Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer

Timing of genetic testing in BRCA1/2 and PALB2-Associated breast cancer: Preoperative result disclosure increases uptake of risk-reducing mastectomy and reduces unnecessary exposure to radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The impact of timing of genetic testing on uptake of risk reducing mastectomy (RRM) in affected female BRCA1/2 or PALB2 carriers remains an area of evolving interest, particularly with the introduction of mainstream genetic testing initiatives.

METHODS

Women with stage I-III breast cancer and a confirmed germline pathogenic variant in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 between 2000 and 2023 were identified from an institutional genetics database. Uptake of RRM was evaluated according to disclosure of genetic testing results before or after index surgery for a first diagnosis of breast cancer.

RESULTS

The cohort included 287 female BRCA1/2 or PALB2 carriers with a median age of 44 years (IQR, 36-52). Overall, 155 (54 %) carriers received genetic testing results before and 132 (46 %) after index breast surgery. Receipt of genetic testing results before surgery was associated with a higher rate of index bilateral mastectomy (58.7 % vs. 7.6 %, p < 0.001) and a commensurate decrease in adjuvant radiation (41.9 % vs. 74.2 %, p < 0.001). At a median follow up of 4.4 years after genetic testing, 219 (76.3 %) affected carriers had undergone bilateral RRM, including 83.9 % with preoperative knowledge and 67.4 % of patients with postoperative knowledge of their germline pathogenic variant (log rank, p < 0.001). On multivariate regression, disclosure of genetic testing results before index breast surgery was independently associated with long-term uptake of bilateral mastectomy (HR 1.69, 95 % CI 1.21-2.38).

CONCLUSION

Genetic testing results delivered prior to index breast surgery increase uptake of bilateral RRM in affected BRCA1/2 and PALB2 carriers. Efforts to mainstream genetic testing would help optimize surgical decision-making.

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.

EMQN best practice guidelines for genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer

Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) is a genetic condition associated with increased risk of cancers. The past decade has brought about significant changes to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) diagnostic testing with new treatments, testing methods and strategies, and evolving information on genetic associations. These best practice guidelines have been produced to assist clinical laboratories in effectively addressing the complexities of HBOC testing, while taking into account advancements since the last guidelines were published in 2007. These guidelines summarise cancer risk data from recent studies for the most commonly tested high and moderate risk HBOC genes for laboratories to refer to as a guide. Furthermore, recommendations are provided for somatic and germline testing services with regards to clinical referral, laboratory analyses, variant interpretation, and reporting. The guidelines present recommendations where 'must' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is essential; and 'should' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is highly advised but may not be universally applicable. Recommendations are presented in the form of shaded italicised statements throughout the document, and in the form of a table in supplementary materials (Table S4). Finally, for the purposes of encouraging standardisation and aiding implementation of recommendations, example report wording covering the essential points to be included is provided for the most common HBOC referral and reporting scenarios. These guidelines are aimed primarily at genomic scientists working in diagnostic testing laboratories.

Population-based BRCA germline mutation screening in the Han Chinese identifies individuals at risk of BRCA mutation-related cancer: experience from a clinical diagnostic center from greater Shanghai area

BACKGROUND

Deleterious BRCA1/2 (BRCA) mutation raises the risk for BRCA mutation-related malignancies, including breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. Germline variation of BRCA exhibits substantial ethnical diversity. However, there is limited research on the Chinese Han population, constraining the development of strategies for BRCA mutation screening in this large ethnic group.

METHODS

We profile the BRCA mutational spectrum, including single nucleotide variation, insertion/deletion, and large genomic rearrangements in 2,080 apparently healthy Chinese Han individuals and 522 patients with BRCA mutation-related cancer, to determine the BRCA genetic background of the Chinese Han population, especially of the East Han. Incident cancer events were monitored in 1,005 participants from the healthy group, comprising 11 BRCA pathogenic/likely pathogenic (PLP) variant carriers and 994 PLP-free individuals, including 3 LGR carriers.

RESULTS

Healthy Chinese Han individuals demonstrated a distinct BRCA mutational spectrum compared to cancer patients, with a 0.53% (1 in 189) prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (PLP) variant, alongside a 3 in 2,080 occurrence of LGR. BRCA1 c. 5470_5477del demonstrated high prevalence (0.44%) in the North Han Chinese and penetrance for breast cancer. None of the 3 LGR carriers developed cancer during the follow-up. We calculated a relative risk of 135.55 (95% CI 25.07 to 732.88) for the development of BRCA mutation-related cancers in the BRCA PLP variant carriers (mean age 42.91 years, median follow-up 10 months) compared to PLP-free individuals (mean age 48.47 years, median follow-up 16 months).

CONCLUSION

The unique BRCA mutational profile in the Chinese Han highlights the potential for standardized population-based BRCA variant screening to enhance BRCA mutation-related cancer prevention and treatment.

Development and validation of ultrasound-based radiomics model to predict germline BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Identifying breast cancer (BC) patients with germline breast cancer susceptibility gene (gBRCA) mutation is important. The current criteria for germline testing for BC remain controversial. This study aimed to develop a nomogram incorporating ultrasound radiomic features and clinicopathological factors to predict gBRCA mutations in patients with BC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 497 women with BC who underwent gBRCA genetic testing from March 2013 to May 2022 were included, including 348 for training (84 with and 264 without a gBRCA mutation) and 149 for validation(36 patients with and 113 without a gBRCA mutation). Factors associated with gBRCA mutations were identified to establish a clinicopathological model. Radiomics features were extracted from the intratumoral and peritumoral regions (3 mm and 5 mm) of each image. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression algorithm was used to select the features and logistic regression analysis was used to construct three imaging models. Finally, a nomogram that combined clinicopathological and radiomics features was developed. The models were evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and clinical usefulness.

RESULTS

Age at diagnosis, family history of BC, personal history of other BRCA-related cancers, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were independent predictors of the clinicopathological model. The AUC of the imaging radiomics model combining intratumoral and peritumoral 3 mm areas in the validation set was 0.783 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.702-0.862), which showed the best performance among three imaging models. The nomogram yielded better performance than the clinicopathological model in validation sets (AUC: 0.824 [0.755-0.894] versus 0.659 [0.563-0.755], p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The nomogram based on ultrasound images and clinicopathological factors performs well in predicting gBRCA mutations in BC patients and may help to improve clinical decisions about genetic testing.

The Landscape of BRCA Mutations among Egyptian Women with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are associated with a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. In many developing countries, including Egypt, the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations among women with breast cancer (BC) is unknown.

AIM

We aimed to determine the prevalence of deleterious germline BRCA mutations in Egyptian patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

We report the results of a cohort study of 81 Egyptian patients with breast cancer who were tested for germline BRCA1/2 mutations during routine clinical practice, mostly for their young age of presentation, BC subtype, or presence of family history. In addition, we searched five databases to retrieve studies that reported the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutation status in Egyptian women with BC. A systematic review of the literature was performed, including prospective and retrospective studies.

RESULTS

In our patient cohort study, 12 patients (14.8%) were positive for either BRCA1/2 deleterious mutations. Moreover, 13 (16.1%) patients had a variant of unknown significance (VUS) of BRCA1/2 genes. Twelve studies were eligible for the systematic review, including 610 patients. A total of 19 deleterious germline mutations in BRCA1/2 were identified. The pooled prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations was 40% (95% confidence interval 1-80%).

CONCLUSION

The reported prevalence was highly variable among the small-sized published studies that adopted adequate techniques. In our patient cohort, there was a high incidence of VUS in BRCA1/2 genes. Accordingly, there is an actual demand to conduct a prospective well-designed national study to accurately estimate the prevalence of BRCA1/2 mutations among patients with BC in Egypt.

An Australian mainstream genetic testing program: Clinicians views about current and future practices

PURPOSE

Germline genetic testing results can guide treatment decisions for oncology patients and are now offered to many cancer patients. Mainstream testing refers to genetic testing arranged by a non-genetics specialist. This repeated cross-sectional study aimed: (1) to capture clinician views on the existing mainstreaming genetic testing program for ovarian, breast, prostate, and endometrial cancer patients, and (2) to ascertain the interest of clinicians to consider changing practice to adopt mainstream testing.

METHODS

Mainstreaming has occurred since 2015 for patients with ovarian and some breast cancer patients, expanding to include prostate cancer patients in 2019, and endometrial cancer patients in 2020. Two web-based surveys were administered within two health districts, covering seven hospitals in NSW.

RESULTS

Fifty-four clinicians (70% response rate) participated. Clinicians who had arranged mainstream genetic testing (n = 30) were overall satisfied (76%), viewed the process as time-efficient and accessible for patients, and desired continuation of the program. Of those clinicians yet to engage in the program (n = 24), 88% expressed an interest in learning about mainstream testing. These clinicians identified time constraints, maintenance of current genetic knowledge, and completing the consenting and counseling process as barriers to mainstreaming. Future mainstreaming models are discussed.

CONCLUSION

From the clinician's perspective, the mainstreaming program is considered a desirable pathway for germline testing of oncology patients. Access to ongoing education and resources is needed for the ongoing success of the program.

Economic evaluations of predictive genetic testing: A scoping review

Predictive genetic testing can provide information about whether or not someone will develop or is likely to develop a specific condition at a later stage in life. Economic evaluation can assess the value of money for such testing. Studies on the economic evaluation of predictive genetic testing have been carried out in a variety of settings, and this research aims to conduct a scoping review of findings from these studies. We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases with combined search terms, from 2019 to 2022. Relevant studies from 2013 to 2019 in a previous systematic review were also included. The study followed the recommended stages for undertaking a scoping review. A total of 53 studies were included, including 33 studies from the previous review and 20 studies from the search of databases. A significant number of studies focused on the US, UK, and Australia (34%, 23%, and 11%). The most frequently included health conditions were cancer and cardiovascular diseases (68% and 19%). Over half of the studies compared predictive genetic testing with no genetic testing, and the majority of them concluded that at least some type of genetic testing was cost-effective compared to no testing (94%). Some studies stated that predictive genetic testing is becoming more cost-effective with the trend of lowering genetic testing costs. Studies on predictive genetic testing covered various health conditions, particularly cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Most studies indicated that predictive genetic testing is cost-effective compared to no testing.

Universal genetic testing for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the context of multidisciplinary team care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of universal genetic testing of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, to estimate the incidence of pathogenic gene variants and their impact on patient management, and to evaluate patient and clinician acceptance of universal testing.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Prospective study of women with invasive or high grade in situ breast cancer and unknown germline status discussed at the Parkville Breast Service (Melbourne) multidisciplinary team meeting. Women were recruited to the pilot (12 June 2020 - 22 March 2021) and expansion phases (17 October 2021 - 8 November 2022) of the Mutational Assessment of newly diagnosed breast cancer using Germline and tumour genomICs (MAGIC) study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Germline testing by DNA sequencing, filtered for nineteen hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes that could be classified as actionable; only pathogenic variants were reported. Surveys before and after genetic testing assessed pilot phase participants' perceptions of genetic testing, and psychological distress and cancer-specific worry. A separate survey assessed clinicians' views on universal testing.

RESULTS

Pathogenic germline variants were identified in 31 of 474 expanded study phase participants (6.5%), including 28 of 429 women with invasive breast cancer (6.5%). Eighteen of the 31 did not meet current genetic testing eligibility guidelines (probability of a germline pathogenic variant ≥ 10%, based on CanRisk, or Manchester score ≥ 15). Clinical management was changed for 24 of 31 women after identification of a pathogenic variant. Including 68 further women who underwent genetic testing outside the study, 44 of 542 women carried pathogenic variants (8.1%). Acceptance of universal testing was high among both patients (90 of 103, 87%) and clinicians; no decision regret or adverse impact on psychological distress or cancer-specific worry were reported.

CONCLUSION

Universal genetic testing following the diagnosis of breast cancer detects clinically significant germline pathogenic variants that might otherwise be missed because of testing guidelines. Routine testing and reporting of pathogenic variants is feasible and acceptable for both patients and clinicians.

Genetic Analysis of Multiple Primary Malignant Tumors in Women with Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Familial cancer syndromes, which are commonly caused by germline mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, are generally considered to be the cause of primary multiple malignant neoplasias (PMMNs). Using targeted genomic sequencing, we screened for eight germline mutations: BRCA1 185delAG, BRCA1 T300G, BRCA1 2080delA, BRCA1 4153delA, BRCA1 5382insC, BRCA2 6174delT, CHEK2 1100delC, and BLM C1642T, which provoke the majority of cases of hereditary breast and ovary cancer syndrome (HBOC), in genomic (blood) DNA from 60 women with PMMNs, including breast (BC) and/or ovarian cancer(s) (OC). Pathogenic allelic forms were discovered in nine samples: in seven instances, it was BRCA1 5382insC, and in the following two, BRCA1 4153delA and BRCA1 T300G. The age of onset in these patients (46.8 years) was younger than in the general Russian population (61.0) for BC but was not for OC: 58.3 and 59.4, correspondingly. There were invasive breast carcinomas of no special type and invasive serous ovarian carcinomas in all cases. Two or more tumors of HBOC-spectrum were only in five out of nine families of mutation carriers. Nevertheless, every mutation carrier has relatives who have developed malignant tumors.

A pilot study investigating feasibility of mainstreaming germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing in high-risk patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in three tertiary Cancer Centres in Ireland

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101  patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland.

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.

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.

Mainstreaming of genomics in oncology: a nationwide survey of the genomics training needs of UK oncologists

OBJECTIVE

Genomics is rapidly changing treatment paradigms for cancers, obligating oncologists to have good genomics knowledge. Through this survey, we aimed to assess the current understanding of cancer genomics among UK oncologists.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based nation-wide self-assessment survey of the cancer genomics knowledge of UK clinical and medical oncology trainees and consultants.

RESULTS

In total, 150 oncologists (81 consultants and 69 trainees) responded, representing 10% of UK oncologists.Formal training in genomics had not been received by 38.7% of oncologists and 92.7% identified a need for additional genomics training.In total, 71.3% self-reported to have good knowledge of defining somatic and germline mutations, falling to 35.3% for understanding principles of gene expression and regulation. Knowledge of cancer-predisposing syndromes was highest for Lynch syndrome (40.7% good knowledge) and lowest for multiple endocrine neoplasia (14.0% good knowledge).Overall, 49.0% of respondents had consented patients for germline testing, but 80.7% reported a lack of training in genetic counselling.

CONCLUSION

Large knowledge gaps have been identified through this survey, highlighting the need for incorporation of improved formal training in cancer genomics for consultants and trainees, with an aim to equip oncologists for advances in clinical practice and to take up genetic mainstreaming confidently.

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.

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.

Real World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Population Screening for BRCA Variants among Ashkenazi Jews Compared with Family History-Based Strategies

Identifying carriers of pathogenic BRCA1/BRCA2 variants reduces cancer morbidity and mortality through surveillance and prevention. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of BRCA1/BRCA2 population screening (PS) in Ashkenazi Jews (AJ), for whom carrier rate is 2.5%, compared with two existing strategies: cascade testing (CT) in carrier’s relatives (≥25% carrier probability) and international family history (IFH)-based guidelines (>10% probability). We used a decision analytic-model to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PS vs. alternative strategies. Analysis was conducted from payer-perspective, based on actual costs. Per 1000 women, the model predicted 21.6 QALYs gained, a lifetime decrease of three breast cancer (BC) and four ovarian cancer (OC) cases for PS vs. CT, and 6.3 QALYs gained, a lifetime decrease of 1 BC and 1 OC cases comparing PS vs. IFH. PS was less costly compared with CT (−3097 USD/QALY), and more costly than IFH (+42,261 USD/QALY), yet still cost-effective, from a public health policy perspective. Our results are robust to sensitivity analysis; PS was the most effective strategy in all analyses. PS is highly cost-effective, and the most effective screening strategy for breast and ovarian cancer prevention. BRCA testing should be available to all AJ women, irrespective of family history.

Protocol to evaluate a pilot program to upskill clinicians in providing genetic testing for familial melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Genetic testing for hereditary cancers can improve long-term health outcomes through identifying high-risk individuals and facilitating targeted prevention and screening/surveillance. The rising demand for genetic testing exceeds the clinical genetic workforce capacity. Therefore, non-genetic specialists need to be empowered to offer genetic testing. However, it is unknown whether patient outcomes differ depending on whether genetic testing is offered by a genetics specialist or a trained non-genetics clinician. This paper describes a protocol for upskilling non-genetics clinicians to provide genetic testing, randomise high-risk individuals to receive testing from a trained clinician or a genetic counsellor, and then determine whether patient outcomes differed depending on provider-type.

METHODS

An experiential training program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to offer genetic testing for familial melanoma is being piloted on 10-15 clinicians, prior to wider implementation. Training involves a workshop, comprised of a didactic learning presentation, case studies, simulated sessions, and provision of supporting documentation. Clinicians later observe a genetic counsellor led consultation before being observed leading a consultation. Both sessions are followed by debriefing with a genetic counsellor. Thereafter, clinicians independently offer genetic testing in the clinical trial. Individuals with a strong personal and/or family history of melanoma are recruited to a parallel-group trial and allocated to receive pre- and post- genetic testing consultation from a genetic counsellor, or a dermatologically-trained clinician. A mixed method approach measures psychosocial and behavioural outcomes. Longitudinal online surveys are administered at five timepoints from baseline to one year post-test disclosure. Semi-structured interviews with both patients and clinicians are qualitatively analysed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first program to upskill dermatologically-trained clinicians to provide genetic testing for familial melanoma. This protocol describes the first clinical trial to compare patient-reported outcomes of genetic testing based on provider type (genetic counsellors vs trained non-genetic clinicians).

Does mainstream BRCA testing affect surgical decision-making in newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients?

BACKGROUND

Germline pathogenic variants mutations) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes cause an increased risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Mainstream cancer genetic testing (MCG) was introduced for breast cancer patients in our unit in 2013. Non-geneticist clinicians have been trained to offer genetic testing during initial treatment planning. We assessed the impact of timely test results on surgical decision-making.

METHODS

Women who had undergone mainstream genetic testing for breast cancer between September 2013 and September 2018 were identified from a prospective database. Surgical data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

580 eligible women had mainstream genetic testing. For 474 this was their first breast cancer diagnosis. The median age was 46 years (interquartile range (IQR) 38-57). The indications were: age ≤45 years for 233 (49%); triple negative disease for 192 women (40.5%); bilateral breast cancer age <60 for 39 (8%) and other for 72 (14%) women. The median time for test initiation to result was 18 days (IQR 15-21). 302 (64% received results before surgery. 88% of those found to have a BRCA mutation before surgery opted for bilateral mastectomy (compared to 5% with BRCA wild type). An additional 106 patients had a new diagnosis on a background of previous treatment. Of these all with a pathogenic variant chose bilateral mastectomy.

CONCLUSION

Timely BRCA gene testing influences surgeons' and patients' choice of surgery. It reassures women with a negative result and allows those with a positive result to take an active decision about the management of their future risk.

UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2

Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.

ESO-ESMO fifth international consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY5)

We dedicate this manuscript in memory of a dear friend and colleague Bella Kaufman. The fifth International Consensus Symposium for Breast Cancer in Young Women (BCY5) took place virtually in October 2020, organized by the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO). Consensus recommendations for the management of breast cancer in young women were updated from BCY4 with incorporation of new evidence to inform the guidelines. Areas of research priorities as well as specificities in different geographic and minority populations were identified. This manuscript summarizes the ESO-ESMO international consensus recommendations, which are also endorsed by the European Society of Breast Specialists (EUSOMA).

Attitudes of Australian dermatologists on the use of genetic testing: A cross-sectional survey with a focus on melanoma

Background: Melanoma genetic testing reportedly increases preventative behaviour without causing psychological harm. Genetic testing for familial melanoma risk is now available, yet little is known about dermatologists’ perceptions regarding the utility of testing and genetic testing ordering behaviours.

Objectives: To survey Australasian Dermatologists on the perceived utility of genetic testing, current use in practice, as well as their confidence and preferences for the delivery of genomics education.

Methods: A 37-item survey, based on previously validated instruments, was sent to accredited members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists in March 2021. Quantitative items were analysed statistically, with one open-ended question analysed qualitatively. Results: The response rate was 56% (256/461), with 60% (153/253) of respondents between 11 and 30 years post-graduation. While 44% (112/252) of respondents agreed, or strongly agreed, that genetic testing was relevant to their practice today, relevance to future practice was reported significantly higher at 84% (212/251) (t = -9.82, p < 0.001). Ninety three percent (235/254) of respondents reported rarely or never ordering genetic testing. Dermatologists who viewed genetic testing as relevant to current practice were more likely to have discussed (p < 0.001) and/or offered testing (p < 0.001). Respondents indicated high confidence in discussing family history of melanoma, but lower confidence in ordering genetic tests and interpreting results. Eighty four percent (207/247) believed that genetic testing could negatively impact life insurance, while only 26% (63/244) were aware of the moratorium on using genetic test results in underwriting in Australia. A minority (22%, 55/254) reported prior continuing education in genetics. Face-to-face courses were the preferred learning modality for upskilling.

Conclusion: Australian Dermatologists widely recognise the relevance of genetic testing to future practice, yet few currently order genetic tests. Future educational interventions could focus on how to order appropriate genetic tests and interpret results, as well as potential implications on insurance.

What can we learn from more than 1,000 Brazilian patients at risk of hereditary cancer?

Background

Identifying individuals at a higher risk of developing cancer is a major concern for healthcare providers. Cancer predisposition syndromes are the underlying cause of cancer aggregation and young-onset tumors in many families. Germline genetic testing is underused due to lack of access, but Brazilian germline data associated with cancer predisposition syndromes are needed.

Methods

Medical records of patients referred for genetic counseling at the Oncogenetics Department at the Hospital Sírio-Libanês (Brasília, DF, Brazil) from July 2017 to January 2021 were reviewed. The clinical features and germline findings were described. Detection rates of germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (P/LPV) carriers were compared between international and Brazilian guidelines for genetic testing.

Results

A total of 1,091 individuals from 985 families were included in this study. Most patients (93.5%) had a family history of cancer, including 64% with a family member under 50 with cancer. Sixty-six percent of patients (720/1091) had a personal history of cancer. Young-onset cancers (&lt;50 years old) represented 62% of the patients affected by cancer and 17% had multiple primary cancers. The cohort included patients with 30 different cancer types. Breast cancer was the most prevalent type of cancer (52.6%). Germline testing included multigene panel (89.3%) and family variant testing (8.9%). Approximately 27% (236/879) of the tested patients harbored germline P/LPVs in cancer susceptibility genes. BRCA2, BRCA1, and TP53 were the most frequently reported genes, corresponding to 18.6%, 14.4%, and 13.5% of the positive results, respectively. Genetic testing criteria from international guidelines were more effective in identifying carriers than the Brazilian National Agency of Supplementary Health (ANS) criteria (92% vs. 72%, p&lt;0.001). Forty-six percent of the cancer-unaffected patients who harbored a germline P/LPV (45/98) would not be eligible for genetic testing according to ANS because they did not have a family variant previously identified in a cancer-affected relative.

Conclusion

The high detection rate of P/LPVs in the present study is possibly related to the genetic testing approach with multigene panels and cohort’s characteristics, represented mainly by individuals with a personal or family history of young-onset cancer. Testing asymptomatic individuals with suspicious family history may also have contributed to a higher detection rate. A significant number of carriers would not have been identified using ANS criteria for genetic 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.

Genetic and clinical characteristics of BRCA-associated hereditary breast cancer in the West region of Kazakhstan

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and is cause mortality in many countries. The purpose of this article is to determine the BRCA1 BRCA2 gene mutation polymorphisms, as well as to determine the clinical, histopathological and prognostic characteristics in patients with breast cancer in the western region of Kazakhstan. A study was conducted on the genotyping of 278 patients in the MC ZKMU Marat Ospanov with an established diagnosis of breast cancer, which revealed that out of 278 patients, of 3 cases were identified. In the age category up to 50 years, 70 cases were detected (25.1%) after 50 years 208 cases were identified (74%). Number of patients in stage I was 20 (7.1%) in stage second 204 (73%) and in stage third 54 (19%). By tumor size, 30(10%) cases were T1, 194 (69%) cases were T2, 35 (12.5%) cases were T3, and 19 cases were T4 (6.8%). According to metastasis of the lymph nodes, no lymph nodes were detected in 107 (38%) cases, 1-3 L/n (Lymph Nodes) in 95 (34%) cases, 4-9 L/n in 12 (4%) cases, 10 L/n in 4 (1.4%) cases and unknown cases was 60 (21%). In 99.6% of patients no distant metastases was detected. According to the molecular classification of the tumor, Luminal type A is most found in this study 147 (52.8%), then Luminal type B 57 (20.5%), HER-2 positive 26 (9.3%) and Triple negative 48 (17.2%). By ethnicity the Kazakh race is 182 (65%) the Caucasian race was 96 (34%). Large population screening studies involving all BRCA1/2 polymorphisms are required to confirm the penetrance, frequency and significance of a wide range of variations of BRCA1/2 genes in the Kazakh population.

Optimizing treatment selection and sequencing decisions for first-line maintenance therapy of newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer – International considerations amongst upper middle- and high-income countries (UMIC and HIC)

•

Early BRCA testing is crucial and enables personalized treatment approach.

•

BRCA mutation analysis is essential and should be utilized at the time of diagnosis.

•

Single-agent PARP inhibitors seem most beneficial in BRCA mutations or HRD.

•

Evidence suggests bevacizumab or niraparib-alone benefits for HRD-negative patients.

•

HRD-tailored treatment should be explored further.

The incidence and mortality rates of ovarian cancer are increasing globally. Ovarian cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage in 80% of women. After standard, platinum-based, front-line chemotherapy, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents are successfully employed as maintenance strategies for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. Landmark clinical studies, including SOLO-1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA, have provided crucial insights on optimizing first-line maintenance treatment using PARP inhibitors. A group of ovarian cancer experts, primarily from low- and middle-income countries, met in September 2019 to discuss new developments for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer and its implications.

Key implications of the evolving clinical data included: (1) olaparib or niraparib maintenance therapy appears to be the preferred choice for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations; hence, BRCA testing is beneficial in identifying these patients; (2) niraparib monotherapy and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab have demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients; (3) bevacizumab, niraparib alone, or observation can be an alternative for HRD-negative patients; (4) further data is warranted to explore the role of PARP inhibitors in treating HRD-negative, ovarian cancer patients to confirm findings of the exploratory analysis of PRIMA; (5) PARP inhibitors may be beneficial for stage IV ovarian cancer patients with inoperable disease and patients with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and (6) there is an urgent need to increase awareness in both clinicians and patients on BRCA and HRD testing for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. In clinical medicine, the limited availability of family history (FH) information and the complexity of FH criteria has hampered the implementation of BRCA testing. Moreover, many cancer patients with BRCA mutations are not tested because they do not meet the criteria for FH. Consequently, BRCA testing in many high income countries, including the US and Australia, is underused and used inappropriately, which has resulted in the loss of valuable opportunities for better cancer management and cancer prevention.

Satisfaction and Quality of Life of Healthy and Unilateral Diseased BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Reconstruction Using the BREAST-Q Questionnaire

Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) is the most efficient form of breast cancer (BC) risk reduction in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (pV) carriers. However, this intervention in physical integrity is associated with significant morbidity. We assessed long-term perception of satisfaction and health-related quality of life (QoL) after bilateral RRM and reconstruction using the validated BREAST-Q. We searched the prospective database of the Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Cologne for previvors and survivors who underwent bilateral RRM from 1994 to 2015 and evaluated the results of their BREAST-Q scores. The study enrolled 43 previvors and 90 survivors after a mean follow-up of 46.3 ± 45.3 months after RRM. Satisfaction and QoL were independent of the technique of RRM or type of reconstruction but depended on the time of RRM. Compared to survivors, previvors had significantly higher mean satisfaction scores in their psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being (chest) in both modules. Among previvors and survivors, higher psychological well-being correlated with a higher satisfaction with information and higher satisfaction with outcome. As psychological well-being correlated with satisfaction with information and outcome, we developed decision aids to improve shared decision making and long-term satisfaction with the decision and the postoperative outcome.

Predicting the Likelihood of Carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation in Asian Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

With the development of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment of patients with cancer with an altered BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, there is an urgent need to ensure that there are appropriate strategies for identifying mutation carriers while balancing the increased demand for and cost of cancer genetics services. To date, the majority of mutation prediction tools have been developed in women of European descent where the age and cancer-subtype distributions are different from that in Asian women.

METHODS

In this study, we built a new model (Asian Risk Calculator) for estimating the likelihood of carrying a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, using germline BRCA genetic testing results in a cross-sectional population-based study of 8,162 Asian patients with breast cancer. We compared the model performance to existing mutation prediction models. The models were evaluated for discrimination and calibration.

RESULTS

Asian Risk Calculator included age of diagnosis, ethnicity, bilateral breast cancer, tumor biomarkers, and family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer as predictors. The inclusion of tumor grade improved significantly the model performance. The full model was calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow P value = .614) and discriminated well between BRCA and non-BRCA pathogenic variant carriers (area under receiver operating curve, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.84). Addition of grade to the existing clinical genetic testing criteria targeting patients with breast cancer age younger than 45 years reduced the proportion of patients referred for genetic counseling and testing from 37% to 33% (P value = .003), thereby improving the overall efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Population-specific customization of mutation prediction models and clinical genetic testing criteria improved the accuracy of BRCA mutation prediction in Asian patients.

Oncobiology and treatment of breast cancer in young women

Female breast cancer emerged as the leading cancer type in terms of incidence globally in 2020. Although mortality due to breast cancer has improved during the past three decades in many countries, this trend has reversed in women less than 40 years since the past decade. From the biological standpoint, there is consensus among experts regarding the clinically relevant definition of breast cancer in young women (BCYW), with an age cut-off of 40 years. The idea that breast cancer is an aging disease has apparently broken in the case of BCYW due to the young onset and an overall poor outcome of BCYW patients. In general, younger patients exhibit a worse prognosis than older pre- and postmenopausal patients due to the aggressive nature of cancer subtypes, a high percentage of cases with advanced stages at diagnosis, and a high risk of relapse and death in younger patients. Because of clinically and biologically unique features of BCYW, it is suspected to represent a distinct biologic entity. It is unclear why BCYW is more aggressive and has an inferior prognosis with factors that contribute to increased incidence. However, unique developmental features, adiposity and immune components of the mammary gland, hormonal interplay and crosstalk with growth factors, and a host of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors and cellular regulatory interactions are considered to be the major contributing factors. In the present article, we discuss the status of BCYW oncobiology, therapeutic interventions and considerations, current limitations in fully understanding the basis and underlying cause(s) of BCYW, understudied areas of BCYW research, and postulated advances in the coming years for the field.

Attitudes and training needs of oncologists and surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in a low-to-middle income Asian country

With the advent of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapies, the focus of genetic testing for breast, ovarian, and other cancers has shifted from risk management to treatment decision-making in high-resource settings. Due to the shortage of genetic counselors worldwide, alternative ways of delivering genetic counseling have been explored, including training nongenetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) to provide genetic counseling. However, little is known about the feasibility of adopting such models in healthcare settings with insufficient specialists, where population health literacy is low and where access to new therapies may be limited. In this study, we evaluated the attitudes, considerations, and self-efficacy of oncologists, breast surgeons, and general surgeons in mainstreaming breast cancer genetic counseling in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country with a universal healthcare system. We developed a 32-item survey via a modified Delphi method, which was then distributed via a purposive and network sampling approach. While 77% of respondents expressed interest in providing breast cancer genetic counseling, 85% preferred to refer patients directly to genetic services for genetic counseling and testing. The main considerations for mainstreaming were the cost of genetic testing and PARPi therapy, as well as the availability of support from genetics professionals. Respondents reported a lack of confidence in communicating genetic risk, particularly to patients with poor health literacy, and in the clinical management of patients with variants of uncertain significance. Our results highlight the urgent need to train more NGHPs in providing genetic counseling and testing in low-to-middle income countries, and suggest that the mainstay for genetic counseling in this setting may be for risk management rather than access to PARPi therapy.

Management of BRCA Tumour Testing in an Integrated Molecular Tumour Board Multidisciplinary Model

Tumour testing of the BRCA1/2 genes is routinely performed in patients with different cancer histological subtypes. To accurately identify patients with tumour-detected germline pathogenic variants (PVs) is a relevant issue currently under investigation. This study aims at evaluating the performance of the tumour-to-germline diagnostic flowchart model defined at our Institutional Molecular Tumour Board (MTB). Results from tumour BRCA sequencing of 641 consecutive unselected cancer patients were discussed during weekly MTB meetings with the early involvement of clinical geneticists for appropriate referral to genetic counselling. The overall tumour detection rate of BRCA1/2 PVs was 8.7% (56/641), ranging from 24.4% (31/127) in high-grade ovarian cancer to 3.9% (12/304) in tumours not associated with germline BRCA1/2 PVs. Thirty-seven patients with PVs (66%) were evaluated by a clinical geneticist, and in 24 of them (64.9%), germline testing confirmed the presence of the PV in blood. Nine of these patients (37.5%) were not eligible for germline testing according to the criteria in use at our institution. Cascade testing was subsequently performed on 18 relatives. The tumour-to-germline diagnostic pipeline, developed in the framework of our institutional MTB, compared with guideline-based germline testing following genetic counselling, proved to be effective in identifying a higher number of germline BRCA PVs carriers.

Knowledge, Attitudes, Willingness to Pay, and Patient Preferences About Genetic Testing and Subsequent Risk Management for Cancer Prevention

Knowledge, attitudes, and patient preferences about genetic testing and subsequent risk management for cancer prevention among average risk populations are understudied, especially among Hispanics. This study was to assess these items by conducting an in-person survey in this understudied population. We conducted in-person surveys using a self-administered, structured questionnaire among young women in 2017. Survey questions were adapted from other validated surveys. This study had 677 participants in the final analyses. Data were collected in 2017 and analyzed in 2018 and 2019. Participants had little knowledge about genes or breast cancer risk, but most felt that genetic testing for cancer prevention is "a good idea" (87.0%), "a reassuring idea" (84.0%), and that "everyone should get the test" (87.7%). Most (64.0%) of these women would pay up to $25 for the test, 29.3% would pay $25-$500, and < 10% would pay more than $500 for the test. When asked about a hypothetical scenario of high breast cancer risk, 34.2% Hispanics and 24.5% non-Hispanics would choose chemoprevention. Women would be less likely to choose risk reduction procedures, such as mastectomy (19.6% among Hispanics and 15.1% among non-Hispanics) and salpingo-oophorectomy (11.8% among Hispanics and 10.7% among non-Hispanics). In this low-income, mostly Hispanic population, knowledge about genetic testing and cancer risk is poor, but most have positive opinions about genetic testing for cancer prevention. However, their strong preference for chemoprevention and lesser preference for prophylactic surgeries in a hypothetical scenario underscore the importance of genetic counseling and education.

Considerations on the identification and management of metastatic prostate cancer patients with DNA repair gene alterations in the Canadian context

Olaparib is the first Health Canada-approved agent in metastatic prostate cancer to use a companion diagnostic to identify alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM. As olaparib is introduced, clinicians must learn to access and interpret germline and somatic next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, and how to manage affected patients who appear to have distinct clinical features. The traditional model of referring patients to a hereditary cancer clinic (HCC) for germline testing is likely impractical in this disease, as the metastatic prostate cancer patient population would be overwhelming. Alternate approaches to this are clinician-ordered genetic testing (so-called “mainstreaming”), out-of-pocket payment for third-party private company genetic testing, or germline testing done in conjunction with somatic testing, particularly cell free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Germline testing alone is not sufficient for identifying Olaparib-eligible patients, as less than half of BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alterations are germline in origin, but it is critically important to identify family members who are carriers so that risk-reduction measures can be undertaken. Somatic testing is not widely available in Canada, but some patients can access it through research protocols or by paying out-of-pocket. Somatic testing can be performed on archival or fresh solid tissue biopsy samples, or through whole blood samples to access plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Both testing approaches have relative advantages and disadvantages, but neither may be informative in all patients and, therefore, ideal somatic NGS pathways should provide options for both tissue and ctDNA testing. We advocate that clinicians begin discussions with their provincial lab formularies, HCC, and molecular pathology labs to highlight the importance of germline and somatic testing in this population and identify pathways for patient access. While olaparib has approval for use in BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM-altered mCRPC, emerging evidence suggests that PARP inhibitors have variable activity in these three genes, with BRCA2 alterations appearing to be the most responsive. Retrospective and prospective series have reported varying outcomes to standard of care therapies, such as ARATs and taxane-based chemotherapy, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alterations, such as BRCA2. In the absence of high-level evidence showing a lack of benefit, we believe this patient population should still be considered for these treatments. In addition, platinum-based chemotherapy appears to have activity in DDR gene-altered mCRPC and should be considered another option when access to olaparib is not possible. At present, there is no evidence to support an optimal treatment sequence in this patient population, therefore, physician and patient preferences will need to be taken into consideration when selecting therapies. As olaparib and other PARP inhibitors are tested in different disease states and in combination with other therapies, we will likely see a more refined approach to use of these agents and management of this new biomarker-defined patient population.

Uptake Rates of Risk-Reducing Surgeries for Women at Increased Risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Applied to Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Scoping Systematic Review

Simple Summary

For women who have tested positive for BRCA mutations, the decision to make use of preventive surgical options, such as risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), depends on the women’s personal preferences and the cultural/social context. Among others, the cost-effectiveness of RRM and RRSO can be affected by the uptake rate of these preventive surgical options. Uptake rates of surgery should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies for RRM and RRSO. Prospective multicenter studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness of genetic screen-and-treat strategies for women at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer often depends on the women’s willingness to make use of risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) or salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO). To explore the uptake rates of RRM and RRSO applied in health economic modeling studies and the impact of uptake rates on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), we conducted a scoping literature review. In addition, using our own model, we conducted a value of information (VOI) analysis. Among the 19 models included in the review, the uptake rates of RRM ranged from 6% to 47% (RRSO: 10% to 88%). Fifty-seven percent of the models applied retrospective data obtained from registries, hospital records, or questionnaires. According to the models’ deterministic sensitivity analyses, there is a clear trend that a lower uptake rate increased the ICER and vice versa. Our VOI analysis showed high decision uncertainty associated with the uptake rates. In the future, uptake rates should be given more attention in the conceptualization of health economic modeling studies. Prospective studies are recommended to reflect regional and national variations in women’s preferences for preventive surgery.

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

Simple Summary

Germline genetic testing for patients with cancer can have important implications for treatment, preventive options, and for family members. In a mainstream genetic testing pathway, pre-test counseling is performed by non-genetic healthcare professionals, thereby making genetic testing more accessible to all patients who might benefit from it. These mainstream genetic testing pathways are being implemented in different hospitals around the world, and for different cancer types. It is important to evaluate how a mainstream genetic testing pathway can be made sustainable and if quality of genetic care is maintained. We show in this systematic review that it is feasible to incorporate a mainstream genetic testing pathway into routine cancer care while maintaining quality of care. A training procedure for non-genetic healthcare professionals and a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments are highly recommended to ensure sustainability.

Abstract

Background: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. Results: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). Conclusions: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments.

Informed consent practices for exome sequencing: An interview study with clinical geneticists in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing is being used more frequently in the clinic, not only by clinical geneticists, but also by other specialists ("mainstreaming"). The use of genomic sequencing gives rise to challenges regarding informed consent, as it can yield more, and more complex results.

METHODS

This study maps the informed consent process for exome sequencing in the Netherlands by means of semistructured interviews with 14 clinical geneticists. Interviewees were asked about their strategies for informing patients about exome sequencing and supporting patients in their decision making, about what they think of as essential information elements, about the challenges they experience, and about their preferences for future policy and practice.

RESULTS

Clinical geneticists typically discuss the following topics: the nature and aim of the test, the possible results (including unsolicited or incidental findings and Variants of Uncertain Significance) of the test and the consequences of those results for the patient and their family members. Some clinical geneticists use a layered approach to informed consent, meaning that they give short and concise information at first, and provide more detailed information depending on the situation or the needs of the patient.

CONCLUSION

During pre-test counseling for genomic sequencing, clinical geneticists use various strategies to enhance patient understanding and personalization of the informed consent process. Going forward, layering information may be part of a solution to ethical challenges of informed consent, also in mainstream settings.

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PURPOSE

Understanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.

RESULTS

Across the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.

CONCLUSION

We describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer by Oncology Providers: A Survey of Current Practice

PURPOSE

With limitations in early detection and poor treatment response, ovarian cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Up to 25% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is related to a hereditary predisposition. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EOC be offered germline genetic testing. Although this would ideally be performed by genetics professionals, a shortage of genetic counselors can affect timely access to these services. This study sought to investigate the current genetic testing practices of oncology providers to determine the feasibility of oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists with questions regarding timing, frequency, and type of cancer genetic testing, referrals to genetics professionals, confidence with aspects of genetic testing, and any barriers to these processes.

RESULTS

We received 170 evaluable responses. Eighty-five percent of providers always ordered genetic testing for patients with EOC. Most providers ordered germline multigene panel testing (95.8%), generally at diagnosis (64.5%). Provider confidence with the genetic testing process was generally high and significantly differed by providers' testing practices, namely, respondents who reported always ordering genetic testing tended to be more confident in ordering testing (P = .008), interpreting results (P = .005), and counseling a patient (P = .002). Patient disinterest and concerns for insurance coverage were commonly cited as barriers to testing and referrals.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study suggest that oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC, with referrals to genetics professionals when appropriate, has the potential to be a viable alternative service delivery model to increase access to genetic testing for patients diagnosed with EOC.

A Review of Breast Cancer Risk Factors in Adolescents and Young Adults

Simple Summary

Cancer diagnosed in patients between the ages of 15 and 39 deserves special consideration. Diagnoses within this cohort of adolescents and young adults include childhood cancers which present at an older age than expected, or an early presentation of cancers that are typically observed in older adults, such as breast cancer. Cancers within this age group are associated with worse disease-free and overall survival rates, and the incidence of these cases are rising. Knowing an individual’s susceptibility to disease can change their clinical management and allow for the risk-testing of relatives. This review discusses the risk factors that contribute to breast cancer in this unique cohort of patients, including inherited genetic risk factors, as well as environmental and lifestyle factors. We also describe risk models that allow clinicians to quantify a patient’s lifetime risk of developing disease.

Abstract

Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) deserves special consideration for several reasons. AYA cancers encompass paediatric malignancies that present at an older age than expected, or early-onset of cancers that are typically observed in adults. However, disease diagnosed in the AYA population is distinct to those same cancers which are diagnosed in a paediatric or older adult setting. Worse disease-free and overall survival outcomes are observed in the AYA setting, and the incidence of AYA cancers is increasing. Knowledge of an individual’s underlying cancer predisposition can influence their clinical care and may facilitate early tumour surveillance strategies and cascade testing of at-risk relatives. This information can further influence reproductive decision making. In this review we discuss the risk factors contributing to AYA breast cancer, such as heritable predisposition, environmental, and lifestyle factors. We also describe a number of risk models which incorporate genetic factors that aid clinicians in quantifying an individual’s lifetime risk of disease.

Genetic testing in patients with triple-negative or hereditary breast cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years there has been a dramatic evolution in the clinical utility of genetic testing with expanding therapeutic implications for individuals with breast cancer who harbor a germline mutation in BRCA1/2. As these therapeutic opportunities expand and evolve, this requires the clinical and research community to rethink the approach to genetic testing for individuals with breast cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic testing is evolving from traditional testing models based on pretest counseling with the aim of identifying hereditary and individual risk for purposes of screening and risk reduction to contemporary models that utilize technology to improve accessibility and oncology led mainstreaming of testing where the oncologist refers for genetic testing, discloses the results and formal counseling occurs later in the process than in traditional models. The cost and accessibility to multigene panel testing have resulted in broad uptake despite the fact that clinical utility and appropriate interpretation of results are not yet well established. Furthermore, somatic testing for genomic alterations may also yield results beyond the disease with detection of germline mutations impacting the individual and their family more broadly than anticipated.

SUMMARY

With the establishment of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors as part of the treatment armamentarium for early and advanced breast cancer, paradigms, algorithms, and resources for genetic testing need to rapidly change in order to adapt to the evolution of germline mutations from hereditary and individual risk predictors to predictive therapeutic biomarkers.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Adult Patients With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

PURPOSE

Genetic testing results are currently obtained approximately 1 year after referral to a medical genetics team for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). We evaluated a mainstream genetic testing (MGT) pathway whereby the nephrology team provided pre-test counseling and selection of patients with suspected ADPKD for genetic testing prior to direct patient interaction by a medical geneticist.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A multidisciplinary team of nephrologists, genetic counselors, and medical geneticists developed an MGT pathway for ADPKD using current testing criteria for adult patient with suspected ADPKD and literature from MGT in oncology.

METHODS

An MGT pathway was assessed using a prospective cohort and compared to a retrospective cohort of 56 patients with ADPKD who received genetic testing using the standard, traditional pathway prior to implementing the MGT for ADPKD. The mainstream pathway was evaluated using time to diagnosis, diagnostic yield, and a patient survey to assess patient perceptions of the MGT pathway.

KEY FINDINGS

We assessed 26 patients with ADPKD using the MGT and 18 underwent genetic testing with return of results. Of them, 52 patients had data available for analysis in the traditional control cohort. The time for return of results using our MGT pathway was significantly shorter with a median time to results of 6 months compared to 12 months for the traditional pathway. We identified causative variants in 61% of patients, variants of uncertain significance in 28%, and 10% had negative testing which is in line with expectations from the literature. The patient surveys showed high satisfaction rates with the MGT pathway.

LIMITATIONS

This report is an evaluation of a new genetic testing pathway restricted to a single, publicly funded health care center. The MGT pathway involved a prospective collection of a limited number of patients with ADPKD with comparison to a retrospective cohort of patients with ADPKD evaluated by standard testing.

IMPLICATIONS

A MGT pathway using clearly defined criteria and commercially available gene panels for ADPKD can be successfully implemented in a publicly funded health care system to reduce the time required to obtain genetic results.

Determination of test performance of two contemporary screening tests for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer: A clinical trial

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Published data on the performance of the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression to detect Lynch syndrome (LS) index cases suggests it is highly variable; its performance in our system was unknown. Moreover, a brief family history questionnaire (bFHQ) developed by Eiriksson and colleagues in Canada demonstrated 100% sensitivity for LS case identification thus was of interest to us, but its performance outside of its original setting was unknown. Determination of the performance of these tests requires complete LS case identification in the testing population.

METHODS

Two hundred women were recruited during routine care for endometrial cancer (EC) to administer the bFHQ and perform genetic testing for the LS genes. Independently, the IHC test was performed to screen for presumptive LS cases. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the bFHQ and IHC test as well as simulating outcomes of the complete protocols.

RESULTS

Genetic testing all participants identified 8 cases of LS out of 200 (4% prevalence), the bFHQ identified 5 of 8 of these cases (62.5%, CI: 31.5%-87.6%), and the IHC test identified 6 or 7 of 8 cases (mean of 75% or 87.5%) depending on interpretation of test results. The specificities of the bFHQ and IHC test were 56.8% (CI: 49.8%-63.7%) and 79.8% (CI: 73.6%-85.1%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to test the effectiveness of the bFHQ in an EC population since its original reporting; our results are consistent with many reports of the challenges of collecting family health history. The performance of the IHC test as a screen falls within ranges reported in the literature but do not provide the confidence to drive a decision for or against continued use of this test as a LS screen.

ASO Author Reflections: Germline Testing for All Patients With Breast Cancer: Has the Time Finally Come?

For the young breast cancer population in India, the burden of hereditary breast cancer is not well defined. Moreover, genetic testing criteria (National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) plus) have never been validated for the Indian population. Therefore, this study tested 236 consecutive breast cancer patients for germline pathogenic mutations using next-generation sequencing and reflex Multiplex Ligation Probe Amplification (MLPA). The findings showed a high prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) mutations (18.64%), with 34% mutations in non BRCA genes. The sensitivity of the testing criteria was inadequate (88.6% for NCCN and 86.36% for MCG plus criteria), reiterating the need to expand the criteria. The uptake of cascade testing was low (10% of eligible previvors), highlighting this as an area of unmet need. Multicentric studies to validate these data and provide further insight into the hereditary cancer burden in India are the need of the hour.

Prognostic Prediction of BRCA Mutations by 18F-FDG PET/CT SUVmax in Breast Cancer

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the prognostic prediction of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations by comparing the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV_max) obtained from ¹⁸fluoride-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT), which is considered a prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC).

Methods:

Retrospective interdisciplinary laboratory results of 92 patients with BC who had germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation profiles and underwent ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT were compared. Genotyping was made by next-generation sequencing, and PET/CT scans were re-evaluated. The histopathological data, genetic results, and clinical demographics of all patients were recorded. Patients were divided into two groups in accordance with the presence of germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations. Between-group statistical comparison was performed.

Results:

In PET/CT performed for primary staging, patients with BRCA-positive BC had significantly higher SUV_max (p=0.039), larger tumor size (p=0.025), and presence of axillary nodal metastases (p=0.023) than patients with BRCA-negative BC. Although the Ki-67 index was higher in the BRCA-positive group than BRCA-negative group, this difference was not significant (p=0.157). Moreover, in the BRCA-positive and negative groups, SUV_max, Ki-67 index, and tumor size, grade, and stage were significantly correlated with each other.

Conclusion:

The results of this study showed a strong association between BRCA mutations and SUV_max, which indicates the poor prognosis of BC.

Profile of Pathogenic Mutations and Evaluation of Germline Genetic Testing Criteria in Consecutive Breast Cancer Patients Treated at a North Indian Tertiary Care Center

Background

The burden of hereditary breast cancer in India is not well defined. Moreover, genetic testing criteria (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] and Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics [MCG] Plus) have never been validated in the Indian population.

Methods

All new female breast cancer patients from 1st March 2019 to 28th February 2020 were screened. Those providing informed consent and without previous genetic testing were recruited. Multigene panel testing (107 genes) by next-generation sequencing was performed for all patients. The frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) mutations between patients qualifying and not qualifying the testing criteria was compared and their sensitivity was computed.

Results

Overall, 275 breast cancer patients were screened and 236 patients were included (median age 45 years); 30 patients did not consent and 9 patients previously underwent genetic testing. Thirty-four (14%) women had a positive family history and 35% had triple-negative breast cancer. P/LP mutations were found in 44/236 (18.64%) women; mutations in BRCA1 (22/47, 46.8%) and BRCA2 (9/47, 19.1%) were the most common, with 34% of mutations present in non-BRCA genes. Patients qualifying the testing criteria had a higher risk of having a P/LP mutation (NCCN: 23.6% vs. 7.04%, p = 0.03; MCG plus: 24.8% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.01). The sensitivity of the NCCN criteria was 88.6% (75.4–96.2) and 86.36% (72.65–94.83) for MCG plus. More than 95% sensitivity was achieved if all women up to 60 years of age were tested. Cascade testing was performed in 31 previous (16/44 families), with 23 testing positive.

Conclusions

The frequency of P/LP mutations in India is high, with significant contribution of non-BRCA genes. Testing criteria need modification to expand access to testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10870-w.