Mainstreamed genetic testing of breast cancer patients: experience from a single surgeon's practice in a large US Academic Center

This study evaluated the impact of mainstreamed genetic testing (MGT) on the timing and uptake of testing in an academic breast surgeon's practice. Before September 2019 (pre-MGT phase), a breast surgery practice at Massachusetts General Hospital followed a traditional model of a pre-test consultation with a genetic counselor (GC) following a referral. After September 2019 (post-MGT phase), the same practice offered patients genetic testing in a single clinical encounter with a breast surgeon. We evaluated the waiting time between referral and GC visit in the pre-MGT phase and compared the uptake and positivity rates between both phases. In the pre-MGT phase (204 patients), the median waiting time for GC visit was seven days for patients with a newly diagnosed cancer, 211 days for patients with a personal history of cancer, and 224 days for non-cancer patients who had a family history. A total of 105 (51.5%) patients completed a GC appointment. In the post-MGT phase (202 patients), a significantly higher proportion of patients (88.1%, p < 0.001) consented to genetic testing, while the proportion of patients who tested positive was lower (pathogenic variant: 11.9% vs. 20.0%; variant of uncertain significance: 19.9% vs. 28.0%; p = 0.047). Implementing MGT can reduce the number of clinical visits, significantly shorten patients' wait time to test initiation, and increase the completion of genetic testing. Successful integration of this model relied on the genetic expertise of the breast surgeon involved and the support of the GC team.

A Breast Radiology Department-operated, Proactive Same-day Program Identifies Pathogenic Breast Cancer Mutations in Unaffected Women

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Pathogenic mutations in some genes elevate women's breast cancer risk, necessitating risk-reduction strategies. Unfortunately, women are underscreened for cancer risk, and when identified as potentially high risk, women seldom pursue genetic counseling or testing. To improve cancer risk management, this project determined the feasibility of radiology-operated, proactive, same-day risk assessment and genetic testing programs to diagnose high-risk women undergoing breast imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Comprehensive Assessment, Risk & Education Program launched on June 5, 2019. Data was tracked through July 22, 2020. Women undergoing breast imaging completed questionnaires that calculated Tyrer-Cuzick risk and assessed genetic testing eligibility using National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria. To encourage eligible women's genetic testing adherence, pretest counseling and saliva sample collection occurred that same day in the imaging center. Samples were tested by a 34-multigene panel. Genetic counselors called women with positive results. Women with negative results or variants of uncertain significance were mailed notifications. Summary statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 3345 women completed questionnaires. 1080 (32.3%) met genetic testing criteria. 468/1080 (43.3%) submitted genetic samples, and 416/1080 (38.5%) completed testing. Of 416 completed tests, 269 (64.7%) tested negative, 109 (26.2%) had variants of uncertain significance, and 38 (9.1%) diagnosed pathogenic mutations. 13/38 (34.2%) women with pathogenic mutations implemented risk-reduction strategies at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Breast imaging centers can operate same-day cancer risk assessment and genetic testing programs, identifying high-risk women that conventional risk assessment methods may not have diagnosed. These proactive programs add value to radiology departments' cancer care beyond traditional imaging services.

#GeneticTesting: Using Social Media to Facilitate Communication about testing to Women (Preprint)

Background

Strong participant recruitment practices are critical to public health research but are difficult to achieve. Traditional recruitment practices are often time consuming, costly, and fail to adequately target difficult-to-reach populations. Social media platforms such as Facebook are well-positioned to address this area of need, enabling researchers to leverage existing social networks and deliver targeted information. The MAGENTA (Making Genetic Testing Accessible) study aimed to improve the availability of genetic testing for hereditary cancer susceptibility in at-risk individuals through the use of a web-based communication system along with social media advertisements to improve reach.

Objective

This paper is aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Facebook as an outreach tool for targeting women aged ≥30 years for recruitment in the MAGENTA study.

Methods

We designed and implemented paid and unpaid social media posts with ongoing assessment as a primary means of research participant recruitment in collaboration with patient advocates. Facebook analytics were used to assess the effectiveness of paid and unpaid outreach efforts.

Results

Over the course of the reported recruitment period, Facebook materials had a reach of 407,769 people and 57,248 (14.04%) instances of engagement, indicating that approximately 14.04% of people who saw information about the study on Facebook engaged with the content. Paid advertisements had a total reach of 373,682. Among those reached, just <15% (54,117/373,682, 14.48%) engaged with the page content. Unpaid posts published on the MAGENTA Facebook page resulted in a total of 34,087 reach and 3131 instances of engagement, indicating that around 9.19% (3131/34,087) of people who saw unpaid posts engaged. Women aged ≥65 years reported the best response rate, with approximately 43.95% (15,124/34,410) of reaches translating to engagement. Among the participants who completed the eligibility questionnaire, 27.44% (3837/13,983) had heard about the study through social media or another webpage.

Conclusions

Facebook is a useful way of enhancing clinical trial recruitment of women aged ≥30 years who have a potentially increased risk for ovarian cancer by promoting news stories over social media, collaborating with patient advocacy groups, and running paid and unpaid campaigns.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02993068; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02993068

Uptake and timing of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations

BACKGROUND

In women with BRCA mutations, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy has been shown to decrease gynecologic cancer-specific and overall mortality. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that patients with BRCA mutations undergo risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between the ages of 35 and 40 years for BRCA1 mutation carriers and between the ages of 40 and 45 years for BRCA2 mutation carriers or after childbearing is complete. Currently, uptake and timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and reasons for delays in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate uptake and timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy among women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations concerning the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and reasons for delays in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective chart review, we identified women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations who discussed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with a provider between 2012 and 2021. Uptake of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was documented, and patients were classified as having timely or delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For those with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, reasons cited for delay were collected. Comparative statistical analyses were performed to evaluate characteristics of those with timely vs delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate the associations among factors related to timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

RESULTS

We identified 638 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers seen between 2012 and 2021. Of these patients, 306 (48.0%) had undergone risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and 332 (52.0%) had not. When evaluating the timing of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 136 (21.3%) underwent timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 239 (37.5%) had delays in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and 263 (41.2%) had not undergone risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy but were younger than the National Comprehensive Cancer Network age guidelines; therefore, they were neither timely nor delayed. Patients with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were significantly older at the time of genetic testing than those with timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (mean, 49.8 vs 36.3 years; P<.001). Of the 306 patients who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, those with delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy had a significantly shorter interval between BRCA identification and risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy than those with timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (median, 8.7 vs 17.6 months; P<.001). Patients with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy were more likely to have a personal history of cancer than those with timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (49.8% vs 37.5%; P=.028). Of the 239 women with delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, 188 (78.7%) had delayed BRCA mutation identification, 29 (12.1%) had menopausal concerns, 17 (7.1%) had ongoing cancer treatment, 12 (5.0%) had coordination with breast surgery, 20 (8.4%) had miscellaneous reasons, and 19 (7.9%) had no reason documented. In the multivariate model, older age at BRCA diagnosis (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.78; P<.001) was significantly associated with delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy timing; those with BRCA2 mutation type were 7.54 times as likely to have timely risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy than BRCA1 mutation carriers (odds ratio, 7.54; 95% confidence, 3.70-16.42; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Nearly 38% of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers undergo or have yet to undergo risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy over the recommended National Comprehensive Cancer Network age. The most common reason for the delay in risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was delayed identification of BRCA mutation, noted in 79% of patients with delayed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Timely genetic testing for eligible patients can increase appropriately timed risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of ovarian cancer and reduction of mortality in BRCA mutation carriers.

Novel Models of Genetic Education and Testing for Pancreatic Cancer Interception: Preliminary Results from the GENERATE Study

Up to 10% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) carry underlying germline pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes. The GENetic Education Risk Assessment and TEsting (GENERATE) study aimed to evaluate novel methods of genetic education and testing in relatives of patients with PDAC. Eligible individuals had a family history of PDAC and a relative with a germline pathogenic variant in APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, or TP53 genes. Participants were recruited at six academic cancer centers and through social media campaigns and patient advocacy efforts. Enrollment occurred via the study website (https://GENERATEstudy.org) and all participation, including collecting a saliva sample for genetic testing, could be done from home. Participants were randomized to one of two remote methods that delivered genetic education about the risks of inherited PDAC and strategies for surveillance. The primary outcome of the study was uptake of genetic testing. From 5/8/2019 to 5/6/2020, 49 participants were randomized to each of the intervention arms. Overall, 90 of 98 (92%) of randomized participants completed genetic testing. The most frequently detected pathogenic variants included those in BRCA2 (N = 15, 17%), ATM (N = 11, 12%), and CDKN2A (N = 4, 4%). Participation in the study remained steady throughout the onset of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Preliminary data from the GENERATE study indicate success of remote alternatives to traditional cascade testing, with genetic testing rates over 90% and a high rate of identification of germline pathogenic variant carriers who would be ideal candidates for PDAC interception approaches. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Preliminary data from the GENERATE study indicate success of remote alternatives for pancreatic cancer genetic testing and education, with genetic testing uptake rates over 90% and a high rate of identification of germline pathogenic variant carriers who would be ideal candidates for pancreatic cancer interception.

Genetic Counseling and Testing in African American Patients With Breast Cancer: A Nationwide Survey of US Breast Oncologists

PURPOSE

To determine if physicians' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding genetic counseling and testing (GCT) vary by patients' race.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide 49-item survey among breast oncology physicians in the United States. We queried respondents about their own demographics, clinical characteristics, knowledge, attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers in providing GCT to patients with breast cancer.

RESULTS

Our survey included responses from 277 physicians (females, 58.8%; medical oncologists, 75.1%; academic physicians, 61.7%; and Whites, 67.1%). Only 1.8% indicated that they were more likely to refer a White patient than refer an African American patient for GCT, and 66.9% believed that African American women with breast cancer have lower rates of GCT than White women. Regarding perceived barriers to GCT, 63.4% of respondents indicated that African American women face more barriers than White women do and 21% felt that African American women require more information and guidance during the GCT decision-making process than White women. Although 32% of respondents indicated that lack of trust was a barrier to GCT in all patients, 58.1% felt that this was a greater barrier for African American women (P < .0001). Only 13.9% believed that noncompliance with GCT is a barrier for all patients, whereas 30.6% believed that African American women are more likely than White women to be noncompliant (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that racial differences exist in oncology physicians' perceived barriers to GCT for patients with breast cancer. This nationwide survey will serve as a basis for understanding physicians' determinants of GCT for African American women and highlights the necessity of education and interventions to address bias among physicians. Awareness of such physician biases can enable further work to address inequities, ultimately leading to improved GCT equity for African American women with breast cancer.

The Future of Parallel Tumor and Germline Genetic Testing: Is There a Role for All Patients With Cancer?

Under the traditional paradigm of genetic testing in cancer, the role of germline testing was to assess for the inherited risk of cancer, whereas the role of tumor testing was to determine therapeutic selection. Parallel tumor-normal genetic testing uses simultaneous genetic testing of the tumor and normal tissue to identify mutations and allows their classification as either germline or somatic. The increasing adoption of parallel testing has revealed a greater number of germline findings in patients who otherwise would not have met clinical criteria for testing. This result has widespread implications for the screening and further testing of at-risk relatives and for gene discovery. It has also revealed the importance of germline testing in therapeutic actionability. Herein, we describe the pros and cons of tumor-only versus parallel tumor-normal testing and summarize the data on the prevalence of incidental actionable germline findings. Because germline testing in patients with cancer continues to expand, it is imperative that systems be in place for the proper interpretation, dissemination, and counseling for patients and at-risk relatives. We also review new therapeutic approvals with germline indications and highlight the increasing importance of germline testing in selecting therapies. Because recommendations for universal genetic testing are increasing in multiple cancer types and the number of approved therapies with germline indications is also increasing, a gradual transition toward parallel tumor-normal genetic testing in all patients with cancer is foreseeable.

Risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes-Practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Cancer risk assessment and genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) are a communication process to inform and prepare patients for genetic test results and the related medical management. An increasing number of healthcare providers are active in the delivery of cancer risk assessment and testing, which can have enormous benefits for enhanced patient care. However, genetics professionals remain key in the multidisciplinary care of at-risk patients and their families, given their training in facilitating patients' understanding of the role of genetics in cancer development, the potential psychological, social, and medical implications associated with cancer risk assessment and genetic testing. A collaborative partnership of non-genetics and genetics experts is the ideal approach to address the growing number of patients at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The goal of this practice resource is to provide allied health professionals an understanding of the key components of risk assessment for HBOC as well as the use of risk models and published guidelines for medical management. We also highlight what patient types are appropriate for genetic testing, what are the most appropriate test(s) to consider, and when to refer individuals to a genetics professional. This practice resource is intended to serve as a resource for allied health professionals in determining their approach to delivering comprehensive care for families and individuals facing HBOC. The cancer risk and prevalence figures in this document are based on cisgender women and men; the risks for transgender or non-binary individuals have not been studied and therefore remain poorly understood.

Embedding a genetic counselor into oncology clinics improves testing rates and timeliness for women with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Germline genetic testing is crucial to the care of ovarian cancer patients, and as part of the guideline-based care for ovarian cancer patient's adherence to this recommendation has been low. We sought to determine whether embedding a genetic counselor (GC) within a medical and gynecologic oncology clinic would increase testing rates and improve the timeliness of testing.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of 358 ovarian cancer patients seen by medical and gynecologic oncologists between 2013 and 2015. Rates of referrals, completion of counseling, and genetic testing and timeliness of counseling were abstracted before and after a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014. An additional year of data (2015) was collected to evaluate sustainability of the intervention.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2015, 88-92% of women were referred for genetic testing, but in 2013 only 66% completed counseling and 61% were tested. After a GC was embedded in the clinic in 2014, more than 80% of referred women completed counseling and germline genetic testing. Time to genetic counseling also decreased from a median of 107 to 40 days, irrespective of age and cancer family history (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding a GC into the workflow for ovarian cancer patients is an effective way of improving access to genetic counseling, testing rates, and the timeliness of testing.