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

Implications of genetic testing and informed consent before and after genetic testing in individuals with cancer

Recent advancements in next generation sequencing have allowed for genetic information become more readily available in the clinical setting for those affected by cancer and by treating clinicians. Given the lack of access to geneticists, medical oncologists and other treating physicians have begun ordering and interpreting genetic tests for individuals with cancer through the process of "mainstreaming". While this process has allowed for quicker access to genetic tests, the process of "mainstreaming" has also brought several challenges including the dissemination of variants of unknown significance results, ordering of appropriate tests, and accurate interpretation of genetic results with appropriate follow-up testing and interventions. In this editorial, we seek to explore the process of informed consent of individuals before obtaining genetic testing and offer potential solutions to optimize the informed consent process including categorization of results as well as a layered consent model.

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.

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.

Errors in genome sequencing result disclosures: A randomized controlled trial comparing neonatology non-genetics healthcare professionals and genetic counselors

PURPOSE

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

METHODS

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher's exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

RESULTS

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

CONCLUSION

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

Deficiencies in germline genetic testing in young-onset colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Young-onset colorectal cancer (YO-CRC) patients have high rates of pathologic genetic variants on germline testing, however it is unclear what factors are associated with genetic testing completion.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of YO-CRC patients aged ≤50 years between 2014 and 2021 who received the entirety of their cancer care at a single institution. The primary outcome was completion of germline multigene panel testing. Variables were examined for association with germline multigene panel testing.

RESULTS

Among 100 YO-CRC patients, only 31 ​% (n ​= ​31) completed genetic testing. Testing rates did not differ by colorectal cancer stage but were significantly higher among patients who received chemotherapy (39.8 ​% vs 5.9 ​%; p ​= ​0.01) and in patients with increasing number of relatives with a family history of cancer (p ​< ​0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one-third of YO-CRC patients completed genetic testing. Patients seen by oncology or with increasingly strong family cancer history were more likely to complete genetic testing.

Optimizing the detection of hereditary predisposition in women with epithelial ovarian cancer: nationwide implementation of the Tumor-First workflow

Genetic testing in patients with ovarian carcinoma (OC) is crucial, as around 10-15% of these women have a genetic predisposition to OC. Although guidelines have recommended universal germline testing for all patients with OC for a decade, implementation has proved challenging, thus resulting in low germline-testing rates (around 30-50%). Many new initiatives to improve genetic-testing rates have emerged, but most have been carried out at the local level, leading to differences in workflows within and between countries. We present an example of a nationwide implementation project that has successfully led to a uniform, high-quality genetic-testing workflow for women with OC. Nationwide multidisciplinary meetings generated consensus on the preferred workflow for OC genetic testing: the "Tumor-First" workflow. This workflow means starting by testing the tumor DNA for the presence of pathogenic variants in OC-risk genes, thus providing a prescreen to germline testing while yielding information on the effectiveness of treatment with PARP inhibitors. This new workflow efficiently stratifies genetic counseling and germline testing and reduces healthcare costs. Although challenging, the nationwide implementation of this workflow was successful, resulting in tumor-DNA testing rates exceeding 80%. In this article, we present our structured implementation approach, illustrate our implementation strategies-which were tailored to identified factors important to implementation-and share the lessons learned from the Tumor-First implementation project. This knowledge could facilitate the future implementation of workflows aimed at optimizing the recognition of hereditary cancers.

Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content.

RESULTS

Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout.

CONCLUSION

The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.

The experience of receiving a letter from a cancer genetics clinic about risk for hereditary cancer

Direct contact may be an option for supporting disclosure in families with hereditary cancer risk. In this qualitative interview study, we explored how healthy at-risk relatives experience receiving a letter with information about hereditary cancer directly from healthcare rather than via a relative. The study is part of an ongoing multicentre randomised clinical trial in Sweden that evaluates the effectiveness of direct letters from cancer genetics clinics to at-risk relatives. After conducting semi-structured interviews with 14 relatives who had received a letter and contacted the clinic, we analysed the data using thematic analysis. The relatives had different levels of prior knowledge about the hereditary cancer assessment. Many had been notified by family that a letter was coming but some had not. Overall, these participants believed healthcare-mediated disclosure could complement family-mediated disclosure. They expressed that the letter and the message raised concerns and a need for counselling, and they wanted healthcare to be accessible and informed when making contact. The participants found the message easier to cope with when they had been notified by a family member beforehand, with a general attitude that notifying relatives was the appropriate step to take. They thought healthcare should help patients with the disclosure process but also guard the right of at-risk relatives to be informed. The findings support a direct approach from healthcare as a possible complement to an established model of family-mediated risk disclosure, but implementation must be made within existing frameworks of good practice for genetic counselling.

Current and future genomic applications for surgeons

Genomics is a crucial part of managing surgical disease. This review focuses on some of the genomic advances that are available now and looks to the future of their application in surgical practice. Whole-genome sequencing enables unbiased coverage across the entire human genome of approximately three billion base pairs. Newer technologies, such as those that permit long-read sequence analysis, provide additional information in longer phased fragment and base pair epigenomic (methylomic) data. Whole-genome sequencing is currently available in England for cancers in children, teenagers and young adults, central nervous system tumours, sarcoma and haematological malignancies. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), immunotherapy and pharmacogenomics have emerged as groundbreaking approaches in the field of cancer treatment. These are now revolutionising the way oncologists and surgeons approach curative cancer surgery. Cancer vaccines offer an innovative approach to reducing recurrence after surgery by priming the immune system to trigger an immune response. The Cancer Vaccine Launch Pad project facilitates cancer vaccine studies in England. The BNT122-01 trial is recruiting patients with ctDNA-positive high-risk colorectal cancer after surgery to assess the impact of cancer vaccines. The evolving landscape of cancer treatment demands a dynamic and integrated approach from the surgical multidisciplinary team. Immunotherapy, ctDNA, pharmacogenomics, vaccines, mainstreaming and whole-genome sequencing are just some of the innovations that have the potential to redefine the standards of care. The continued exploration of these innovative diagnostics and therapies, the genomic pathway evolution and their application in diverse cancer types highlights the transformative impact of precision medicine in surgery.

Mainstreaming in parallel with ovarian cancer tumor testing to improve genetic testing uptake

OBJECTIVES

Although genetic testing (GT) is universally recommended for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), rates are low (34%). In 1/2019, we implemented mainstreaming-GT in parallel with tumor testing via MSK-IMPACT within oncology clinics. We sought to determine GT rates pre/post-mainstreaming and patient characteristics associated with GT.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed EOC seen at our institution from 7/1/2015-3/31/2022 were included. Clinical data were abstracted including social determinants of health (SDOH) variables, race/ethnicity, marital status, insurance, language, comorbidities, employment, and Yost index, a measure of socioeconomic status. GT rates were calculated overall and pre-/post-mainstreaming (1/2019). Logistic regression models were fit to identify variables associated with GT.

RESULTS

Of 1742 patients with EOC, 1591 (91%) underwent GT. Rates of GT increased from 87% to 95% after mainstreaming (p < 0.001). Among 151 patients not undergoing GT, major reasons were lack of provider recommendation (n = 76, 50%) and logistical issues (n = 38, 25%) with few declining (n = 14, 9%) or having medical complications preventing GT (n = 7, 4.6%). High-grade serous histology, advanced stage (III/IV), and having a spouse/partner were associated with increased GT uptake (p < 0.01). Among SDOH variables, there were no differences by insurance, Yost score, language, comorbidities, employment, or race/ethnicity. In multivariable models, likelihood of GT increased with mainstreaming, even after adjustment for histology, stage, and marital status (OR 3.77; 95% CI: 2.56-5.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Mainstreaming increased the likelihood of GT in patients with EOC. We found lower testing rates in patients without partners/spouses, non-high-grade serous histology, and early-stage disease, representing potential areas for future interventions.

Impact of genetic counseling strategy on diagnostic yield and workload for genome-sequencing-based tumor diagnostics

PURPOSE

Genome sequencing (GS) enables comprehensive molecular analysis of tumors and identification of hereditary cancer predisposition. According to guidelines, directly determining pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) requires pretest genetic counseling, which is cost-ineffective. Referral for genetic counseling based on tumor variants alone could miss relevant PGVs and/or result in unnecessary referrals.

METHODS

We validated GS for detection of germline variants and simulated 3 strategies using paired tumor-normal GS data of 937 metastatic patients. In strategy-1, genetic counseling before tumor testing allowed direct PGV analysis. In strategy-2 and -3, germline testing and referral for post-test genetic counseling is based on tumor variants using Dutch (strategy-2) or Europen Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group (strategy-3) guidelines.

RESULTS

In strategy-1, PGVs would be detected in 50 patients (number-needed-to counsel; NTC = 18.7). In strategy-2, 86 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 43 would have PGVs (NTC = 2). In strategy-3, 94 patients would have been referred for genetic counseling and 32 would have PGVs (NTC = 2.9). Hence, 43 and 62 patients, respectively, were unnecessarily referred based on a somatic variant.

CONCLUSION

Both post-tumor test counseling strategies (2 and 3) had significantly lower NTC, and strategy-2 had the highest PGV yield. Combining pre-tumor test mainstreaming and post-tumor test counseling may maximize the clinically relevant PGV yield and minimize unnecessary referrals.

Genetic risk assessment in breast and gynecologic malignancies- what's to know in 2024?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hereditary cancer risk assessment and counseling have become integral in oncology care, especially in breast and gynecologic malignancies where genetic test results impact management. However, a large number of patients who could benefit from genetic testing are not getting tested. As such, genetic risk assessment and counseling methods have had to evolve to meet the needs of this expanding patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

"Mainstreaming" genetic testing is an initiative to incorporate genetic testing into routine cancer care in lieu of the traditional genetic counseling model to improve uptake of testing while minimizing expansion of genetic counselor and clinic resources. These models have performed well in various institutions demonstrating an improvement in clinical efficacy. However, missed opportunities from the preventive care standpoint, a core value of cancer genetics risk assessment, have become apparent. The focus of these models is on the patient's cancer diagnosis and comprehensive/familial genetic risk assessment is not often completed.

SUMMARY

Identifying patients at an increased risk of cancer, even in the absence of a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome, is important in tailoring screening and preventive measures. As we look to the future, we need to critically approach mainstreaming and determine how to reincorporate comprehensive genetic risk assessment into our models.

Implementing mainstream genetic counseling within the area-wide network of the German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC): Satisfaction of primary care providers with the provided state-of-the-art training by the Cologne Center

The German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DKG) has published a position paper to address the challenges of cancer patient care in the era of genomic medicine. The German Consortium Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has implemented this recommendation in its care concept for families at risk. Core elements are the outcome-oriented evaluation of structured and standardized clinical measures and reporting recommendations derived therefrom to primary care providers and patients. A cross-sector network with certified breast cancer and gynecological cancer centers was founded in 2015, starting from the Cologne Center of the GC-HBOC. To guarantee the knowledge transfer for mainstream genetic counseling, the Cologne center has established an educational program for physicians and specialized nurses in order to pilot trans-sectoral knowledge transfer on risk assessment and risk-stratified care. It consists of face-to-face lectures with written knowledge test, attending a genetic case conference and genetic counseling sessions with the opportunity to counsel under supervision. The lectures were accompanied by a structured evaluation of the participants' satisfaction and feedback of the needs in mainstream genetic counseling. Thereby, the network ensures that genetic counseling and testing is provided according to state-of-the-art knowledge and allows physicians to participate in knowledge-generating care outside the university setting and patients to receive care close to home. After multiple feedback cycles to improve the educational program, the GC-HBOC, in cooperation with the German Cancer Society, has now adopted this concept and developed a common and uniform online curriculum funded by the Federal Ministry of Health. https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/fortbildung-familiaerer-krebs.html.

Talking about Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk-Evaluation of a Psychosocial Training Module for Gynecologists in Germany

Primary care gynecologists are increasingly integrated into the care of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) risks. These physicians should not only have basic genetic knowledge; they should also feel able to sensitively address an increased HBOC risk and deal with emotional, stressful situations in this context. Our project aimed at developing a training module, 'iKNOWgynetics', addressing psychosocial challenges in the context of HBOC care for primary care gynecologists. We developed the psychosocial training module in three phases: first, we conducted an online survey with n = 35 women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer to assess patients' experiences and needs. Second, based on the results of the needs assessment, we developed the training module. Third, we evaluated the training by assessing physicians' (n = 109) self-efficacy with regard to communication skills in the context of HBOC before and after the training. In the needs assessment, seven psychosocial themes emerged. These themes, complementing a review of the literature, informed the training curriculum. The training was divided into two parts: (1) communicating with women before genetic testing and (2) care co-management for women with HBOC after genetic testing. After the training, participants reported a significant increase in self-efficacy in three domains: communicating empathetically, educating patients in a comprehensible way and dealing with emotionally challenging situations. Our results highlight the relevance of psychosocial issues for patients with HBOC. A genetic literacy training module that integrates aspects of psychosocial care increases physicians' confidence in dealing with emotionally challenging situations before and after their patients' genetic testing. Thus, such trainings may improve the care of women with hereditary cancer risks.

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.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Real World Evidence of Care Delivery in AccessHope Data

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is an aggressive disease and the delivery of comprehensive care to individuals with this cancer is critical to achieve appropriate outcomes. The identification of gaps in care delivery facilitates the design of interventions to optimize care delivery and improve outcomes in this population.

METHODS

AccessHope™ is a growing organization that connects oncology subspecialists with treating providers through contracts with self-insured employers. Data from 94 pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases (August 2019-December 2022) in the AccessHope dataset were used to describe gaps in care delivery.

RESULTS

In all but 6% of cases, the subspecialist provided guideline-concordant recommendations anticipated to improve outcomes. Gaps in care were more pronounced in patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. There was a significant deficiency in germline testing regardless of the stage, with only 59% of cases having completed testing. Only 20% of cases were receiving palliative care or other allied support services. There was no difference in observed care gaps between patients receiving care in the community setting vs. those receiving care in the academic setting.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant gaps in the care delivered to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A concurrent subspecialist review has the opportunity to identify and address these gaps in a timely manner.

Workforce Implications of Increased Referrals to Hereditary Cancer Services in Canada: A Scenario-Based Analysis

Over the last decade, utilization of clinical genetics services has grown rapidly, putting increasing pressure on the workforce available to deliver genetic healthcare. To highlight the policy challenges facing Canadian health systems, a needs-based workforce requirements model was developed to determine the number of Canadian patients in 2030 for whom an assessment of hereditary cancer risk would be indicated according to current standards and the numbers of genetic counsellors, clinical geneticists and other physicians with expertise in genetics needed to provide care under a diverse set of scenarios. Our model projects that by 2030, a total of 90 specialist physicians and 326 genetic counsellors (1.7-fold and 1.6-fold increases from 2020, respectively) will be required to provide Canadians with indicated hereditary cancer services if current growth trends and care models remain unchanged. However, if the expansion in eligibility for hereditary cancer assessment accelerates, the need for healthcare providers with expertise in genetics would increase dramatically unless alternative care models are widely adopted. Increasing capacity through service delivery innovation, as well as mainstreaming of cancer genetics care, will be critical to Canadian health systems' ability to meet this challenge.

Privacy and utility of genetic testing in families with hereditary cancer syndromes living in three countries: the international cascade genetic screening experience

Background: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome are associated with increased lifetime risk for common cancers. Offering cascade genetic testing to cancer-free relatives of individuals with HBOC or LS is a public health intervention for cancer prevention. Yet, little is known about the utility and value of information gained from cascade testing. This paper discusses ELSI encountered during the implementation of cascade testing in three countries with national healthcare systems: Switzerland, Korea, and Israel. Methods: A workshop presented at the 5th International ELSI Congress discussed implementation of cascade testing in the three countries based on exchange of data and experiences from the international CASCADE cohort. Results: Analyses focused on models of accessing genetic services (clinic-based versus population-based screening), and models of initiating cascade testing (patient-mediated dissemination versus provider-mediated dissemination of testing results to relatives). The legal framework of each country, organization of the healthcare system, and socio-cultural norms determined the utility and value of genetic information gained from cascade testing. Conclusion: The juxtaposition of individual versus public health interests generates significant ELSI controversies associated with cascade testing, which compromise access to genetic services and the utility and value of genetic information, despite national healthcare/universal coverage.

An approach to genetic testing in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Singapore

Introduction

There has been a rapid evolution in the treatment strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following the identification of targetable mutations, making genetic testing essential for patient selection. Although several international guidelines recommend genetic testing for patients with mCRPC, there is a lack of locally endorsed clinical practice guidelines in Singapore.

Method

A multidisciplinary specialist panel with representation from medical and radiation oncology, urology, pathology, interventional radiology, and medical genetics discussed the challenges associated with patient selection, genetic counselling and sample processing in mCRPC.

Results

A clinical model for incorporating genetic testing into routine clinical practice in Singapore was formulated. Tumour testing with an assay that is able to detect both somatic and germline mutations should be utilised. The panel also recommended the "mainstreaming" approach for genetic counselling in which pre-test counselling is conducted by the managing clinician and post-test discussion with a genetic counsellor, to alleviate the bottlenecks at genetic counselling stage in Singapore. The need for training of clinicians to provide pre-test genetic counselling and educating the laboratory personnel for appropriate sample processing that facilitates downstream genetic testing was recognised. Molecular tumour boards and multidisciplinary discussions are recommended to guide therapeutic decisions in mCRPC. The panel also highlighted the issue of reimbursement for genetic testing to reduce patient-borne costs and increase the reach of genetic testing among this patient population.

Conclusion

This article aims to provide strategic and implementable recommendations to overcome the challenges in genetic testing for patients with mCRPC in Singapore.

Improving Rates of Germline BRCA Mutation Testing for Patients With Ovarian Cancer in Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada

PURPOSE

Despite more than a decade of endorsement from multiple international cancer authorities advocating all women with ovarian cancer be offered germline breast cancer (BRCA) gene testing, British Columbia Cancer Victoria was not meeting this target. A quality improvement project was undertaken with the aim of increasing completed BRCA testing rates for all eligible patients seen at British Columbia Cancer Victoria to > 90% by 1 year from April 2016.

METHODS

A current state analysis was completed, and multiple change ideas were developed, including education of medical oncologists, referral process update, initiating a group consenting seminar, and engagement of a nurse practitioner to lead the seminar. We used a retrospective chart audit from December 2014 to February 2018. On April 15, 2016, we initiated our Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles and completed them on February 28, 2018. We evaluated sustainability through an additional retrospective chart audit from January 2021 to August 2021.

RESULTS

Patients with completed germline BRCA genetic testing climbed from an average of 58%-89% per month. Before our project, patients waited on average 243 days (± 214) for their genetic test results. After implementation, patients received results within 118 days (± 98). This was sustained with an average of 83% of patients per month having completed germline BRCA testing almost 3 years after project completion.

CONCLUSION

Our quality improvement initiative resulted in a sustained increase in germline BRCA test completion for eligible patients with ovarian cancer.

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.

Patients’ experiences with pre-test genetic counseling provided by breast cancer healthcare professionals: Results from a large prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Pre-test genetic counseling of patients with breast cancer is increasingly being offered by non-genetic healthcare professionals. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of patients with breast cancer receiving pre-test genetic counseling from a non-genetic healthcare professional (i.e., surgeon or nurse).

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received pre-test counseling from their surgeon or nurse (mainstream group), and patients who received pre-test counseling from a clinical geneticist (usual care group) were invited to participate in our multicenter study. Between September 2019 and December 2021, patients received a questionnaire after pre-test counseling (T0) and four weeks after receiving their test results (T1) to evaluate psychosocial outcomes, knowledge, discussed topics and satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 191 patients in our mainstream and 183 patients in our usual care group and received, respectively 159 and 145 follow-up questionnaires. Levels of distress and decisional regret were comparable in both groups. Decisional conflict was higher in our mainstream group (p = 0.01), but only 7% had clinically relevant decisional conflict (vs 2% in usual care group). The possible implications of a genetic test on (secondary) breast or ovarian cancer risks were less frequently discussed in our mainstream group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.000, respectively). In both groups knowledge about genetics was comparable, satisfaction was high and the majority of patients in both groups preferred to give both verbal and written consent for genetic testing.

CONCLUSION

Mainstreamed genetic care provides sufficient information for the majority of breast cancer patients to decide about genetic testing with minimal distress.

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.

Testing for Inherited Susceptibility to Breast Cancer

When BRCA1 and BRCA2 were first identified, the initial models for delivering testing were shaped by concepts of genetic exceptionalism and a lack of data regarding therapeutic implications and the effectiveness of risk reduction. Since then, interventions have been effective, and treatment implications have become clear. The sensitivity of guideline-based testing is incomplete, leading to calls for universal testing. Completely universal testing, however, is not necessary to identify the great majority of BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants. Broader testing (both in terms of eligibility and genes tested) will identify more variants, particularly in moderate penetrance genes, but the clinical implications remain less clear for these variants.

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

Mainstream germline genetic testing in men with metastatic prostate cancer: design and protocol for a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

In international guidelines, germline genetic testing is recommended for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Before undergoing germline genetic testing, these patients should receive pre-test counseling. In the standard genetic care pathway, pre-test counseling is provided by a healthcare professional of a genetics department. Because the number of patients with metastatic prostate cancer is large, the capacity in the genetics departments might be insufficient. Therefore, we aim to implement so-called mainstream genetic testing in the Netherlands for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, non-genetic healthcare professionals discuss and order germline genetic testing. In our DISCOVER study, we will assess the experiences among patients and non-genetic healthcare professionals with this new pathway.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective observational cohort study will be conducted in 15 hospitals, in different regions of the Netherlands. We developed an online training module on genetics in prostate cancer and the counseling of patients. After completion of this module, non-genetic healthcare professionals will provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic testing in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Both non-genetic healthcare professionals and patients receive three questionnaires. We will determine the experience with mainstream genetic testing, based on satisfaction and acceptability. Patients with a pathogenic germline variant will also be interviewed. We will determine the efficacy of the mainstreaming pathway, based on time investment for non-genetic healthcare professionals and the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants.

DISCUSSION

This study is intended to be one of the largest studies on mainstream genetic testing in prostate cancer. The results of this study can improve the mainstream genetic testing pathway in patients with prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered in the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) under number NL9617.

Prevalence and clinical implications of germline mutations among Jordanian patients with ovarian cancer. The Jordanian exploratory cancer genetics ( Jo‐ECAG ) ovarian study

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common gynecological malignancies. Due to the absence of effective screening methods, ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at late stages. Patients with pathogenic and likely-pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 harbor elevated risk of developing both ovarian and breast cancers. Identifying PGVs may help in both cancer prevention and active disease treatment. Worldwide prevalence of PGVs varies and the matter is poorly addressed among Arab patients.

METHODS

Patients with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancers were offered the universal 20 or 84-multi-gene panel testing as per standard guidelines. Cascade family screening was also offered to all first and second-degree relatives of PGV positive patients. Genetic testing was done at a referral lab using a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based platform.

RESULTS

During the study period, 152 patients, median age (range): 50 (18-79) years old, were tested. The majority (n = 100, 65.8%) had high-grade serous carcinoma, and 106 patients (69.7%) had metastatic disease at presentation. In total, 38 (25.0%) had PGVs, while 47 (30.9%) others had variants of uncertain significance (VUS). PGVs were mostly in BRCA1 (n = 21, 13.8%) and in BRCA2 (n = 12, 7.9%), while 6 (3.9%) others had PGVs in non-BRCA1/2 genes. PGV rates were significantly higher among 15 patients with a positive family history of ovarian cancer (60.0%, p = .022) and among 52 patients with a positive family history of breast cancer (40.4%, p = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

PGVs are common among Jordanian women with ovarian cancer, and mostly occur in BRCA1/2. Given its clinical impact on disease prevention and precision therapy, universal testing should be routinely offered.

Relatives from Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome Families Forgoing Genetic Testing: Findings from the Swiss CASCADE Cohort

Cascade genetic testing of relatives from families with pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) or Lynch syndrome (LS) has important implications for cancer prevention. We compared the characteristics of relatives from HBOC or LS families who did not have genetic testing (GT (−) group) with those who had genetic testing (GT (+) group), regardless of the outcome. Self-administered surveys collected cross-sectional data between September 2017 and December 2021 from relatives participating in the CASCADE cohort. We used multivariable logistic regression with LASSO variable selection. Among n = 115 relatives who completed the baseline survey, 38% (n = 44) were in the GT (−) group. Being male (OR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.10–7.10) and without a previous cancer diagnosis (OR: 4.47, 95% CI: 1.03–19.42) increased the odds of being untested by almost three times. Individuals from families with fewer tested relatives had 29% higher odds of being untested (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). Reasons for forgoing cascade testing were: lack of provider recommendation, lack of time and interest in testing, being afraid of discrimination, and high out-of-pocket costs. Multilevel interventions designed to increase awareness about clinical implications of HBOC and LS in males, referrals from non-specialists, and support for testing multiple family members could improve the uptake of cascade testing.

Integrating hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genetic counselling and testing into mainstream clinical practice: Legal and ethical challenges

Health professionals not specialized in genetics are expected to take an increasing role in genetic services delivery. This article aims to identify legal and ethical challenges related to a collaborative oncogenetics service model, where non-genetic health professionals provide genetic services to patients. Through a scoping literature review, we identified issues to the provision of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, or other hereditary adult cancers, genetic testing under this model. Concerns that arose in the literature were informed consent, lack of adherence to best practice guidelines, lack of education of non-genetic health professionals on the provision of genetic services, psychological impacts of genetic testing, continuity of care, the complexity of genetic test results, confidentiality, risks of medical mismanagement, and the associated medical responsibility liabilities. Despite these challenges, there is a growing consensus towards the feasibility of cancer genetic testing being undertaken by non-genetic healthcare professionals in a collaborative oncogenetics service model.

Mainstream germline genetic testing for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer leads to higher testing rates and a reduction in genetics-related healthcare costs from a healthcare payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

Germline genetic testing is increasingly offered to patients with epithelial ovarian cancer by non-genetic healthcare professionals, so called mainstream genetic testing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implementing a mainstream genetic testing pathway on the percentage of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer to whom genetic testing was offered and the genetics-related healthcare costs.

METHODS

The possible care pathways for genetic counseling and testing and their associated costs were mapped. Patient files from all newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer before (March 2016 - September 2017) and after (April 2018 - December 2019) implementing our mainstream genetic testing pathway were analyzed. Based on this analysis, the percentage of newly diagnosed patients to whom genetic testing was offered was assessed and genetics-related healthcare costs were calculated using a healthcare payer perspective based on a Diagnosis-Related Group financing approach.

RESULTS

Within six months after diagnosis, genetic testing was offered to 56% of patients before and to 70% of patients after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (p = 0.005). Genetics-related healthcare costs decreased from €3.511,29 per patient before implementation to €2.418,41 per patient after implementation of our mainstream genetic testing pathway (31% reduction, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that mainstream genetic testing leads to a significantly higher proportion of newly diagnosed patients with epithelial ovarian cancer being offered germline genetic testing. In addition, it significantly reduces genetics-related healthcare costs per patient.

Person-based co-design of a decision aid template for people with a genetic predisposition to cancer

Background

People with genetic predispositions to cancer are faced with complex health decisions about managing their risk. Decision aids can support informed, values-based decisions, alongside shared decision-making with a clinician. Whilst diagnoses of genetic predispositions to cancer are increasing, there is no scalable decision aid to support these people. This paper presents an accessible, relevant decision aid template which can be adapted for different predispositions to cancer.

Methods

The decision aid template was co-developed with 12 patients affected by cancer and informed by empirical and theoretical literature. In addition, consultations were conducted with a further 19 people with Lynch syndrome; a specific genetic predisposition to cancer. Clinical stakeholders were consulted regularly. Coulter's framework for decision aid development guided the process, and these activities were complemented by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, and the latest evidence on communicating risk in decision aids. Programme theory was developed to hypothesise how the decision aid would support decision-making and contextual factors which could influence the process. Guiding principles co-developed with the patient panel described how the decision aid could effectively engage people.

Results

The in-depth co-design process led to the identification of five core components of an accessible decision aid template for people with a genetic predisposition to cancer: defining the decision; option grid showing implications of each option; optional further details such as icon arrays to show tailored risk and personal narratives; values clarification activity; and a summary to facilitate discussion with a clinician. Specific guidance was produced describing how to develop each component. The guiding principles identified that the decision aid template needed to promote trust, reduce distress, and be comprehensive, personally relevant and accessible in order to engage people.

Conclusion

Adopting a co-design process helped ensure that the decision aid components were relevant and accessible to the target population. The template could have widespread application through being adapted for different genetic predispositions. The exact content should be co-designed with people from diverse backgrounds with lived experience of the specific predisposition to ensure it is as useful, engaging and relevant as possible.