Advances in Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer, High-Quality Decision Making, and Responsible Resource Allocation

Development and validation of ultrasound-based radiomics model to predict germline BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Identifying breast cancer (BC) patients with germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA) mutation is important. The current criteria for germline testing for BC remain controversial. This study aimed to develop a nomogram incorporating ultrasound radiomic features and clinicopathological factors to predict gBRCA mutations in patients with BC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 497 women with BC who underwent gBRCA genetic testing from March 2013 to May 2022 were included, including 348 for training (84 with and 264 without a gBRCA mutation) and 149 for validation(36 patients with and 113 without a gBRCA mutation). Factors associated with gBRCA mutations were identified to establish a clinicopathological model. Radiomics features were extracted from the intratumoral and peritumoral regions (3 mm and 5 mm) of each image. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression algorithm was used to select the features and logistic regression analysis was used to construct three imaging models. Finally, a nomogram that combined clinicopathological and radiomics features was developed. The models were evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and clinical usefulness.

RESULTS

Age at diagnosis, family history of BC, personal history of other BRCA-related cancers, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were independent predictors of the clinicopathological model. The AUC of the imaging radiomics model combining intratumoral and peritumoral 3 mm areas in the validation set was 0.783 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.702-0.862), which showed the best performance among three imaging models. The nomogram yielded better performance than the clinicopathological model in validation sets (AUC: 0.824 [0.755-0.894] versus 0.659 [0.563-0.755], p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The nomogram based on ultrasound images and clinicopathological factors performs well in predicting gBRCA mutations in BC patients and may help to improve clinical decisions about genetic testing.

Germline Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer: ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO-Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

BRCA1/2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Genetic testing decision-making experiences within families of colorectal cancer patients: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

Genetic testing is the gold standard for the diagnosis of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes but is currently inadequate and nonideal. The decision-making processes regarding genetic testing are even less well known. The present study aims to explore the decision-making experience of genetic testing for colorectal cancer patients and their family members.

METHOD

A descriptive qualitative study was employed. Data were collected using individual semi-structured interviews with 5 colorectal cancer patients and 20 family members from November 2020 to April 2021. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Four categories were identified: 1) the source of information for genetic testing, 2) the differentiated attitudes towards genetic testing, 3) genetic testing decisional needs, and 4) the factors influencing genetic testing decision-making. Colorectal cancer patients and their families engaged in two distinct pathways to genetic testing decisions: direct decision-making and indirect decision-making. Throughout these processes, due to the limited source of information, they had information needs that were met and facilitated genetic testing decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal cancer patients and family members need knowledge related to genetic testing, but they have limited access to information, which prevents them from making informed decisions. Providing decision aid interventions and informational support are significant steps towards addressing the support needs of this population.

Involvement in treatment decision-making and self-reported efficacy among patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a nationwide multi-center cross-sectional study

Introduction

This cross-sectional study evaluated the involvement of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in treatment decision-making, assessed the treatment efficacy according to their self-reports, and investigated the influencing factors.

Methods

Patients with advanced CRC were recruited from 19 hospitals from March 2020 to March 2021 by a multi-stage multi-level sampling method. A self-designed questionnaire was used to collect demographic and clinical characteristics, involvement of CRC patients in treatment decision-making, treatment methods, and self-reported efficacy. Univariate and unordered multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the factors affecting the involvement in treatment decision-making and self-reported efficacy.

Results

We enrolled 4533 patients with advanced CRC. The average age at diagnosis was 58.7 ± 11.8 years. For the treatment method, 32.4% of patients received surgery combined with chemotherapy, 13.1% of patients underwent surgery combined with chemotherapy and targeted therapy, and 9.7% of patients were treated with surgery alone. For treatment decision-making, 7.0% of patients were solely responsible for decision-making, 47.0% of patients shared treatment decision-making with family members, 19.0% of patients had family members solely responsible for treatment decision-making, and 27.0% of patients had their physicians solely responsible for treatment decision-making. Gender, age, education level, family income, marital status, treatment cost, hospital type, and treatment method were significantly associated with the involvement of patients in treatment decision-making. A total of 3824 patients submitted self-reported efficacy evaluations during treatment. The percentage of patients with good self-reported efficacy was 76.5% (for patients treated for the first time), 61.7% (for patients treated for the second time), and 43.2% (for patients treated after recurrence and metastasis), respectively. Occupation, education level, average annual family income, place of residence, time since cancer diagnosis, hospital type, clinical stage, targeted therapy, and involvement in treatment decision-making were the main influencing factors of self-reported efficacy of treatment.

Discussion

Conclusively, CRC patients are not highly dominant in treatment decision-making and more likely to make treatment decisions with their family and doctors. Timely and effective communication between doctors and patients can bolster patient involvement in treatment decision-making.

Integration of Universal Germline Genetic Testing for All New Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Breast Surgeons recommends genetic testing (GT) for all women with breast cancer (BC), but implementation and uptake of GT has not been well-described.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed for newly diagnosed BC patients or patients with a newly identified recurrence of BC seen in a multidisciplinary clinic (MDBC) who were offered genetic counseling (GC) and GT.

RESULTS

The 138 women attending the MDBC had a median age of 54 years and comprised non-Hispanic whites (46%), Asians (28%), Hispanics (17%), blacks (4%), and other (5%). Of the 105 (76%) patients without prior GT, 100 (95%) accepted GC, with 93 (93%) of these 100 patients undergoing GT. The patients meeting the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for GT were more likely to undergo GT. Testing was performed with a 67- to 84-gene panel, together with an 8- to 9-gene STAT panel if needed. Among 120 patients with reports available, including 33 patients previously tested, 15 (12%) were positive (1 BLM, 1 BRCA1, 3 BRCA2, 1 BRIP1, 1 CFTR, 1 CHEK2, 1 MUTYH, 1 PALB2, 1 PRSS1, 1 RAD50, 1 RET, and 2 TP53), 44 (37%) were negative, and 61 (51%) had an uncertain variant. The median time to STAT results (n = 50) was 8 days. The STAT results were available before surgery for 47 (98%) of the 48 STAT patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

New BC patients attending the MDBC demonstrated high rates of acceptance of GC and GT. The combination of GC and GT can offer timely information critical to patient risk assessment and treatment planning.

DrABC: deep learning accurately predicts germline pathogenic mutation status in breast cancer patients based on phenotype data

Background

Identifying breast cancer patients with DNA repair pathway-related germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) is important for effectively employing systemic treatment strategies and risk-reducing interventions. However, current criteria and risk prediction models for prioritizing genetic testing among breast cancer patients do not meet the demands of clinical practice due to insufficient accuracy.

Methods

The study population comprised 3041 breast cancer patients enrolled from seven hospitals between October 2017 and 11 August 2019, who underwent germline genetic testing of 50 cancer predisposition genes (CPGs). Associations among GPVs in different CPGs and endophenotypes were evaluated using a case-control analysis. A phenotype-based GPV risk prediction model named DNA-repair Associated Breast Cancer (DrABC) was developed based on hierarchical neural network architecture and validated in an independent multicenter cohort. The predictive performance of DrABC was compared with currently used models including BRCAPRO, BOADICEA, Myriad, PENN II, and the NCCN criteria.

Results

In total, 332 (11.3%) patients harbored GPVs in CPGs, including 134 (4.6%) in BRCA2, 131 (4.5%) in BRCA1, 33 (1.1%) in PALB2, and 37 (1.3%) in other CPGs. GPVs in CPGs were associated with distinct endophenotypes including the age at diagnosis, cancer history, family cancer history, and pathological characteristics. We developed a DrABC model to predict the risk of GPV carrier status in BRCA1/2 and other important CPGs. In predicting GPVs in BRCA1/2, the performance of DrABC (AUC = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.74–0.85], sensitivity = 82.1%, specificity = 63.1% in the independent validation cohort) was better than that of previous models (AUC range = 0.57–0.70). In predicting GPVs in any CPG, DrABC (AUC = 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69–0.79], sensitivity = 83.8%, specificity = 51.3% in the independent validation cohort) was also superior to previous models in their current versions (AUC range = 0.55–0.65). After training these previous models with the Chinese-specific dataset, DrABC still outperformed all other methods except for BOADICEA, which was the only previous model with the inclusion of pathological features. The DrABC model also showed higher sensitivity and specificity than the NCCN criteria in the multi-center validation cohort (83.8% and 51.3% vs. 78.8% and 31.2%, respectively, in predicting GPVs in any CPG). The DrABC model implementation is available online at http://gifts.bio-data.cn/.

Conclusions

By considering the distinct endophenotypes associated with different CPGs in breast cancer patients, a phenotype-driven prediction model based on hierarchical neural network architecture was created for identification of hereditary breast cancer. The model achieved superior performance in identifying GPV carriers among Chinese breast cancer patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13073-022-01027-9.

Profile of Pathogenic Mutations and Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in Consecutive Breast Cancer Patients Treated at a North Indian Tertiary Care Center

Background

The burden of hereditary breast cancer in India is not well defined. Moreover, genetic testing criteria (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] and Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics [MCG] Plus) have never been validated in the Indian population.

Methods

All new female breast cancer patients from 1st March 2019 to 28th February 2020 were screened. Those providing informed consent and without previous genetic testing were recruited. Multigene panel testing (107 genes) by next-generation sequencing was performed for all patients. The frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) mutations between patients qualifying and not qualifying the testing criteria was compared and their sensitivity was computed.

Results

Overall, 275 breast cancer patients were screened and 236 patients were included (median age 45 years); 30 patients did not consent and 9 patients previously underwent genetic testing. Thirty-four (14%) women had a positive family history and 35% had triple-negative breast cancer. P/LP mutations were found in 44/236 (18.64%) women; mutations in BRCA1 (22/47, 46.8%) and BRCA2 (9/47, 19.1%) were the most common, with 34% of mutations present in non-BRCA genes. Patients qualifying the testing criteria had a higher risk of having a P/LP mutation (NCCN: 23.6% vs. 7.04%, p = 0.03; MCG plus: 24.8% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.01). The sensitivity of the NCCN criteria was 88.6% (75.4–96.2) and 86.36% (72.65–94.83) for MCG plus. More than 95% sensitivity was achieved if all women up to 60 years of age were tested. Cascade testing was performed in 31 previous (16/44 families), with 23 testing positive.

Conclusions

The frequency of P/LP mutations in India is high, with significant contribution of non-BRCA genes. Testing criteria need modification to expand access to testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10870-w.

Treatment Options for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in both men and women. Pancreatic cancer is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage and has an overall 5-year survival of approximately 9.3%. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends both germline testing (testing cells such as blood or skin that do not have cancer) as well as somatic testing (testing cells with cancer) for pathogenic variants that may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer. In December 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration approved the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in individuals who have completed at least 16 weeks of progression-free treatment with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. This new therapy option has implications not only for treatment but also for the role of the oncology advanced practitioner as genetic testing becomes more prevalent in the care of patients with cancer.

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.

Rapid Genetic Testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations at the Time of Breast Cancer Diagnosis: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of rapid genetic testing (RGT) for BRCA1 and BRCA2 at the time of breast cancer diagnosis on treatment choices. Bilateral mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation offers a reduction in the risk of contralateral breast cancer. It is unclear whether offering RGT at the time of breast cancer diagnosis has an impact on women's surgical decision-making.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer diagnosed between June 2013 and May 2018 were recruited from four academic health sciences centers in Toronto, Canada. The participants completed a questionnaire before genetic testing, then one week and one year after disclosure of the genetic test result. Before surgery, RGT was performed. Diagnostic, pathologic, and treatment data were compared between those with and those without a BRCA mutation.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 1007 women who consented to RGT. The mean age of the participants was 46.3 years, and the median time to result disclosure was 10 days. A BRCA mutation was found in 6% of the women. The women with a BRCA mutation were significantly more likely to elect for bilateral mastectomy than the women without a BRCA mutation (p < 0.0001). Of the BRCA-positive patients, 95.7% reported that they used their genetic test result to make a surgical decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The women provided with RGT at the time of breast cancer diagnosis use the genetic information to make treatment decisions, and the majority of those identified with a BRCA mutation elect for a bilateral mastectomy.

Using patient perspectives to inform communication training materials for health care professionals discussing BRCA mutation testing

Purpose

As demand for genetic testing grows and a wide range of health care professionals (HCPs) are potentially involved in discussions about testing and delivering results, we developed an educational package to help HCPs with these conversations.

Methods

To inform the content of training materials, we conducted interviews with 11 women four of whom had BRCA1 and seven with BRCA2 mutations. Five women had or were currently receiving breast cancer treatment. Ages ranged from 38 to 77 years. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework approach to thematic analysis.

Results

We identified 18 themes and 12 subthemes across the interviews, encompassed by six overarching themes: risk, decision-making, information and understanding, communication and improvement, accessing the system: process and frustration, emotional and social drivers.

Conclusions

The findings informed the didactic components of an educational communication workshop and a summary document for attendees. Qualitative interviews provide an important way of incorporating the patient perspective into communication training materials for HCPs by highlighting key issues that matter most to the patient.

A systematic review of communication interventions to help healthcare professionals discuss genetic testing for breast cancer

Purpose

This systematic review examined educational training interventions for healthcare professionals (HCPs) discussing genetic testing and risk for hereditary breast cancer. There was a particular focus on the presence, and content, of communication elements within these packages.

Methods

Searches were run via CINAHL, EMBASE, PUBMED, and PsychInfo in February 2019 to identify training interventions available to HCPs with reference to communication skills. Studies were assessed for quality, with relevant intervention and outcome data extracted and synthesized. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42019124010).

Results

Of 3,988 items, seven papers, two of which were linked, were eligible for inclusion. There was a mix of randomized and single arm studies with web-based and face-to-face interventions. Content included an overview of genetics, hereditary and familial background, and recommended practice techniques. Outcomes focused on communication, self-efficacy, knowledge, and satisfaction. Interventions were designed for genetic counselors, physicians, primary care physicians (PCPs), medical students, and nurses. None of the papers featured oncologists or surgeons.

Conclusions

This review revealed an overall lack of publications which evaluated interventions to assist HCPs discussing hereditary breast cancer risk and testing. Studies failed to operationalize which ‘communication skills’ they included, nor did they consistently report randomization, outcome measures, or analysis.

Discussing the need for, and management of, genetic testing for inherited cancer risk with individuals and their families can be challenging. As genetic testing in breast cancer becomes more common, the provision of specific communication-based training programs, with reference to genetic testing, risk assessments, and counseling skills is warranted.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05741-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in a Hospital-Based Series of Women With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the sensitivity and specificity of genetic testing criteria for the detection of germline pathogenic variants in women with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women with breast cancer enrolled in a breast cancer registry at a tertiary cancer center between 2000 and 2016 were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in 9 breast cancer predisposition genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53). The performance of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) hereditary cancer testing criteria was evaluated relative to testing of all women as recommended by the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

RESULTS

Of 3,907 women, 1,872 (47.9%) meeting NCCN criteria were more likely to carry a pathogenic variant in 9 predisposition genes compared with women not meeting criteria (9.0% v 3.5%; P < .001). Of those not meeting criteria (n = 2,035), 14 (0.7%) had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for 9 predisposition genes and 87% for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a specificity of 53%. Expansion of the NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 65 years of age achieved > 90% sensitivity for the 9 predisposition genes and > 98% sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer carrying germline pathogenic variants in predisposition genes do not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria. Expansion of NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed at ≤ 65 years of age improves the sensitivity of the selection criteria without requiring testing of all women with breast cancer.

Should Genetic Testing for Cancer Predisposition Be Standard-of-Care for Women with Invasive Breast Cancer? The Murtha Cancer Center Experience

Currently, genetic testing is offered only to women diagnosed with breast cancer who meet a defined set of criteria and is not included as standard-of-care treatment at the time of diagnosis. Thus, a significant number of women diagnosed with breast cancer may miss the opportunity for precision medical treatment and risk management. The effects of eligibility, timing, and uptake of genetic testing were evaluated in a cohort of women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 2001-2018. Risk status was estimated using NCCN BRCA1/2 testing criteria and panel testing was performed for all women who had genomic DNA available. Of the 1231 women, 57.8% were eligible for genetic testing. Uptake of testing within high-risk women was 42.7% of which 6.6% pursued clinical testing only after a second tumor event. Mutation frequencies were 15.8%, 5.5%, and 4.0% in high-risk women with clinical testing, high-risk women without clinical testing, and low-risk women, respectively. More than 4% of all patients harbored pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations detected only in the research setting. Inclusion of panel testing at the time of diagnosis would allow for appropriate surveillance and treatment strategies to be employed to reduce the risk of secondary tumors and improve patient outcome.