRunsInMyFamily - with Risk Assessment by Health-Care Professionals. Public Health Genomics 2021; 25:1-9. [PMID: 34872100 PMCID: PMC9167897 DOI: 10.1159/000520001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists lack time and training to appropriately identify patients at increased risk for hereditary cancer using family health history (FHx) and clinical practice guideline (CPG) criteria. We built a tool, "ItRunsInMyFamily" (ItRuns) that automates FHx collection and risk assessment using CPGs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ItRuns by measuring the level of concordance in referral patterns for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT) between the CPGs as applied by the tool and genetic counselors (GCs), in comparison to oncologists and PCPs. The extent to which non-GCs are discordant with CPGs is a gap that health information technology, such as ItRuns, can help close to facilitate the identification of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer. METHODS We curated 18 FHx cases and surveyed GCs and non-GCs (oncologists and PCPs) to assess concordance with ItRuns CPG criteria for referring patients for GC/GT. Percent agreement was used to describe concordance, and logistic regression to compare providers and the tool's concordance with CPG criteria. RESULTS GCs had the best overall concordance with the CPGs used in ItRuns at 82.2%, followed by oncologists with 66.0% and PCPs with 60.6%. GCs were significantly more likely to concur with CPGs (OR = 4.04, 95% CI = 3.35-4.89) than non-GCs. All providers had higher concordance with CPGs for FHx cases that met the criteria for genetic counseling/testing than for cases that did not. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION The risk assessment provided by ItRuns was highly concordant with that of GC's, particularly for at-risk individuals. The use of such technology-based tools improves efficiency and can lead to greater numbers of at-risk individuals accessing genetic counseling, testing, and mutation-based interventions to improve health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jordon B. Ritchie
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, U.S
| | - Brandon M. Welch
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, U.S
- Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC US
| | - Caitlin G. Allen
- Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S
| | - Lewis J. Frey
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, U.S
| | - Heath Morrison
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, U.S
| | - Joshua D. Schiffman
- Oncological Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S
| | | | - Brian Dean
- Computer Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, U.S
| | - Chanita Hughes Halbert
- Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, U.S
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC US
- Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC US
| | - Cecelia Bellcross
- Department of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Reisel D, Baran C, Manchanda R. Preventive population genomics: The model of BRCA related cancers. ADVANCES IN GENETICS 2021; 108:1-33. [PMID: 34844711 DOI: 10.1016/bs.adgen.2021.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
Preventive population genomics offers the prospect of population stratification for targeting screening and prevention and tailoring care to those at greatest risk. Within cancer, this approach is now within reach, given our expanding knowledge of its heritable components, improved ability to predict risk, and increasing availability of effective preventive strategies. Advances in technology and bioinformatics has made population-testing technically feasible. The BRCA model provides 30 years of insight and experience of how to conceive of and construct care and serves as an initial model for preventive population genomics. Population-based BRCA-testing in the Jewish population is feasible, acceptable, reduces anxiety, does not detrimentally affect psychological well-being or quality of life, is cost-effective and is now beginning to be implemented. Population-based BRCA-testing and multigene panel testing in the wider general population is cost-effective for numerous health systems and can save thousands more lives than the current clinical strategy. There is huge potential for using both genetic and non-genetic information in complex risk prediction algorithms to stratify populations for risk adapted screening and prevention. While numerous strides have been made in the last decade several issues need resolving for population genomics to fulfil its promise and potential for maximizing precision prevention. Healthcare systems need to overcome significant challenges associated with developing delivery pathways, infrastructure expansion including laboratory services, clinical workforce training, scaling of management pathways for screening and prevention. Large-scale real world population studies are needed to evaluate context specific population-testing implementation models for cancer risk prediction, screening and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Reisel
- EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Chawan Baran
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, CRUK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, CRUK Barts Centre, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, United Kingdom; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Department of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Knoppers BM, Bernier A, Granados Moreno P, Pashayan N. Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores. J Pers Med 2021; 11:736. [PMID: 34442379 PMCID: PMC8398020 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Technological innovations including risk-stratification algorithms and large databases of longitudinal population health data and genetic data are allowing us to develop a deeper understanding how individual behaviors, characteristics, and genetics are related to health risk. The clinical implementation of risk-stratified screening programmes that utilise risk scores to allocate patients into tiers of health risk is foreseeable in the future. Legal and ethical challenges associated with risk-stratified cancer care must, however, be addressed. Obtaining access to the rich health data that are required to perform risk-stratification, ensuring equitable access to risk-stratified care, ensuring that algorithms that perform risk-scoring are representative of human genetic diversity, and determining the appropriate follow-up to be provided to stratification participants to alert them to changes in their risk score are among the principal ethical and legal challenges. Accounting for the great burden that regulatory requirements could impose on access to risk-scoring technologies is another critical consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Alexander Bernier
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK;
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gallagher A, Waller J, Manchanda R, Jacobs I, Sanderson S. Women's Intentions to Engage in Risk-Reducing Behaviours after Receiving Personal Ovarian Cancer Risk Information: An Experimental Survey Study. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123543. [PMID: 33260928 PMCID: PMC7760356 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 11/11/2020] [Accepted: 11/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Risk stratification using genetic testing to identify women at increased risk of ovarian cancer may increase the number of patients to whom risk-reducing surgery (e.g., salpingo-oophorectomy) may be offered. However, little is known about public acceptability of such approaches. Our online experimental survey aimed to explore whether women aged 45–75 in the general population are willing to undergo ovarian cancer risk assessment, including genetic testing, and whether women’s potential acceptance of risk-reducing surgery differs depending on their estimated risk. We looked at whether psychological and cognitive factors mediated women’s decision-making. The majority of participants would be interested in having genetic testing. In response to our hypothetical scenarios, a substantial proportion of participants were open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased from 2% to 5 or 10%. Abstract Risk stratification using genetic and/or other types of information could identify women at increased ovarian cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine women’s potential reactions to ovarian cancer risk stratification. A total of 1017 women aged 45–75 years took part in an online experimental survey. Women were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions describing hypothetical personal results from ovarian cancer risk stratification, and asked to imagine they had received one of three results: (a) 5% lifetime risk due to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and lifestyle factors; (b) 10% lifetime risk due to SNPs and lifestyle factors; (c) 10% lifetime risk due to a single rare mutation in a gene. Results: 83% of women indicated interest in having ovarian cancer risk assessment. After receiving their hypothetical risk estimates, 29% of women stated they would have risk-reducing surgery. Choosing risk-reducing surgery over other behavioural responses was associated with having higher surgery self-efficacy and perceived response-efficacy, but not with perceptions of disease threat, i.e., perceived risk or severity, or with experimental condition. A substantial proportion of women age 45–75 years may be open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased to as little as 5 or 10%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailish Gallagher
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Jo Waller
- Cancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK;
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK;
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London EC1A 7BE, UK
| | - Ian Jacobs
- Department of Women’s Health, University of New South Wales, Australia, Level 1, Chancellery Building, Sydney 2052, Australia;
| | - Saskia Sanderson
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
- Early Disease Detection Research Project UK (EDDRP UK), 2 Redman Place, London E20 1JQ, UK
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|