Risk-Reducing Options for Women with a Hereditary Breast Cancer Predisposition

MAGENTA: a Multinational patient survey assessing the Awareness, perceptions and unmet needs in GENetic Testing and counselling among patients with breAst cancer

Objective

Genetic testing and counselling are critical in assessing breast cancer risk and tailoring treatment strategies. However, several barriers hinder patients from opting for genetic testing/counselling, leading to fewer than one-third of patients undergoing testing and even fewer being offered counselling. A granular understanding of these barriers is essential in overcoming them.

Methods

A multinational survey developed by patient authors was conducted in 9 countries, to identify the specific local/regional barriers. The survey question pathway was individualized, based on responses to prior questions. Percentage responses to a response option were calculated based on the total number of respondents to that question. Chi-square tests were used to assess the significance of the results, if applicable.

Results

The final analysis set (FAS) included 1,176 respondents, with a subset of this responding to all questions. In the FAS, 63% of respondents had undergone testing. Among those who got tested, 70% were offered testing. Among untested respondents, only 40% were offered the test but eventually did not get tested. In the tested population, 44% received counselling, which was significantly higher than 7% (p<0.00001) in the untested group. Among those reporting on awareness, 71% reported awareness level between 'very low' and 'moderate' prior to cancer diagnosis. Most respondents (71%) agreed that all breast cancer patients should undergo testing before treatment initiation. However, Asian patients were less likely to endorse this view compared to respondents from other regions (25% vs ≥50%; p<0.00001). A higher proportion of tested respondents were 'very willing' to get their family members tested (44%) versus untested respondents (11%), with relatively higher willingness among Australian (77%) and Russian respondents (56%), the regional variation being statistically significant (p<0.00001).

Conclusions

Critical gaps remain in the access, awareness and perceived value of genetic testing and counselling, with regional variance or difference between the tested and untested groups. Most patients are not offered counselling, which may be associated with the low uptake of testing. Strategic action is needed to drive policy-shaping and improve access to testing and counselling, including raising patient awareness and improving patient experience for better treatment outcomes.

Factors that influence the management recommendations breast surgeons provide to women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes

Pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, such as ATM and CHEK2, confer a two- to five-fold increased lifetime risk for breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has guidelines for breast surgeons to utilize when counseling women with pathogenic variants in these genes; however, previous studies indicate that other factors impact breast surgeons' recommendations to patients. This study investigated factors influencing management recommendations presented by breast surgeons to women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with breast surgeons practicing in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. A total of 15 breast surgeons from eight different hospitals participated in five focus groups and three individual interviews. Participants discussed factors they consider when making management recommendations for risk reduction in women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Participants provided risk management recommendations for given scenarios. Patient motivation/opinion, family history, patient current health status, patient personal preference, and patient anxiety level were among the most common factors mentioned. It appeared that how these factors are valued and applied in practice varies. There was no consensus among breast surgeons on which risk-reducing management options they would recommend in each scenario. There are many factors breast surgeons take into consideration when making recommendations for this patient population. This information could inform future research on decision making around treatment for individuals with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies).

CONCLUSION

Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.

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.

A regional population-based hereditary breast cancer screening tool in Italy: First 5-year results

Background

Up to 10% of individuals with breast cancer (BC) belong to families with hereditary syndromes. The aim of this study was to develop an instrument to identify individuals/families at high‐hereditary risk for BC and offer dedicated surveillance programs according to different risks.

Methods

The instrument consisted of a primary questionnaire collecting history of BC and ovarian cancer (OC). This questionnaire was applied to women enrolled in the Emilia‐Romagna Breast Cancer Screening Program. General practitioners (GPs) and specialists could propose the same questionnaire too. Women with a score of ≥ 2, were invited to complete an oncogenetic counseling. According to the Tyrer‐Cuzick evaluation, women considered at high risk were invited to involve the most representative alive individual of the family affected with BC/OC for BRCA1/2 genetic testing.

Results

Since January 2012 and December 2016, 660 040 women were evaluated by the regional screening program, of which 22 289 (3.5%) were invited to the Spoke evaluation, but only 5615 accepted (25.2%). Totally, also considering women sent by GPs and specialists, 11 667 were assessed and 5554 were sent to the Hub evaluation. Finally, 2342 (42.8%) women fulfilled the criteria for genetic testing, and 544 (23.2%) resulted BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first regional population‐based multistep model that is aimed to identify individuals with BRCA1/2 mutations and to offer an intensive surveillance program for hereditary‐high risk women. This tool is feasible and effective, even if more efforts must be performed to increase the acceptance of multiple assessments by the study population.

Factors that impact risk management decisions among women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance genes associated with hereditary breast cancer

There is limited information known about how women with pathogenic variants (PV) in moderate penetrance genes make decisions to manage their increased risk of breast cancer. This study analyzed factors that may impact decision-making surrounding management for increased breast cancer risk. Women with a PV in a moderate penetrance gene associated with increased risk for breast cancer were identified from an institutional database. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted to analyze decision-making factors. Themes were developed using deductive codes based on previous literature and inductive codes based on interviewee responses. The 16 participants (mean age = 55.9 years) included 12 women with a breast cancer diagnosis. Six women (37.5%) chose bilateral mastectomy (BM), and 10 women (62.5%) chose surveillance as management. Of the 12 women with a personal history of breast cancer, four chose to have BM (33.3%). Two women without a personal history of breast cancer chose to have BM (50.0%). Transcriptions revealed seven comprehensive themes, as well as themes unique to affected and unaffected women (Cohen's kappa = 0.80). Physician opinion was the only factor present in all interviews reported to influence risk management decision-making. Several themes were consistent with prior BRCA1/BRCA2 research (family history, risk perception, sibling influence, and physician opinions). Autonomy and insurance/finances were also important factors to participants. There were certain differences in decision-making factors between affected and unaffected women, such as partner influence. Results indicate an opportunity for providers to engage their patients in a decision-making process.

Sexual Health in the Era of Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing for germline cancer mutations allows individuals to gain specific knowledge of their hereditary cancer risks. Although risk-reducing strategies such as increased screening, prophylactic surgeries, and chemoprevention may be potentially lifesaving, these options can also significantly impact sexual health and function.

AIM

This study overviews current challenges at the intersection of cancer genetic testing and sexual health and describes a systematic review that summarizes this evidence, identifies methodological limitations, and provides future research directions.

METHODS

Articles on the intersection of genetic testing and/or family history of cancer, cancer risk, and sexual health were searched in Medline, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES databases.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure was sexual health in women who pursued risk-reducing surgery.

RESULTS

On the basis of the inclusion criteria, 32 studies were reviewed. 31 contained empiric data from 3,367 participants; one was a conceptual study. All studies were published between 2000 and 2019. Mean ages ranged from 38 to 51.2.

CONCLUSION

Given the prevalence of sexual dysfunction after risk-reducing surgery, evidence-based interventions are needed. Furthermore, quality of life that includes sexual health, in at-risk women who pursue preventive surgery, remains an understudied aspect of cancer genetic testing. Yusufov M, Bober SL. Sexual Health in the Era of Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:231-241.

Multidisciplinary management of CDH1 germinal mutation and prophylactic management hereditary lobular breast cancer: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Germline CDH1 mutations, classically associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC), also imply an increased lifetime risk of developing lobular breast cancer (LBC) in a highly penetrant autosomal dominant manner.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

We report a 44-year-old woman CDH1 mutation carrier with a strong family history of cancer, who previously had prophylactic total gastrectomy. We registered normal findings at the breast and axilla assessment. Mammography, ultrasonography and breast MRI scans were negative for cancer. In our Institute a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy followed by breast reconstruction was performed. Foci of atypical lobular hyperplasia(ALH) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) were histologically shown.

DISCUSSION

The current consensus guidelines for women with pathogenic CDH1 mutations recommend annual mammography, ultrasound, breast MRI scans and clinical breast examination starting at the age of 35. Due to the well-documented aggressive behavior of this particular type of cancer, bilateral mastectomy and reconstruction would be more beneficial for this kind of high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Conflicting evidences and lacking data about the benefits in terms of overall survival, disease-free survival and the long-term outcomes related to prophylactic bilateral mastectomy for CDH1 mutation carriers restrict the instruction for this type of procedure to selected cases, which should always be managed by a multidisciplinary team.