The counsellees' view of an unclassified variant in BRCA1/2: recall, interpretation, and impact on life

"It's fundamental to the work that we do": Genetic counselors' perceptions of their role in clients' mental well-being

The role of a genetic counselor is to assist individuals and their families to comprehend and adapt to genetic information. However, a genetic counselor's role in clients' mental well-being is unclear. Mental well-being is an important component of overall health and it can be affected during the adaptation to genetic information. It is, therefore, essential to consider how mental well-being is viewed in genetic counseling practice. Our research aimed to investigate genetic counselors' perceptions of their role in clients' mental well-being. Our objectives were to (1) understand what genetic counselors perceived their role to be in clients' mental well-being and (2) investigate what factors influence genetic counselors' perceptions of practice. We recruited participants via advertisements in the Human Genetics Society of Australasia and the Australasian Society of Genetic Counselors newsletters, and through the Genetic Support Network of Victoria social media. We completed semi-structured in-depth interviews with 12 Australian genetic counselors and analyzed the interviews using inductive thematic analysis. We found that genetic counselors viewed clients' mental well-being as an important and crucial part of their practice. Three key themes were identified, first, all the participants' views of clients' mental well-being were shaped by personal and professional beliefs. Second, all participants noted that there were factors external to them, such as workplace and professional guidelines, which shaped their role in clients' mental well-being. Third, all those interviewed noted the boundaries of their professional role in clients' mental well-being. From these three themes, we determined that genetic counselors see clients' mental well-being as an integral part of their practice. Our findings add to the extant literature and can shape future practice in this field. Furthermore, we identified how future research priorities could further our knowledge in this area.

Electronic medical record documentation of germline genetic evaluations in patients with ovarian cancer

Germline genetic evaluation is indicated for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). For testing to have clinical utility, results must be documented within the electronic medical record (EMR) and accessible to providers at the point of care, which can be challenging in the context of current EMR limitations and genetic testing processes. We examined the receipt of genetics services and EMR capture of genetic testing results in patients with EOC. We conducted a retrospective chart review to examine germline genetic evaluations among patients with EOC seen by a gynecologic or medical oncologist at the University of Pennsylvania in 2016. EMRs were reviewed to determine: (1) if patients were referred for genetic evaluation; (2) if genetic testing was performed; (3) if results were documented in office notes, scanned third-party test reports, and/or the EMR problem list; (4) if provider notes correctly listed the variant classification. Overall, 413 (62%) of patients had documented genetic testing. Genetic testing was documented in almost all provider notes (96%) and the majority of scanned EMR reports (64%). Pathogenic variants were found in 119 (29%) individuals; the majority (70%) had genetic testing documented within EMR problem lists. Provider notes were highly accurate in describing variant classification. In this study, genetic testing was performed and documented in the EMR for most EOC patients. Approximately one-third of those tested did not have scanned test reports specifying variant found, limiting the utility of test results for cascade testing and therapeutic decisions.

An overview of actionable and potentially actionable TSC1 and TSC2 germline variants in an online Database

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) is caused by loss of function germline variants in the TSC1 or TSC2 tumor suppressor genes. Genetic testing for the detection of pathogenic variants in either TSC1 or TSC2 was implemented as a diagnostic criterion for TSC. However, TSC molecular diagnosis can be challenging due to the absence of variant hotspots and the high number of variants described. This review aimed to perform an overview of TSC1/2 variants submitted in the ClinVar database. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS), missense and single nucleotide variants were the most frequent in clinical significance (37-40%), molecular consequence (37%-39%) and variation type (82%-83%) categories in ClinVar in TSC1 and TSC2 variants, respectively. Frameshift and nonsense VUS have potential for pathogenic reclassification if further functional and segregation studies were performed. Indeed, there were few functional assays deposited in the database and literature. In addition, we did not observe hotspots for variation and many variants presented conflicting submissions regarding clinical significance. This study underscored the importance of disseminating molecular diagnostic results in a public database to render the information largely accessible and promote accurate diagnosis. We encourage the performance of functional studies evaluating the pathogenicity of TSC1/2 variants.

Genomic disparity impacts variant classification of cancer susceptibility genes in Turkish breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Turkish genome is underrepresented in large genomic databases. This study aims to evaluate the effect of allele frequency in the Turkish population in determining the clinical utility of germline findings in breast cancer, including invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), mixed invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma (IDC-L), and ductal carcinoma (DC).

METHODS

Two clinic-based cohorts from the Umraniye Research and Training Hospital (URTH) were used in this study: a cohort consisting of 132 women with breast cancer and a non-cancer cohort consisting of 492 participants. The evaluation of the germline landscape was performed by analysis of 27 cancer genes. The frequency and type of variants in the breast cancer cohort were compared to those in the non-cancer cohort to investigate the effect of population genetics. The variant allele frequencies in Turkish Variome and gnomAD were statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

The genetic analysis identified 121 variants in the breast cancer cohort (actionable = 32, VUS = 89) and 223 variants in the non-cancer cohort (actionable = 25, VUS = 188). The occurrence of 21 variants in both suggested a possible genetic population effect. Evaluation of allele frequency of 121 variants from the breast cancer cohort showed 22% had a significantly higher value in Turkish Variome compared to gnomAD (p < 0.0001, 95% CI) with a mean difference of 60 times (ranging from 1.37-354.4). After adjusting for variant allele frequency using the ancestry-appropriate database, 6.7% (5/75) of VUS was reclassified to likely benign.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study of population genetic effects in breast cancer subtypes in Turkish women. Our findings underscore the need for a large genomic database representing Turkish population-specific variants. It further highlights the significance of the ancestry-appropriate population database for accurate variant assessment in clinical settings.

Cancer patients' experience of receiving variant of uncertain significance results: An Asian perspective

Due to a lack of ancestry-matched, functional, and segregation data, Asians have a higher rate of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result following panel testing. Managing VUS results presents challenges, as it often leads to increased anxiety and distress among cancer patients undergoing genetic testing. This exploratory study aims to investigate the experience of Asian cancer patients upon receiving a VUS result. A qualitative, semi-structured interview study was conducted, involving cancer patients who had received a VUS result through the Cancer Genetics Service of the National Cancer Centre Singapore. Twenty participants were interviewed, and their responses were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes. Thematic analysis revealed five major themes: (1) VUS results are interpreted as uncertain outcomes; (2) a VUS result provides relief and prompts positive behavioral adjustments; (3) patients employ fatalism and religion as coping mechanisms to navigate uncertainty; (4) genetic counselors, family, and the community offer reassurance and support; (5) patients value updates on variant classifications for future management. While this novel study provides unique insights into the perspectives of Asian patients who receive VUS results, it also highlights patients' effective management of VUS results and uncertainty, which has implications for improving counseling practices in Asia. Emphasis must be placed on accurate interpretation and clear communication of VUS results to dispel the possibility of misconceptions, misdiagnosis, and mismanagement in cancer care.

Ovarian cancer pathology characteristics as predictors of variant pathogenicity in BRCA1 and BRCA2

BACKGROUND

The distribution of ovarian tumour characteristics differs between germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers and non-carriers. In this study, we assessed the utility of ovarian tumour characteristics as predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity, for application using the American College of Medical Genetics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant classification system.

METHODS

Data for 10,373 ovarian cancer cases, including carriers and non-carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants, were collected from unpublished international cohorts and consortia and published studies. Likelihood ratios (LR) were calculated for the association of ovarian cancer histology and other characteristics, with BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity. Estimates were aligned to ACMG/AMP code strengths (supporting, moderate, strong).

RESULTS

No histological subtype provided informative ACMG/AMP evidence in favour of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity. Evidence against variant pathogenicity was estimated for the mucinous and clear cell histologies (supporting) and borderline cases (moderate). Refined associations are provided according to tumour grade, invasion and age at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide detailed estimates for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant pathogenicity based on ovarian tumour characteristics. This evidence can be combined with other variant information under the ACMG/AMP classification system, to improve classification and carrier clinical management.

Clinical and laboratory genetic counselor attitudes on the reporting of variants of uncertain significance for multigene cancer panels

Research suggests variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) present a variety of challenges for genetic counselors (GCs), nongenetics clinicians, and patients. Multigene cancer panels reveal more VUSs than single gene testing as a result of the increase in the number of genes being tested. This study surveyed 87 clinical cancer GCs involved with direct patient care and 19 laboratory GCs who provide guidance to clinicians regarding genetic test results about their attitudes on various options for the reporting of VUSs by laboratories for broad multigene cancer panels. Independent samples t-tests were utilized to compare the two groups. Based on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 6 = Strongly Agree), clinical cancer GCs (M = 5.4; SD = 0.8) and laboratory GCs (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9) agreed overall that VUSs should be reported (p = 0.44; Cohen's d = 0.21). When asked about specific reporting options, both clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.1) and laboratory GCs (M = 2.1; SD = 1.4) disagreed that VUSs should be reported only for genes related to the indication for testing (p = 0.50; Cohen's d = 0.17). Overall, most GCs felt clinicians should not choose whether VUSs should be reported on genetic test results, with clinical cancer GCs (M = 1.9; SD = 1.3) feeling more strongly against it than laboratory GCs (M = 3.1; SD = 1.4; p = 0.002; Cohen's d = 0.88). Generally, GCs were more in favor of VUSs not being reported for population-based screening, with laboratory GCs (M = 4.7; SD = 0.8) agreeing more with that practice than clinical cancer GCs (M = 3.7; SD = 1.4; p = 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.80). Both clinical cancer GCs (M = 4.1; SD = 1.2) and laboratory GCs (M = 3.9; SD = 1.2) agreed additional guidelines on how to approach VUSs in clinical practice should be developed (p = 0.54; Cohen's d = 0.17). While most GCs supported the reporting of VUSs overall, our analyses suggest clinical cancer and laboratory GCs may have different attitudes toward specific VUS-related reporting options. Further research is needed to elucidate GC preferences to help inform best practices for the reporting of VUSs. The development of additional standardized guidelines on how to approach VUSs would further support clinical practice.

Physicians' experience, practice and education, on genetic testing and genetic counseling: a nationwide survey study in Greece

Genetic testing has been implemented in clinical practice. However, data on physician's practices and education related to cancer genetics, risk assessment and clinical management in Greece, is limited. In Greece, genetic counseling is performed by treating physicians in collaboration with clinical laboratory geneticists due to the absence of medical geneticists and genetic counsellors. We evaluated treating physicians' experience on genetic testing for hereditary cancer and counseling practices in Greece, thus providing critical areas for improvement of genetic counseling processes. A 28-question survey was used to assess physicians' experience with genetic testing practices, factors that affect their clinical management and decision making and limitations in their education. Of 250 physicians, 208 (83%) completed the survey; of whom 89 (42.8%) were medical oncologists, 88 general surgeons (42.3%), 26 gynecologists (12.5%) and 5 (2.4%) of other specialties. Overall, 91.8% of participants referred patients for genetic testing, with 51.8% recommending multigene panel testing. While most clinicians (84%) reported lack of a clinical genetics department at their institution, 75.7% referred patients for genetic counseling at available departments or healthcare professionals with expertise in genetic counseling. Overall, 68.8% of respondents reported no training or moderate training on cancer genetics. A higher proportion of medical oncologists reported sufficient/very satisfactory training (40.9%) compared to general surgeons (27.3%) or gynecologists (11.5%) (p = 0.012). Time spent on pre- and post-testing sessions varied significantly among respondents. Of 199 physicians, 70% would manage patients with BRCA1 VUS as patients with pathogenic variants, mainly surgeons (83.1%) and gynecologists (80%), compared to oncologists (52.3%) (p < 0.001). Additionally, 64% of physicians treating patients with breast and ovarian cancer would recommend an intervention based on the presence of a BRCA1 VUS. Most respondents (87%) were interested in receiving additional education on cancer risk assessment. Limited consensus was observed during physicians' genetic testing, counseling practices and clinical management of patients with increased predisposition to cancer. Our findings highlight the need for improvement in physician education on cancer risk assessment and increase of genetic counseling resources and services.

Experiences of individuals with a variant of uncertain significance on genetic testing for hereditary cancer risks: a mixed method systematic review

The expansion of Multi-Gene Panel Testing (MGPT) has led to increased detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) among individuals with personal or family history of cancer. However, having a VUS result can impact on emotional and psychological wellbeing and cause challenges for non-geneticist healthcare providers. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review was to examine what is currently known about the experiences of individuals with a VUS on genetic testing for inherited cancer susceptibility. The initial search was conducted in June 2020 using PUBMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsychInfo according to the Joanna Briggs methodology for systematic reviews. A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies included in this review identified a range of emotional reactions to a VUS result, a general lack of understanding of a VUS result and its implications, frustration with a lack of healthcare provider knowledge, and a need for clear communication with healthcare providers. This review identified critical gaps in current knowledge to guide genetic counseling praxis, specifically in the knowledge of communication patterns and methods of improving communication with healthcare providers and family members and preferred risk management strategies. This will help to improve the counseling process and the management of care during and after genetic testing.

Cancer patients' understandings of genetic variants of uncertain significance in clinical care

Genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) pose a growing challenge for patient communication and care in precision genomic medicine. To better understand patient perspectives of VUSs, we draw on qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 22 cancer patients and individuals with cancer family history who received a VUS result. The majority of patients did not recall receiving VUS results and those who remembered expressed few worries, while respondents who were tested because of a family history of cancer were more concerned about the VUS results. Personal characteristics, medical condition, family history, expectations prior to testing, and motivations for pursuing testing influence the ways patients came to terms with the uncertainty of the VUS result. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the findings to the debate on the responsibility of the patient in checking back for VUS reclassification and to implications for genetic counseling that emphasizes tailoring the pre- and post-test discussion of VUS as appropriate to the patients’ informational as well as emotional needs.

Parental segregation study reveals rare benign and likely benign variants in a Brazilian cohort of rare diseases

Genomic studies may generate massive amounts of data, bringing interpretation challenges. Efforts for the differentiation of benign and pathogenic variants gain importance. In this article, we used segregation analysis and other molecular data to reclassify to benign or likely benign several rare clinically curated variants of autosomal dominant inheritance from a cohort of 500 Brazilian patients with rare diseases. This study included only symptomatic patients who had undergone molecular investigation with exome sequencing for suspected diseases of genetic etiology. Variants clinically suspected as the causative etiology and harbored by genes associated with highly-penetrant conditions of autosomal dominant inheritance underwent Sanger confirmation in the proband and inheritance pattern determination because a "de novo" event was expected. Among all 327 variants studied, 321 variants were inherited from asymptomatic parents. Considering segregation analysis, we have reclassified 51 rare variants as benign and 211 as likely benign. In our study, the inheritance of a highly penetrant variant expected to be de novo for pathogenicity assumption was considered as a non-segregation and, therefore, a key step for benign or likely benign classification. Studies like ours may help to identify rare benign variants and improve the correct interpretation of genetic findings.

BRCA1/2 variants of unknown significance in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome: looking for the hidden meaning

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is caused by germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. These genes are very large and their mutations are heterogeneous and scattered throughout the coding sequence. In addition to the above-mentioned mutations, variants of uncertain/unknown significance (VUSs) have been identified in BRCA genes, which make more difficult the clinical management of the patient and risk assessment. In the last decades, several laboratories have developed different databases that contain more than 2000 variants for the two genes and integrated strategies which include multifactorial prediction models based on direct and indirect genetic evidence, to classify the VUS and attribute them a clinical significance associated with a deleterious, high-low or neutral risk. This review provides a comprehensive overview of literature studies concerning the VUSs, in order to assess their impact on the population and provide new insight for the appropriate patient management in clinical practice.

Comprehensive Identification of Deleterious TP53 Missense VUS Variants Based on Their Impact on TP53 Structural Stability

TP53 plays critical roles in maintaining genome stability. Deleterious genetic variants damage the function of TP53, causing genome instability and increased cancer risk. Of the large quantity of genetic variants identified in TP53, however, many remain functionally unclassified as variants of unknown significance (VUS) due to the lack of evidence. This is reflected by the presence of 749 (42%) VUS of the 1785 germline variants collected in the ClinVar database. In this study, we addressed the deleteriousness of TP53 missense VUS. Utilizing the protein structure-based Ramachandran Plot-Molecular Dynamics Simulation (RPMDS) method that we developed, we measured the effects of missense VUS on TP53 structural stability. Of the 340 missense VUS tested, we observed deleterious evidence for 193 VUS, as reflected by the TP53 structural changes caused by the VUS-substituted residues. We compared the results from RPMDS with those from other in silico methods and observed higher specificity of RPMDS in classification of TP53 missense VUS than these methods. Data from our current study address a long-standing challenge in classifying the missense VUS in TP53, one of the most important tumor suppressor genes.

Assessing parental understanding of variant reclassification in pediatric neurology and developmental pediatrics clinics

Improvements in technology used for genetic testing have yielded an increased numbers of variants that are identified, each with a potential to return uninformative results. While some genetics providers may expect patients to be responsible for staying abreast of updates to their genetic testing results, it is unknown whether patients are even aware of the possibility of variant reclassification. Little research has assessed the comprehension and attitudes of parents of pediatric patients regarding reclassification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with parents (n = 15) whose children received a VUS from genetic testing in either the pediatric neurogenetics or developmental pediatrics clinics at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, Indiana. Most participants expressed understanding of the uncertainty surrounding their child's VUS test result. However, nearly half of participants shared that they had no prior knowledge of its potential reclassification. When asked whose responsibility it is to keep informed about changes to their child's VUS status, some participants stated that it belonged solely to healthcare providers - a distinctive finding of our study - whereas others felt that it was a joint responsibility between providers and the parents. We additionally found that some patients desire a support group for individuals with VUS. These results provide insight into the importance of pretest genetic counseling and the need for increased social and informational support for parents of children who receive inconclusive genetic testing results. We conclude that relying solely on the patient or guardian to manage uncertain results may be insufficient.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Genetic Access Program: Paving the Way for Genetic Characterization of ALS in the Clinic

Objective

To report the frequency of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) genetic variants in a nationwide cohort of clinic-based patients with ALS with a family history of ALS (fALS), dementia (dALS), or both ALS and dementia (fALS/dALS).

Methods

A multicenter, prospective cohort of 573 patients with fALS, dALS, or fALS/dALS, underwent genetic testing in the ALS Genetic Access Program (ALS GAP), a clinical program for clinics of the Northeast ALS Consortium. Patients with dALS underwent C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) testing; those with fALS or fALS/dALS underwent C9orf72 HRE testing, followed by sequencing of SOD1, FUS, TARDBP, TBK1, and VCP.

Results

A pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variant was identified in 171/573 (30%) of program participants. About half of patients with fALS or fALS/dALS (138/301, 45.8%) had either a C9orf72 HRE or a P or LP variant identified in SOD1, FUS, TARDBP, TBK1, or VCP. The use of a targeted, 5-gene sequencing panel resulted in far fewer uncertain test outcomes in familial cases compared with larger panels used in other in clinic-based cohorts. Among dALS cases 11.8% (32/270) were found to have the C9orf72 HRE. Patients of non-Caucasian geoancestry were less likely to test positive for the C9orf72 HRE, but were more likely to test positive on panel testing, compared with those of Caucasian ancestry.

Conclusions

The ALS GAP program provided a genetic diagnosis to ∼1 in 3 participants and may serve as a model for clinical genetic testing in ALS.

Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Improper medical use of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) remains a concern in hereditary cancer genetic testing. The goal of this study was to assess the association between pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP), VUS, and benign and likely benign (B/LB) genetic test results and cancer-related surgical and screening management. Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were conducted from 1946 to August 26, 2020. Eligible studies included individuals with cancer genetic test result and surgical or screening management outcomes. We reviewed 885 abstracts and 22 studies that reported relevant surgical and screening outcomes were included. Meta-analysis revealed significantly higher surgical rates among individuals with P/LP than among those with VUS for therapeutic mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 7.35, 95% CI, 4.14-13.64), prophylactic mastectomy (OR = 3.05, 95% CI, 1.5-6.19), and oophorectomy (OR = 6.46, 95% CI, 3.64-11.44). There were no significant differences in therapeutic mastectomy, or breast conservation or lumpectomy rates between individuals with P/LP and VUS, or in any outcomes between patients with VUS and B/LB. Studies evaluating screening outcomes were limited, and results were conflicting. Comprehensive analysis do not indicate that a significant number of individuals with VUS results undergo inappropriate clinical management.

Exome sequencing study in a clinical research setting finds general acceptance of study returning secondary genomic findings with little decisional conflict

The most appropriate strategies for managing secondary genomic findings (SF) in clinical research are being developed and evaluated. We surveyed patients at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to evaluate decisional conflict regarding enrolling in a study that returns SF. Responses were collected using a cross-sectional survey after informed consent but before return of SF. Sixty-six adults of 116 eligible participants responded. No participant explicitly declined because they did not want to possibly receive a SF. Sixty-five of 66 (98%) participants thought it was appropriate to return SFs in research; one participant was unsure. Decisional conflict regarding enrolling in a study returning SF was low overall with 68% of participants reporting a score of less than 10 on a 100-point decisional conflict scale, implying that they felt informed, clear on what they wanted, and supported. Lower genetic literacy was weakly associated with higher decisional conflict (Spearman's rho = -0.297, p = .015). Six participants reported confusion related to the choices about SFs. Our data suggest that participants in our study feel it is appropriate to receive SF and have little decisional conflict about potentially receiving such information; however, some participants may need further education and counseling.

Examining the Effectiveness of Genetic Counselors' Communication of Variant of Uncertain Significance Results of Breast Cancer Genes

Receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result is quite common for individuals who undergo genetic testing. Because VUS results are often unexpected and necessarily complex, they are challenging for genetic counselors to deliver. The current research sought to examine how three specific message features (risk estimate formats, establishment of a future plan, and linguistic agency), and message receivers' intolerance of uncertainty, influenced the effectiveness of genetic counselors' communication of a VUS result. A series of MANCOVAs and multiple regressions suggested that these message features affected message receivers' perception of a genetic counselor's credibility and receivers' uncertainty appraisal and information-seeking intentions. Specifically, establishing a future plan and assigning agency to a VUS result enhanced perceived counselor credibility. When results were presented in a numeric format, assigning agency to counselors resulted in heightened danger appraisal and greater information-seeking intentions. Individuals' intolerance of uncertainty moderated the association between risk formats and uncertainty appraisal. These results have both theoretical and practical implications for communication of uncertainty in the context of genetic counseling.

How patients deal with an ambiguous medical test: Decision-making after genetic testing

OBJECTIVE

We know little about how patients make decisions when they receive a variant of uncertain significance result (VUS) from genetic testing. The purpose of this study was to elucidate a model of patient-informed decision-making after receiving a VUS result.

METHODS

Using an adapted Mental Models Approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with women who received a VUS result from genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer (N = 20) to explore factors they believed were relevant to their decision-making. Two coders used a coding scheme informed by experts in hereditary breast cancer to conduct analysis. Inter-coder reliability was α = .86.

RESULTS

Three overarching decision themes emerged from the interviews: managing ambiguity, medical risk management, and sharing results with others. While participants noted some difficulty understanding their result, genetic counselors' interpretations, psychosocial factors (e.g., risk perceptions), and competing extrinsic demands influenced their decisions.

CONCLUSION

Complex influences affect patient decision-making after a VUS result from genetic testing and may encourage health protective behavior.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Even patients who understand their test result could use support managing the ambiguity of their test result and sharing it with others.

The Postmortem Interpretation of Cardiac Genetic Variants of Unknown Significance in Sudden Death in the Young: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) in adolescents and young adults is a major traumatic event for families and communities. In these cases, it is not uncommon to have a negative autopsy with structurally and histologically normal heart. Such SCD cases are generally attributed to channelopathies, which include long QT syndrome, short QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Our understanding of the causes for SCDs has changed significantly with the advancements in molecular and genetic studies, where many mutations are now known to be associated with certain channelopathies. Postmortem analysis provides great value in informing decision-making with regard to screening tests and prophylactic measures that should be taken to prevent sudden death in first degree relatives of the decedent. As this is a rapidly advancing field, our ability to identify genetic mutations has surpassed our ability to interpret them. This led to a unique challenge in genetic testing called variants of unknown significance (VUS). VUSs present a diagnostic dilemma and uncertainty for clinicians and patients with regard to next steps. Caution should be exercised when interpreting VUSs since misinterpretation can result in mismanagement of patients and their families. A case of a young adult man with drowning as his proximate cause of death is presented in circumstances where cardiac genetic testing was indicated and undertaken. Eight VUSs in genes implicated in inheritable cardiac dysfunction were identified and the interpretation of VUSs in this scenario is discussed.

Genetic testing in dementia - utility and clinical strategies

Techniques for clinical genetic testing in dementia disorders have advanced rapidly but remain to be more widely implemented in practice. A positive genetic test offers a precise molecular diagnosis, can help members of an affected family to determine personal risk, provides a basis for reproductive choices and can offer options for clinical trials. The likelihood of identifying a specific genetic cause of dementia depends on the clinical condition, the age at onset and family history. Attempts to match phenotypes to single genes are mostly inadvisable owing to clinical overlap between the dementias, genetic heterogeneity, pleiotropy and concurrent mutations. Currently, the appropriate genetic test in most cases of dementia is a next-generation sequencing gene panel, though some conditions necessitate specific types of test such as repeat expansion testing. Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing are becoming financially feasible but raise or exacerbate complex issues such as variants of uncertain significance, secondary findings and the potential for re-analysis in light of new information. However, the capacity for data analysis and counselling is already restricting the provision of genetic testing. Patients and their relatives need to be given reliable information to enable them to make informed choices about tests, treatments and data sharing; the ability of patients with dementia to make decisions must be considered when providing this information.

Genetic testing for breast cancer risk, from BRCA1/2 to a seven gene panel: an ethical analysis

Background

Genetic testing is moving from targeted investigations of monogenetic diseases to broader testing that may provide more information. For example, recent health economic studies of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer suggest that it is associated with higher cost-effectiveness to screen for pathogenic variants in a seven gene panel rather than the usual two gene test for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, irrespective of the extent to which the screening of the panel is cost-effective, there may be ethical reasons to not screen for pathogenic variants in a panel, or to revise the way in which testing and disclosing of results are carried out.

Main text

In this paper we discuss the ethical aspects of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer with a special focus on the ethical differences between screening for pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and a seven gene panel. The paper identifies that the panel increases the number of secondary findings as well as the number of variants of uncertain significance as two specific issues that call for ethical reflection.

Conclusions

We conclude that while the problem of handling secondary findings should not be overstated with regard to the panel, the fact that the panel also generate more variants of uncertain significance, give rise to a more complex set of problems that relate to the value of health as well as the value of autonomy. Therefore, it is insufficient to claim that the seven gene panel is preferable by only referring to the higher cost effectiveness of the panel.

Clinical and psychological outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study systematically reviewed and synthesized the literature on psychological and clinical outcomes of receiving a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) from multigene panel testing or genomic sequencing. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis and meta-aggregation. The search identified 4539 unique studies and 15 were included in the review. Patients with VUS reported higher genetic test-specific concerns on the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) scale than patients with negative results (mean difference 3.73 [95% CI 0.80 to 6.66] P = 0.0126), and lower than patients with positive results (mean difference -7.01 [95% CI -11.31 to -2.71], P = 0.0014). Patients with VUS and patients with negative results were similarly likely to have a change in their clinical management (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.90 to 2.21], P = 0.182), and less likely to have a change in management than patients with positive results (OR 0.09 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.19], P < 0.0001). Factors that contributed to how patients responded to their VUS included their interpretation of the result and their health-care provider's counseling and recommendations. Review findings suggest there may be a need for practice guidelines or clinical decision support tools for VUS disclosure and management.

The impact of communicating uncertain test results in cancer genetic counseling: A systematic mixed studies review

OBJECTIVE

Cancer genetic counseling increasingly involves discussing uncertain test results, for example because multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This review was performed to provide insight into how counselors' communication of uncertain test results during genetic counseling for cancer affects counselors and counselees.

METHODS

A systematic mixed studies review was undertaken to review research on the effects of communicating uncertain test results. Four databases were searched using a PICO search strategy. Study findings of articles meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included. Uncertain test results encompassed either an inconclusive test result or a variant of unknown significance (VUS). Counselees involved almost exclusively women at risk of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. None of the articles reported effects on counselor outcomes. Counselee outcomes were categorized as cognitive, affective or behavioral. Interpretation of a VUS was overall reported as difficult, and counselees' distress and worry were repeatedly found to decrease over time after the discussion of any uncertain test result. For most other outcomes, findings were sparse and/or inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on effects on counselee outcomes is scant and inconsistent. Future studies are warranted to provide insight into how counselees and counselors are affected.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinical practice could benefit from guidelines on how to address uncertain test results during pre- and posttest genetic consultations.

Patient experience of uncertainty in cancer genomics: a systematic review

While genomics provides new clinical opportunities, its complexity generates uncertainties. This systematic review aimed to summarize what is currently known about the experience of uncertainty for adult patients undergoing cancer genomic testing. A search of five databases (2001 to 2018) yielded 6508 records. After removing duplicates, abstract/title screening, and assessment of full articles, ten studies were included for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative studies were subjected to thematic analysis, and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Cancer genomic results reduced uncertainty for patients regarding treatment decisions but did not reduce uncertainty in the risk context. Qualitative and quantitative data synthesis revealed four themes: (1) coexisting uncertainties, (2) factors influencing uncertainty, (3) outcomes of uncertainty, and (4) coping with uncertainty. Uncertainty can motivate, or be a barrier to, pursuing cancer genomic testing. Appraisal of uncertainty influences the patient experience of uncertainty, the outcome of uncertainty for patients, as well as the coping strategies utilized. While this systematic review found that appraisal of uncertainty is important to the patients' experience of uncertainty in the cancer genomic context, more mixed methods longitudinal research is needed to address the complexities that contribute to patient uncertainty across the process.

Patient perspectives on variant reclassification after cancer susceptibility testing

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of reclassification on patients' perception of medical uncertainty or trust in genetics-based clinical care.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 patients who had received a reclassified genetic test result related to hereditary cancer. All participants had undergone genetic counseling and testing for cancer susceptibility at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center Hereditary Cancer Clinic within the last six years.

RESULTS

Most of the participants did not express distress related to the variant reclassification and only a minority expressed a decrease in trust in medical genetics. However, recall of the new interpretation was limited, even though all participants were recontacted by letter, phone, or clinic visit.

CONCLUSION

Reclassification of genetic tests is an important issue in modern healthcare because changes in interpretation have the potential to alter previously recommended management. Participants in this study did not express strong feelings of mistrust or doubt about their genetic evaluation. However, there was a low level of comprehension and information retention related to the updated report. Future research can build on this study to improve communication with patients about their reclassified results.

Ancestry-specific hereditary cancer panel yields: Moving toward more personalized risk assessment

Healthcare disparities in genomic medicine are well described. Despite some improvements, we continue to see fewer individuals of African American, Asian, and Hispanic ancestry undergo genetic counseling and testing compared to those of European ancestry. It is well established that variant of uncertain significance (VUS) rates are higher among non-European ancestral groups undergoing multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing. However, pathogenic variant (PV) yields, and genomic data in general, are often reported in aggregate and derived from cohorts largely comprised of individuals of European ancestry. We performed a retrospective review of clinical and ancestral data for individuals undergoing multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing to determine ancestry-specific PV and VUS rates. An ancestry other than European was reported in 29,042/104,851 (27.7%) of individuals. Compared to Europeans (9.4%), individuals of Middle Eastern ancestry were more likely to test positive for one or more pathogenic variants (12.1%, p = .0025), while African Americans were less likely (7.9%, p < .0001). Asian and Middle Eastern individuals were most likely (34.8% and 33.2%, respectively) to receive a report with an overall classification of VUS, while individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish and European ancestry were least likely (17.1% and 20.4%, respectively). These data suggest that in addition to higher VUS rates, there may be ancestry-specific PV yields. Providing aggregate data derived from cohorts saturated with European individuals does not adequately reflect genetic testing outcomes in minority groups, and interrogation of ancestry-specific data is a step toward a more personalized risk assessment.

Adult patients with undiagnosed conditions and their responses to unresolved uncertainty from exome sequencing

Patients pursuing exome sequencing (ES) in their quest for diagnosis will most often experience unresolved uncertainty from their ES results because the majority of ES results are non-diagnostic. This study explored and compared the experiences of receiving two types of ES results that may result in diagnostic uncertainty. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 23 adult patients with undiagnosed conditions who received either a negative result or a result with one or more variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) from ES. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to thematic and comparative analyses. Participants accurately understood their results and described various sources of genomic uncertainty including probability, complexity, and ambiguity. Their acclimation to illness uncertainty resulted in realistic expectations about and acceptance of their results. Participants still hoped that ES would end their diagnostic odyssey. Hope and optimism were used to cope with continued uncertainty. No thematic differences were found between the experiences of those who received negative results versus those who received VUSs. Our findings may inform clinical practices of informed consent and disclosure of negative results and VUSs through a greater consideration of patients' reactions, concerns, and challenges with adaptation to uncertainty.

Diagnostic yield of a custom-designed multi-gene cancer panel in Irish patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is genetically heterogeneous, and parellel multi-gene sequencing is the most cost- and time-efficient manner to investigate breast cancer predisposition. Numerous multi-gene panels (MGPs) are commercially available, but many include genes with weak/unproven associaton with breast cancer, or with predisposition to cancer of other types. This study investigates the utility of a custom-designed multi-gene panel in an Irish cohort with breast cancer.

METHODS

A custom panel comprising 83 genes offered by 19 clinical "breast cancer predisposition" MGPs was designed and applied to germline DNA from 91 patients with breast cancer and 77 unaffected ethnicially matched controls. Variants were identified and classified using a custom pipeline.

RESULTS

Nineteen loss-of-function (LOF) and 334 missense variants were identified. After removing common and/or benign variants, 15 LOF and 30 missense variants were analysed. Variants in known breast cancer susceptibility genes were identified, including in BRCA1 and ATM in cases, and in NF1 and CHEK2 in controls. Most variants identified were in genes associated with predisposition to cancers other than breast cancer (BRIP1, RAD50, MUTYH, and mismatch repair genes), or in genes with unknown or unproven association with cancer.

CONCLUSION

Using multi-gene panels enables rapid, cost-effective identification of individuals with high-risk cancer predisposition syndromes. However, this approach also leads to an increased amount of uncertain results. Clinical management of individuals with particular genetic variants in the absence of a matching phenotype/family history is challenging. Further population and functional evidence is required to fully elucidate the clinical relevance of variants in genes of uncertain significance.

Systematic misclassification of missense variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 "coldspots"

Purpose

Guidelines for variant interpretation incorporate variant hotspots in critical functional domains as evidence for pathogenicity (e.g., PM1 and PP2), but do not use “coldspots,” that is, regions without essential functions that tolerate variation, as evidence a variant is benign. To improve variant classification we evaluated BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense variants reported in ClinVar to identify regions where pathogenic missenses are extremely infrequent, defined as coldspots.

Methods

We used Bayesian approaches to model variant classification in these regions.

Results

BRCA1 exon 11 (~60% of the coding sequence), and BRCA2 exons 10 and 11 (~65% of the coding sequence), are coldspots. Of 89 pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) missense variants in BRCA1, none are in exon 11 (odds <0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0–0.01). Of 34 P or LP missense variants in BRCA2, none are in exons 10–11 (odds <0.01, 95% CI 0.0–0.01). More than half of reported missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are in coldspots (3115/5301 = 58.8%). Reclassifying these 3115 VUS as likely benign would substantially improve variant classification.

Conclusion

In BRCA1 and BRCA2 coldspots, missense variants are very unlikely to be pathogenic. Classification schemes that incorporate coldspots can reduce the number of VUS and mitigate risks from reporting benign variation as VUS.

Impact of Genetic Testing on Risk-Management Behavior of Black Breast Cancer Survivors: A Longitudinal, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Black women are overrepresented among premenopausal breast cancer (BC) survivors. These patients warrant genetic testing (GT) followed by risk-reducing behaviors. This study documented patterns and predictors of cancer risk-management behaviors among young black BC survivors after GT.

METHODS

Black women (n = 143) with a diagnosis of BC at the age of 50 years or younger received GT. At 1 year after GT, participants reported receipt of risk-reducing mastectomy, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, mammogram, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), CA125 test, and transvaginal/pelvic ultrasound. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of BC risk management (risk-reducing mastectomy or breast MRI) and ovarian cancer risk management (risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, CA125 test, or transvaginal/pelvic ultrasound).

RESULTS

Of the study participants, 16 (11%) were BRCA1/2-positive, 43 (30%) had a variant of uncertain significance, and 84 (59%) were negative. During the 12 months after GT, no women received risk-reducing mastectomy. The majority (93%) received a mammogram, and a smaller proportion received breast MRI (33%), risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (10%), CA125 test (11%), or transvaginal/pelvic ultrasound (34%). Longer time since the BC diagnosis predicted lower likelihood of BC risk management (odds ratio [OR] 0.54). BRCA1/2 carrier status (OR 4.57), greater perceived risk of recurrence (OR 8.03), and more hereditary breast and ovarian cancer knowledge (OR 1.37) predicted greater likelihood of ovarian cancer risk management.

CONCLUSIONS

Young black BC survivors appropriately received mammograms and ovarian cancer risk management based on their BRCA1/2 test result. However, the low usage of MRI among BRCA1/2 carriers contrasts with national guidelines. Future research should examine barriers to MRI among black BC survivors. Finally, modifiable variables predicting risk management after GT were identified, providing implications for future interventions.

Multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer - is it ready to be used?

Breast cancer is one of the most common malignancies and the leading cause of death among women worldwide. About 20% of breast cancers are hereditary. Approximately 30% of the mutations have remained negative after testing BRCA1/2 even in families with a Mendelian inheritance pattern for breast cancer. Additional non-BRCA genes have been identified as predisposing for breast cancer. Multi gene panel testing tries to cover and explain the BRCA negative inherited breast cancer, improving efficiency, speed and costs of the breast cancer screening. We identified 23 studies reporting results from individuals who have undergone multi gene panel testing for hereditary breast cancer and noticed a prevalence of 1-12% of non-BRCA genes, but also a high level of variants of uncertain significance. A result with a high level of variants of uncertain significance is likely to be more costly than bring benefits, as well as increase the anxiety for patients. Regarding further development of multi gene panel testing, more research is required to establish both the optimal care of patients with cancer (specific treatments like PARP inhibitors) and the management of unaffected individuals (chemoprevention and/or prophylactic surgeries). Early detection in these patients as well as prophylactic measures will significantly increase the chance of survival. Therefore, multi gene panel testing is not yet ready to be used outside clear guidelines. In conclusion, studies on additional cohorts will be needed to better define the real prevalence, penetrance and the variants of these genes, as well as to describe clear evidence-based guidelines for these patients.

Understanding variants of uncertain significance in the era of multigene panels: Through the eyes of the patient

Variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) are often disclosed to patients despite ambiguous association with disease risk and lack of clinical actionability. It is important to understand how patients understand a VUS result, but few studies have assessed this. Our qualitative study explored patient recall, reaction to, and interpretation of a VUS in the context of multigene panels. We conducted 11 semi-structured phone interviews with adults who had a VUS identified on multigene panel testing in a hereditary oncology clinic, with questions focusing on the VUS result, personal and family history, and motivations for and expectations of genetic testing. Transcripts were coded iteratively, using both deductive and inductive codes. Overall, participants usually recalled that they had a VUS, despite variation in the vocabulary used. Participants responded both emotionally and intellectually to receiving information about having a VUS, which was often a result of their expectations and motivations prior to testing. Overall, participants understood the lack of clinical significance of a VUS, yet often interpreted the etiologic significance of a VUS within the context of the personal and family history. Our study provides insight into a process by which patients translate uncertain genetic testing results into a construct that fits within their current belief framework and which may be facilitated by a genetic counselor.

Physician interpretation of variants of uncertain significance

A growing number of physicians will interact with genetic test results as testing becomes more commonplace. While variants of uncertain significance can complicate results, it is equally important that physicians understand how to incorporate these results into clinical care. An online survey was created to assess physician self-reported comfort level with genetics and variants of uncertain significance. Physicians were asked to respond to three case examples involving genetic test results. The survey was sent to 488 physicians at Mayo Clinic FL on 8/16/2017. Physicians from all specialties were invited to participate. A total of 92 physicians responded to the survey. Only 13/84 (14.6%) responded to all three case examples with the answer deemed "most correct" by review of literature. Physicians that specialized in cancer were more likely to answer questions appropriately (P = .02). Around half (39/84) of the physicians incorrectly defined a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). Over 75% made a recommendation for genetic testing that was not warranted. Many physicians have never received formal genetics training; however, they will be expected to provide an accurate explanation of the genetic test results and subsequent evidence-based medical management recommendations. These results demonstrate that a substantial proportion of physicians lack a true understanding of the implications a VUS. Utilization of supplemental genetics training programs coupled with increase awareness of genetic services may help to improve patient care.

Patients' reactions and follow-up testing decisions related to Tay-Sachs (HEXA) variants of uncertain significance results

JScreen is a national public health initiative based out of Emory University that provides reproductive carrier screening through an online portal and follow-up genetic counseling services. In 2014, JScreen began reporting to patients variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) in the gene that causes Tay-Sachs disease (HEXA). Genetic counseling was provided to discuss the VUS and patients were offered hexosaminidase A (HEXA) blood enzyme testing to assist with VUS reclassification. To identify patient reactions and factors influencing their follow-up testing decisions after receiving these results, we conducted a retrospective quantitative study by administering online surveys to 62 patients with HEXA VUSs. Participants who pursued enzyme testing and those who did not both experienced low levels of distress when receiving the VUS results. Perceptions of HEXA carrier status after genetic counseling, decisional conflict levels, plans to have children in the near future, time available to pursue enzyme testing, and eligibility for research were significant factors influencing decision-making to pursue or not pursue enzyme testing. Genetic counseling played an important role in helping patients understand the VUS and follow-up testing options. When discussing VUSs with patients, it would be beneficial for genetic counselors to focus on the patient's perception of the VUS, anxiety related to the uncertainty of their results, and follow-up options, when available.

The influence of BRCA variants of unknown significance on cancer risk management decision-making

Objective

To compare gynecological cancer risk management between women with BRCA variants of unknown significance (VUS) to women with negative genetic testing.

Methods

Ninety-nine patients whose BRCA genetic testing yielded VUS were matched with 99 control patients with definitive negative BRCA results at a single institution. Demographics and risk management decisions were obtained through chart review. Primary outcome was the rate of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO). Chi square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression were performed, with significance of p<0.05.

Results

VUS patients were more likely to be non-Caucasian (p=0.000) and of Ashkenazi-Jewish descent (p=0.000). There was no difference in gynecologic oncology referrals or recommendations to screen or undergo risk-reducing surgery for VUS vs. negative patients. Ultimately, 44 patients (22%) underwent RRBSO, with no significant difference in surgical rate based on the presence of VUS. Ashkenazi-Jewish descent was associated with a 4.5 times increased risk of RRBSO (OR=4.489; 95% CI=1.484–13.579) and family history of ovarian cancer was associated with a 2.6 times risk of RRBSO (OR=2.641; 95% CI=1.107–6.299).

Conclusion

In our institution, patients with VUS were surgically managed similarly to those with negative BRCA testing. The numbers of patients with VUS are likely to increase with the implementation of multi-gene panel testing. Our findings underscore the importance of genetic counseling and individualized screening and prevention strategies in the management of genetic testing results.

Quantitative approaches to variant classification increase the yield and precision of genetic testing in Mendelian diseases: the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Background

International guidelines for variant interpretation in Mendelian disease set stringent criteria to report a variant as (likely) pathogenic, prioritising control of false-positive rate over test sensitivity and diagnostic yield. Genetic testing is also more likely informative in individuals with well-characterised variants from extensively studied European-ancestry populations. Inherited cardiomyopathies are relatively common Mendelian diseases that allow empirical calibration and assessment of this framework.

Methods

We compared rare variants in large hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) cohorts (up to 6179 cases) to reference populations to identify variant classes with high prior likelihoods of pathogenicity, as defined by etiological fraction (EF). We analysed the distribution of variants using a bespoke unsupervised clustering algorithm to identify gene regions in which variants are significantly clustered in cases.

Results

Analysis of variant distribution identified regions in which variants are significantly enriched in cases and variant location was a better discriminator of pathogenicity than generic computational functional prediction algorithms. Non-truncating variant classes with an EF ≥ 0.95 were identified in five established HCM genes. Applying this approach leads to an estimated 14–20% increase in cases with actionable HCM variants, i.e. variants classified as pathogenic/likely pathogenic that might be used for predictive testing in probands’ relatives.

Conclusions

When found in a patient confirmed to have disease, novel variants in some genes and regions are empirically shown to have a sufficiently high probability of pathogenicity to support a “likely pathogenic” classification, even without additional segregation or functional data. This could increase the yield of high confidence actionable variants, consistent with the framework and recommendations of current guidelines. The techniques outlined offer a consistent and unbiased approach to variant interpretation for Mendelian disease genetic testing. We propose adaptations to ACMG/AMP guidelines to incorporate such evidence in a quantitative and transparent manner.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13073-019-0616-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Preferences of women with epithelial ovarian cancer for aspects of genetic testing

Background

Although genetic testing is recommended for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), little is known about patient preferences for various testing options. We measured relative preferences for attributes of testing in women with EOC referred for genetic counseling.

Methods

Subjects were recruited to participate in a discrete-choice-experiment survey to elicit preferences for attributes of genetic testing: out-of-pocket cost ($0, $100, $250, or $1000), probability of a deleterious mutation (60, 80%, or 88%), probability of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) result (5, 20%, or 40%), sample requirements (blood or saliva), and turn-around time (1, 2 or 4 weeks). Subjects viewed educational videos followed by a series of choices between pairs of constructed genetic tests with varying attribute levels. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preference weights for attribute levels. Relative importance weights and money-equivalent values were calculated.

Results

Ninety-four patients were enrolled; 68 (76.4%) presented for genetic counseling. Test cost was the most important attribute to subjects (importance weight = 41 out of 100) followed by probability to detect deleterious mutations (36) and probability of a VUS result (20). Sample requirements and turnaround time did not drive test choices. Subjects were willing to pay an additional $155 and $70 for incremental 5% improvements in the probability to detect deleterious mutations and probability of a VUS result. At genetics consultation, 55/68 (80.9%) subjects chose multigene testing.

Conclusions

Low out-of-pocket cost, high probability of detecting deleterious mutations and high probability of a VUS result are preferred by patients with EOC considering genetic testing.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40661-019-0066-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effects of genomic germline variant reclassification on clinical cancer care

The last two decades have provided an astounding amount of novel information about the human genome. Translating germline genomic data into clinically actionable findings is reliant on the annotation and laboratory classification of specific variants. Variant classification helps providers and patients determine if genomic findings can inform clinical management. In germline hereditary cancer predisposition testing, variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are routinely misunderstood. By definition, they cannot be classified by the testing laboratory as either problematic mutations or benign variants. Many VUS undergo category reclassifications over time (from months to years after initial classification) as more information is known about normal human genomic diversity, especially among underrepresented minority populations. When VUS are reclassified, it has been shown that they are often downgraded. Likewise, some variants originally thought to be actionable mutations are downgraded to VUS or benign variants. Rarely but importantly, VUS may be reclassified in a manner that increases their initial clinical significance. Here, we discuss the insights gained from the study of variant reclassification. We provide a case series to highlight the potential impact that variant reclassifications can have on individual and family cancer management, risk counseling, and screening.

Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review

Genetic testing of patients with cancer is increasingly offered to guide management, resulting in a growing need for oncology health professionals to communicate genetics information and facilitate informed decision-making in a short time frame. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise what is known about health professionals’ communication about genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with cancer patients. Four databases were systematically searched using a recognised scoping review method. Areas and types of research were mapped and a narrative synthesis of the findings was undertaken. Twenty-nine papers from 25 studies were included. Studies were identified about (i) information needs, (ii) process and content of genetic counselling, (iii) cognitive and emotional impact, including risk perception and recall, understanding and interpretation of genetic test results, and anxiety and distress, (iv) patients’ experiences, (v) communication shortly after diagnosis and (vi) alternatives to face-to-face genetic counselling. Patients’ need for cancer-focused, personalised information is not always met by genetic counselling. Genetic counselling tends to focus on biomedical information at the expense of psychological support. For most patients, knowledge is increased and anxiety is not raised by pre-test communication. However, some patients experience anxiety and distress when results are disclosed, particularly those tested shortly after diagnosis who are unprepared or unsupported. For many patients, pre-test communication by methods other than face-to-face genetic counselling is acceptable. Research is needed to identify patients who may benefit from genetic counselling and support and to investigate communication about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by oncology health professionals.

Outcomes of 92 patient-driven family studies for reclassification of variants of uncertain significance

PURPOSE

Family studies are an important but underreported source of information for reclassification of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). We evaluated outcomes of a patient-driven framework that offered familial VUS reclassification analysis to any adult with any clinically ascertained VUS from any laboratory in the United States.

METHODS

With guidance from FindMyVariant.org, participants recruited their own relatives for study participation. We genotyped relatives, calculated quantitative cosegregation likelihood ratios, and evaluated variant classifications using Tavtigian's unified framework for Bayesian analysis with American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) criteria. We report participation and VUS reclassification rates from the 50 families enrolled for at least one year and reclassification results for 112 variants from the larger 92-family cohort.

RESULTS

For the 50-family cohort, 6.7 relatives per family were invited to participate and 67% of relatives returned samples for genotyping. Sixty-one percent of VUS were reclassified, 84% of which were classified as benign or likely benign. Genotyping relatives identified a de novo variant, phase variants, and relatives with phenotypes highly specific for or incompatible with specific classifications.

CONCLUSIONS

Motivated families can contribute to successful VUS reclassification at substantially higher rates than those previously published. Clinical laboratories could consider offering family studies to all patients with VUS.

Factors predicting reclassification of variants of unknown significance

Genetic variants of unknown significance (VUS) are an increasingly common result of genetic testing. VUS present dilemmas for treatment and surveillance. Family history may play a role in VUS reclassification over time.

METHODS

All genetic tests performed at a tertiary referral center 2006-2015 were evaluated for the presence of VUS. Patients with VUS were evaluated for demographics, clinical characteristics, family history, and gene characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 2291 individuals were tested from 1639 families; 150 VUS were identified. Twenty-eight VUS reclassified, 21 to benign and 7 to pathogenic. Logistic regression demonstrated the number of family members with associated phenotypic disease was a significant predictor of reclassification.

CONCLUSION

The likelihood of VUS reclassification can be predicted by increased positive family history of disease. Most VUS reclassify to benign, but one-fourth reclassify to pathogenic. The actual risk of a VUS should be assessed based on family history and routinely checked for reclassification.

Experiences of patients seeking to participate in variant of uncertain significance reclassification research

Patients' understanding of a genetic variant of unknown clinical significance (VUS) is likely to influence beliefs about risk implications, consequent medical decisions, and other actions such as involvement in research. We interviewed 26 self-selected participants with a clinically identified VUS before they enrolled into a VUS reclassification study. Semi-structured interviews addressed topics including motivation to get genetic test, experience with the VUS result, affective responses to receiving VUS, and perceived effect of VUS and reclassification on medical care. We found that family and personal history of disease were the most prevalent motivators for getting a genetic test. Participants demonstrated mixed understanding of VUS. Most expressed negative effect on learning of their VUS result and uncertainty about its impact on clinical management. Most expected reclassification efforts to benefit their family members but not themselves. Some expressed distrust of their providers following a VUS result. Participation in the VUS reclassification study appeared to be motivated by four factors for patients with VUS-negative effect about VUS, uncertainty about its impact on clinical management, concern for family members' well-being, and to advance science. Perhaps the direct acknowledgement and appraisal of uncertainty as a means of coping was missing in some pre-test counseling experienced by our participants and thus they were not psychologically prepared for atypical VUS results. The finding of VUS-induced provider distrust suggests a need for careful consideration of appropriate pre- and post-test counseling about VUS.

Disclosure of cardiac variants of uncertain significance results in an exome cohort

This study examined the impact of disclosing subclassifications of genetic variants of uncertain significance (VUS) on behavioral intentions. We studied return of VUS results to 79 individuals with a cardiomyopathy-associated VUS, subclassified into VUS-high or VUS-low. Primary outcomes were perceived risk (absolute and comparative), perceived severity, perceived value of information, self-efficacy, decision regret, and behavioral intentions to share results and change behaviors. There was no significant difference between the 2 subclasses in overall behavioral intentions (t = 0.023, P = .982) and each of the individual items on the behavioral intentions scale; absolute (t = -1.138, P = .259) or comparative (t = -0.463, P = .645) risk perceptions; perceived value of information (t = 0.582, P = .563) and self-efficacy (t = -0.733, P = .466). Decision regret was significantly different (t = 2.148, P = .035), with VUS-low (mean = 17.24, SD = 16.08) reporting greater regret. Combining the subclasses, perceived value of information was the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions (β = 0.524, P < .001). Participants generally understood the meaning of a genetic VUS result classification and reported satisfaction with result disclosure. No differences in behavioral intentions were found, but differences in decision regret suggest participants distinguish subclasses of VUS results. The perceived value of VUS may motivate recipients to pursue health-related behaviors.

Observed frequency and challenges of variant reclassification in a hereditary cancer clinic

PurposeEfforts have been made by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology to make variant classification more uniform, but many limitations remain. Reclassification of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) is expected, but other more certain calls, like pathogenic or benign, can also be reclassified once additional information is gathered. Variant reclassification can create difficult circumstances for both patients and clinicians.MethodsRetrospective review of all variant reclassifications in genes associated with hereditary cancer syndromes at one clinic between September 2013 and February 2017 was completed. All variant reclassifications were completed and reported by the original testing laboratory.ResultsA total of 1,103 hereditary cancer tests were ordered. Fewer than 5% (40/1,103) of the initial reports were updated during that time period. Most reclassifications (29/40) were downgrades of VUS to likely benign. Only three reclassifications could potentially alter medical management.ConclusionThe majority of variant reclassifications do not impact medical management. Upgrading a variant call to pathogenic could be important for a patient's care and shows the importance of open communication between laboratories and clinicians. A variant downgrade from pathogenic can be a significant reclassification as well, especially if prophylactic surgery has been completed.

Ovarian Cancer Prevention in High-risk Women

Ovarian carcinoma is the most lethal malignancy of the female genital tract. Population-based trials in the general population have not demonstrated that screening improves early detection or survival. Therefore, application of prevention strategies is vital to improving outcomes from this disease. Surgical prevention reduces risk and prophylactic risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is the most effective means to prevent ovarian carcinoma in the high-risk patient although the risks do not outweigh the benefits in average risk patients. Other surgical and medical options have unknown or limited efficacy in the high-risk patient. In this review, we define the patient at high risk for ovarian cancer, discuss how to identify these women and weigh their available ovarian cancer prevention strategies.

From the laboratory to the clinic: sharing BRCA VUS reclassification tools with practicing genetics professionals

Despite ongoing research efforts to reclassify BRCA variant of uncertain significance (VUS), results for strategies to disseminate findings to genetic counselors are lacking. We disseminated results from a study on reclassification of BRCA VUS using a mailed reclassification packet including a reclassification guide, patient education aid, and patient letter template for patients/families with BRCA VUS. This study reports on genetic counselors' responses to the dissemination materials. Eligible participants (n = 1015) were identified using mailing lists from professional genetics organizations. Participants were mailed a BRCA VUS reclassification packet and a return postcard to assess responses to the materials. Closed-ended responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses. In response to the mailing, 128 (13.0%) genetic counselors completed and returned postcards. The majority of respondents (n = 117; 91.4%) requested the patient letter template and patient education guides as PDFs (n = 122; 95.3%). The majority (n = 123; 96.9%) wanted an updated reclassification guide upon availability. Open-ended responses demonstrate the material was well-received; some specified they would tailor the patient letter to fit their practice and patients' needs. Participants requested additional patient and provider educational materials for use in practice. Materials communicating BRCA VUS reclassification updates were liked and were likely to be used in practice. To achieve the benefits of VUS reclassification in clinical practice, ongoing efforts are needed to continuously and effectively disseminate findings to providers and patients.