Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing Into Treatment Decision-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer.

METHODS

An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing.

RESULTS

Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.

Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Family Communication Into Survivorship After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To examine receipt of genetic testing and communication with relatives about results into survivorship after diagnosis of breast cancer.

METHODS

Women age 20-79 years diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in 2014-2015 and reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries were surveyed approximately 7 months and 6 years after diagnosis (n = 1,412). We asked about genetic counseling, testing, and communication with relatives about results. We categorized women into indications for testing on the basis of clinical guidelines at the time of diagnosis and at the time of the follow-up survey (FUPs).

RESULTS

A total of 47.4% had indications for genetic testing at any time: 28.0% at baseline and an additional 19.4% at the time of the FUPs (only); 71.9% (95% CI, 67.4 to 76.4) of those with a baseline indication reported genetic testing versus 53.3% (95% CI, 47.3 to 59.2) with an indication at FUPs only and 35.0% (95% CI, 31.6 to 38.4) with no indication (P < .001). There were no significant racial or ethnic differences in receipt of testing, controlling for age and clinical indications (P = .239); results for genetic counseling were similar. Only 3.4% of survivors had direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCt) for cancer. Testers who reported a pathogenic variant (n = 62) were much more likely to have talked to most or all their first-degree adult relatives about genetic testing than those with a variant of unknown significance (n = 49) or a negative finding (n = 419): 62.7% versus 38.8% and 38.0%, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Many women with indications for genetic counseling and testing into survivorship do not receive it. But those tested reach out to family members on the basis of the clinical relevance of their results. Very few patients obtained DTCt, which suggests that these tests do not substitute for clinical testing in breast cancer survivors.

Demographics and Clinical Decision Making in Patients with Germline Moderate Penetrance Non-BRCA Mutations in Breast Cancer Related Genes

BACKGROUND

Management of pathogenic variants in high penetrance genes related to breast cancer (BC), such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are well established. However, moderate penetrance mutations are understudied. We aim to compare risk reduction decision-making patterns in patients with a moderate penetrance BC-related genetic mutations, without a prior BC diagnosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Female patients aged ≥ 18 years who tested positive for a BRCA1/2, high penetrance, or moderate penetrance mutation related to BC between 1996 and 2023 without a concurrent or prior BC diagnosis were retrospectively identified from a single academic center's database. Groups were stratified by mutation type: BRCA1/2 mutations (BRCA1, BRCA2), high penetrance mutations (HPM; CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, STK11, TP53), or moderate penetrance mutations (MPM; ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, NF1, RAD51C, RAD51D). Demographics and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 66% (n = 350) having a BRCA1/2 mutation, 8% (n = 44) having HPM, and 25% (n = 134) having MPM; the median follow-up was 56.0 months. In our cohort, 20.9% of patients with BRCA mutations, 9.1% with HPM, and 7.5% with MPM chose to undergo risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM). Within the moderate penetrance cohort, patients who chose to undergo RRM were younger at the time of genetic testing (39.4 vs. 47.5 years, p = 0.03) and had a higher number of family members with BC (2 vs. 1, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide insights into the demographic characteristics and family history of patients with moderate penetrance mutations and those who pursue risk-reducing surgery.

The Development and Evaluation of Novel Patient Educational Material for a Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) Result in Hereditary Cancer Genes

A Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) is a difference in the DNA sequence with uncertain consequences for gene function. A VUS in a hereditary cancer gene should not change medical care, yet some patients undergo medical procedures based on their VUS result, highlighting the unmet educational needs among patients and healthcare providers. To address this need, we developed, evaluated, and refined novel educational materials to explain that while VUS results do not change medical care, it remains important to share any personal or family history of cancer with family members given that their personal and family medical history can guide their cancer risk management. We began by reviewing the prior literature and transcripts from interviews with six individuals with a VUS result to identify content and design considerations to incorporate into educational materials. We then gathered feedback to improve materials via a focus group of multidisciplinary experts and multiple rounds of semi-structured interviews with individuals with a VUS result. Themes for how to improve content, visuals, and usefulness were used to refine the materials. In the final round of interviews with an additional 10 individuals with a VUS result, materials were described as relatable, useful, factual, and easy to navigate, and also increased their understanding of cancer gene VUS results.

Racial disparities in breast cancer risk factors and risk management

Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes are well described across the spectrum of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Breast cancer mortality is markedly elevated for Non-Hispanic Black women compared with other racial and ethnic groups, with multifactorial causes. Here, we aim to reduce this burden by identifying disparities in breast cancer risk factors, risk assessment, and risk management before breast cancer is diagnosed. We describe a reproductive profile and modifiable risk factors specific to the development of triple-negative breast cancer. We also propose that screening strategies should be both risk- and race-based, given the prevalence of early-onset triple-negative breast cancer in young Black women. We emphasize the importance of early risk assessment and identification of patients at hereditary and familial risk and discuss indications for a high-risk referral. We discuss the subtleties following genetic testing and highlight "uncertain" genetic testing results and risk estimation challenges in women who test negative. We trace aspects of the obesity epidemic in the Black community to infant feeding patterns and emphasize healthy eating and activity. Finally, we discuss building an environment of trust to foster adherence to recommendations, follow-up care, and participation in clinical trials. Addressing relevant social determinants of health; educating patients and clinicians on factors impacting disparities in outcomes; and encouraging participation in targeted, culturally sensitive research are essential to best serve all communities.

Utilization of a Third-party Partnership in Tele-genetic Risk Assessment Program in Genitourinary Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To meet the increasing demands of genetic risk assessment for genitourinary cancers due to expanded clinical guidelines, we established an academic/industry partnership to create a streamlined workflow to overcome the barriers to access to care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Genome Medical offers multilingual genetic counseling. A pilot program evaluated patients at risk for hereditary genitourinary syndromes. Between January 1, 2020 and January 07, 2022, all patients in need of germline testing were offered hybrid in-clinic telehealth pre-test counseling and when indicated, genetic testing. Post-test counseling was offered based on results and encouraged if positive. Testing results, patient satisfaction, and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 146 of 182 (80.0%) patients agreed to participate, with 130 (89.0%) completing pre-test counseling. Median age was 65 (range 22-95), with 91% being male and approximately 60% having prostate cancer. The median time from referral to pre-test counseling was 11 days (IQR 7-20). After assessment, testing was recommended for 127 (97.7%) of which 123 (96.8%) completed testing. The median time from testing to result release was 15 days (IQR 10-20.8). Forty (32.5%) had post-test counseling. Reimbursement by private insurers increased annually from $17.2 to $52.4. Patient satisfaction was high with a mean Genetic Counselor Satisfaction Scale of 27.9 out of 30.

CONCLUSION

Our program provided high patient satisfaction, rapid access to genetic counseling, prompt genetic testing, timely release of results, and was cost-effective compared to traditional models. This approach is scalable across community and academic settings and across cancer types.

Germline testing and genetic counseling in biliary tract cancer: an operative proposal to improve the state of art

INTRODUCTION

A genetic predisposition seems to be involved in biliary tract cancer, but the prevalence of germline mutations in BTC remains unclear, and the therapeutic role of the germline pathologic variants is still unknown.

AREA COVERED

The aim of the present work is to systematically review the data available on the hereditary predisposition of biliary tract cancer by a specific research on PubMed, in order to highlight the most important critical points and to define the current possible role of germinal testing and genetic counseling in this setting of patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Basing on data already available, we decided to start in our institution a specific genetic protocol focused on biliary tract cancer patients, which includes genetic counseling and, if indicated, germline test. The inclusion criteria are: 1) Patient with personal history of oncologic disease other than BTC, 2) Patient with familiar history of oncologic disease (considering relatives of first and second grade), 3) Patient with ≤ 50 years old, 4) Patient presenting a somatic mutation in genes involved in DNA damage repair pathways and mismatch repair. The aim of the presented protocol is to identify germline pathogenic variants with prophylactic and therapeutic impact, and to collect and integrate a significant amount of clinical, familial, somatic, and genetic data.

Challenges to genetic testing for germline mutations associated with breast cancer among African Americans

Inequities in preventive cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and inferior cancer outcomes continue to pose challenges across the cancer continuum. While the exact reasons for these inferior outcomes are unknown, multiple barriers to various domains of social determinants of health (SDOH) play a vital role, leading to inequities in cancer care. These include barriers to transportation, housing, and food insecurities, contributing to delays in preventive screening and treatment. Furthermore, aggressive biologies also exist across various racial profiles with accompanying germline mutations. For example, African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer subtype and a high prevalence of BRCA1/2 gene mutations, increasing the risk of multiple cancers, warranting high-risk screening for these populations. Unfortunately, other barriers, such as financial insecurities, low health literacy rates, and lack of awareness, lead to delays in cancer screening and genetic testing, even with available high-risk screening and risk reduction procedures. In addition, physicians receive minimal interdisciplinary training to address genetic assessment, interpretation of the results, and almost no additional training in addressing the unique needs of racial minorities, leading to suboptimal delivery of genetic assessment provision resources among AAs. In this review, we discuss the confluence of factors and barriers limiting genetic testing among AAs and highlight the prevalence of germline mutations associated with increased risk of breast cancer among AAs, reflecting the need for multi-panel germline testing as well as education regarding hereditary cancer risks in underserved minorities.

Systematic evidence review and meta-analysis of outcomes associated with cancer genetic counseling

PURPOSE

Genetic counseling (GC) is standard of care in genetic cancer risk assessment (GCRA). A rigorous assessment of the data reported from published studies is crucial to ensure the evidence-based implementation of GC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 patient-reported and health-services-related outcomes associated with pre- and post-test GC in GCRA in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-five of 5393 screened articles met inclusion criteria. No articles reporting post-test GC outcomes met inclusion criteria. For patient-reported outcomes, pre-test GC significantly decreased worry, increased knowledge, and decreased perceived risk but did not significantly affect patient anxiety, depression, decisional conflict, satisfaction, or intent to pursue genetic testing. For health-services outcomes, pre-test GC increased correct genetic test ordering, reduced inappropriate services, increased spousal support for genetic testing, and expedited care delivery but did not consistently improve cancer prevention behaviors nor lead to accurate risk assessment. The GRADE certainty in the evidence was very low or low. No included studies elucidated GC effect on mortality, cascade testing, cost-effectiveness, care coordination, shared decision making, or patient time burden.

CONCLUSION

The true impact of GC on relevant outcomes is not known low quality or absent evidence. Although a meta-analysis found that pre-test GC had beneficial effects on knowledge, worry, and risk perception, the certainty of this evidence was low according to GRADE methodology. Further studies are needed to support the evidence-based application of GC in GCRA.

Knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and barriers pertaining to genetic literacy among surgeons: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The rapid evolution of genetic technologies and utilization of genetic information for clinical decision-making has necessitated increased surgeon participation in genetic counselling, testing, and appropriate referral of patients for genetic services, without formal training in genetics. We performed a scoping review to describe surgeons' knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and barriers pertaining to genetic literacy in the management of patients who had confirmed cancer or who were potentially genetically at risk.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We performed a comprehensive literature search, and 2 reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion. These studies included surgeons involved in the care of patients with confirmed gastrointestinal, breast, and endocrine and neuroendocrine cancers, or patients who were potentially genetically at risk for these cancers.

RESULTS

We analyzed 17 studies, all of which used survey or interview-based formats. Many surgeons engaged in genetic counselling, testing, and referral, but reported low confidence and comfort in doing so. Knowledge assessments showed lower confidence in identifying genetic inheritance patterns and hereditary cancer syndromes, but awareness was higher among surgeons with greater clinical volume or subspecialty training in oncology. Surgeons felt responsible for facilitating these services and explicitly requested educational support in genetics. Barriers to genetic literacy were identified and catalogued at patient, surgeon, and system levels.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons frequently engage in genetics-related tasks despite a lack of formal genetics training, and often report low knowledge, comfort, and confidence in providing such services. We have identified several barriers to genetic literacy that can be used to develop interventions to enhance genetic literacy among surgeons.

Novel Pathogenic Variants in Hereditary Cancer Syndromes in a Highly Heterogeneous Cohort of Patients: Insights from Multigene Analysis

Cancer is a major global public health challenge, affecting both quality of life and mortality. Recent advances in genetic research have uncovered hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) that predispose individuals to malignant neoplasms. While traditional single-gene testing has focused on high-penetrance genes, the past decade has seen a shift toward multigene panels, which facilitate the analysis of multiple genes associated with specific HCS. This approach reveals variants in less-studied gene regions and improves our understanding of cancer predisposition. In a study composed of Russian patients with clinical signs of HCS, we used a multigene hereditary cancer panel and revealed 21.6% individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic genetic variants. BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations predominated, followed by the CHEK2 and ATM variants. Of note, 16 previously undescribed variants were identified in the MUTYH, GALNT12, MSH2, MLH1, MLH3, EPCAM, and POLE genes. The implications of the study extend to personalized cancer prevention and treatment strategies, especially in populations lacking extensive epidemiological data, such as Russia. Overall, our research provides valuable genetic insights that give the way for further investigation and advances in the understanding and management of hereditary cancer syndromes.

Needle biopsy accelerates pro-metastatic changes and systemic dissemination in breast cancer: Implications for mortality by surgery delay

Increased breast cancer (BC) mortality risk posed by delayed surgical resection of tumor after diagnosis is a growing concern, yet the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. Our cohort analyses of early-stage BC patients reveal the emergence of a significantly rising mortality risk when the biopsy-to-surgery interval was extended beyond 53 days. Additionally, histology of post-biopsy tumors shows prolonged retention of a metastasis-permissive wound stroma dominated by M2-like macrophages capable of promoting cancer cell epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and angiogenesis. We show that needle biopsy promotes systemic dissemination of cancer cells through a mechanism of sustained activation of the COX-2/PGE2/EP2 feedforward loop, which favors M2 polarization and its associated pro-metastatic changes but are abrogated by oral treatment with COX-2 or EP2 inhibitors in estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) syngeneic mouse tumor models. Therefore, we conclude that needle biopsy of ER+ BC provokes progressive pro-metastatic changes, which may explain the mortality risk posed by surgery delay after diagnosis.

When Germline Genetic Testing Results Are Unclear: Highlighting Variants of Uncertain Significance

With the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing (NGS) and multigene panel testing, genetic testing and interpretations have become increasingly complex. Specifically, reports demonstrating "variant of uncertain significance" (VUS) present interpretative challenges. Misinterpretation of a VUS may result in clinical harm, emotional distress for patients and family members, and potential health-care provider liability. The following article and deidentified case study illustrate how a lack of health-care provider and patient understanding of a germline VUS resulted in a negative patient outcome and unnecessary surgery.

Reclassifying variations of unknown significance in diseases affecting Saudi Arabia's population reveal new associations

Introduction: Physicians face diagnostic dilemmas upon reports indicating disease variants of unknown significance (VUS). The most puzzling cases are patients with rare diseases, where finding another matched genotype and phenotype to associate their results is challenging. This study aims to prove the value of updating patient files with new classifications, potentially leading to better assessment and prevention. Methodology: We recruited retrospective phenotypic and genotypic data from King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Between September 2020 and December 2021, 1,080 patients' genetic profiles were tested in a College of American Pathologists accredited laboratory. We excluded all confirmed pathogenic variants, likely pathogenic variants and copy number variations. Finally, we further reclassified 194 VUS using different local and global databases, employing in silico prediction to justify the phenotype-genotype association. Results: Of the 194 VUS, 90 remained VUS, and the other 104 were reclassified as follows: 16 pathogenic, 49 likely pathogenic, nine benign, and 30 likely benign. Moreover, most of these variants had never been observed in other local or international databases. Conclusion: Reclassifying the VUS adds value to understanding the causality of the phenotype if it has been reported in another family or population. The healthcare system should establish guidelines for re-evaluating VUS, and upgrading VUS should reflect on individual/family risks and management strategies.

Exploring Stakeholders' Perspectives on Implementing Universal Germline Testing for Colorectal Cancer: Findings From a Clinical Practice Survey

PURPOSE

New guidelines recommend considering germline genetic testing for all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is a lack of data on stakeholders' perspectives on the advantages and barriers of implementing universal germline testing (UGT). This study assessed the perspectives of members of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer (CGA-IGC) regarding the implementation of UGT for patients with CRC, including readiness, logistics, and barriers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was sent to 317 active members of CGA-IGC. The survey included sections on demographics, clinical practice specialty, established institutional practices for testing, and questions pertaining to support of and barriers to implementing UGT for patients with CRC.

RESULTS

Eighty CGA-IGC members (25%) participated, including 42 genetic counselors (53%) and 14 gastroenterologists (18%). Forty-seven (59%) reported an academic medical center as their primary work setting, and most participants (56%) had more than 10 years of clinical practice. Although most participants (73%) supported UGT, 54% indicated that changes in practice would be required before adopting UGT, and 39% indicated that these changes would be challenging to implement. There was support for both genetics and nongenetics providers to order genetic testing, and a majority (57%) supported a standardized multigene panel rather than a customized gene panel. Key barriers to UGT implementation included limited genetics knowledge among nongenetics providers, time-consuming processes for obtaining consent, ordering tests, disclosing results, and lack of insurance coverage.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates wide support among hereditary GI cancer experts for implementation of UGT for patients with CRC. However, alternative service delivery models using nongenetics providers should be considered to address the logistical barriers to UGT implementation, particularly the growing demand for genetic testing.

Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States.

The Spectrum of Germline Nucleotide Variants in Gastric Cancer Patients in the Kyrgyz Republic

Gastric cancer is a major challenge in modern oncology due to its high detection rate and prevalence. While sporadic cases make up the majority of gastric cancer, hereditary gastric cancer is caused by germline mutations in several genes linked to different syndromes. Thus, identifying hereditary forms of gastric cancer is considered crucial globally. A survey study using NGS-based analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of different types of hereditary gastric cancer in the yet-unstudied Kyrgyz population. The study cohort included 113 patients with diagnosed gastric cancer from Kyrgyzstan. The age of patients was 57.6 ± 8.9. Next-generation sequencing analysis of genomic DNA was performed using a custom Roche NimbleGen enrichment panel. The results showed that 6.2% (7/113) of the patients had pathogenic or likely pathogenic genetic variants. Additionally, 3.5% (4/113) of the patients carried heterozygous pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in high penetrance genes, such as TP53, POLD1, RET, and BRCA2. Moreover, 2.7% (3/113) of the patients carried heterozygous mutations in genes linked to autosomal recessive conditions, specifically PALB2, FANCA, and FANCD2. We have not identified any genetic variants in hereditary GC-associated genes: CDH1, STK11, SMAD4, BMPRIA, APC, MLH1, and others. Our study included patients with sporadic features of GC. The use of recognized criteria (NCCN, Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022) would increase the number of identified genetic variants in hereditary GC-associated genes. Further research is required to determine the clinical relevance of the genetic variants identified in the current study.

Germline Genetic Testing After Cancer Diagnosis

Importance

Germline genetic testing is recommended by practice guidelines for patients diagnosed with cancer to enable genetically targeted treatment and identify relatives who may benefit from personalized cancer screening and prevention.

Objective

To describe the prevalence of germline genetic testing among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Observational study including patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, that was reported to statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in California and Georgia. These patients were linked to genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that performed most germline testing for California and Georgia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was germline genetic testing within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis. Testing trends were analyzed with logistic regression modeling. The results of sequencing each gene, including variants associated with increased cancer risk (pathogenic results) and variants whose cancer risk association was unknown (uncertain results), were evaluated. The genes were categorized according to their primary cancer association, including breast or ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other, and whether practice guidelines recommended germline testing.

Results

Among 1 369 602 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2019 in California and Georgia, 93 052 (6.8%) underwent germline testing through March 31, 2021. The proportion of patients tested varied by cancer type: male breast (50%), ovarian (38.6%), female breast (26%), multiple (7.5%), endometrial (6.4%), pancreatic (5.6%), colorectal (5.6%), prostate (1.1%), and lung (0.3%). In a logistic regression model, compared with the 31% (95% CI, 30%-31%) of non-Hispanic White patients with male breast cancer, female breast cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent testing, patients of other races and ethnicities underwent testing less often: 22% (95% CI, 21%-22%) of Asian patients, 25% (95% CI, 24%-25%) of Black patients, and 23% (95% CI, 23%-23%) of Hispanic patients (P < .001 using the χ2 test). Of all pathogenic results, 67.5% to 94.9% of variants were identified in genes for which practice guidelines recommend testing and 68.3% to 83.8% of variants were identified in genes associated with the diagnosed cancer type.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, rates of testing were lower among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients.

Clinical implications of conflicting variant interpretations in the cancer genetics clinic

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical impact of commercial laboratories issuing conflicting classifications of genetic variants.

METHODS

Results from 2000 patients undergoing a multigene hereditary cancer panel by a single laboratory were analyzed. Clinically significant discrepancies between the laboratory-provided test reports and other major commercial laboratories were identified, including differences between pathogenic/likely pathogenic and variant of uncertain significance (VUS) classifications, via review of ClinVar archives. For patients carrying a VUS, clinical documentation was assessed for evidence of provider awareness of the conflict.

RESULTS

Fifty of 975 (5.1%) patients with non-negative results carried a variant with a clinically significant conflict, 19 with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant reported in APC or MUTYH, and 31 with a VUS reported in CDKN2A, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MUTYH, RAD51C, or TP53. Only 10 of 28 (36%) patients with a VUS with a clinically significant conflict had a documented discussion by a provider about the conflict. Discrepant counseling strategies were used for different patients with the same variant. Among patients with a CDKN2A variant or a monoallelic MUTYH variant, providers were significantly more likely to make recommendations based on the laboratory-reported classification.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the frequency of variant interpretation discrepancies and importance of clinician awareness. Guidance is needed on managing patients with discrepant variants to support accurate risk assessment.

Disparity in Breast Cancer Care: Current State of Access to Screening, Genetic Testing, Oncofertility, and Reconstruction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women, accounting for an estimated 30% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2022. Advances in breast cancer treatment have reduced the mortality rate over the past 25 years by up to 34% but not all groups have benefitted equally from these improvements. These disparities span the continuum of care from screening to the receipt of guideline-concordant therapy and survivorship. At the 2022 American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, a panel session was dedicated to educating and discussing methods of addressing these disparities in a coordinated manner. While there are multilevel solutions to address these disparities, this article focuses on screening, genetic testing, reconstruction, and oncofertility.

Germline Testing Around the Globe: Challenges in Different Practice Settings

Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. Lately, more emphasis has emerged on the importance of heredity in cancer, mostly driven by the introduction of germline genetic variants-directed therapeutics. It is true that 40% of cancer risk is attributed to modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors; still, 16% of cancers could be heritable, accounting for 2.9 of the 18.1 million cases diagnosed worldwide. At least two third of those will be diagnosed in countries with limited resources-low- and middle-income countries, especially where high rates of consanguine marriage and early age at diagnosis are already prevalent. Both are hallmarks of hereditary cancer. This creates a new opportunity for prevention, early detection, and recently therapeutic intervention. However, this opportunity is challenged by many obstacles along the path to addressing germline testing in patients with cancer in the clinic worldwide. Global collaboration and expertise exchange are important to bridge the knowledge gap and facilitate practical implementation. Adapting existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society.

Patients' attitudes regarding genetic counseling before germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants testing in Taiwan: A single-country, multi-center, patient-reported outcome study

Germline pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2 cause hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes. The present study investigated the participants' understanding and awareness of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants before genetic counseling, the expectations and obstacles for genetic testing from the perspective of participants and their families, and their attitudes towards genetic testing after counseling. In this single-country, multicenter, non-interventional, patient-reported outcome study, untested cancer patients and their families who visited genetic counseling clinics or who wanted to receive pre-test genetic counseling were eligible to fill in the questionnaire after pre-test counseling for germline BRCA1/2 testing. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, and information collected from the questionnaires, including the understanding of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants before genetic counseling, understanding of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and feelings after genetic counseling, willingness to share results of genetic testing with family, and willingness to receive genetic testing, were summarized using descriptive statistics. A total of 88 participants were enrolled. The proportion of slight understanding of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants increased from 11.4% to 67.0%, and the proportion of full understanding increased from 0% to 8.0%. After genetic counseling, most participants were willing to undergo genetic testing (87.5%) and share the results with their families (96.6%). The main factors that may affect participants' willingness to undergo BRCA1/2 testing were management (61.2%) and testing costs (25.9%). After pre-test counseling, there was a high acceptance of BRCA1/2 testing and in-family information sharing in Taiwanese patients with cancer and their families, which may serve as a reference for implementing genetic counseling in Taiwan.

Surgical Oncologists and Nurses in Breast Cancer Care are Ready to Provide Pre-Test Genetic Counseling

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling for patients with breast cancer is increasingly being provided by nongenetic healthcare professionals. We evaluated the attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy of surgeons, oncologists, and nurses regarding mainstream genetic testing and the feasibility to incorporate pre-test genetic counseling into routine care.

METHODS

We offered an online training to healthcare professionals from 13 hospitals and implemented a mainstream genetic testing pathway in 11/13 (85%) hospitals. Questionnaires were sent before (T0) and 6 months after (T1) completing the training. Those who did not complete the training received a questionnaire to assess their motivations.

RESULTS

In 11 hospitals, 80 (65%) healthcare professionals completed the training, of whom 70 (88%) completed both questionnaires. The attitudes, (perceived) knowledge and self-efficacy of healthcare professionals were high both at baseline and 6 months after completing the training. After 6 months, their perceived knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of a genetic test and implications for family members had significantly improved (p = 0.012 and p = 0.021, respectively). For the majority (89%), the time investment for pre-test genetic counseling was less than 15 min per patient and as expected or better. Healthcare professionals considered the total time investment feasible to incorporate mainstream genetic testing into their daily practice. The main barrier to complete the training was lack of time. The online training was considered useful, with a rating of 8/10.

CONCLUSION

Surgical oncologists and nurses in breast cancer care feel well-equipped and motivated to provide pre-test genetic counseling after completion of an online training module.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

BACKGROUND

Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) that have an unknown impact on health but can be clarified through reclassification. There is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, and racial/ethnic differences.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of persons with and without a personal history of cancer carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer predisposition genes seen at four cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019.

RESULTS

In 2715 individuals included in the study, 3261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported; 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications and rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). Compared to their prevalence in the overall sample, reclassification rates for Black individuals were higher (13.6% vs. 19.0%), whereas the rates for Asian individuals were lower (6.3% vs. 3.5%) and rates for White and Hispanic individuals were proportional. Two-year prevalence of VUS reclassification remained steady between 2014 and 2019. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals' clinical managements.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this large multisite study suggest that VUS reclassification alters clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for implementing practices and solutions for efficiently returning reinterpreted genetic test results.

Young Black Women May be More Likely to Have First Mammogram Cancers: A New Perspective in Breast Cancer Disparities

INTRODUCTION

Black women are diagnosed with breast cancer at earlier ages and are 42% more likely to die from the disease than White women. Recommendations for commencement of screening mammography remain discordant. This study sought to determine the frequency of first mammogram cancers among Black women versus other self-reported racial groups.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, clinical and mammographic data were obtained from 738 women aged 40-45 years who underwent treatment for breast cancer between 2010 and 2019 within a single hospital system. First mammogram cancers were defined as those with tissue diagnoses within 3 months of baseline mammogram. Multivariate logistic regression was applied to assess variables associated with first mammogram cancer detection.

RESULTS

Black women were significantly more likely to have first mammogram cancer diagnoses (39/82, 47.6%) compared with White women (162/610, 26.6%) and other groups (16/46, 34.8%) [p < 0.001]. Black women were also more likely to have a body mass index > 30 (p < 0.001), higher clinical T categories (p = 0.02), and present with more advanced clinical stages (p = 0.03). Every month delay in mammographic screening beyond age 40 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.07; p < 0.0001), Black race (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.10-4.53; p = 0.03), and lack of private insurance (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.22-4.73; p = 0.01) were associated with an increased likelihood of cancer detection on first mammogram.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggests that Black women aged 40-45 years may be more likely to have cancer detected on their first mammogram and would benefit from starting screening mammography no later than age 40 years, and for those with elevated lifetime risk, even sooner.

Communicating PNPLA3 genetic risk status for NAFLD among Mexican-origin men

Introduction

The burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) continues to disproportionately impact under-resourced communities in the U.S., particularly Mexican-origin populations. Genetic polymorphisms such as the rs738409 C/G variant in patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing 3 (PNPLA3) have been associated with higher prevalence of and progression along the NAFLD spectrum. This qualitative study conducted in the U.S. Southwest aimed to assess Mexican-origin men's experience receiving genetic testing for PNPLA3 risk carrier status.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 Mexican-origin men whose NAFLD status and genetic predisposition were determined as part of a previous cross-sectional study. The interview guide included questions exploring participants' insights on how genetic risk status was delivered, how the information influenced their motivation for lifestyle modification to reduce NAFLD risk, and any knowledge sharing that occurred with family members after learning of their PNPLA3 risk status. Interviews were conducted and audio recorded in English (n = 6) and Spanish (n = 11) and uploaded into NVivo software for data analysis and interpretation. Guided by the Health Belief Model, a thematic analysis approach was used to identify primary themes.

Results

Results highlighted men's preference for receiving this type of genetic risk information through a letter sent to their homes. General comprehension of PNPLA3 risk status was deemed high and most men stated sharing their genetic predisposition to NAFLD with their immediate family members. Participants also indicated that family and awareness of this genetic risk acted as primary motivators for implementing behavior changes (e.g., diet, physical activity) toward the prevention of more severe liver conditions.

Discussion

Findings from this qualitative study suggest the feasibility of communicating genetic risk for NAFLD among Mexican-origin men. Future strategies for the dissemination of genetic risk results among Mexican-origin individuals should consider familial and cultural appropriate strategies.

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.

Leveraging a pharmacogenomics knowledgebase to formulate a drug response phenotype terminology for genomic medicine

MOTIVATION

Despite the increasing evidence of utility of genomic medicine in clinical practice, systematically integrating genomic medicine information and knowledge into clinical systems with a high-level of consistency, scalability and computability remains challenging. A comprehensive terminology is required for relevant concepts and the associated knowledge model for representing relationships. In this study, we leveraged PharmGKB, a comprehensive pharmacogenomics (PGx) knowledgebase, to formulate a terminology for drug response phenotypes that can represent relationships between genetic variants and treatments. We evaluated coverage of the terminology through manual review of a randomly selected subset of 200 sentences extracted from genetic reports that contained concepts for 'Genes and Gene Products' and 'Treatments'.

RESULTS

Results showed that our proposed drug response phenotype terminology could cover 96% of the drug response phenotypes in genetic reports. Among 18 653 sentences that contained both 'Genes and Gene Products' and 'Treatments', 3011 sentences were able to be mapped to a drug response phenotype in our proposed terminology, among which the most discussed drug response phenotypes were response (994), sensitivity (829) and survival (332). In addition, we were able to re-analyze genetic report context incorporating the proposed terminology and enrich our previously proposed PGx knowledge model to reveal relationships between genetic variants and treatments. In conclusion, we proposed a drug response phenotype terminology that enhanced structured knowledge representation of genomic medicine.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Application of Multigene Panels Testing for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Approximately 5-10% of all cancers are associated with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (HCPS). Early identification of HCPS is facilitated by widespread use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and brings significant benefits to both the patient and their relatives. This study aims to evaluate the landscape of genetic variants in patients with personal and/or family history of cancer using NGS-based multigene panel testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study cohort included 1117 probands from Russia: 1060 (94.9%) patients with clinical signs of HCPS and 57 (5.1%) healthy individuals with family history of cancer. NGS analysis of 76 HCPS genes was performed using a custom Roche NimbleGen enrichment panel.

RESULTS

Pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 378 of 1117 individuals (33.8%). The predominant number (59.8%) of genetic variants was identified in BRCA1/BRCA2 genes. CHEK2 was the second most commonly altered gene with a total of 28 (7.4%) variants, and 124 (32.8%) genetic variants were found in other 35 cancer-associated genes with variable penetrance.

CONCLUSIONS

Multigene panel testing allows for a differential diagnosis and identification of high-risk group for oncological diseases. Our results demonstrate that inclusion of non-coding gene regions into HCPS gene panels is highly important for the identification of rare spliceogenic variants with high penetrance.

Physicians' experience, practice and education, on genetic testing and genetic counseling: a nationwide survey study in Greece

Genetic testing has been implemented in clinical practice. However, data on physician's practices and education related to cancer genetics, risk assessment and clinical management in Greece, is limited. In Greece, genetic counseling is performed by treating physicians in collaboration with clinical laboratory geneticists due to the absence of medical geneticists and genetic counsellors. We evaluated treating physicians' experience on genetic testing for hereditary cancer and counseling practices in Greece, thus providing critical areas for improvement of genetic counseling processes. A 28-question survey was used to assess physicians' experience with genetic testing practices, factors that affect their clinical management and decision making and limitations in their education. Of 250 physicians, 208 (83%) completed the survey; of whom 89 (42.8%) were medical oncologists, 88 general surgeons (42.3%), 26 gynecologists (12.5%) and 5 (2.4%) of other specialties. Overall, 91.8% of participants referred patients for genetic testing, with 51.8% recommending multigene panel testing. While most clinicians (84%) reported lack of a clinical genetics department at their institution, 75.7% referred patients for genetic counseling at available departments or healthcare professionals with expertise in genetic counseling. Overall, 68.8% of respondents reported no training or moderate training on cancer genetics. A higher proportion of medical oncologists reported sufficient/very satisfactory training (40.9%) compared to general surgeons (27.3%) or gynecologists (11.5%) (p = 0.012). Time spent on pre- and post-testing sessions varied significantly among respondents. Of 199 physicians, 70% would manage patients with BRCA1 VUS as patients with pathogenic variants, mainly surgeons (83.1%) and gynecologists (80%), compared to oncologists (52.3%) (p < 0.001). Additionally, 64% of physicians treating patients with breast and ovarian cancer would recommend an intervention based on the presence of a BRCA1 VUS. Most respondents (87%) were interested in receiving additional education on cancer risk assessment. Limited consensus was observed during physicians' genetic testing, counseling practices and clinical management of patients with increased predisposition to cancer. Our findings highlight the need for improvement in physician education on cancer risk assessment and increase of genetic counseling resources and services.

Prophylactic mastectomy and occult malignancy: Surgical and imaging considerations

BACKGROUND

Sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) is not routinely recommended for patients undergoing prophylactic mastectomy (PM), yet omission remains a subject of debate among surgeons. A modern patient cohort was examined to determine occult malignancy (OM) incidence within PM specimens to reinforce current recommendations.

METHODS

All PM performed over a 5-year period were retrospectively identified, including women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent synchronous or delayed contralateral PM or women with elevated cancer risk who underwent bilateral PM.

RESULTS

The study population included 772 patients (598 CPM, 174 BPM) with a total of 39 OM identified: 17 invasive cancers (14 CPM, 3 BPM) and 22 DCIS (19 CPM, 3 BPM). Of the 86 patients for whom SLNB was selectively performed, 1 micrometastasis was identified. In the CPM cohort, risk of OM increased with age, presence of LCIS of either breast, or presence of a non-BRCA high-penetrance gene mutation, while preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was associated with lower likelihood of OM.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the low incidence of invasive OM in this updated series, routine SLNB is of low value for patients undergoing PM. For patients with indeterminate radiographic findings, discordant preoperative biopsies, LCIS, or non-BRCA high-penetrance gene mutations, selective SLNB implementation could be considered.

Risk‐reducing mastectomy decisions among women with mutations in high‐ and moderate‐ penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes

Background

Women harboring mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes are at increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and are faced with decisions about risk management, including whether to undergo high‐risk screening or risk‐reducing mastectomy (RRM). National guidelines recommend BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers consider RRM, but that carriers of moderate penetrance mutations (e.g., ATM or CHEK2) should be managed based on family history. We aimed to investigate determinants of decision for RRM, and hypothesized that mutation status, age, family history, partner status, and breast cancer would impact RRM decision making.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study assessing RRM decisions for 279 women.

Results

Women with BRCA and moderate penetrance gene mutations, a personal history of breast cancer, or a first degree relative with a history of breast cancer were more likely to undergo RRM. Breast cancer status and age showed an interaction effect such that women with breast cancer were less likely to undergo RRM with increasing age.

Conclusion

Although national guidelines do not recommend RRM for moderate penetrance carriers, the rates of RRM for this population approached those for BRCA mutation carriers. Further insights are needed to better support RRM decision‐making in this population.

Psychological and health behaviour outcomes following multi-gene panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk: a mini-review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of the genetic mechanisms driving hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) has recently expanded due to advances in gene sequencing technologies. Genetic testing for HBOC risk now involves multi-gene panel testing, which includes well characterized high-penetrance genes (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as moderate- and low-penetrance genes. Certain moderate and low penetrance genes are associated with limited data to inform cancer risk estimates and clinical management recommendations, which create new sources of genetic and clinical uncertainty for patients.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to evaluate the psychological and health behaviour outcomes associated with multi-gene panel testing for HBOC risk. The search was developed in collaboration with an Information Specialist (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre) and conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Publication.

RESULTS

Similar to the BRCA1/2 literature, individuals with a pathogenic variant (PV) reported higher levels of testing-related concerns and cancer-specific distress, as well as higher uptake of prophylactic surgery in both affected and unaffected individuals compared to those with variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or negative result. A single study demonstrated that individuals with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene reported higher rates of cancer worry, genetic testing concerns and cancer-related distress when compared to women with high penetrance PV. Analysis of cancer screening and prevention outcomes based upon gene penetrance were limited to two studies, with conflicting findings.

CONCLUSION

The findings in this review emphasize the need for studies examining psychological and health behavior outcomes associated with panel testing to include between group differences based upon both variant pathogenicity and gene penetrance. Future studies evaluating the impact of gene penetrance on patient-reported and clinical outcomes will require large samples to be powered for these analyses given that a limited number of tested individuals are found to have a PV.

Addressing the routine failure to clinically identify monogenic cases of common disease

Changes in medical practice are needed to improve the diagnosis of monogenic forms of selected common diseases. This article seeks to focus attention on the need for universal genetic testing in common diseases for which the recommended clinical management of patients with specific monogenic forms of disease diverges from standard management and has evidence for improved outcomes.We review evidence from genomic screening of large patient cohorts, which has confirmed that important monogenic case identification failures are commonplace in routine clinical care. These case identification failures constitute diagnostic misattributions, where the care of individuals with monogenic disease defaults to the treatment plan offered to those with polygenic or non-genetic forms of the disease.The number of identifiable and actionable monogenic forms of common diseases is increasing with time. Here, we provide six examples of common diseases for which universal genetic test implementation would drive improved care. We examine the evidence to support genetic testing for common diseases, and discuss barriers to widespread implementation. Finally, we propose recommendations for changes to genetic testing and care delivery aimed at reducing diagnostic misattributions, to serve as a starting point for further evaluation and development of evidence-based guidelines for implementation.

Point/Counterpoint: Is It Time for Universal Germline Genetic Testing for all GI Cancers?

Use of germline genetic testing among patients with cancer is increasing because of (1) the availability of multigene panel tests that include multiple cancer susceptibility genes in a single test, (2) decreased costs of these tests and improvements in insurance coverage, and (3) US Food and Drug Administration-approval of genotype-directed therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for individuals with certain cancers and pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (with possible benefits with other genes in the homologous repair deficiency pathway). In addition, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines have already endorsed germline genetic testing for all patients with certain cancer types (epithelial ovarian cancer, exocrine pancreatic cancer, and high-grade/metastatic prostate cancer), regardless of age or personal/family history of cancer. Herein, we debate the pros and cons of offering germline multigene panel testing to all patients diagnosed with any GI cancer. The authors agree that it may just be a matter of time before germline multigene panel testing is offered to all patients with cancer; however, this article will highlight some of the benefits, risks, and limitations of this approach so that research can help fill some of the gaps to ensure that genetic medicine continues to be implemented in ways that improve real-world patient care and outcomes.

Timely cancer genetic counseling and testing for young women with breast cancer: impact on surgical decision-making for contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy

PURPOSE

Genetic testing (GT) can identify individuals with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) in breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, who may consider contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM). We report on CRRM rates in young women newly diagnosed with BC who received GT through a multidisciplinary clinic.

METHODS

Clinical data were reviewed for patients seen between November 2014 and June 2019. Patients with non-metastatic, unilateral BC diagnosed at age ≤ 45 and completed GT prior to surgery were included. Associations between surgical intervention and age, BC stage, family history, and GT results were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 194 patients, 30 (15.5%) had a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, NBN, NF1), with 66.7% in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Of 164 (84.5%) uninformative results, 132 (68%) were negative and 32 (16.5%) were variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Overall, 67 (34.5%) had CRRM, including 25/30 (83.3%) PV/LPV carriers and 42/164 (25.6%) non-carriers. A positive test result (p < 0.01) and significant family history were associated with CRRM (p = 0.02). For the 164 with uninformative results, multivariate analysis showed that CRRM was not associated with age (p = 0.23), a VUS, (p = 0.08), family history (p = 0.10), or BC stage (p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of young women with BC, the identification of a PV/LPV in a BC predisposition gene and a significant family history were associated with the decision to pursue CRRM. Thus, incorporation of genetic services in the initial evaluation of young patients with a new BC could contribute to the surgical decision-making process.

Psychosocial impact of proactive rapid genetic counseling following breast cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

As germline genetic referral becomes increasingly routine as part of the care of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, it is important to understand the psychosocial impact of genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis. We examined the psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) impact of providing proactive rapid genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) in the immediate aftermath of a breast cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

We randomized 330 patients in a 2:1 ratio to proactive rapid genetic counseling (RGCT; N = 222) versus usual care (UC; N = 108). Participants completed a baseline telephone survey before randomization and definitive surgery and a follow-up survey at 1-month post-randomization. We evaluated the impact of RGCT versus UC on breast cancer genetic knowledge, distress, QOL, and decisional conflict. Given that 43% of UC participants and 86% of RGCT participants completed genetic counseling prior to the 1-month assessment, we also evaluated the impact of genetic counseling participation over and above group assignment.

RESULTS

The RGCT intervention led to increased breast cancer genetic knowledge relative to UC but did not differentially impact other study outcomes. Across groups patients who participated in genetic counseling had significantly increased knowledge and improved QOL compared to those who did not participate in genetic counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

While prior research has documented the impact of genetic counseling and testing on surgical decisions, these results confirm that participation in genetic counseling at the time of diagnosis can yield improvements in knowledge and QOL in the short-term.

Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country

With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.

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

Simple Summary

Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability.

Abstract

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Testing in Unselected Patients with Hepatobiliary Cancers: A Multi-Center Prospective Study

Data from germline testing in unselected patients with hepatobiliary cancers are limited. Identification of germline predisposition can have important implications on cancer treatment and family counseling. To determine prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with hepatobiliary cancer, we undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using a >80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among patients with hepatobiliary cancers receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected on the basis of stage, family cancer history, ethnicity, or age. Family cascade testing was offered at no cost. Of 205 patients, the median age was 65 years, 58.5% were male, 81% were White, and 64.4% had cholangiocarcinoma, 21.5% hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.8% gallbladder cancer, and 4.3% carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. PGV were found in 15.6% (n = 32) of patients, including 23 (71%) in moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. A total of 75% of patients with a positive result would not have been detected using guidelines for genetic evaluation. Prevalence of PGV was 15.7% in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 17% in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 15.9% in hepatocellular cancer, and 33% in carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. On the basis of these genetic findings, 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Universal multi-gene panel testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with detection of heritable mutations in over 15% of patients most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Universal multi-gene testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with heritable mutations in over 15% of patients, most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers.

An overview of genetic services delivery for hereditary breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide, with approximately 5-10% of cases attributed to high penetrance hereditary breast cancer (HBC) genes. The tremendous advances in precision oncology have broadened indications for germline genetic testing to guide both systemic and surgical treatment, with increasing demand for cancer genetic services. The HBC continuum of care includes (1) identification, access, and uptake of genetic counseling and testing; (2) the delivery of genetic counseling and testing services; and (3) initiation of guideline-adherent follow-up care and family communication of results. Challenges to delivering care on the HBC care continuum include factors such as access to services, cost, discrimination and bias, and lack of education and awareness, which can be mitigated through implementing a multi-level approach. This includes strategies such as increasing awareness and utilization of genetic counseling and testing, developing new methods to meet the growing demand for genetic services, and improving the uptake of follow-up care by increasing patient and provider awareness of the management recommendations.

Clinician-Reported Impact of Germline Multigene Panel Testing on Cancer Risk Management Recommendations

Background

With increased adoption of multi-gene panel testing (MGPT) for hereditary cancer, management guidelines now include a wider range of predisposition genes. Yet little is known about whether MGPT results prompt changes to clinicians’ risk management recommendations and whether those recommendations adhere to guidelines.

Methods

We assessed cancer risk management recommendations made by clinicians ordering MGPT for hereditary cancer at a diagnostic laboratory using an internet-based survey. We received paired pre- and posttest responses for 2172 patients (response rate = 14.3%). Unpaired posttest responses were received in 168 additional patients with positive results. All tests were 2-sided.

Results

Clinicians reported a change in risk management recommendations for 76.6% of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant, with changes to surveillance being most common (71.1%), followed by surgical (33.6%), chemoprevention (15.1%), and clinical trial (9.4%) recommendations. Clinicians recommended risk-reducing interventions more often for patients with pathogenic variants in high-risk than moderate-risk genes (P < .001), whereas surveillance recommendations were similar for high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Guideline adherence was high for surveillance (86.3%) and surgical (79.6%) recommendations. Changes to risk management recommendations occurred in 8.8% and 7.6% of patients with uncertain and negative results, respectively.

Conclusions

Clinicians report frequent changes to cancer risk management recommendations based on positive results in both high-risk and moderate-risk genes. Reported introduction of interventions in patients with inconclusive and negative results is rare and adherence to practice guidelines is high in patients with positive results, suggesting a low probability of harm resulting from MGPT.