Increasing Appropriate BRCA1/2 Mutation Testing: The Role of Family History Documentation and Genetic Counseling in a Multidisciplinary Clinic

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

Inter-professional collaboration could improve timely access and quality of oncogenetic services. Here, we present the results of a scoping review conducted to systematically identify collaborative models available, unpack the nature and extent of collaboration proposed, synthesize evidence on their implementation and evaluation, and identify areas where additional research is needed. A comprehensive search was conducted in four journal indexing databases on June 13th, 2022, and complemented with searches of the grey literature and citations. Screening was conducted by two independent reviewers. Eligible documents included those describing either the theory of change, planning, implementation and/or evaluation of collaborative oncogenetic models. 165 publications were identified, describing 136 unique interventions/studies on oncogenetic models with somewhat overlapping collaborative features. Collaboration appears to be mostly inter-professional in nature, often taking place during risk assessment and pre-testing genetic counseling. Yet, most publications provide very limited information on their collaborative features, and only a few studies have set out to formally evaluate them. Better quality research is needed to comprehensively examine and make conclusions regarding the value of collaboration in this oncogenetics. We propose a definition, logic model, and typology of collaborative oncogenetic models to strengthen future planning, implementation, and evaluation in this field.

Opportunities for Improving Detection of Cancer Predisposition Syndromes in Pediatric Solid Tumor Patients

BACKGROUND

Detection of cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) depends on identifying risk factors, including tumor type, family history, and physical findings, to prompt referral for genetic counseling/testing. Whether pediatric oncology providers (POPs) collect adequate family history information is unknown.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective chart review of solid tumor patients <18 years of age referred for a CPS evaluation between January 1, 2017 and January 31, 2019 was performed. POP adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) family history collection recommendations was measured and compared with genetic counselor performance. Whether sufficient family history was documented to satisfy the criteria of three genetic counseling referral guidelines [American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG), updated Jongmans (UJ), and McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines (MIPOGG)] was evaluated.

RESULTS

POPs and genetic counselors achieved all 6 ASCO family history metrics in 3% and 99% of 129 eligible cases, respectively. POPs failed to document sufficient family history to satisfy genetic counseling referral criteria in most cases (74% ACMG, 73% UJ, 79% MIPOGG).

CONCLUSIONS

POPs perform poorly in family history collection, raising concern that some patients at risk for a CPS based on their family history may not be referred for genetic counseling/testing. Interventions to improve family history collection are needed to enhance CPS detection.

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.

Interventions to improve delivery of cancer genetics services in the United States: A scoping review

PURPOSE

Interventions that decrease barriers and improve clinical processes can increase patient access to guideline-recommended cancer genetics services. We sought to identify and describe interventions to improve patient receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services in the United States.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from January 1, 2000 to February 12, 2020. Eligible articles reported interventions to improve the identification, referral, genetic counseling (GC), and genetic testing (GT) of patients in the United States. We independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles. Data were synthesized by grouping articles by clinical process.

RESULTS

Of 44 included articles, 17 targeted identification of eligible patients, 14 targeted referral, 15 targeted GC, and 16 targeted GT. Patient identification interventions included universal tumor testing and screening of medical/family history. Referral interventions included medical record system adaptations, standardizing processes, and provider notifications. GC interventions included supplemental patient education, integrated GC within oncology clinics, appointment coordination, and alternative service delivery models. One article directly targeted the GT process by implementing provider-coordinated testing.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified and described interventions to improve US patients' access to and receipt of guideline-recommended cancer genetics services.

The design, implementation, and effectiveness of intervention strategies aimed at improving genetic referral practices: a systematic review of the literature

Purpose

Despite rapid advancements in genetics and genomics, referral practices remain suboptimal. This systematic review assesses the extent to which approaches from implementation science have been applied to address suboptimal genetic referral practices.

Methods

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO generated 7,794 articles, of which 28 were included. Lay barriers were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and interventions mapped to behavior change techniques. Use of implementation and behavior change frameworks was assessed, and the Theory and Techniques Tool used to determine theoretical alignment.

Results

Knowledge was the most frequent retrospectively TDF-coded barrier, followed by environmental context and resources, and skills. Significant referral improvements occurred in 56% of studies. Among these, the most frequent interventions were clinical data review systems, family history collection and referral tools, and embedding genetics staff into nongenetic specialties. Few studies used implementation frameworks or reported implementation outcomes, though some deployed intuitive strategies that aligned with theory.

Conclusion

Genetic referral interventions are rarely informed by implementation and/or behavior change theories, limiting opportunities for learning across contexts. Retrospective coding has provided a suite of theoretically linked strategies, which may be useful for informing future efforts. Incorporating these strategies into clinical guidelines may facilitate operationalization within the system.

Management and outcomes of men diagnosed with primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Fewer than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men. As a result, a distinct lack of data exists regarding the management and outcomes in this cohort.

METHODS

Any male patient with pathologically confirmed breast cancer diagnosed between August 2000 and October 2017 at either Massachusetts General Hospital or Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and their affiliate satellite locations were included. Primary chart review was used to assess clinical and pathologic characteristics. Patient and treatment variables were reported via descriptive statistics. Local-regional failure (LRF), overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

100 patients were included in this study. Median follow-up was 112 months (range 1-220 months). Approximately 1/3 of patients experienced at least a 3-month delay to presentation. 83 patients ultimately underwent mastectomy as definitive surgical treatment. 46 patients received adjuvant radiation therapy, and 37 patients received chemotherapy. Of 82 hormone receptor-positive patients with invasive cancer, 94% (n = 77) received endocrine therapy. Of the fifty-eight patients who underwent genetic testing, 15 (26%) tested positive. The 5-year OS, BCSS, DFS, and LRF rates were 91.5%, 96.2%, 86%, and 4.8%, respectively. Delay to presentation was not associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Male breast cancer remains a rare diagnosis. Despite this, the majority of patients in this study received standard of care therapy and experienced excellent oncologic outcomes. Penetration for genetic testing improved over time.

Adherence to NCCN Guidelines for Genetic Testing in Breast Cancer Patients: Who Are We Missing?

BACKGROUND

Genetic predisposition accounts for 5-10% of all breast cancers (BC) diagnosed. NCCN guidelines help providers identify appropriate candidates for counseling and testing. Concerns about underutilization of genetic testing have spurred interest in broader peri-diagnostic testing. We evaluated surgeon adherence to NCCN guidelines and studied patterns of testing in newly diagnosed BC patients.

METHODS

A total of 397 patients were identified with newly diagnosed BC treated at our institution between 2016 and 2017 with no prior genetic testing. Eligibility for genetic testing based on NCCN criteria, referral, and patient compliance were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 212 of 397 (53%) met NCCN testing criteria. Fifty-nine of 212 (28%) patients went untested despite meeting one or more criteria. Fourteen of 59 (24%) of these were referred but did not comply. Most common criteria for meeting eligibility for testing both in the overall cohort and among missed patients were family history-based. Age > 45 years old and non-Ashkenazi Jewish descent were predictive of missed referral (p < 0.01). We identified pathogenic mutations in 16 of 153 (10%) patients who did undergo testing (11 (7%) BRCA1 or 2 and 5 (3%) with other predisposition gene mutations) or 16 of 397 (4%) among the overall group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data highlight the underutilization of genetic testing. Even in the setting of a full-service breast center with readily available genetic counseling, there is a substantial miss rate for identifying eligible patients, related to assessment of family history, patient age, and ethnicity, as well as patient compliance. Broader peri-diagnostic testing should be considered, and higher compliance rates with patients referred should be sought.

Multidisciplinary interventions in a specialist Drug Development Unit to improve family history documentation and onward referral of patients with advanced cancer to cancer genetics services

BACKGROUND

Molecular aberrations in cancer may represent therapeutic targets, and, if arising from the germline, may impact further cancer risk management in patients and their blood relatives. Annually, 600-700 patients are referred for consideration of experimental drug trials in the Drug Development Unit (DDU) in our institution. A proportion of patients may merit germline genetic testing because of suspicious personal/family history or findings of tumour-based testing. We aimed to assess the impact of different multidisciplinary interventions on family history taking and referral rates from DDU to Cancer Genetics Unit (CGU).

METHODS

Over 42 months, three interventions were undertaken at different intervals: (1) embedding a genetics provider in the DDU review clinic, (2) 'traffic light' system flagging cancers with a heritable component and (3) virtual multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). Comparative analyses between intervals were undertaken, including referral rates to CGU, investigations and patient outcomes. Family history taking in a sample of 20 patients managed in each interval was assessed by a retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

Frequency of family history taking and referral to CGU, increased with each intervention, particularly, the virtual MDM (40% vs 85%). Referral rates increased over the study period, from 0.1 referral/week (5/year, 0.36% total referrals) to 1.2/week (projected 63/year, 3.81%). Forty-four (52%) patients referred required germline testing; in three of whom, variants were identified. Non-attendance rates were low (6, 7%).

CONCLUSION

Patients in the DDU are unique, with long cancer histories and often short estimated life expectancy. Multidisciplinary working between CGU and DDU facilitates germline testing of those patients who may otherwise miss the opportunity.

Non-BRCA1/2 Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes: A New Frontier with Clinical Consequences for Plastic Surgeons

Twenty percent of breast cancer cases may be related to a genetic mutation conferring an increased risk of malignancy. The most common and prominent breast cancer susceptibility genes are BRCA1 and BRCA2, found in nearly 40% of such cases. However, continued interest and investigation of cancer genetics has led to the identification of a myriad of different breast cancer susceptibility genes. Additional genes, each with unique significance and associated characteristics, continue to be recognized. Concurrently, advanced genetic testing, while still controversial, has become more accessible and cost-effective. As oncologic and reconstructive advances continue to be made in prophylactic breast reconstructive surgery, patients may present to plastic surgeons with an increasingly more diverse array of genetic diagnoses to discuss breast reconstruction. It is therefore imperative that plastic surgeons be familiar with these breast cancer susceptibility genes and their clinical implications. We, therefore, aim to review the most common non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer susceptibility genetic mutations in an effort to assist plastic surgeons in counseling and managing this unique patient population. Included in this review are syndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes such as TP53, PTEN, CDH1, and STK11, among others. Nonsyndromic breast cancer susceptibility genes herein reviewed include PALB2, CHEK2, and ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene. With this knowledge, plastic surgeons can play a central role in the diagnosis and comprehensive treatment, including successful breast reconstruction, of all patients carrying genetic mutations conferring increased risk for breast malignancies.

National Estimates of Genetic Testing in Women With a History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer

Purpose In the United States, 3.8 million women have a history of breast (BC) or ovarian cancer (OC). Up to 15% of cases are attributable to heritable mutations, which, if identified, provide critical knowledge for treatment and preventive care. It is unknown how many patients who are at high risk for these mutations have not been tested and how rates vary by risk criteria. Methods We used pooled cross-sectional data from three Cancer Control Modules (2005, 2010, 2015) of the National Health Interview Survey, a national in-person household interview survey. Eligible patients were adult females with a history of BC and/or OC meeting select 2017 National Comprehensive Cancer Network eligibility criteria on the basis of age of diagnosis and family history. Outcomes included the proportion of individuals reporting a history of discussing genetic testing with a health professional, being advised to undergo genetic testing, or undergoing genetic testing for BC or OC. Results Of 47,218 women, 2.7% had a BC history and 0.4% had an OC history. For BC, 35.6% met one or more select eligibility criteria; of those, 29.0% discussed, 20.2% were advised to undergo, and 15.3% underwent genetic testing. Testing rates for individual eligibility criteria ranged from 6.2% (relative with OC) to 18.2% (diagnosis ≤ 45 years of age). For OC, 15.1% discussed, 13.1% were advised to undergo, and 10.5% underwent testing. Using only four BC eligibility criteria and all patients with OC, an estimated 1.2 to 1.3 million individuals failed to receive testing. Conclusion Fewer than one in five individuals with a history of BC or OC meeting select National Cancer Comprehensive Network criteria have undergone genetic testing. Most have never discussed testing with a health care provider. Large national efforts are warranted to address this unmet need.