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

Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing with Expanded Eligibility for Early Breast Cancer Patients in a Large Integrated Health System

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated a new mainstream genetic testing pathway for hereditary cancer, with expanded eligibility for early-stage breast cancer patients.

METHODS

The study compared multigene panel (62 genes) germline testing uptake and results for breast cancer patients at 4 pilot sites (n = 502 patients) and 10 non-pilot sites (n = 1792 patients) within Kaiser Permanente Northern California from December 2020, to June 2021. At the pilot sites, breast care coordinators (BCCs) offered and consented patients for testing, with eligibility expanded to include all patients age 65 years or younger. At the non-pilot sites, eligible patients were referred to genetics for pre-test counseling, ordering, and follow-up evaluation with the standard guideline that included all patients age 45 years or younger.

RESULTS

Demographic and disease characteristics were similar at the pilot and non-pilot sites. At the pilot verses non-pilot sites, a higher percentage of patients was tested overall (61.6% vs 31.7%) and across all age groups. The median time from breast biopsy to test result also was reduced (22 vs 33 days, respectively). A higher percentage of patients at the pilot sites was identified as having a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PV/LPV) in a breast cancer-related gene (3.6% vs 1.6%). Although the percentage of total patients tested was nearly twofold higher at the pilot sites than at the non-pilot sites, the percentage of total patients seen by genetics was estimated to be similar (33.7% vs 31.7%).

CONCLUSION

Mainstream genetic testing of breast cancer patients facilitated by BCCs makes it feasible for a large health care system to expand germline genetic testing to early breast cancer patients age 65 years or younger.

Experience of urologists, oncologists and nurse practitioners with mainstream genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend germline genetic testing for men with metastatic prostate cancer. If offered to all patients by genetic healthcare professionals, there will be insufficient capacity to cope with the high patient numbers. In a mainstreaming pathway, non-genetic healthcare professionals (ngHCPs) discuss and order germline genetic testing instead of referring patients to genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experience of ngHCPs with pre-test genetic counselling and to explore the feasibility from the ngHCPs' perspective.

METHODS

We carried out a prospective cohort study in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. All participating ngHCPs (i.e. urologists, medical oncologists, specialist nurses and nurse practitioners) completed an online training module of 45 min. The ngHCPs completed a questionnaire both before the training and at three and nine months after it. Paired analyses were used to compare the first with the last questionnaires on attitude, confidence in the ability to discuss and order germline genetic testing, and perceived and actual knowledge of genetics and genetic testing.

RESULTS

167 ngHCPs were invited to participate of whom 69 completed the first questionnaire and started or completed the last one. They had a positive attitude towards offering genetic testing themselves. After nine months of providing pre-test genetic counselling, significantly more ngHCPs considered mainstreaming helpful (94% after versus 81% before, p = 0.01). Both perceived and actual knowledge increased significantly. Pre-test genetic counselling took less than 10 minutes for 82% of ngHCPs and the majority (88%) were in favour of continuing the mainstream pathway. Only six participating ngHCPs considered mainstreaming possible without completing a training module beforehand.

CONCLUSIONS

After completing a short online training module, ngHCPs feel well-prepared to discuss germline genetic testing with metastatic prostate cancer patients.

Germline Variants of Uncertain Significance in Gynecologic Oncology Patients

Germline and somatic genetic/genomic testing are commonly ordered for gynecologic oncology patients. Genetic tests can inform disease etiology, prognosis, treatment decisions, and risk to the patient's relatives. Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are frequently encountered and have a more nuanced interpretation than straightforward pathogenic or benign variant classifications. Clinical care providers should be familiar with why and how VUSs are reported, their clinical significance, variant reclassification practices, and patient perceptions of VUSs.

Ensuring best practice in genomics education: A scoping review of genomics education needs assessments and evaluations

A health workforce capable of implementing genomic medicine requires effective genomics education. Genomics education interventions developed for health professions over the last two decades, and their impact, are variably described in the literature. To inform an evaluation framework for genomics education, we undertook an exploratory scoping review of published needs assessments for, and/or evaluations of, genomics education interventions for health professionals from 2000 to 2023. We retrieved and screened 4,659 records across the two searches with 363 being selected for full-text review and consideration by an interdisciplinary working group. 104 articles were selected for inclusion in the review-60 needs assessments, 52 genomics education evaluations, and eight describing both. Included articles spanned all years and described education interventions in over 30 countries. Target audiences included medical specialists, nurses/midwives, and/or allied health professionals. Evaluation questions, outcomes, and measures were extracted, categorized, and tabulated to iteratively compare measures across stages of genomics education evaluation: planning (pre-implementation), development and delivery (implementation), and impact (immediate, intermediate, or long-term outcomes). They are presented here along with descriptions of study designs. We document the wide variability in evaluation approaches and terminology used to define measures and note that few articles considered downstream (long-term) outcomes of genomics education interventions. Alongside the evaluation framework for genomics education, results from this scoping review form part of a toolkit to help educators to undertake rigorous genomics evaluation that is fit for purpose and can contribute to the growing evidence base of the contribution of genomics education in implementation strategies for genomic medicine.