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

Prevalence and Distribution of Unexpected Actionable Germline Pathogenic Variants Identified on Broad-Based Multigene Panel Testing Among Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

In patients with a variety of malignancies undergoing multigene panel testing (MGPT), we examined the frequency of a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV) that would not have been predicted on the basis of the patient's personal and family history of cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients with cancer ascertained from a single academic cancer center who underwent broad-based MGPT of ≥20 cancer predisposition genes not selected on the basis of personal or family cancer history from 2015 to 2021. Low-penetrance variants and recessive inheritance genes were excluded. Deidentified pedigrees were analyzed to determine clinical suspicion of PV.

RESULTS

MGPT was performed on 10,975 patients with cancer: 1,134 (10.3%) were found to have ≥1 PV in a moderate or highly penetrant cancer susceptibility gene. Three hundred seven (2.8%) of the PVs were not predicted on the basis of patient's personal cancer history alone, and 192 (1.7%) remained unsuspected after patient's cancer diagnosis and review of family cancer histories were considered. Unexpected PVs accounted for 16.9% of the 1,134 patients with a moderate- or high-penetrance PV. Most frequent unexpected variants were MITF (n = 18), PMS2 (n = 18), ATM (n = 17), BRIP1 (n = 17), HOXB13 (n = 14), SDHA (n = 12), CHEK2 (n = 11), BRCA2 (n = 7), MSH6 (n = 7), SDHC (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 6), and TP53 (n = 6). Low-penetrance or recessive variants were found in 519 (4.7%) patients. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 3,775 (34.4%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with cancer, MGPT identified a rate of 1.7% PV in unexpected actionable cancer predisposition genes. Findings were more often unexpected (2.8%) when considering only the patient cancer history. These findings may justify consideration of broader MGPT panels in patients with cancer, given implications for subsequent surveillance, cascade testing, and treatment options dependent on specific findings.

BRCA genetic testing and counseling in breast cancer: how do we meet our patients' needs?

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are tumor suppressor genes that have been linked to inherited susceptibility of breast cancer. Germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (gBRCAm) are clinically relevant for treatment selection in breast cancer because they confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. BRCA1/2 mutation status may also impact decisions on other systemic therapies, risk-reducing measures, and choice of surgery. Consequently, demand for gBRCAm testing has increased. Several barriers to genetic testing exist, including limited access to testing facilities, trained counselors, and psychosocial support, as well as the financial burden of testing. Here, we describe current implications of gBRCAm testing for patients with breast cancer, summarize current approaches to gBRCAm testing, provide potential solutions to support wider adoption of mainstreaming testing practices, and consider future directions of testing.

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.

Universal genetic counseling in breast cancer patients significantly improves overall testing rates and improves completion rates in subpopulations

PURPOSE

The NCCN guidelines recommend genetic testing in those patients at increased risk of breast cancer in order to identify candidates for increased frequency of screening or prophylactic mastectomy. However, genetic testing may now identify patients who may benefit from recently developed targeted breast cancer therapy. In order to more widely identify these patients, we implemented genetic counseling for all patients diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

In 2021, all patients evaluated within a Midwestern community hospital system diagnosed with breast cancer were offered genetic counseling. This group of patients was compared to a cohort of patients in 2021 who were offered genetic counseling based on NCCN guidelines. With Pearson's chi square, Fisher's Exact test, Mann-Whitney U, and multivariate regression as appropriate, individual demographic data and genetic testing completion between 2019 and 2021 were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 973 patients were reviewed. 439 were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 and 534 in 2021. Demographics and stage at diagnosis (p = 0.194) were similar between years. Completion of genetic testing increased from 204 (46.5%) in 2019 to 338 (63.3%) in 2021 (p < 0.01) with the universal counseling protocol. Specifically, genetic testing completion increased significantly in older patients (p = 0.041) and patients receiving Medicare benefits (p = 0.005). The overall pathogenic variants found increased from 32 to 39 with the most common including BRCA2 (n = 11), CFTR (n = 9), CHEK2 (n = 8), BRCA1 (n = 6).

CONCLUSION

Universal genetic counseling was related to a significant increase in genetic testing completion and an increase in pathogenic variants found among breast cancer patients, specifically in subpopulations which may have been previously excluded by traditional NCCN genetic testing screening guidelines.

Medical students' knowledge on cancer predisposition syndromes and attitude toward eHealth

PURPOSE

Individuals with cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) inherit elevated cancer risks. Medical supply gaps for people at risk of CPS cause insufficient outreach and miss potential benefits of individualized care strategies. Increased awareness of CPS and progress in the eHealth sector are untapped sources of health care improvement for affected individuals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study addressed German-speaking medical students with an online questionnaire in respect to their knowledge of CPS, their medical education, and perspectives. The study population (n = 404) reported interest in and knowledge of CPS, supported by a satisfactory and sustainable education for their prospective patient care. The next generation of doctors would implement eHealth to improve medical services. Skepticism about digitization was claimed by students. They were especially concerned about deterioration in the physician-patient relationship, data abuse, dependence on technology, and incorrect diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Due to increasing diagnosing of CPS and deeper knowledge, this topic is essential for the curriculum in medical schools. In particular, care providers need know-how on identifying patients at risk for a CPS, certain diagnostic and therapeutic steps, surveillance and prophylactic strategies to improve patients' outcomes. Education in medical school as well as implemented eHealth seems to have potential to meet this demand in an upcoming era of personalized medicine. What does this study add to the clinical work. Medical teaching on cancer predisposition syndromes should be expanded to improve knowledge and individualized and personalized healthcare.

Inferring Negative Molecular Biomarker Data at Scale

PURPOSE

Patients who represent the negative biomarker population, those tested for a biomarker but found to be negative, are a critical component of the growing molecular data repository. Many next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based tumor sequencing panels test hundreds of genes, but most laboratories do not provide explicit negative results on test reports nor in their structured data. However, the need for a complete picture of the testing landscape is significant. Syapse has created an internal ingestion and data transformation pipeline that uses the power of natural language processing (NLP), terminology management, and internal rulesets to semantically align data and infer negative results not explicitly stated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients within the learning health network with a cancer diagnosis and at least one NGS-based molecular report were included. To obtain this critical negative result data, laboratory gene panel information was extracted and transformed using NLP techniques into a semistructured format for analysis. A normalization ontology was created in tandem. With this approach, we were able to successfully leverage positive biomarker data to derive negative data and create a comprehensive data set for molecular testing paradigms.

RESULTS

The application of this process resulted in a drastic improvement in data completeness and clarity, especially when compared with other similar data sets.

CONCLUSION

The ability to accurately determine positivity and testing rates among patient populations is imperative. With only positive results, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the entire tested population or the characteristics of the subgroup who are negative for the biomarker in question. We leverage these values to perform quality checks on ingested data, and end users can easily monitor their adherence to testing recommendations.

Genetic Testing Among Patients with High-Risk Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate Cancers

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends genetic testing in patients with potentially hereditary breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers (HBOPP). Knowledge of genetic mutations impacts decisions about screening and treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 28,586 HBOPP patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 was conducted using a linked administrative-cancer database in the Seattle-Puget Sound SEER area. Guideline-concordant testing (GCT) was assessed annually according to guideline updates. Frequency of testing according to patient/cancer characteristics was evaluated using chi-squared tests, and factors associated with receipt of genetic testing were identified using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Testing occurred in 17% of HBOPP patients, increasing from 9% in 2013 to 21% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Ovarian cancer had the highest testing (40%) and prostate cancer the lowest (4%). Age < 50, female sex, non-Hispanic White race, commercial insurance, urban location, family history of HBOPP, and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were associated with increased testing (all p < 0.05). GCT increased from 38% in 2013 to 44% in 2019, and was highest for early age at breast cancer diagnosis, TNBC, male breast cancer, and breast cancer with family history of HBOPP (all > 70% in 2019), and lowest for metastatic prostate cancer (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of genetic testing for HBOPP cancer has increased over time. Though GCT is high for breast cancer, there are gaps in concordance among patients with other cancers. Increasing provider and patient education, genetic counseling, and insurance coverage for testing among HBOPP patients may improve guideline adherence.

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.

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.

Germline Mutational Landscape in Chinese Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer

Background

Genetic testing for breast cancer (BC) patients may shift the paradigm towards more personalized management and treatment strategies. While gene alterations may be ethnic-specific in breast cancer, our understanding of genetic epidemiology of BC remains mainly driven by data from Caucasian populations and further limited to selected handful of genes.

Methods

We collected whole blood samples from 356 BC patients at metastatic first line BC and primary stage IV disease at Beijing Cancer Hospital between Jan. 2013 to Dec. 2019. A comprehensive 600-gene cancer panel was used to detect germline variants in the covered genes with a median 300x sequencing depth. Variants were classified into pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variant of uncertain significance, likely benign and benign groups according to the ACMG/AMP Standards and Guidelines. Pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were considered as deleterious mutations.

Results

The median age of 356 BC patients was 49 years (range, 21-87 years) at the first diagnosis of BC. Deleterious germline mutations across 48 cancer-related genes were identified in 21.6% (77/356) of the patients. The most prevalent mutations were BRCA1/2 mutations (7.0%), followed by ATM and RAD50 mutations (1.4% each). In addition, patients with family history were more likely to carry BRCA1 mutations (P=0.04). Moreover, patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were more likely to harbor BRCA1 mutations than those with HR+ or HER2+ breast cancer (P=0.006). While there was no significant survival difference observed in BRCA1/2 carriers relative to non-carriers, patients with DNA damage repair (DDR) gene mutations (mostly frequently BRCA, ATM, RAD50) had worse disease-free survival (P=0.02).

Conclusions

The most prevalent germline mutations in a large cohort of Chinese patients with advanced BC were BRCA1/2 mutations, followed by ATM and RAD50 mutations. In total, approximately 16.0% (57/356) of patients carry deleterious mutations in DDR pathway. Patients with breast or ovarian cancer family history were more likely to carry BRCA1/2 mutations, and ones with DDR mutations had worse survival. These findings suggest that DDR mutations are prevalent in Chinese BC patients who may potentially benefit from treatment with Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors.

Characteristics and experiences of patients from a community-based and consumer-directed hereditary cancer population screening initiative

A clinical hereditary cancer population screening initiative, called Information is Power, began in North Alabama in 2015. After 4 years of the initiative, we were interested in exploring (1) the characteristics and motivations for patients who self-refer to population genetic testing, (2) how patients make decisions on testing, (3) what patients do with results, and (4) patient perceptions of benefits and limitations after undergoing population genetic testing. Patients who consented to research recontact at time of test ordering were sent an electronic survey with the option for a follow-up phone interview. Among the 2,918 eligible patients, 239 responded to the survey and 19 completed an interview. Survey and interview participants were highly educated information seekers motivated by learning more about their health. Those who were previously interested in hereditary cancer testing reported barriers were cost and insurance coverage, access to testing, and uncertainty how results could impact their health. Many participants (77%) communicated with family and friends about their decision to test and communicated about test results. Fewer participants (23%) discussed the decision to test with their healthcare providers; however, 58% of participants discussed their test results with a healthcare provider. Most people (96%) with negative results accurately recalled their results. In contrast, three out of 11 positive results for heterozygous MUTYH, PALB2, and BRCA2 reported receiving negative results. This study contributes to knowledge on population genetic testing and may guide other population genetic testing programs as they develop enrollment materials and educational materials and consider downstream needs of population genetic testing participants.

Hereditary Cancer Risk Using a Genetic Chatbot Before Routine Care Visits

OBJECTIVE

To examine user uptake and experience with a clinical chatbot that automates hereditary cancer risk triage by collecting personal and family cancer history in routine women's health care settings.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective observational study of patients who used a web-based chatbot before routine care appointments to assess their risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, and adenomatous polyposis syndromes. Outcome measures included uptake and completion of the risk-assessment and educational section of the chatbot interaction and identification of hereditary cancer risk as evaluated against National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 95,166 patients invited, 61,070 (64.2%) engaged with the clinical chatbot. The vast majority completed the cancer risk assessment (89.4%), and most completed the genetic testing education section (71.4%), indicating high acceptability among those who opted to engage. The mean duration of use was 15.4 minutes (SD 2 hours, 56.2 minutes) when gaps of inactivity longer than 5 minutes were excluded. A personal history of cancer was reported by 19.1% (10,849/56,656) and a family history of cancer was reported by 66.7% (36,469/54,652) of patients who provided the relevant information. One in four patients (14,850/54,547) screened with the chatbot before routine care appointments met National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for genetic testing. Among those who were tested, 5.6% (73/1,313) had a disease-causing pathogenic variant.

CONCLUSION

A chatbot digital health tool can help identify patients at high risk for hereditary cancer syndromes before routine care appointments. This scalable intervention can effectively provide cancer risk assessment, engage patients with educational information, and facilitate a path toward preventive genetic testing.

FUNDING SOURCE

Implementation of the chatbot in clinics was funded by industry support from commercial genetic testing laboratories Ambry, Invitae, and Progenity.